“THE WAY OF THE PERSIAN AND KURDISH VERIFYING SCHOLARS”

In the first decade of the 17th century, the Shi

ite Safavids under Shah

Abbas (r. 1588–1629) managed to wrest Azerbaijan and Shirwan from the Ottomans, thus sparking off a westward exodus of Sunni Azeri and Kurdish scholars. One Kurdish scholar who settled in Damascus at precisely this time was Mulla Mahmud al-Kurdi (d. 1663–64), who went on to teach in the city for around sixty years. He seems to have gained a considerable reputation as a teacher, and several of his local students went on to become prominent teachers in their own right. One of their students, Muhammad Amin al-Muhibbi (d. 1699), included an entry on Mulla Mahmud in his biographical dictionary of Muslim notables who died in the 11th century of the Muslim era (i.e., 1591– 1689 AD). Al-Muhibbi wrote:

The meaning of the word taḥqīq in this context is clear from a story involving another Eastern scholar who settled in Damascus in the 17th century,

Abd al-Rahim al-Kabuli (d. 1723). The Afghan scholar was once approached by a local student who wished to study the commentary of the Egyptian scholar Zakariyya al-Ansari (d. 1519) on Isaghuji, an introductory handbook on logic by Athir al-Din al-Abhari (d. 1265). Al-Kabuli had not seen this particular commentary before and was reportedly unimpressed when he discovered that Zakariyya al-Ansari had merely explained the text, “rather than going the way of the muḥaqqiqīn.”

⁷

Taḥqīq obviously meant doing more than merely explaining the contents of the handbook commented upon. As an Ottoman contemporary of al-Kabuli stated, taḥqīq is to give the evidential grounds (dalīl) of a scientific proposition.⁸

If it is relatively straightforward to understand what al-Muhibbi meant by speaking of taḥqīq, it is somewhat more difficult to ascertain what he meant by “the books of the Persians.” One clue is offered by an 18th century biography of the Damascene scholar and mystic

Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi (1640–1731), in which it is stated that he studied logic, semantics–rhetoric (

ilm al-ma

ānī wa-l-bayān), and grammar with Mulla Mahmud al-Kurdi.

⁹

Another Damascene scholar, Abu al-Mawahib al-Hanbali (1635–1714), also stated that he studied logic and the sciences of language with Mulla Mahmud al-Kurdi.¹⁰

He also mentioned some of the books that he had studied with the Kurdish scholar: the earlier mentioned Isaghuji by al-Abhari with its standard commentaries, and Talkhis al-miftah, a condensed manual on semantics–rhetoric by Jamal al-Din al-Qazwini (d. 1338) with the shorter and longer commentaries on the work by Sa

d al-Din al-Taftazani (d. 1390). Al-Abhari, al-Qazwini, and al-Taftazani were all of Persian origin, and their works could easily be referred to as “the books of the Persians.” However, the mentioned works were hardly unknown in Damascene scholarly circles in the 16th century. For instance, the Damascene scholar Hasan al-Burini (d. 1615) studied the semantic–rhetorical works of al-Taftazani before the arrival of Mulla Mahmud.

¹¹

Al-Burini himself went on to teach al-Taftazani's commentaries on Talkhis al-miftah, as well as al-Abhari's Isaghuji with the commentary of Husam al-Din al-Kati (d. 1359). If al-Muhibbi's comments about Mulla Mahmud al-Kurdi introducing Damascene students to new works are to be taken seriously, then he must have been referring to works by other, and presumably later, Persian scholars. The identity of at least some of these scholars may be gauged from a work by Ibrahim al-Kurani (d. 1690), another 17th century Kurdish scholar who settled in the Arabic-speaking lands, listing the works he had a certificate to teach. Kurani mentioned the standard works of al-Taftazani and al-Sayyid al-Sharif al-Jurjani (d. 1413) on semantics–rhetoric, grammar, logic, and theology. He then went on to mention other works in these fields by later Persian scholars such as Jalal al-Din al-Dawani (d. 1501) and

Isam al-Din al-Isfara

ini (d. 1537).

¹²

Some of these new works were the following:

1. The supercommentary of al-Isfara
   
   ini on Sharh al-kafiya (on grammar) by the well-known Persian scholar and poet
   
   Abd al-Rahman al-Jami (d. 1492);
2. The lengthy commentary of al-Isfara
   
   ini, entitled al-Atwal, on Talkhis al-miftah (on semantics–rhetoric);
3. The commentary of al-Isfara
   
   ini on Risalat al-wad
   
   (on the theory of conventional reference) by
   
   Adud al-Din al-Iji (d. 1355);
4. The commentary of al-Isfara
   
   ini on al-Risala fi al-isti
   
   arat (on metaphors) by Abu-al-Qasim al-Samarqandi (fl. 1488);
5. The commentary of al-Dawani on the creed (
   
   aqa
   
   id) of
   
   Adud al-Din al-Iji (on theology);
6. The commentary of al-Dawani on Tahdhib al-mantiq by al-Taftazani (on logic).

The cited works were widely used handbooks in Ottoman scholarly circles from the 17th century, as attested by the bibliographer Katib Celebi (d. 1657).

¹³

Older Damascene scholars such as the previously mentioned Hasan al-Burini (1556–1615) and Najm al-Din Muhammad al-Ghazzi (1570–1651) do not seem to have studied such works.¹⁴

Younger Damascene scholars such as al-Muhibbi (1650–99) and Ibn al-

Imad al-Hanbali (1623–79), by contrast, were well aware of the later Persian scholars' “useful works in all the disciplines.”

¹⁵

There is thus some reason to believe that the works of the later Persian scholars were indeed introduced to the scholarly milieu of Damascus in the early 17th century by Mulla Mahmud al-Kurdi. The supposition is strengthened by the fact that some of the Damascene pupils of Mulla Mahmud, such as

Abd al-Qadir ibn

Abd al-Hadi (d. 1688) and

Uthman al-Qattan (d. 1704), are known to have taught the works of al-Dawani and al-Isfara

ini.

¹⁶

In the somewhat more cosmopolitan atmosphere of the two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina, the works of al-Dawani and al-Isfara

ini may have become known at an earlier time than in Damascus. A grandchild of

Isam al-Din al-Isfara

ini, Qadi

Ali al-

Isami (d. 1598–99) settled in the holy cities, and he and his nephew

Abd al-Malik al-

Isami (d. 1627–28) are known to have taught the works of al-Isfara

ini there.

¹⁷

From western Arabia, the works of al-Isfara

ini seem to have spread to Egypt. The Egyptian scholars Ahmad al-Ghunaymi (d. 1634) and Ahmad al-Khafaji (d. 1659) both studied his works while they were in the Hijaz.

¹⁸

Egyptian scholars of the 17th century went on to write commentaries and glosses on some of the “works of the Persians.” For instance, al-Ghunaymi wrote glosses on al-Isfara

ini's commentary on al-Samarqandi's al-Risala fi al-isti

arat. Al-Ghunaymi's student, Yasin al-

Ulaymi al-Himsi (d. 1651) wrote glosses on the commentary of the Persian-born Transoxanian scholar

Ubaydallah al-Khabisi (fl. 1540) on Tahdhib al-mantiq by al-Taftazani. These glosses reveal that al-

Ulaymi was acquainted with the commentary of al-Isfara

ini on the same work.

¹⁹

The Moroccan scholar

Abdallah al-

Ayyashi (d. 1680), who passed through Egypt on his way to the hajj, asked a local specialist in semantics–rhetoric what handbooks he used to teach the subject. The Egyptian scholar replied that the standard handbook had long been al-Taftazani's longer commentary, called al-Mutawwal, on Talkhis al-miftah, but that there was now a more recent and longer commentary by

Isam al-Din al-Isfara

ini, called al-Atwal, which offered a synthesis of the most important scholia written on al-Taftazani's work.

²⁰

Most of the works alluded to by al-Muhibbi were written in Arabic, but this was not always the case. For instance,

Isam al-Din al-Isfara

ini wrote a work in Persian on figurative use of language (majāz) that was translated into Arabic in the 17th century. The Egyptian historian

Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti (d. 1825–26) attributed the translation to one of his father's teachers, the Egyptian scholar Ahmad al-Mallawi (1677–1767).

²¹

However, he was almost certainly mistaken about this. Surviving manuscripts of the work mention the translator's name as Ahmad al-Mawlawi (i.e., of the Mawlawi mystical order), not al-Mallawi (i.e., from the Egyptian town of Mallawi).²²

Furthermore, a student of al-Mallawi, in a work in which he consistently refers to al-Mallawi as “our teacher the commentator (shaykhunā al-shārih),” also referred to the translator of al-Isfara

ini's work as “al-Mawlawi.”

²³

The translator seems rather to have been Ahmad ibn Lutfallah al-Mawlawi, also known as Munajjim Bashi (d. 1702). Originally from Salonica, Ahmad al-Mawlawi served as court astronomer/astrologer for Mehmed IV (r. 1648–87) in Istanbul before retiring to Cairo and Mecca, where he died. His other works include a universal chronicle; a commentary on a work on ethics by

Adud al-Din al-Iji; a treatise on logical predication (ḥaml); and a work on the medical properties of European herbs.

²⁴

What was the significance of the introduction of the new “books of the Persians” in the late 16th and early 17th century? Most of the works mentioned have not received modern scholarly attention, and it is therefore difficult to answer the question with confidence. Even many of the authors remain largely unknown. For instance, the Encyclopaedia of Islam has no entry on

Isam al-Din al-Isfara

ini, whose works on semantics–rhetoric, grammar, theology, and logic remained standard textbooks for centuries. Its short entry on Dawani focuses on his Persian work on ethics (which has been translated into English), rather than on his Arabic theological, logical, and philosophical works that were much more influential in scholarly circles in the Ottoman Empire.

²⁵

It seems clear, however, that the commentaries and supercommentaries of al-Isfara

ini and al-Dawani did not simply consist of an explication of the meaning of the texts. For instance, the Ottoman bibliographer Katib Celebi stated that al-Isfara

ini's glosses on al-Jami's Sharh al-kafiya were highly critical and that “he argued against him [i.e., al-Jami] on most points.”

²⁶

Even allowing for some exaggeration, such a comment would make no sense if al-Isfara

ini were simply expounding the meaning of al-Jami's work. For his part, al-Dawani's widely studied commentary on the creed of al-Iji is prefaced with an emphasis on the need for taḥqīq rather than taqlīd in creedal matters, and a declaration that the work will not merely catalogue views but pursue the truth even when it goes against current opinion.

²⁷

Although explicitly written from an Ash

ari perspective, al-Dawani's commentary repeatedly adopted an irenic stance toward points that had traditionally divided Ash

aris from Mu

tazilis and Islamic philosophers. For example, he stated that on many central theological points, such as the correct understanding of the divine attributes, the arguments of the Ash

aris and the Mu

tazilis were both inconclusive, and he emphasized that the latter should not be considered unbelievers.

²⁸

He also went out of his way to argue that many of the accusations often levied at the Islamic philosophers by theologians—for example, that they believed that God did not know particulars—were based on misunderstanding.²⁹

Al-Dawani was also sympathetic to the ideas of the Andalusian mystic Ibn

Arabi, such as “the unity of existence” (waḥdat al-wujūd), and his arguments on this point were invoked by later supporters of Ibn

Arabi's theory. By contrast, earlier theologians such as al-Iji and al-Taftazani were explicitly hostile to the idea of waḥdat al-wujūd.

³⁰

Al-Muhibbi linked the teaching of the “books of the Persians” to the “opening of the gate of tahqīq.” To understand why he did so, it should be kept in mind that the full significance of the introduction of “the books of the Persians” may not become apparent merely by looking at the contents of the works themselves. The new works were not mere additions to library collections but were taught initially by scholars of Kurdish or Persian origin. There is some evidence that Persian and Kurdish scholars had a distinctive manner of teaching. Al-Muhibbi described one of the scholars he met in Istanbul as “following the way of the Persian and Kurdish verifying scholars (muhaqqiqī al-

ajam wa-l-akrād) in adhering to the principles of dialectic (ādāb al-bahth).”

³¹

A 17th century Moroccan scholar has left a vivid description of a contemporary Kurdish scholar's way of conducting classes: Indeed, works on dialectic (ādāb al-baḥth) were almost certainly among the new “books of the Persians” that came to be taught in Arab-Islamic circles from the 17th century. One of the numerous works of al-Isfara

ini was a commentary on a tract on dialectic by

Adud al-Din al-Iji.

³³

Remarks by the earlier Egyptian scholar Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 1505) offer some further indication of the significance of the “books of the Persians.” Al-Suyuti was notoriously opposed to logic and philosophy, and repeatedly condemned these disciplines as inimical to religious faith. He also condemned the—in his view mainly Persian—scholars who introduced logical concepts and argument forms into the study of theology, the principles of jurisprudence and grammar. He prided himself in mastering jurisprudence, grammar, and rhetoric “according to the principles of the Arabs and the erudite, not according to the way of the Persians and philosophers.”³⁴

The grammatical, semantic–rhetorical, and theological handbooks to which al-Muhibbi alluded were written by Persian scholars who also wrote on logical and/or philosophical topics. Apparently, the logically and philosophically informed methodology that al-Suyuti despised received renewed impetus in Arab–Islamic scholarly circles in the 17th century.

MAGHRIBI SCHOLARS IN THE EAST

The 18th century Egyptian-based scholar Muhammad Murtada al-Zabidi (d. 1791), like al-Suyuti, was more comfortable with the tradition-relating (naqliyyah) sciences such as hadith, as opposed to rational (

aqliyyah) sciences such as logic or philosophical theology. Like al-Suyuti, he considered the latter fields to be pernicious, although he was well aware that his view was far from being typical of the Islamic scholars of his time. Indeed, he regretted what he saw as an inordinate enthusiasm for logic among his Egyptian contemporaries. This enthusiasm, according to al-Zabidi, had been imparted by incoming scholars from the Maghrib, that is, present-day Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. Such scholars, according to al-Zabidi, had “delved into it [i.e., logic] until they became leaders in the field who are singled out for their proficiency.”

³⁵

In an arresting passage, al-Zabidi described how Maghribi scholars coming to Egypt a few generations before his time had spread this enthusiasm for logic:

As I have shown elsewhere, al-Zabidi is in this passage referring to several Maghribi scholars who settled temporarily or permanently in Egypt toward the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th, and taught logic, among other things, to local students.³⁷

Many of these scholars were students of the prominent Moroccan theologian and logician al-Hasan al-Yusi (d. 1691). They brought with them a number of logical handbooks that were of Maghribi provenance, such as the following:

1. al-Sullam al-munawraq, a didactic poem introducing the basic principles of Aristotelian logic, by
   
   Abd al-Rahman al-Akhdari (d. 1546), often read in conjunction with al-Akhdari's own prose commentary, and the glosses of the Maliki mufti of Algiers, Sa
   
   id Qaddura al-Tunisi (d. 1656).
2. al-Mukhtasar fi al-mantiq, a somewhat more advanced work by Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Sanusi (d. 1490), often read in conjunction with al-Sanusi's own commentary, and the glosses of al-Hasan al-Yusi.
3. al-Jumal, by Afdal al-Din al-Khunaji (d. 1249), a yet more advanced work commented upon by various Maghribian scholars such as Muhammad al-Sharif al-Tilimsani (d. 1370), Ibn al-Khatib al-Qusantini (d. 1409), and Ibn Marzuq al-Hafid (d. 1439).³⁸

   The first two works (and their commentaries) were taught by Yusi's student

   

   Abdallah al-Kinaksi to Ahmad al-Damanhuri (d. 1778), see al-Jabarti,

   

   Aja

   

   ib al-athar, 2:25–27. The third work (and its commentaries) was taught by Maghribi scholars such as

   

   Isa al-Tha

   

   alibi (d. 1669) and Yahya al-Shawi (d. 1685), both of whom settled in the eastern Arab lands, see al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 2:240–43, 4:486–88.

In addition to these logical works, the students of al-Yusi taught the theological works of the earlier mentioned 15th century scholar Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Sanusi, particularly his longer creed

Aqidat ahl al-tawhid and the shorter Umm al-barahin, along with the commentaries of the author and various glosses by later Maghribi scholars such as

Isa al-Suktani (d. 1651/52), Yahya al-Shawi (d. 1685), and al-Yusi. Like al-Dawani, al-Sanusi repeatedly emphasized the unsatisfactory nature of imitation (taqlīd) in matters of creed, and the need for taḥqīq.

³⁹

In al-Dawani's case, the emphasis led to a more reconciliatory position vis-à-vis the claims of the Mu

tazilis and Islamic philosophers on several points. By contrast, al-Sanusi—whose works have been described as marking the apogee of “intellectualism” in Muslim theology—evinced a firm confidence in the possibility of demonstrating the truth of the Ash

ari creed and relied heavily on the modal concepts and argument forms of Aristotelian logic in expounding and defending the principles of the Islamic faith.

⁴⁰

Although staunchly opposed to the Mu

tazilis and the Islamic philosophers, al-Sanusi was also disparaging of what he called the ḥashwiyya, that is, fideist and literalist groups such as anti-Ash

ari Hanbalis. Such people, he argued, are led astray in theological matters by their ignorance of rational sciences such as semantics, logic, and rhetoric. They do not heed the necessary truths of reason, oblivious of the fact that to undermine reason is to undermine the basis for religious belief.

⁴¹

Al-Sanusi's disparagement of taqlīd was shared by his later Maghribi commentators. Al-Yusi, who wrote influential supercommentaries on al-Sanusi's theological and logical works, was no less intent on “going the way of the muḥaqqiqīn” than his Persian and Kurdish colleagues. For instance, in his extended treatise on the difference between the proprium (i.e., distinct but nonessential attributes, like laughter to man) and the differentia (i.e., essential attributes, like rationality to man), he wrote:

The Maghribi students of al-Yusi were not the first scholars from that region to make an impact on the Arabic-speaking parts of the Ottoman Empire. A number of Maghribi scholars went eastward during the 17th century, many presumably seeking to escape the political turmoil that had engulfed Morocco after the break-up of the Sa

dian dynasty in 1603. The scholar and belletrist Ahmad al-Maqqari al-Tilimsani (d. 1632), who settled in Damascus and Cairo, is well known for his literary history of Islamic Spain, Nafh al-tib fi ghusn al-Andalus al-ratib.

⁴³

Another Maghribi scholar who was no less renowned in his day was the polymath Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Rudani (d. 1683).⁴⁴

He was both a specialist in hadith and an accomplished logician, grammarian, jurist, and astronomer. A contemporary Moroccan scholar wrote that al-Rudani traveled far and wide in search of prominent teachers, particularly those who could impart anything relating to the philosophical sciences (al-

ulūm al-ḥikmiyyah), such as astronomy, mathematics and logic, for which al-Rudani had a particular aptitude. Al-Rudani's search eventually took him to Algiers, where he studied with the earlier-mentioned supercommentator on al-Akhdari's didactic poem on logic, Sa

id Qaddura al-Tunisi.

⁴⁵

He then traveled further East, to Egypt, Turkey, the Hijaz, and Damascus, where he died. A Damascene scholar who studied with al-Rudani is quoted as saying the following:

Some of al-Rudani's major works include the following:

1. Jam
   
   al-fawa
   
   id min jami
   
   al-usul wa-majma
   
   al-fawa
   
   id; an extensive topical collation of hadith recognized by Sunni Muslims, based on two earlier partial collections.⁴⁷

   This work was printed in 1961 in Medina (Matba

   

   at al-Sayyid

   

   Abdallah Hashim al-Yamani).

   There has been some interest recently in the issue of whether there was a reinvigoration of hadith studies in Mecca and Medina in the 18th century. In this regard, it is significant that al-Rudani, who earned the epithet “the muḥaddith of the Hijaz,” was the principal teacher of one of the central figures in this purported revival,
   
   Abdallah ibn Salim al-Basri (d. 1722).⁴⁸

   On Basri, see J.O. Voll, “

   

   Abdallah ibn Salim al-Basri and 18th century Hadith Scholarship,” Die Welt des Islams 42 (2002): 356–72. Al-Rudani is described as muḥaddith al-Ḥijāz in Muradi, Silk al-durar, 4:27.

   

   Abdallah ibn Salim al-Basri's son wrote that his father studied “all the sciences” with al-Rudani, “especially the science of Hadith,” see Salim ibn

   

   Abdallah al-Basri, al-Imdad bi-ma

   

   rifat

   

   uluww al-isnad (Hyderabad: Matba

   

   at majlis da

   

   irat al-ma

   

   arif al-nizamiyya, 1328H), 68.

2. Bahjat al-tullab fi al-
   
   amal bi-l-asturlab; a short treatise on the astrolabe.⁴⁹

   See R. Mach, Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts (Yahuda Section) in the Garrett Collection, Princeton University Library (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977), 4950.

3. Qala
   
   id al-la
   
   ali fi
   
   amal al-ayyam wa-l-layali, a didactic poem on chronology (
   
   ilm al-awqāt), with a lengthy commentary in prose, entitled Maqasid al-
   
   awali bi-qala
   
   id al-la
   
   ali. According to a contemporary, al-Rudani's work was based on the “new” astronomical observations made at the observatory of Ulugh Beg (d. 1449) in Samarqand, on the basis of which al-Rudani corrected the information contained in earlier works on chronology.⁵⁰

   Al-

   

   Ayyashi, Rihla, 2:42. For an extant manuscript of the work, see Mach, Catalogue, 5017.

4. Al-Nafi
   
   a
   
   ala al-
   
   ala al-jami
   
   a, a description of, and user's guide to, an astronomical instrument invented by al-Rudani himself. Al-Rudani was a skilled craftsman as well as an astronomer and made copies of the instrument himself and sold it to interested buyers. The Moroccan scholar
   
   Abdallah al-
   
   Ayyashi, who met al-Rudani in Medina, wrote that “the like has not previously been made, rather he invented it with his acute mind and sophisticated skills.”⁵¹

   Al-

   

   Ayyashi, Rihla, 2:38.

   The Damascene biographer al-Muhibbi, who visited al-Rudani when the latter settled in Damascus, noted: “he invented a sphere (kura) that was superior to previous spheres and astrolabes, and which spread to India and the Yemen and the Hijaz.”⁵²

   Al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 4:206.

   Charles Pellat, who has edited and translated Rudani's treatise, has noted that his astronomical instrument was an armillary sphere adapted to also allow topographical measurements. ⁵³

   See C. Pellat (ed.), “Muhammad al-Rudani: al-Naqi

   

   a

   

   ala al-

   

   ala al-nafi

   

   ah,” Bulletin d'etudes orientales 26 (1973): 7–82. C. Pellat (trans.), “L'astrolabe spherique d

   

   al-Rudani,” Bulletin d'etudes orientales 28 (1975): 83–165. I follow Muhammad Hajji in amending the title of al-Rudani's tract given by Pellat on the basis of manuscripts not available to Pellat, see Muhammad al-Rudani, Silat al-khalaf bi-mawsul al-salaf, ed. Muhammad Hajji (Beirut: Dar al-Gharb al-Islami, 1988), 13, n. 9.

SHATTARIS, NAQSHBANDIS, AND KHALWATIS

A few years before Mulla Mahmud al-Kurdi came to Damascus and started teaching “the books of the Persians,” an Indian mystic of the Shattariyya order settled in Medina. Sibghatallah al-Barwaji (d. 1606) quickly gained renown as a Sufi master and initiated several local scholars into his order.

⁵⁴

He brought with him several books written by Indian Shattari mystics such as al-Jawahir al-Khams by Muhammad Ghawth Gwaliori (d. 1562). Al-Barwaji translated this work from Persian into Arabic, and a commentary on it was later written by his leading disciple, the Egyptian-born Ahmad al-Shinnawi (d. 1619). Al-Shinnawi became the successor of al-Barwaji and was in turn succeeded by Ahmad al-Qushashi (d. 1661), who in turn was succeeded by the Kurdish-born Ibrahim al-Kurani (d. 1690).⁵⁵

Al-Shinnawi, al-Qushashi and al-Kurani were all outspoken adherents of the controversial idea of the “unity of existence” (waḥdat al-wujūd), associated with Ibn

Arabi and his followers. Indeed one of the major Shattari texts studied in their circle was al-Tuhfa al-mursala ila al-nabi, a work by the Indian Shattari mystic Muhammad al-Burhanpuri (d. 1619–20) defending the idea of waḥdat al-wujūd. Ibrahim al-Kurani wrote a commentary on Burhanpuri's work and also several independent treatises expounding and defending waḥdat al-wujūd. Al-Kurani's student and disciple Muhammad ibn

Abd al-Rasul al-Barzinji (d. 1693) translated from Persian into Arabic a work by the Persian mystic Abu al-Fath Muhammad al-Kazaruni, also known as Shaykh Makki (fl.1518), defending this and other controversial ideas of Ibn

Arabi.

⁵⁶

This open adherence to monism marks a contrast with the Arab mystics of the 16th century whose works have come down to us, such as

Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha

rani (d. 1565), Muhammad ibn Abi-l-Hasan al-Bakri (d. 1585), and

Abd al-Ra

uf al-Munawi (d. 1622). All of these writers seem to have been uneasy with the idea of waḥdat al-wujūd, and tended to explain away the claims of earlier monist mystics as excusable ecstatic utterances (sh

taḥāt). To be sure, such mystics defended Ibn

Arabi against the charge of heresy, but they did so apologetically, claiming that the Greatest Master's language was difficult to decipher for the uninitiated and should not be judged at face value and that many heretical statements had been interpolated into his works.

⁵⁷

The attitude of al-Shinnawi, al-Qushashi, al-Kurani, and al-Barzinji seems to have been much bolder and to have consisted of an open espousal of controversial ideas associated with Ibn

Arabi and his school, such as waḥdat al-wujūd and the idea that the Pharaoh whom Moses had challenged died as a believer (īmān fir

awn). The Moroccan pilgrim

Abdallah al-

Ayyashi, who studied with al-Kurani in Medina, thus related that al-Kurani repeatedly would urge him to accept the ideas of Ibn

Arabi. Al-

Ayyashi, however, preferred to remain uncommitted, arguing that this position was in accord with the Shadhili order into which he had first been initiated.

⁵⁸

Another example of the new boldness of the Shattari mystics of Medina is evinced in the famous commentary by Muhammad Murtada al-Zabidi (d. 1791) on Ghazali's Ihya

ulum al-din. In the first volume of his extensive commentary, al-Zabidi wrote that Ibn

Arabi had never meant to maintain the thesis of īmān fir

awn. Rather, Ibn

Arabi should be interpreted allegorically, Pharaoh being a symbol of the human soul.

⁵⁹

In the second volume of his commentary, however, al-Zabidi retracted his earlier interpretation that—he wrote—was inspired by the interpretation of 16th century Egyptian mystics such as

Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha

rani and

Abd al-Karim al-Khalwati (d. 1578). Al-Zabidi had since looked at Ibn

Arabi's works and came to the conclusion that the allegorical explanation was untenable. He then informed the reader that there were nevertheless scholars who defended Ibn

Arabi's thesis understood literally, such as Jalal al-Din al-Dawani and Muhammad ibn

Abd al-Rasul al-Barzinji in his translation of Kazaruni's Persian treatise.

⁶⁰

It is clear that the position of al-Dawani and al-Barzinji on the issue was much bolder and less apologetic than Sha

rani's.

This straightforward espousal of the more controversial ideas of Ibn

Arabi was apparently not received with enthusiasm by all local scholars. For instance, some indication of resentment may be gauged from the following biographical entry on the Yemeni mystic Muhammad al-Habashi (d. 1642):

The passage suggests that al-Habashi's enthusiasm for Ibn

Arabi and his ensuing problematic statements was a result of his coming into contact with Sibghatallah and his Medinan disciples.

A similar outspoken adherence to the theories of Ibn

Arabi seems also to have been characteristic of a branch of the Khalwati order that spread in Damascus in the 17th century. It was introduced into the city by a Kurdish immigrant, Ahmad al-

Usali (d. 1639), a disciple of a Khalwati master from Gaziantep.

⁶²

Al-

Usali's Damascene disciples went on to initiate a substantial number of local scholars, including the previously mentioned scholars Muhammad Amin al-Muhibbi and Abu al-Mawahib al-Hanbali. The latter wrote a work enumerating the scholars with whom he had studied, and included a separate section in which he gave the chain of transmitters on whose authority he related the works of Ibn

Arabi.

⁶³

One of the most prominent local disciples of al-

Usali was Ayyub al-

Adawi al-Khalwati (d. 1660), who left behind several mystical works. Ayyub al-Khalwati was an outspoken and controversial adherent of the views of Ibn

Arabi, and was on good terms with the Shattari disciples of Sibghatallah al-Barwaji in Medina.

⁶⁴

Another Indian mystic who settled in the Hijaz in the early 17th century was Taj al-Din al-Naqshbandi (d. 1640), a rival of the more famous Indian Naqshbandi mystic Ahmad al-Sirhindi (d. 1624).

⁶⁵

Like his contemporary Sibghatallah al-Barwaji, Taj al-Din translated some of the influential works of his order from Persian into Arabic, in particular the hagiographical collections Nafahat al-Uns by Jami (d. 1492) and Rashahat

ayn al-hayat by

Ali Kashifi (d. 1532–33). He also wrote a treatise in Arabic on the principles of the Naqshbandi order. The Naqshbandi order has often been portrayed as hostile or lukewarm to the monism of Ibn

Arabi, but this view has been shown to be simplistic. Although some Naqshbandis, most famously Taj al-Din's rival Ahmad al-Sirhindi, were critical of the idea of waḥdat al-wujūd, other prominent members of the order explicitly defended it.

⁶⁶

This seems to have been the case with Taj al-Din and his disciples, who are known to have taught Ibn

Arabi's controversial work Fusus al-hikam in the holy cities.

⁶⁷

Another Naqshbandi who openly espoused the more controversial aspects of the teachings of Ibn

Arabi was the Damascene scholar

Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi (d. 1731). Al-Nabulusi was initiated into the Naqshbandi order by a certain Abu Sa

id al-Balkhi, a second-generation disciple of the prominent Central Asian-born Indian-based Naqshbandi Mahmud Khawand (d. 1642), yet another Naqshbandi rival of Ahmad al-Sirhindi. The first task Nabulusi was set by his master was to write a commentary on Taj al-Din al-Naqshbandi's treatise on the principles of the order.

⁶⁸

Al-Nabulusi, along with al-Qushashi and al-Kurani, was perhaps the best-known defender of the ideas of Ibn

Arabi in his time. He wrote influential commentaries on the classics of monist mysticism, such as the Diwan of Ibn al-Farid and the Fusus al-hikam of Ibn

Arabi. He prefaced these mystical commentaries with the remark that he had not consulted any other work while writing them, and instead relied entirely on divine inspiration (fatḥ). This deliberate reliance on inspiration rather than books was a recurrent feature of the mystical and illuminationist traditions and was also referred to as taḥqīq, although in this case the “verification” was afforded by mystical experience rather than reason.

⁶⁹

Al-Nabulusi also wrote a series of polemical works defending controversial mystical practices and ideas such as listening to music, adoring handsome beardless youths, venerating the tombs of saints, and waḥdat al-wujūd.⁷⁰

In these exoteric writings, al-Nabulusi often did cite other works, either to criticize them or to buttress his own views. In his major apology for waḥdat al-wujūd, entitled al-Wujud al-haqq wa-l-khitab al-sidq, he repeatedly supported his position by citing passages from al-Dawani's Sharh al-

aqa

id al-

adudiyya, a work that was presumably first taught in Damascus by Nabulusi's teacher Mulla Mahmud al-Kurdi.

⁷¹

Ibrahim al-Kurani was also well acquainted with this work by Dawani and wrote a supercommentary on it.

⁷²

He also taught such straightforwardly philosophical works as the commentary of Muhammad ibn al-Sharif al-Jurjani (d. 1434–35) on Hidayat al-hikma by al-Abhari (d. 1265); Hikmat al-Ishraq by the illuminationist philosopher Yahya al-Suhrawardi al-Maqtul (d. 1191); and the metaphysical sections of Sharh al-Mawaqif fi

ilm al-kalam by al-Sayyid al-Sharif al-Jurjani (d. 1413).

⁷³

Before his initiation into the Shattari order, al-Kurani had been trained in philosophy and philosophical theology by his Kurdish teacher Muhammad al-Sharif al-Kurani (d. 1676), who wrote, among other things, a supercommentary on the commentary of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (d. 1274) on Avicenna's condensed epitome of philosophy al-Isharat.⁷⁴

Al-Kurani's works in defense of waḥdat al-wujūd tend to be more philosophically involved than those of al-Nabulusi, who in general seems to have represented a more fideist strand of mystical thought.⁷⁵

The Damascene scholar Muhammad Khalil al-Muradi (d. 1791) wrote that students came to study with al-Kurani from all corners of the Islamic world.

⁷⁶

Some of al-Kurani's treatises were explicitly written at the request of scholars and students from Fez in the west to Java in the east.⁷⁷

Other 18th century scholars in Turkey and Egypt, writing before the notion of pre-19th century decadence took root, treated al-Kurani as a thinker of the same stature as the now better-known Persian philosophers Mir Damad (d. 1631) and Mulla Sadra (d. 1640/41).⁷⁸

The Moroccan pilgrim

Abdallah al-

Ayyashi, who studied with al-Kurani in Medina, has left a description—already quoted earlier—of al-Kurani's teaching style:

Al-

Ayyashi's Damascene contemporary, the biographer al-Muhibbi described al-Kurani as “the Imam of taḥqīq.”

⁸⁰

With scholars such as al-Nabulusi and al-Kurani the 17th century trends toward taḥqīq and toward an open espousal of waḥdat al-wujūd coincided. Both scholars, to be sure, were conservative thinkers in the sense that they were to a large extent concerned with defending, expounding, and developing theories that had been articulated centuries earlier by Ibn

Arabi and his followers. This characteristic corresponds to what Marshall Hodgson has described as the “conservative spirit” of the 17th century cultural and intellectual florescence in Persia and India.

⁸¹

Having said this, it is important to emphasize that both scholars did much more than merely repeat old maxims. For instance, both had to address the metaphysical objections to the idea of waḥdat al-wujūd that had been formulated by Sa

d al-Din al-Taftazani (d. 1390), perhaps the most influential Sunni theologian of the “post-classical” period.

⁸²

Both of them also responded to problems and currents of thought that were peculiar to their times. Al-Nabulusi, for example, intervened in the debate concerning the religious permissibility of tobacco, introduced into the Middle East in the early 17th century.⁸³

He also argued against the moralist vigilantism of the violently puritan Kadizadeli movement that spread in the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century.⁸⁴

Al-Kurani, for his part, got involved in a dispute with the followers of the controversial Indian Naqshbandi mystic Ahmad al-Sirhindi in Medina.⁸⁵

He also got involved in scholarly disputes because of his acceptance of the historicity of the Satanic verses and of his elaboration and defense of a non-Ash

ari position on the issue of free will. On both issues, he was strongly opposed by contemporary Maghribi theologians in the tradition of al-Sanusi, such as al-Hasan al-Yusi and Yahya al-Shawi.

⁸⁶

These scholarly disputes have yet to be studied thoroughly, but their very existence belies the predominant image of the lethargic, moribund character of intellectual life in the Arabic-speaking parts of the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century.