¹ See Th. E. Homerin, The Wine of Love and Life. Ibn al-Farid's al-Khamriyah and al-Qaysari's Quest for Meaning, ed. and trans. Th. Emil Homerin (Chicago: Middle East Documentation Center, 2005); Andrew C. S. Peacock, “Two Sufis of Ilkhanid Anatolia and their patrons. Notes on the works of Mu'ayyid al-Din Jandi and Da'ud al-Qaysari,” in Cultural Encounters in Anatolia in the Medieval Period. The Ilkhanids in Anatolia. Symposium Proceedings, 21–22 May 2015, Ankara (Istanbul: Köç Üniversitesi Vekam, 2019), 11–28; İ. Fazlıoğlu, “What happened in Iznik? The Shaping of Ottoman Intellectual Life and Dāwūd Qayṣarī,” Nazariyat 4 (2017): 1–61. In this paper, Fazlıoğlu offers an edition of al-Itḥāf al-sulaymānī fī l-ʿahd al-ūrkhānī, a text dedicated to Sulayman Pasha, son of Orhan Gazi, attributed to Qayṣarī. While the attribution of the text here edited is highly dubious to say the least, or rather, very unlikely (I agree here with Peacock, “Two Sufis,” 25), and other aspects of the paper appear too speculative (for example, what is said in order to keep the early date given for Qayṣarī's birth in previous scholarship), biographical elements given in the introduction, including the mention of Qayṣarī's presence in Tabriz, and of copies written by Qayṣarī concur with my own findings. I apologize to the author of another paper relevant to this study for not referring to him here (Abdurrahim Alkış, “Reb’-i Reşîdî hankâhında iki ârif. Kâşânî ve Dâvûd-i Kayserî,” Şarkıyat İlmi Araştırmalar Dergisi 12 (2020): 1058—1071). I only found his paper after the article was in press.

² Mehmet Bayrakdar (also spelled Bayraktar), La philosophie mystique chez Dawud de Kayseri (Ankara: Editions Ministère de la Culture, 1990), 13–15. Bayrakdar has written extensively on Qayṣarī's life. In addition to La philosophie, see his introduction to the edition of Qayṣarī's Rasāʾil: M. Bayrakdar, ed., al-Rasāʾil li-Dāʾūd al-Qayṣarī (Kayseri: Kayseri Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Müdürlügü, 1997), 7–22 (in Arabic); M. Bayraktar, “Dâvûd-i Kayserî,” in TDV İslâm ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: TDV Islâm Araştımaları Merkezi, 1994), 9: 32–35; M. Bayraktar, Kayserili Dâvûd (Ankara: Kültür Ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 1988); M. Bayraktar, Dâvûd el-Kayserî (Istanbul: Kurtuba Kitap, 2009).

³ As Bayrakdar outlines in this book, “Donc, il devenait élève de Kâşânî, ainsi que c'est fort possible, de Qonawî (…). De là sans doute il a séjourné à Konya parce que ces maîtres y habitaient.” Bayrakdar, La philosophie, 14. Bayrakdar provides the same account of an encounter between Qayṣarī and Qāshānī in Konya in the introduction to his edition of the muqaddima of Qayṣarī's Sharḥ al-Qaṣīda al-tāʾiyya. See M. Bayrakdar, “Risale fi Ilmi't-Tasawwuf Dâvud Al-Kayserî,” Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 30 (1988): 174. On the connection between Qayṣarī and Qūnawī, see below p. 17.

⁴ Bayrakdar, La philosophie, 15.

⁵ See Qayṣarī, Sharḥ al-Fuṣūṣ, ed. J. Ashtiyānī (Tehran: Shirkat-i intishārāt-i ʿilmī va-farhangī, 1375 [1996]), 4; Qayṣarī, Sharḥ Taʾwīlāt al-basmala, in al-Rasāʾil li-Dāʾūd al-Qayṣarī, ed. M. Bayrakdar (Kayseri: Kayseri Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Müdürlügü, 1997), 196.

⁶ Taşköprüzade, al-Shaqāʾiq al-nuʿmāniyya (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿarabī, 1975), 8 (quoted in English in Homerin, The Wine, xiv and Peacock, “Two Sufis,” 20):

⁷ M. ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Munāwī, Irghām awliyāʾ al-shayṭān bi-dhikr manāqib awliyāʾ al-raḥmān, ed. M. A. al-Jādir, in Munāwī, Ṭabaqāt al-ṣūfiyya (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1999), 4: 284. Quoted by Mohammed Rustom, “Dâwûd al-Qaysarî. Notes on his Life, Influence and Reflections on the Muhammadan Reality,” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi Society XXXVIII (2005): 52: “Dāʾūd al-Qayṣarī al-Qaramānī (…) studied the sciences in his homeland and then went to Cairo and studied the three religious sciences with the scholars of this <city> (or: “versed in them,” according to Rustom's reading) (…). He also excelled in the intellectual sciences. He then turned to taṣawwuf (…), a discipline in which he started to write books. He wrote a commentary on the Fuṣūṣ and made an introduction to that <text> where he explained the principles of taṣawwuf, which he did excellently. Sulṭān Ūrkhān b. ʿUthmān (= Orhan Gazi) built a madrasa for him in the town of Iznik, which was the first one built in the Ottoman Empire. He died in the 8th century.”

⁸ Aşıkpaşazade, Tevarih-i Âl-i Osman (Istanbul, 1332 [1914]), 42–43 (in the entry on the year 730/1329–30); Neşrî, Ğihānnümā. Die altosmanische Chronik des Mevlānā Meḥemmed Nechrī, ed. Fr. Taeschner (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1955), 1: 46, 2: 70; Neşrî, Kitâb-i Cihân-Numa [Neşrî Tarihi], ed. Faik Resit Unat & Mehmed A. Koymen (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1949–57), 1: 163 (this reference given in Bayrakdar, La philosophie, 15). The information given in this second source is close (even in the wording) to that found in Aşıkpaşazade, who is mentioned by name at the end of the passage (ed. Taeschner, 1: 46, l. 9; 2: 70, l. 9). Also see Sadeddin (Saʿd al-Dīn), Tac-üt-tevarih (Istanbul, 1279–80 [1863–4]), 1: 43 (in the entry on the year 731/1330). Brockelmann mentions this source in GAL, SII.

⁹ Under the entry dedicated to the commentaries on Ibn ʿArabī's Fuṣūṣ, under the entry on the commentaries on Ibn al-Fāriḍ's Tāʾiyya al-kubrá (al-Tāʾiyya fī l-taṣawwuf) and under the commentaries on al-Qaṣīda al-khamriyya by the same Ibn al-Fāriḍ; the other entries are about the following texts by Qayṣarī: the Muṭṭalaʿ khuṣūṣ al-kilam fī maʿānī Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam (referring to Qayṣarī's introduction to his commentary on the Fuṣūṣ, here treated as a separate text), the Risāla fī māʾ al-ḥayāh, a Sharḥ al-ḥadīth al-arbaʿīn, and the Nihāyat al-bayān fī dirāyat al-zamān.

¹⁰ The precise date given in the entry on Qayṣarī (“Al-Kayseri, Dawud”) in The Biographical Encyclopaedia of Islamic Philosophy, ed. O. Leaman (London: Thoemmes Continuum, 2006), is apparently a misinterpretation of the Latin translation by Flügel of the Kashf al-ẓunūn. The date given between brackets after the death date corresponds to the first day in the common era of the hijrī year given by Kâtib Çelebi. When one reads “Sheikh Dawud Ben Mahmúd Caisari, anno 751 (inc. 11. Mart. 1350) mortuus” (Lexicon bibliographicum et encyclopaedicum, a Mustafa ben Abdallah, Katib Jelebi dicto et nomine Haji Khalfa celebrato compositum (London, 1835–58), 4: 427, on the Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam and its commentaries), this is not a reference to the precise date of Qayṣarī's death: it only means that the year 751 begins on March 11, 1350. It should thus not be converted to 2 Ṣafar 751, as was done in the Biographical Encyclopaedia entry: “al-Kayseri, Dawud (658–751/1260–1350). Dawud al-Kayseri was born in Kayseri (Turkey) around 658/1260 and died in İznik on 2 Safar 751 / on 11 March 1350.”

¹¹ Mehmet Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmânî (Istanbul, 1311 [1893]), 2: 323; Yurdaydın, İslâm tarihi dersleri (Ankara, 1971), 100. See Bayrakdar, La philosophie, 15, n. 4; Bayraktar, “Dâvud Al-Kayserî,” 9: 33.

¹² Homerin, The Wine, xv–xvi. I did not check the information on the manuscript. For a discussion on these dates, see Fazlıoğlu, “What happened,” 20. Note that in MS Ankara, Milli Kütüphane, Adana İl Halk Kütüphanesi 100, a copy of Qayṣarī's Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam dated Kütahya, 16 Rabīʿ II 755 (May 10, 1354), the prayer attached to Qayṣarī's name in the preamble refers to him as being alive: ادام اللَّه تعالى ظلّه وكثّر فى العالمين مثله . It is easier, however, to understand that a copyist would write about the author as alive when he is, in fact, dead (by copying his exemplar or not), rather than the opposite. This weakens the evidence found in MS Istanbul, Ayasofya 4075, a manuscript dated in part 23 Rabīʿ II 747 (August 1346) and containing a copy of Qayṣarī's Sharḥ al-Khamriyya in which the copyist considers Qayṣarī to be alive, according to the choice of prayer following his name. I could not get access to MS Mashhad, Majmūʿah-yi ʿAbd al-Majīd-i Mawlavī 482, a copy of the Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam dated Ṣafar 753 (March–April 1352), copyist: Nūr al-Dīn b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Qrimī, described in M. Valāʾī, “Fihrist-i nusakh khaṭṭī-yi ʿAbd al-Majīd-i Mawlavī,” Nashriyah-yi kitābkhānah-yi markazī-yi dānishgāh-yi Tihrān 5 (1346 h.sh.): 69. In a copy dated beginning of Muḥarram 757 (January 1356) comprising only Qayṣarī's commentary on the matn of the Fuṣūṣ, not the long preamble, MS Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. arab. 137, the name of Qayṣarī does not appear.

¹³ See Peacock, “Two Sufis,” 19; Fazlıoğlu, “What happened,” 15.

¹⁴ See, for instance, Bayraktar, “Dâvûd-i Kayserî” and the already mentioned entry on “al-Kayseri, Dawud (658–751/1260–1350)” in The Biographical Encyclopaedia of Islamic Philosophy, note 83.

¹⁵ In his 2017 paper, Fazlıoğlu goes to great lengths to retain 658/1260 as Qayṣarī's date of birth. See Fazlıoğlu, “What happened,” 17 (where he claims that Qayṣarī arrived in Niksar as a mudarris, because he was obviously too old to be a student) and 18 (where he writes that Qayṣarī arrived in Tabriz in his seventies and was seventy-one when he composed his first treatise, the commentary on the Fuṣūṣ, “which seems to be a bit problematic”). Without this date (presented by Fazlıoğlu as that given by modern researchers, with no substantiated evidence to confirm it; see Fazlıoğlu, “What happened,” 13–14), the known dates in Qayṣarī's life do not present major difficulties. Peacock also discusses the improbability of this early date of birth: “(…) he was born in Kayseri, according to the conventional dating around 660/1260 (Bayraktar 1990, 1995, 2009). This seems too early given that all his dated works were composed after 1331, meaning his main intellectual flourishing would have been around the age of seventy, although not completely impossible.” See Peacock, “Two Sufis,” 20.

¹⁶ For recent scholarship taking into account Qayṣarī's links with the Ilkhans, see references in note 1.

¹⁷ In the Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī, the date reads 17 Jumādá I 718 (July 17, 1318). See Faṣīḥ Khwāfī (Herat, 1 J. I 777–ca. 845/September 1375–1441), Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī, ed. Muḥsin Nājī Naṣrābādī (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Asāṭīr, 1386 [2007]), 2: 895 (year 718, entry #2). He was revoked from his position as vizier in 717. See ibid., 2: 894 (year 717, entry #7).

¹⁸ On Ghiyāth al-Dīn, see P. Jackson and Ch. Melville, “Gīāṯ-al-Dīn Moḥammad,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, online edition, 2012. The sources do not state clearly the date of Ghiyāth al-Dīn's appointment but indicate that it was after the execution of Dimashq Khwājah. See, for instance, Mīr Khwānd (1433–98), Rawḍat al-ṣafā, ed. Kiyān-Far (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Aṣāṭīr, 1380 [2001]), 8: 4370–1; Khwāndamīr (d. ca. 1535), Dustūr al-wuzarāʾ, ed. S. Nafīsī (Tehran, 1355 [1976]), 324. On Dimashq Khwājah, see Ch. Melville, “Demašq Ḵvāja,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, online edition, 2011; R. M. Savory, “Čūbānids,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1954–2004). His execution is dated in some sources 5 Shawwāl 727/August 24, 1327. See, for instance, Ḥamd Allāh Mustawfī Qazwīnī (fl. 1330–40), Tārīkh-i guzīdah, ed. ʿA. Navāʾī (Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1364 [1985]), 618; E. Browne, trans., The Ta'ríkh-i-guzída or “Select History” of Ḥamdu'lláh Mustafí-l-Qazwíní (Leiden: Brill, 1910–13), Part II: Abridged translation, 150. In the Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī, Faṣīḥ Khwāfī (777–ca. 845/1375–ca. 1441) mentions Dimashq Khwājah's execution in the events of the year 727 (2: 904). The appointment of Ghiyāth al-Dīn as vizier is mentioned shortly after (Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī, year 727, entry #5; 2: 904). In the earlier Tārīkh-i guzīdah, Ghiyāth al-Dīn's appointment is placed between 728 and Shawwāl 729. See Ḥamd Allāh Mustawfī Qazwīnī (fl. 1330–40), Tārīkh-i guzīdah, 620–621 (E. Browne, The Ta'ríkh-i-guzída, 151). In the Ḥabīb al-siyār, Khwāndamīr states that the appointment took place after the death of the vizier ʿAlīshāh: Tārīkh-i ḥabīb al-siyar fī akhbār-i afrād-i bashar, ed. M. Dabīr Siyāqī (Tehran: Khayyām, 1380 [2001]), 3: 198. On ʿAlīshāh (d. 724/1324), see B. Spuler, “ʿAlīšāh, Tāj al-Dīn,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, online edition, 2011. On the dates of death of Abū Saʿīd and of Ghiyāth al-Dīn, see below, p. 24 and note 102.

¹⁹ The name of the dedicatee (given as “al-wazīr Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad”) is also mentioned in the Kashf al-ẓunūn, under Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam. It appears in the entry on Qayṣarī in the Katāʾib aʿlām al-akhyār by Kafavī (Kefevî, d. 990/1582). See MS Ankara, Milli Kütüphane, Samsun İl Halk Kütüphanesi 1061 (55 Hk 1061), f. 289v, and MS Tehran, Majlis 14127, vol. 2, f. 140r. In MS Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Hs. or. oct. 3737, an autograph copy of Qayṣarī's commentary on the Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam dated Jumādá II 732 (March 1332), two verses in praise of a Ghiyāth al-Dīn attributed to al-Shaykh ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla (it is tempting, but entirely speculative, to think here of ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla al-Simnānī, who also sought and found support in the Ilkhanid court) are written on the title page of the commentary proper, among other verses of poetry in Persian (f. 16r):

The date of the end of the redaction of the commentary on the Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam appears in a number of mss., most notably the autograph copy MS Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Hs. or. oct. 3737 (colophon, f. 236r). See also MS Ankara, Milli Kütüphane, Adana İl Halk Kütüphanesi 100 (dated Kütahya, 16 Rabīʿ II 755 [May 10, 1354]), f. 206v (= 181v according to another foliation in Arabic numerals) and MS Princeton, PUL, RBSC, Islamic MSS., Garrett 3604Y (dated Jumādá II 810 [November 1407]; copyist: Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf), f. 124r. The text reads as follows (from MS Adana İl Halk Ktp. 100):

²⁰ See the editions of these texts by Bayrakdar in Qayṣarī, Rasāʾil, 92–93 and 109 respectively. Bayrakdar edited only the muqaddima of the latter text, under the title Risāla fī ʿilm al-taṣawwuf. He edited this same muqaddima in an earlier article, Bayrakdar, “Risale fi Ilmi't-Tasawwuf,” 173–215 (dedication: 184). The edition by Ashtiyānī of the same muqaddima does not include the preamble: Rasāʾil-i Qayṣarī, ed. Ashtiyānī (Tehran: Muʾassasah-yi Ḥikmat va-falsafah-yi Īrān, 1381 [2002]), 2nd ed., 1–42, under the title al-Tawḥīd wa-l-nubuwwa wa-l-walāya. For an edition of the text (without the muqaddima), see Sharḥ al-Qayṣarī ʿalá Tāʾiyyat Ibn Fāriḍ al-kubrá, ed. Aḥmad Farīd al-Mazyadī (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2004).

²¹ See the editions by Ashtiyānī and Mazyadī. More recently, the dedication to Ghiyāth al-Dīn does not appear in the edition and English translation of the muqaddima of Qayṣarī's commentary on Ibn ʿArabī's Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam by Mukhtar H. Ali under the title The Horizons of Being. The Metaphysics of Ibn al-ʿArabī in the Muqaddimat al-Qayṣarī (Leiden: Brill, 2020). Bayrakdar, in his introduction to the edition of Qayṣarī's Rasāʾil published in 1997, identifies the dedicatee of the Sharḥ al-Fuṣūṣ and other texts, but this does not have any bearing on the biography of Qayṣarī given in the book: the dedication is here used to date Qayṣarī's writings (Bayrakdar, al-Rasāʾil, 12, on the Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, and ibid., 13, on the Kashf al-ḥijāb ʿan kalām rabb al-arbāb), but this fact, or even a broad notion of a possible connection with the Ilkhans, is not integrated in the account of Qayṣarī's life (Ibid., 7–9). The identity of the dedicatee is not mentioned either in the footnotes of the edition of the muqaddima of the Sharḥ al-Fuṣūṣ or other texts dedicated to the same vizier edited by Bayrakdar in this book. The same happens in Bayrakdar's article on Qayṣarī in the TDV İslam ansyklopedisi (1994): in the list of Qayṣarī's works given at the end of the entry, the name of the dedicatee appears, but no mention of the dedication or a connection with the Ilkhans can be found in the biographical data given in the article. See Bayraktar, “Dâvud Al-Kayserî,” 9: 32–5.

²² Peacock, “Two Sufis,” 20.

²³ Pierre Lory, “ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2012), gives a range of dates for Qāshānī's death – between 730 and 736/1329 and 1335 – and adds that, according to M. Hādīzādah, 736/1335 is more likely, referring to Hādīzādah, ed., Majmūʿah-yi rasāʾil va-muṣannafāt-i shaykh-i Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Razzāq-i Kāshānī (Tehran: Mīrāth-i maktūb, 2000), 123–126. According to the Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī, a chronicle written in the 8th–9th/14th–15th c. (its author, Faṣīḥ Khwāfī, was born on 1 Jumādá I 777/September 1375 in Herat [see Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī, 3: 973] and died ca. 845/1441 [see Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī, 1: xlvii–lvi]), ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Qāshānī passed away on 3 Muḥarram 736/August 23, 1335. See Faṣīḥ Khwāfī, Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī, 2: 915 (year 736, entry #21). The date 730 is that given in the Kashf al-ẓunūn. See Flügel, Lexicon, 4: 427. For more on Qāshānī, besides P. Lory and M. Hādīzādah, see H. Landolt, “Der Briefwechsel zwischen al-Kāšānī und Simnānī über Waḥdat al-Wuğūd,” Der Islam 50 (1973): 33–36 (with a reference to Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī); N. Ergül, “Abdurrezâk Kâşânî (ö. 730/1330) ’nin hayatı, ilmî-tasavvufî kişiliği ve eserleri,” Birey ve toplum 3, no. 5 (2013): 93–125. The entry in the Majmaʿ al-ādāb by Ibn al-Fuwaṭī (d. 723/1323) is problematic as it is edited. It might refer to another Kāshānī. See Ibn al-Fuwaṭī, Majmaʿ al-ādāb fī muʿjam al-alqāb, ed. M. al-Kāẓim (Tehran: Muʾassasat al-Ṭibāʿa wa-l-nashr, 1416 [1995]), 4: 180–181 (no. 3620).

²⁴ Written at the request of the “sulṭān al-wuzarāʾ” Ghiyāth al-Dīn. See Qāshānī, Sharḥ Manāzil al-sāʾirīn, ed. M. Bīdārfar (Beirut, 1995), 2; Qāshānī, Sharḥ Manāzil al-sāʾirīn, ed. M. Bīdārfar (Qom: Intishārāt-i Bīdār, 1385 [2006]), 87.

²⁵ See Ergül, “Abdurrezâk Kâşânî,” 96, 109, and for a manuscript copy, MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 142 (dated Constantinople, beginning of Muḥarram 913 [1507]; copyist Yūnus b. ʿAbd Allāh), f. 2v, l. 7–13. This text, presented by its author as having more to do with the tafsīr aspect of exegesis (including elements on lexicography taken from Zamakhsharī, see ibid., f. 2v, l. 1-2), should not be confused with Qāshānī's Taʾwīlāt, the Quranic exegesis that has circulated under the name of Ibn ʿArabī, which is a text that appears to comprise only the taʾwīl sections from the Ḥaqāʾiq al-taʾwīl (I only checked the beginning of the text). N. Ergül edited the beginning of the text of the Ḥaqāʾiq al-taʾwīl in his PhD thesis: N. Ergül, Kâşânî ve Hakāiku't-Te'vîl fî Dekāiki't-Tenzîl Adlı Eserinin. 1. cildinin (Fâtiha-En'âm) tahkîk ve tahrîci. Doktora tezi (T.C. Harran Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Temel İslam Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı, Tasavvuf Tarihi Bilim Dalı, 2002).

Incipit of Ḥaqāʾiq al-taʾwīl fī daqāʾiq al-tanzīl (from MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 142):

Incipit of al-Taʾwīlāt (from MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Ragıp Paşa 33; copy dated Tabriz, Zāwiya Ḥājjī Masʿūd al-Shīrāzī, Shaʿbān 737 [March 1337], copyist Afḍal b. Zakariyā):

The name of the author does not appear in the preamble of either of these texts. In MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 146 (part of the same early 10th/16th c. set as MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 142), the copyist, Yūnus b. ʿAbd Allāh, states that he copied this text from a copy by the author, here written ʿAbd al-Razzāq b. Abī l-Ghanāʾim b. Aḥmad al-Qāshānī. In both texts, the author refers to Nūr al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ṣamad b. ʿAlī al-Naṭanzī as his master. See for the Ḥaqāʾiq al-taʾwīl, MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 142, f. 1v, l. 15–17, and for the Taʾwīlāt, Tafsīr al-Shaykh al-Akbar, 2: 116 (on Q28: 32; name given as “Nūr al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ṣamad”).

²⁶ See Qāshānī, Iṣṭilāḥāt al-ṣūfiyya, ed. ʿA. Maḥmūd (Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1984), 45–46 (according to two mss. out of the six used for the edition) and Qāshānī, Iṣṭilāḥāt al-ṣūfiyya, ed. ʿA. Shāhīn (Cairo: Dār al-Manār, 1992), 47, n. 4 (not included in the text).

²⁷ See H. Landolt, ed., Correspondance spirituelle échangée entre Nuraddin Esfarayeni et son disciple ʿAlaoddawleh Semnani (Tehran, 1972); Giovanni Maria Martini, ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla al-Simnānī between Spiritual Authority and Political Power. A Persian Lord and Intellectual in the Heart of the Ilkhanate (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 55–58.

²⁸ Homerin, The Wine, xv. Sultaniyah could be mentioned here because it is one of the capital cities of the Ilkhans, but it probably stems from the narrative given by Jāmī to frame the context of the epistolary exchange between Qāshānī and Simnānī that he introduces in the entry on Qāshānī in the Nafaḥāt al-uns, where the name of this city appears. The story starts with a discussion between Amīr Iqbal Sīstānī, a disciple of Simnānī (who is known as the compiler of Simnānī's Chehel Majlis) and Qāshānī, “on their way to Sultanyah.” See Jāmī, Nafaḥāt al-uns, 30. On this correspondence, see also below p. 27 and n. 116.

²⁹ Even his name is sometimes called into question. See Muḥsin Bīdārfar in the introduction to his edition of Qāshānī, Sharḥ Manāzil al-sāʾirīn (Beirut: Muʾassassat al-taʾrīkh al-ʿarabī, 1995), 18, and the careful study by M. Hādīzādah in his introduction to the edition of Majmūʿah-yi rasāʾil va-muṣannafāt-i (…) ʿAbd al-Razzāq-i Kāshānī, 26–28. The forms Qāshānī and Kāshī are used in manuscripts. We adopt here the orthography used by Qayṣarī in an autograph copy of his commentary on the Fuṣūṣ (MS Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Hs. or. oct. 3737, f. 1v, l. 10) and by Qāshānī's student, Rukn al-Dīn-i Shīrāzī, in the preamble to his commentary on the same text. See Rukn al-Dīn-i Shīrāzī, Nuṣūṣ al-khuṣūṣ fī tarjamat al-Fuṣūṣ. Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī az Rukn al-Dīn Masʿūd b. ʿAbd Allāh Shīrāzī maʿrūf beh Bābā Rukn, bi-ihtimām-i Rajab-ʿAlī Maẓlūmī (Tehran, 1359 h. sh./1980), 4, l. 6.

³⁰ The name Shams al-Dīn al-Kīshī is particularly important, as a similar name is mentioned by Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī (634–719/1236–1311) in the preamble to his commentary on the Kulliyāt al-Qānūn as one of the masters with whom he studied this text in Shiraz. The main sources on al-Kīshī (Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-ḥakīm al-Kīshī, d. ca. 694/1295(?)) are the Shadd al-izār — a biographical dictionary of people buried in Shiraz dating to the 9th/15th c. (Junayd al-Shīrāzī, Shadd al-izār, ed. M. Qazvīnī and ʿAbbās Iqbāl [Tehran, 1328], 110–113 [text], 492–498 [notes, where the editors refer to authors who refer to this name, such as Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, Ibn al-Muṭaḥḥar al-Ḥillī, historians such as Hindushāh in his Tajārib al-salaf written in 724/1323–4, etc.] — and al-Ḥawādith al-jāmiʿa, attributed with no certainty to Ibn al-Fuwaṭī (d. 723/1323), in the year 665, where it is stated that Kīshī arrived in Bagdad and started teaching in the Niẓāmiyya, and 694, where it is said that Kīshī died in Shiraz (this source is also referred to by the editors of the Shadd al-izār). Dhahabī (d. 748/1348) mentions under the year 695, letter mīm, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, Shams al-Dīn al-Qurashī al-Kīshī, mudarris at the Niẓāmiyya in Bagdad, who was born in Kīsh in 615 and died in Shiraz at the age of eighty (Dhahabī, Taʾrīkh al-islām, ed. Tarmudī (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿarabī, 1421/2000), 52: 269). Kīshī deserves further work. It seems from a quick survey of sources and literature that there might be some confusion between a number of different Kīshīs. Confusion also appears in the rendering of the name, as we read information on a الكتبى or الكبشي that are identical with that concerning our Kīshī. For more on him, see also J. Walbridge, The Science of Mystic Lights (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 8–9; M. Karimi Zanjani Asl, “Some observations on the Kashf al-Ghiṭāʾ li-Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ,” in Illuminationist Texts and Textual Studies, ed. A. Gheissari, J. Walbridge, and A. Alwishah (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 42–65; and A. F. Qarāmalikī, introduction to Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī, Risālat ithbāt al-ʿaql al-mujarrad wa shurūḥ-i ān, ed. Ṭ. ʿĀrif-niyā (Tehran: Markaz-i Pizhuhishī-i Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 1393/2014), liii–lviii.

³¹ Naṭanzī (“shaykhunā al-mawlá Nūr al-Din ʿAbd al-Ṣamad”) appears in an anecdote in the Taʾwīlāt (edited under the title Tafsīr al-Shaykh al-Akbar, 2: 116, on Q28: 32), and again, in the longer form ʿAbd al-Ṣamad b. ʿAlī al-Naṭanzī, in a few lines including biographical elements in the preamble to the Ḥaqāʾiq al-taʾwīl (MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 142, f. 1v-2r). The added information about Kīshī is given there too (f. 1v, penultimate line). On these people, who are mentioned with a similar description in Qāshānī's correspondence with Simnānī, see Landolt, “Der Briefwechsel,” 33–35; Hādīzādah, Majmūʿah-yi rasāʾil va-muṣannafāt-i (…) Kāshānī, 70–73; Ergül, Kâşânî ve Hakāiku't-Te'vîl, 98–100. Other names mentioned in this letter are discussed by Hādīzādah in the introduction to his edition of the Majmūʿah-yi rasāʾil va-muṣannafāt-i (…) Kāshānī, 73–77. For a French translation of the relevant passages in Jāmī, see S. Guyard, “ʿAbd al-Razzāq et son Traité de la prédestination et du libre arbitre,” Journal asiatique 7, no. 1 (1873): 125–139. A French translation of the letter from al-Qāshānī to Simnānī can be found in P. Lory, Les commentaires ésotériques du Coran d'après ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Qāshānī (Paris: Les Deux Océans, 1980), 177–187 (for the passage relevant for Qāshānī's biography, see 184–185). See more on Qāshānī's correspondence with Simnānī below, p. 27 and n. 116.

³² MS Manisa, Manisa İl Halk Kütüphanesi 118 (copy dated 814 [1411]), f. 285r. The text reads:

The same note appears in MS Bursa, Bursa İnebey Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Haraççıoğlu 84, f. 282v.

³³ Text in Ergül, Kâşânî ve Hakāiku't-Te'vîl, 87, 652, note 695 (س). A reproduction of the folio can be found on p. 281. According to Ergül, the date 729 also appears in MS Istanbul, Hacı Selim Ağa Ktp., Nûrbânû Sultân 25. See Ibid., 89. On the date 729 for the composition of the Ḥaqāʾiq al-taʾwīl, see also Ergül, “Abdurrezâk Kâşânî,” 96, 109. Ḥasan Anṣārī mentions another early copy of v. 1, apparently not used by Ergül: MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Hacı Mahmud Efendi 83, dated Tabrīz, Khānqāh in the Rabʿ al-Rashīdī, Wednesday(?) 12 Rabīʿ I 732 (December 13, 1331). See Ḥ. Anṣārī, Majmūʿah-’ī dīgar az nuskhah-hā-yi Istānbūl (4) at ansari.kateban.com/post/1986.

³⁴ MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 146, f. 293r (colophon). The text reads:

MS Fatih 146 is part of the same set as MS Fatih 142, on which see above n. 25. It is mentioned by Ḥ. Anṣārī, Majmūʿah-’ī dīgar (4).

³⁵ See MS Istanbul, Millet, Feyzullah 1253 (autograph?), f. 316r-v:

In MS Istanbul, Millet, Feyzullah 1254, f. 260r, the text reads as follows:

The same text appears in MS Qom, Marʿashī Najafī 1994 (copy dated Shīrāz, Wednesday 4 Rajab 748 [Oct. 10, 1347]; copyist: Maḥmūd b. M. al-Rāsānī(?) al-Iṣfahānī), and without mention of the place, in MS Mashhad, Riḍawī 739 (copy dated Monday 5 Dhū l-Qaʿda 736 [June 15, 1336]). See Qāshānī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. Majīd Hādīzādah (Tehran: Anjuman-i āthār va-mafākhir-i farhangī, 1383/2004), 501, footnotes * and م (transcription defective at the end). This edition is based on these two manuscripts — correct Marʿashī 1924 on p. 66. For a description of MS Qom, Marʿashī Najafī 1994, see A. Ḥusaynī, Fihrist-i nuskhah-hā-yi khaṭṭī-yi Kitābkhānah-yi ʿUmūmī-yi Ḥaḍrat Āyat Allāh al-ʿuẓmá Najafī Marʿashī (Qom, 1975–), 5: 364–5 and last plate (reproducing the colophon of this text). For an example of a copy not mentioning the date and place of redaction, see MS Paris, BnF, arabe 1342 (copy dated Ḥamāh, Muḥarram 1008 [August 1599]); reproduction in Gallica: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b11000720c. This text is said in the preamble to have been written at the request of a number of brethren, amongst whom a Shams al-Dīn M. b. Muṣliḥ known as al-Tabrīzī. See Qāshānī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, 75–76.

³⁶ Copyist: M. b. Maḥmūd b. Najīb(?) al-Khayrabartī(?). From Nourane Ben Azzouna, La production de manuscrits en Iraq et en Iran occidental à l’époque des dynasties mongoles. Thèse pour obtenir le grade de Docteur de l'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. Discipline: Histoire de l'art (Paris: Ecole pratique des Hautes Etudes. IVe section : Sciences historiques et philologiques, 2009), 298, no. 81 and plate CCXLIV. The reproduction provided does not allow a verification of the name of the copyist. See also N. Ben Azzouna, Aux origines du classicisme. Calligraphes et bibliophiles au temps des dynasties mongoles (Les Ilkhanides et les Djalayirides 656–814 / 1258–1411) (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 595–596, no. 89, without illustration. Another manuscript written by the same copyist (MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Kadızade Mehmed 274, see below, p. 14) suggests that the reading “Najīb” is unlikely. For the name “al-Khayrabartī,” one might also consider the reading “al-KHmrbrtī,” from KHmrbrt, a town near Khilāṭ (Ahlat; see Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān, s.v.), or more convincingly, “al-Khīrbartī,” from Kharpert (Harput), now in the Elazığ Province (Yāqūt has “Khartabirt,” and situates this place near Malatya. See Muʿjam al-buldān, under “Khartabirt” and “Ḥiṣn Ziyād,” and Guy Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1905), 117). This would thus be another form of the name Jārbardī (Çârperdî) mentioned below, note 49. Many thanks to Giovanni-Maria Martini who pointed to this reading and the reference to Le Strange. The name is vocalized “al-Kharbirtī” by Sakhawī in his al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ, on a ʿAlī b. Yūsuf b. Mūsā b. M. b. M. b. A. b. Abī Takīn (…) al-Kharbirtī (…) Ibn al-Malaṭī. See Sakhawī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ, s.v. Peacock has al-Khartbirdī in his Islam, Literature and Society in Mongol Anatolia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 135.

³⁷ According to MS Qom, Marʿashī Najafī 9758 and other copies. The date Tuesday 20 Rajab 731 (but not the place) is further corroborated by the entry in the Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī, year 731, entry no. 4. See Faṣīḥ Khwāfī, Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī, 2: 909. An unfortunate hole affects the year given in the Qom manuscript, a copy dated Friday 8 Dhū al-Qaʿda 751 (January 7, 1351). See Qāshānī, Sharḥ Manāzil al-sāʾirīn, ed. M. Bīdārfar (Qom, 1385 [2006]), introduction, 71–72. The text reads as follows in Bīdārfar's introduction, with the holes filled according to the lithograph edition (the suggestion between parentheses is mine):

See also A. Ḥusaynī, Fihrist-i nuskhah-hā-yi khaṭṭī-yi Kitābkhānah-yi … Najafī Marʿashī (Qom, 1975–), 25: 102. The statement on the completion of the taswīd as it appears in the Qom manuscript, with the year reading 731, is found in a later copy, MS Tehran, Majlis 10495, dated 12 Shaʿbān 1282 (1865). I found another copy, not considered by the editor of the Sharḥ Manāzil, that confirms the information on the date (albeit in a less precise version, here given as “the end of Rajab 731”) and the place where the text was written, MS Ankara, Milli Kütüphane, Ar 7980 (f. 263v). The year 731 (but not the mention of the place) appears in a later copy, MS Istanbul, Millet, Feyzullah 1258.

³⁸ İ. Fazlıoğlu, “Osmanlı coğrafyasında ilmî hayatın teşekkülü ve Davud el-Kayserî (656–660/1258–1261 — 751/1350),” in Uluslararasi XIII. ve XIV. yüzyillarda Anadolu'da islam düşüncesi ve Davud el-Kayseri Sempozyumu (Kayseri: Kayseri Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Müdürlüğü, 1998), 25–42 (on the Cairo manuscript, 32). Following Fazlıoğlu's description, the Cairo MS contains two texts, one copied in Shaʿbān 714 (December 1314) and the other dated Rabīʿ I 715 (June–July 1315). The same information is also discussed in Fazlıoğlu, “What happened,” 16. Fazlıoğlu gives the following information about Ibn Sartāq: “Ibn Sartāq, (…) was active in Maragha during Aṣīl al-Dīn Ḥasan's (the son of Ṭūṣī) administration. He then moved to Anatolia, worked as a mudarris in Niẓām al-Dīn Yaghibaṣan Madrasa in Niksar, and taught the mathematical and philosophical sciences to Dāwūd Qayṣarī” (Ibid., 5). MS Istanbul, Ayasofya 4830, a majmūʿa dated Damascus, Rajab to Ramaḍān 626 (May–July 1229), referred to here by Fazlıoğlu, contains annotations by Ibn Sartāq (name here given as Muḥammad Ibn Sartāq b. Jūbān al-Marāghī), including two reading notes dated Niksar, al-Madrasa al-Niẓāmiyya, beginning of Rajab 727 (May 1327) (f. 108v) and Niksar, Rabīʿ I 728 (January 1328) (f. 180v). See also Jan P. Hogendijk, “Discovery of an 11th-century geometrical compilation. The Istikmāl of Yūsuf al-Muʾtaman ibn Hūd, king of Saragossa,” Historia Mathematica 13 (1986): 43–52; A. Djebbar, “La rédaction de l’Istikmāl d'al-Muʾtaman (XIe s.) par Ibn Sartāq, un mathématicien des XIIIe–XIVe siècles,” Historia Mathematica 24 (1997): 185–192. Another copy bearing a note by Ibn Sartāq is MS Leiden, Or. 96. The note is dated Niksar, Rajab 725 (June–July 1325) (f. 19r).

³⁹ The only existing description of the manuscript is that by J. Uri, Bibliothecae Bodleianae codicum manuscriptorum orientalium (Oxford, 1787), I, no. 1230.

⁴⁰ The muqaddima ends f. 15r, the commentary proper starts on f. 15v.

⁴¹ The beginning of the text is wanting. The text as it stands starts with the commentary on verse twelve, as follows:

On the problematic attribution of this text, see Cécile Bonmariage, “Commentaries on Avicenna's Qaṣīdat al-nafs: An Inventory,” Mélanges de l'Université Saint-Joseph 67 (2017–18): 21–125, no. 20.

⁴² Beginning of the text:

On the problematic attribution of this text, see Bonmariage, “Commentaries,” no. 16.

⁴³ Najm al-Dīn Kubrá, Fawāʾiḥ al-jamāl wa-fawātiḥ al-jalāl, ed. Yūsuf Zaydān (Kuwait: Dār Suʿād Ṣabbāḥ, 1993), 96–97.

⁴⁴ I could not find more information about this madrasa, possibly named after the Seljuk Sultan assassinated in Tabriz in 538/1143. Other manuscripts copied in the same place are MS Istanbul, Millet, Feyzullah 617 (a copy of the Kashf al-asrār fī sharḥ al-Manār by Nasafī, dated Shaʿbān 827 [1424]); MS London, British Library, Or. 9274 (a copy of Zamakhsharī's Kashshāf written by the same copyist as MS Pococke 244 in 727 [1335]); and MS Manisa, Manisa İl Halk Kütüphanesi 2213 (a copy of the Qisṭās by Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī dated Rabīʿ II 708 [1308]; see description in Necmettin Pehlivan, Kıstâsu'lefkâr fî tahkîki'l esrâr. Düşüncenin Kıstası (Istanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2014), 51). The madrasa is also mentioned in a note in MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 3440, f. (ii)v. I would not have found this last information but for the newly available online Khizana database: https://khizana.saw-leipzig.de/.

⁴⁵ See Ben Azzouna, La production de manuscrits, 296, no. 74; Ben Azzouna, Aux origines du classicisme, 592–593, no. 83 (the name of the copyist is here transliterated as al-Qīr-Shihrī). This manuscript was once part of a waqf established in 1262/1845 or 1846 by ʿAbd Allāh Adīb, known as Jannat-zādah (Abdullah Edip Cennet-zade), qāḍī of Erzurum (inscription and seal of Abdullah Edip). Other mss. bearing the same waqf statement are kept at Princeton Library (for instance, Princeton, PUL, RSBC, Isl. MSS., Garrett 314Y, 2309Y, 5910Y, 5919Y, 5986Y) and the University of Michigan Library, in the collection known as the “Tiflis collection” (65 results in the online catalogue of the library). These mss. were bought by Princeton and Michigan from the British Museum. See http://guides.lib.umich.edu/islamicmss/about for Michigan.

⁴⁶ A number of Kırşehirîs are known to have copied manuscripts in Tabriz in the early 8th/14th c.: (1) Maqbūl b. Aṣīl al-Qīrshahrī (MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 3175, a copy of al-Tuḥfa al-shāhiyya by Maḥmūd b. Masʿūd Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī dated Tabriz, 21 Jumādá II 707 and his Faʿaltu fa-lā talum (title on the title-page, f. 154r and in the preamble of the text, f. 160r), dated Tabriz, Rabīʿ II 708, made on the musawwada of the author, where the dates Sivas, end of Jumādá I 684, and Tabriz, 10 Ramaḍān 704, are given for the composition of the texts; in the colophon of the first text, the copyist gives his name as Maqbūl b. Aṣīl al-Rūmī); and (2) Aḥmad b. Yūsuf al-Rūmī al-Qīrshahrī (MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 3033, a copy of the al-Maʿārif fī sharḥ al-Ṣaḥāʾif by Shams al-Dīn M. b. Ashraf al-Samarqandī, dated Tabriz 716).

⁴⁷ On al-Ṭībī (author of a commentary on the Kashshāf, entitled Futūḥ al-ghayb fī l-kashf ʿan qināʿ al-rayb), see Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (773–852/1372–1449), al-Durar al-kāmina (Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1993), 2: 68–9, no. 1613, under “al-Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd Allāh (sic).” In Zirikli's Aʿlām, he appears under “al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh” (2: 256). See also H. Özkan, “Tîbî, Ebû Muhammed Şerefüddîn Hüseyn b. Abdillâh b. Muhammed,” in TDV İslâm ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: TDV Islâm Araştımaları Merkezi, 2012), 41: 125–127. Another ijāza by al-Ṭībī for a Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Jamāl al-Dīn al-Ḥusayn dated 28 Rabīʿ II 741 (October 21, 1340) can be found in MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 4602, f. 2v. This is a copy of Ṭībī's Ḥadāʾiq al-bayān dated 738 and written by Saʿīd b. Yūsuf b. Muḥammad. al-Ṭībī is also known for a number of copies written by his own hand. This is the case of MS Istanbul, Köprülü, Fazıl Ahmet Paşa 134, an ornated copy of the seventh and final part of the Kashshāf dated Jumādá I 701 (January 1302). MSS Fazıl Ahmet Paşa 132 (dated 699 with the name of place erased) and 133 (incomplete at end) are parts of the same set. Another set of the Kashshāf with ties to the early 8th/14th century in this library is MSS Fazıl Ahmet Paşa 130 and 131, both bearing a reading statement dated Rajab 709 (adding: “bi-maqām KhR---?”) and Muḥarram 710 respectively. MS Istanbul, Köprülü, Fazıl Ahmet Paşa 213, an undated copy of al-Muʿtamad min al-manqūl fīmā awḥā ilá al-rasūl, was also written by al-Ṭībī and bears an ijāza granted to him by the author, Ḥaydar b. ʿAlī al-Qummī known as al-Kāshī, dated end of Rabīʿ I 719 (May 1319), where the laqab Shams al-Dīn is used for al-Ṭībī (f. 195r–196r). See description in R. Şeşen et al., Catalogue of manuscripts in the Köprülü Library (Istanbul: Research center for Islamic history, art and culture, 1986), 1: 114. R. Pourjavady refers to him as Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭayyibī. See R. Pourjavady, “The legacy of ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī,” in Philosophical Theology in Islam. Later Ashʿarism East and West, ed. A. Shihadeh and J. Thiele (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 362.

⁴⁸ Ibn al-Fuwaṭī, Majmaʿ al-adāb fī muʿjam al-alqāb, 4: 239 (no. 3749).

⁴⁹ The line of transmission for the Kitāb al-Maṣābīḥ is the following: al-Abharī, who grants the ijāza, from Fakhr al-Dīn Aḥmad b. al-Ḥasan al-Jārbardī (= Çârperdî) from Abū Muḥammad ʿUmar b. Aḥmad b. ʿUmar al-Jandarānī, from Rukn al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿUthmān --- (repair; in the Ṭabaqāt al-zaydiyya al-kubrá: al-Yasārī), from Majd al-Dīn Abū l-Majd Muḥammad b. Abī ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥusayn al-Qazwīnī(?), from Abū Manṣūr Muḥammad b. Asʿad ---? al-ʿAṭṭārī (in the Ṭabaqāt al-zaydiyya al-kubrá: Abū Manṣūr al-Ṭūsī), from the author. al-Maʿānī wa-l-bayān has the following line of transmission: al-Abharī, who grants the ijāza, from al-Jārbardī (the text says “the same fāḍil I mentioned earlier”), from Niẓām al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, from Shams al-Dīn al-Muʿizzī (المعزي , according to the reading in Kashf al-ẓunūn, under “Miftāḥ al-ʿulūm” (ed. Flügel. Lexicon [London, 1835–58], 6: 17), where Shams al-Dīn al-Muʿizzī is said to be the first to have commented upon the Miftāḥ; one could also read “al-M.gh.rī” (المغرى ); “al-Maghribī” in the Ṭabaqāt al-zaydiyya al-kubrá; “al-Maʿarrī” in an ijāza studied by Ḥasan Anṣārī in Tāzah-hā-ʾī dar bārah-yi rivāyat-i Nahj al-balāgha dar miyān-i madhāhib-i mukhtalif, at ansari.kateban.com/post/1617), from the author. On this line of transmission, more precisely that starting with Aḥmad b. al-Ḥasan al-Jārbardī (d. Ramaḍān 746/1346 in Tabriz), see Ibrāhīm b. al-Qāsim (d. 1152/1739), Ṭabaqāt al-zaydiyya al-kubrá, ed. ʿAbd al-Salām al-Wajīh (Amman: Muʾassasat al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī al-thaqāfiyya, 2001), under this name. On Jārbardī/Çârperdî, see M. Şener, “Çârperdî, Ebü’l-Mekârim Fahrüddîn Ahmed b. el-Hasen b. Yûsuf,” in TDV İslâm ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: TDV Islâm Araştımaları Merkezi, 1993), 8: 230–31 and the following sources: Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī (d. 771/1370), Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya al-kubrá, ed. M. M. al-Ṭanāḥī and ʿA. M. al-Ḥulw (Cairo: ʿĪsā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1964), 9: 8, no. 1293; Asnawī (d. 772/1370), Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿilmīyya, 1987), 1: 189, no. 358 (with name Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn); Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (773–852/1372–1449), al-Durar al-kāmina (Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1993), 1: 213–214, no. 346. Ibn al-Fuwaṭī (642–723/1244–1323) mentions briefly al-Jārbardī/Çârperdî (under the name Fakhr al-Dīn Abū ʿAlī Aḥmad b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī al-Jārabartī al-ḥakīm), and indicates that he “wrote in the Kitāb al-Tawḍīḥāt al-Rashīdiyya,” i.e., the Tawḍīḥāt by Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh. See Ibn al-Fuwaṭī, Majmaʿ al-adāb fī muʿjam al-alqāb, 2: 529, no. 1932; on the taqrīẓ written by Jārbardī, see J. van Ess, Der Wesir und seine Gelehrten (Wiesbaden: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft Kommissions Verlag Franz Steiner, 1981), 30, A 67. There is a copy of the Kashshāf dated Tabriz, end of Shawwāl 726 (September 1326) with a samāʿ certification and ijāza from this Aḥmad b. al-Ḥasan al-Jārbardī (Çârperdî) for the copyist Ṣadr al-Dīn Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Saʿd al-Dīn Muḥammad b. al-Muʾayyad (the audition is said to have been completed at the end of Rabīʿ II 729 [April 1326]). See MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Ragıp Paşa 209, ff. 588v–589r. In the colophon, the name appears as Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Abī l-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. al-Muʾayyad b. Abī Bakr b. Abī l-Ḥasan ---? Shaykh al-islām Abī ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Ḥammūyah(?) al-Juwaynī (f. 588v), and as Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī al-Ḥammūʾī al-Juwaynī in the audition statement to the left of the colophon. In a recent article, R. Pourjavady identifies the copyist as Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Ḥammūʾī (read al-Ḥamawayh by Pourjavady) al-Juwaynī, who studied with ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī. See R. Pourjavady, “The legacy of ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī,” note 80. See also here below, note 80. On the name al-Ḥammūʾī (following the vocalization given by Ibn al-Athīr (d. 630/1233) in his al-Lubāb fī tahdhīb al-ansāb), see H. Landolt, “Saʿd al-Dīn al-Ḥammūʾī,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1954–2004); R. Öngören, “Sa‘deddîn-i Hammûye,”; and the discussion in Jamal J. Elias, “The Sufi Lords of Bahrabad: Sa'd al-Din and Sadr al-Din Hamuwayi,” Iranian Studies 27 (1994): 56–58. Two manuscripts can be added to the witnesses provided by Elias to investigate the proper vocalization of the name: (1) MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 418, a copy of part 4/4 of the Lubāb tafsīr al-Qurʾān by Abū l-Qāsim al-Kirmānī dated mid-Jumādá I 654 (June 1256) and written by ʿAlī b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Maḥmūd, muʾadhdhin at the Jāmiʿ gharbī in ʿAskar Mukram, where Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad al-Ḥammūʾī (الحمّوىى ) notes that he reproduced the copy in 673 (1274/75) (f. 381r); (2) MS Istanbul, Millet, Feyzullah 2112, a copy of the Kitāb al-Nihāya fī gharīb al-ḥadīth by Ibn al-Athīr, dated 14 Rabīʿ II 673 (October 17, 1274) (f. 186r), which bears an ownership statement from the same Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad, here with a fuller version of his name: Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad b. al-Muʾayyad al-Ḥammūʾī (الحمُّوىى ) al-Juwaynī. This note is undated, but was written in Bagdad (f. 1r). On Ṣadr al-Dīn Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad al-Ḥammūʾī (d. 722), see Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, al-Durar al-kāmina, s.v.

Regarding the dating of Jārbardī's glosses on Baghawī's Kitāb al-Maṣābīḥ, MS London, India Office, Arabic Manuscripts, Bijapur 105, a copy dated Shaʿbān 732 (May 1332), is of particular interest. It was written by ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm b. M. b. Abī l-Faḍāʾil Muḥammad, who started in Tabriz on copies containing Jārbardī's glosses and wrote the second part in Shahristān(?) on copies of the fuqahāʾ in Khurasan, hoping his son, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, would complete the copy of the glosses. On the commentary tradition on Sakkākī's text, see R. Sellheim, Materialen zur arabischen Literaturgeschichte (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1976–1987), 1: 299–322 (on Muʿizzī, with no further detail, p. 299 and 303; on Jārabardī, p. 291) and 2: 60–84. Note that a copy of Sakkākī's Miftāḥ dated Tabriz 699 bearing a qirāʾa certificate given by Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī is preserved in MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Ragıp Paşa 1282 (qirāʾa note, f. 1r; colophon, f. 258r).

⁵⁰ Other texts are mentioned in the ijāza, in a portion that has been crossed out.

⁵¹ See above, p. 9 and note 36.

⁵² See colophon f. 218v:

⁵³ The manuscript also contains the text commented upon (f. 1r–16v). On this manuscript, see the description in Ben Azzouna, La production de manuscrits, 295, no. 73; Ben Azzouna, Aux origines du classicisme, 592, no. 82; Şeşen et al., Fihrist makhṭūṭāt Maktabat Köprülü. Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Köprülü Library, no. 744. Our findings here concur with İhsan Fazlıoğlu, who mentions this copy in “What happened,” 17–18, and note 45.

⁵⁴ The Berlin MS also includes on f. 1r, among other inscriptions, a short text entitled خطبة النكاح لكاتبه المؤلف للكتاب . This manuscript is dated Jumādá II 732/March 1332 and is particularly important to establishing the text of Qayṣarī's commentary on the Fuṣūṣ, as it contains a number of corrections by the author. These corrections are included in the main text in the two known copies written during Qayṣarī's lifetime (MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Kadızade Mehmed 274, dated Tabriz 736 [1336], and MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 2695, dated Kirmān, Dhū l-Ḥijja 736 [July 1336]). In MS Fatih 2695, a number of corrections do not appear, and this could be evidence of successive layers of re-writing. See the forthcoming edition and translation in French of the Muqaddima by Cécile Bonmariage and Gregory Vandamme. Another manuscript (MS Istanbul, Hacı Selim Ağa 512) claims to be an autograph copy of Qayṣarī's commentary on the Fuṣūṣ. But having only seen a reproduction of the manuscript, I prefer to err on the side of caution. I do not know what to do with the fact that the name of the author is given here in a colophon that would have been written by himself, with a mistake in the name of the father, here given as Muḥammad instead of Maḥmūd. The colophon reads:

Another element that casts some doubts on the autograph character of this copy is the fact that the name of the author (here reading Dāʾud b. Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad al-Qayṣarī) appears in the preamble of the text (in the Berlin manuscript, the name is added on the margin). In my view, the colophon has been copied from the exemplar.

⁵⁵ The colophon simply states the name of the copyist, here given as Dāʾud b. Maḥmūd b. --- al-Qayṣarī (f. 427v). The text reads as follows:

The hand is compatible with that found in attested autographs, but these are library copies, in which variations are not obvious. A previous owner identifies the copyist as the “commentator of Naẓm al-sulūk and other books from the qawm” (f. 2r, followed by verses of poetry attributed to Qayṣarī), giving us at least the comfort of not being alone in this identification, but no unquestionable argument. This owner seems to be the one writing a reading statement next to the colophon, Maḥmūd b. Ismaʿīl b. Maḥmūd al-Ḥalabī al-Ḥanafī, who read the text during the first ten days of Jumādá II 858/June 1454 (f. 427v). The dated notes appearing in this ms. are dated to the 9th/15th c. On f. 2r: ownership statement dated 883/1478–79 in the name of Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad b. Ajā(?) al-Ḥanafī; undated ownership statement in the name of ʿAbd al-Ghayb(?) Abū Ḥammād al-Ḥanafī. This copy is mentioned by Fazlıoğlu, “What happened,” 21 and note 57. On Qayṣarī's interest in al-Mutanabbī, one can add that verses by Mutanabbī are found on f. 1r and on f. 18r of MS Istanbul, Köprülü, Fazıl Ahmet Paşa 744, in the hand of Qayṣarī.

⁵⁶ MS Istanbul, Köprülü, Fazıl Ahmet Paşa 1316 could prove more interesting (if again we can confirm the fact that it was copied by Qayṣarī), as it mentions the name of the (as yet unidentified) library it was copied for, but unfortunately using a terminology that is not very specific. The identification of the library could also dismiss entirely the hypothesis that the manuscript was copied by our Qayṣarī. The text reads as follows (f. 1r):

⁵⁷ Discussed in Peacock, “Two Sufis,” 21, 24. Fazlıoğlu, who knows that Qayṣarī was in Tabriz, retains the narrative including a stay in Saveh. See Fazlıoğlu, “What happened,” 17. Mukhtar Ali mentions Kashan as the place where Qayṣarī would have been a disciple of ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Qāshānī. See Ali, The Horizons of Being, 4.

⁵⁸ Bayrakdar, al-Rasāʾil, 8.

⁵⁹ For “Sāwī,” see Ibid., 7. For “Sâve,” see Bayraktar, “Dâvûd-i Kayserî,” 9: 32.

⁶⁰ For “al-Sāwī” as a nisba referring to the city of Saveh, alongside “al-Sāwijī,” see Yāqūt (574 or 575–626/1179–1229), Muʿjam al-buldān, s.v. “ساوه .” To support his version of Qayṣarī's whereabouts, including a stay in Saveh, Bayrakdar refers to the description of a copy of Qayṣarī's commentary on the Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam in Dorn's catalogue of the St Petersburg manuscripts (1852). But what is written there does not enable Bayrakdar's claim. The author of the catalogue simply states, without any evidence, that Qayṣarī was living in Saveh in Persia: “Le commentaire en question, très célèbre en Orient, a été rédigé par Davoud ben Mahmoud, né à Césarée, dans l'Asie Mineure, domicilié à Sava en Perse, الرومى القيصرى السّاوى .” This seems to be no more than a (rather poor) rendition by Dorn of the information provided by the formula “al-Qayṣarī mawlid^an al-Sāwī maḥtid^an,” or simply of the expression “al-Rūmī al-Qayṣarī al-Sāwī” that he may have read in the manuscript he describes. Dorn refers in his notice to the description of Joseph von Hammer's manuscripts in the Wiener Jahrbücher der Literatur 82 (1838). But this is not the source of what he claims: the reference is to the Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam and its commentaries in Hammer's collection. The entry on Qayṣarī's commentary in this article does not mention anything on the author's biography. Joseph von Hammer, “Morgenlandische Handschriften (Fortsekung),” Wiener Jahrbücher der Literatur 82 (1838). Anzeige Blatt: 57–58, no. 300.

⁶¹ محتدا , root ḤTD, is a synonym of اصلا , referring to a more or less remote ancestry. This root can also bear the meaning “to reside, to stay,” but not the word محتد . In any case, the term cannot mean both ancestry and residence, as it does in Bayrakdar's claim. Note that in an earlier publication, Bayrakdar understands the epithet “al-Sāwī” as referring not to Qayṣarī's ancestry, but to his place of birth. See Bayrakdar, La philosophie, 11–13: “Quant au lieu où naquit notre penseur, il y a selon les sources un Qaraman, un Qaysarî, un Sâwa comme lieu de sa naissance. Selon la plupart de nos sources anciennes et tardives, c'est à Qaramân (Karaman) qu'il naquit ; selon certaines autres, c'est à Qaysarî (Kayseri) qu'il naquit. Mais selon sa Risâla Nihâyat al-Bayân fï dirâyat al-zamân, ou plutôt plus exactement, selon le rédacteur ou le copiste inconnu de cette Risâla, c'est à Al-Sawa qu'il naquit.”

⁶² Bayraktar, “Dâvûd-i Kayserî,” 9: 32. The Katāʾib aʿlām al-akhyār is quoted according to MS Istanbul, İstanbul Üniversitesi Ktp., AY 2345 (here, f. 192r).

⁶³ MS Ankara, Milli Kütüphane. Samsun İl Halk Kütüphanesi 1061; MS Tehran, Majlis 14127 (2 v.; apparently 19th c.).

⁶⁴ The table of contents corresponds to Qayṣarī, Sharḥ al-Fuṣūṣ, ed. Ashtiyānī (Tehran, 1375 [1996]), 5–6.

⁶⁵ MS Ankara, Milli Kütüphane. Samsun İl Halk Kütüphanesi 1061, ff. 289r–v; MS Tehran, Majlis 14127, vol. 2, ff. 139r–140r. See text of Taşköprüzade's entry on Qayṣarī, above p. 2–3.

⁶⁶ MS Tehran, Majlis 14127, vol. 2, ff. 133r–134r.

⁶⁷ See above, note 5.

⁶⁸ In the entry on the year 731/1330. Sadeddin (Saʿd al-Dīn), Tac-üt-tevarih, 1: 43. Brockelmann mentions this source in GAL, SII.

⁶⁹ On Urmawī, see Mustafa Çağrıcı, “Sirâceddîn el-Urmevî,” 37: 262–4; Louise Marlow, “A thirteenth-century scholar in the eastern Mediterranean: Siraj al-Din Urmavi, jurist, logician, diplomat,” al-Masāq 22 (2010): 279–313.

⁷⁰ This is already stressed by Bayrakdar. See his La philosophie, 14 (Qūnawī only). In his edition of Qayṣarī's al-Rasāʾil, Bayrakdar discusses again the (hardly possible) connection between Qayṣarī and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (see p. 8), and adds that Urmawī is known to have been in Kayseri before the year 671/1272, when he left for Konya (p. 7). If my reading is correct, he maintains thus that it is in Kayseri that this improbable connection between Urmawī and Qayṣarī would have happened. See also Fazlıoğlu, “What happened,” 14–15, where the possibility of the Urmawī-Qayṣarī affiliation is discussed.

⁷¹ Tāj al-Dīn al-Kūrdī (= Tâceddin al-Kürdî) in the edition of Aşıkpaşazade's Tevarih-i Âl-i Osman (Istanbul, 1332[1914]), 42.

⁷² Taşköprüzade, Shaqāʾiq, 9.

⁷³ Neşrî, Ğihānnümā. Die altosmanische Chronik des Mevlānā Meḥemmed Nechrī, 1: 46, l. 8. The same name is given as “Sirāj al-Dīn-i Urmawī” in other copies of the text, confirming our understanding of the passage. See Ibid., 2: 70, l. 7–8. The confusion in names around Tāj al-Dīn is not uncommon. In a copy of Kafavī's Katāʾib held in the Majlis library in Tehran, Tāj al-Dīn's name is given as al-Karūrī (reading wāw instead of dāl), and he is said to have studied with Sirāj al-Dīn al-Damawī, “author of the Maṭāliʿ and Bayān al-ḥikmaI.” See MS Tehran, Majlis 14127, v. 2, f. 133v, in the entry on Alāʾ al-Dīn al-Aswad Qarah Khwājah (Alâeddin Esved Kara Hoca); the name “al-Karūrī” also appears in the entry on Dāʾūd al-Qayṣarī (f. 139v). MS Ankara, Milli Kütüphane. Samsun İl Halk Kütüphanesi 1061, has al-K.r.d.rī; see f. 283v (where one reads also Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī), and f. 289v.

⁷⁴ Taşköprüzade does not mention the dedications found in works written by Qayṣarī and omits citing Qāshānī as Qayṣarī's master. On the problem of taking the information in Taşköprüzade's Shaqāʾiq at face value, and how to read this text, see Ali Anooshahr, “Writing, speech, and history for an Ottoman biographer,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 69 (2010): 43–62. On the evidence of a closer connection between early Ottomans and the Ilkhans, see Rudi Lindner, “How Mongol were the early Ottomans?,” in The Mongol Empire and its legacy, ed. R. Amitai-Preiss and D.O. Morgan (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 282–289; Linda Darling, “Persianate sources on Anatolia and the early history of the Ottomans,” Studies on Persianate Societies 2 (2004): 126–144. On the reconstruction à l'oeuvre in chronicles encouraged by Mehmed II, see i. a. H. W. Lowry, The Nature of the Early Ottoman State (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003), 143.

⁷⁵ This is likely Brockelmann's source for mentioning Karaman as Qayṣarī's birthplace, as well as the fact that Qayṣarī would have studied there (this is found in Kafavī, as mentioned above). See Brockelmann, GAL, 2: 231 (on mystics in the Ottoman Empire): “Dā’ūd b. Maḥmūd ar-Rūmī al-Qayṣarī, geb. in Qaramān, studierte dort und in Kairo. Nach seiner Rückkehr erbaute Sulṭān Orḫān für ihn die erste Madrasa in seinem Reich. Er starb 751/1350.” In GAL SII, the mention “geb. in Qaramān” is not present.

⁷⁶ Qayṣarī calls himself “al-Rūmī” and “al-Sharaf al-Rūmī” in a copy he wrote in 724/1324, MS Istanbul, Köprülü, Fazıl Ahmet Paşa 744. See colophon f. 107r and f. 17v-18r, where Qayṣarī writes down verses he composed, calling himself “Sharaf al-Rūmī.” These folios also contain verses from other authors, including al-Mutanabbī and Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī. In the Berlin autograph, as previously mentioned, Qayṣarī calls himself Dāʾūd (written داود) b. Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad al-Qayṣarī mawlid^an al-Sāwī maḥtid^an (MS Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Hs. or. oct. 3737, dated 732/1332, f. 136r). He chooses Dāʾūd b. Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad al-Qayṣarī in his ijāza in the Pococke MS (MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Pococke 244, dated mid-Ṣafar 736, f. 157v). In the same copy, the name in the preamble of the commentary on the Tāʾiyya is given by the copyist, himself from Kırşehir, as Dāʾūd b. Muḥammad (sic) b. Muḥammad al-Rūmī al-Qayṣarī (f. 1v). Rukn al-Dīn-i Shīrāzī, who studied the Fuṣūṣ with Qayṣarī in Tabriz, calls him Sharaf al-Dīn Dāʾūd al-Qayṣarī. See Shīrāzī, Nuṣūṣ al-khuṣūṣ fī tarjamat al-Fuṣūṣ, 4, l. 8.

⁷⁷ For Kafavī quoting Taşköprüzade throughout the text, see, for instance, MS Tehran, Majlis 14127, vol. 2, ff. 120v, 133r. Homerin writes in his introduction to the edition and translation of Qayṣarī's commentary on Ibn al-Farīḍ's Khamriyya that he often finds the name “Sharaf al-Dīn Dāwūd b. Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad al-Qayṣarī al-Qarāmānī al-Rūmī” in manuscripts (obviously other than the ones I checked, probably manuscripts from the Dār al-kutub in Cairo), but does not give references. See Homerin, The Wine, xv.

⁷⁸ On the end of the Ilkhanate, see Charles Melville, “The end of the Ilkhanate and after: Observations on the collapse of the Mongol world empire,” in The Mongols’ Middle East: Continuity and transformation in Ilkhanid Iran, ed. Bruno De Nicola and Charles Melville (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 309–335; Ch. Melville, The Fall of Amir Chupan and the Decline of the Ilkhanate, 1327–37. A Decade of Discord in Mongol Iran (Bloomington: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 1999).

⁷⁹ See Shīrāzī, Nuṣūs al-khuṣūṣ, 4–6. 739/1338 or 39 is the first date mentioned by Rukn al-Dīn after referring to his leaving Tabriz (more precisely, to starting traveling) in the preamble of the text; at this date, he met Nuʿmān al-Khwārizmī in Saray Berkeh. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa relates in his Riḥla that he met Nuʿmān al-Khwārizmī in Saray Berkeh in the early 1330s. See Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, Voyages d'Ibn Batoutah, trans. C. Defrémery and Dr B.-R. Sanguinetti (Paris: Imprimerie impériale, 1853–1859), t. 2, 449–450; Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, Riḥlat Ibn Baṭṭūṭa. Tuḥfat al-nuẓẓār fī gharāʾib al-amṣār wa-ʿajāʾib al-asfār, ed. M. al-ʿAryān (Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-ʿulūm, 1407/1987), 364. Faṣīḥ Khwāfī records Khwārizmī's death under the year 740, on 25 Muḥarram/August 2, 1339. See Faṣīḥ Khwāfī, Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī, 2: 923. When the traveling scholar Aḥmad al-Khujandī (Khujand, 719/1319 — Medina, 802/1400) visited Saray Berkeh in the middle of the 8th/14th c. (around 754), al-Khwārizmī was dead. See Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ (Beirut: Dār Maktabat al-Ḥayāh, s.d.), 2: 194. Sakhāwī (d. 902/1497) gives a detailed account of Aḥmad al-Khujandī that does not appear in other biographical dictionaries that mention his name, such as the Inbāʾ al-ghumr bi-abnāʾ al-ʿumr by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (773—852/1372—1449), in the deaths of the year 802, where he is presented as a resident of Medina for forty years, with no mention of his traveling past. The entry in the al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ shows an interesting scholarly figure, traveling from Khujand to Samarqand (in 741/1341, at twenty-two years of age), Bukhara, and Khwārizm (where he stays twelve years and a half), reaching the lower Volga territories dominated by the Golden Horde, in Saray Berkeh and the close by Aqsaray (where he would have met Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī [d. Damascus, 766/1365] and Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftazānī [d. 791/1388]). He then goes to Kaffa and Crimea (qrim), where he meets Abu l-Wafā ʿUthmān al-Maghribī al-Shādhilī. He is next in Damascus, from which he makes several travels to the Hijaz for the ḥajj, with detours during his travels back to Damascus, leading him to Jerusalem (760/1359) or Bagdad (where he stayed for two years and a half). Other places where he stayed include: Hilla, Karbala, Samarra, Medina, Mecca, etc. Death met him in Medina in 802/1400 at eighty-one years of age. On the court of the Golden Horde being a welcoming place for Muslim scholars in the wake of the conversion to Islam by Berke, and under his successors Uzbek and Jānī Bey, see Ibn ʿArabshāh (1389—1450), ʿAjāʾib al-maqdūr (Calcutta, 1818), 116–117, who mentions Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftazānī, and “after them, mawlānā Ḥāfiẓ al-Dīn al-Bazzāzī and mawlānā Aḥmad al-Khujandī.” On the date of his death, see also the description in MS Princeton, PUL, RBSC, Islamic Manuscripts, Garrett 4255Y in Princeton Library's online catalogue. Sakhāwī gives the name of the people whose lectures this Khujandī attended, which books he read and with whom, as well as the ijāzāt and mystical initiations he received, including the fact that while in Khwārizm, he read with al-Kamāl al-Bukhārī, along with the Kashshāf, Bazdawī, and the like, Ṭūsī's Sharḥ al-Isharāt, parts of the Qānūn (he had read a mukhtaṣar al-Qānūn fī l-ṭibb earlier in Khujand), parts of the Shifāʾ, and the Najāh.

⁸⁰ On this ijāza, see Pourjavady, “The Legacy,” 349, note 80, referring to H. Eichner's unpublished Habilitationsschrift (The Post-Avicennian Philosophical Tradition and Islamic Orthodoxy. Philosophical and Theological Summae in Context. Unpublished Habilitationsschrift, Halle 2009); H. Anṣārī, “Sunnat-i ijāza-navīsī dar ʿulūm-i dīnī u falsafī dar Tabrīz-i sadah-yi hashtum,” in Bā qāfalah-yi shawq. Arj-nāmah-yi duktur Muḥammad ʿAlī-i Muwaḥḥid (Tehran: Nashr-i Sutūdah, 1393/2014), 231—245. The text of the ijāza can be found in Anṣārī, “Sunnat-i ijāza-navīsī,” 244—245. The ms. where the ijāza appears is MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Carullah 1252, f. 82v (and not Esad Efendi 1276 as mentioned in Pourjavady following Ansari). This is a copy of Lubāb al-arbaʿīn fī uṣūl al-dīn by Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī dated Dār al-mulk Tabrīz, the night of Tuesday 25 Dhū al-Ḥijja 733 (September 6, 1333), in the zāwiya linked to Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī (f. 82r). The ijāza is for the copyist, Ṣadr al-Dīn Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. M. b. Abī l-Ḥasan al-Ḥammūʾī al-Juwaynī, who writes in a qirāʾa statement on the left margin of the colophon that he read the book, “safe for the al-wujūh al-mughālaṭiyya” (= masʾala 40 at the end of the text), under ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī on Thursday 19 Muḥarram 734 (September 30, 1333) (f. 82r). On another ijāza dated 729/1326 for this copyist and questions about the proper vocalization of his name (Ḥammūʾī, Ḥamūʾī, Ḥammūyah, Ḥamawī, etc.), see above, note 49. MS Carullah 1252 bears an ownership statement by Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb al-Fīrūzābādī (f. 1r). It was bought (apparently from al-Fīrūzābādī) by a Aḥmad al-Sambulī in 765.

⁸¹ On Ījī's life and works, see J. van Ess, “ʿAżod-al-Dīn Ījī,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica online (originally published December 15, 1988; last updated August 18, 2011); Pourjavady, “The Legacy,” 342 and references mentioned there. According to J. van Ess, Ījī arrived in Sulṭāniyya in 706/1306. He attached himself to the vizier Rashīd al-Dīn and later to his son, Ghiyāth al-Dīn, to whom he dedicated a number of works, and held official positions. His al-Maṭāliʿ fī sharḥ al-Ṭawāliʿ is dated Tabriz, 704. See A. Al Ghouz, “Recasting al-Bayḍāwī's Eschatological Concept of Bodily Resurrection: Shams al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī and Aḥmad al-Ījī in Comparative Perspective,” Mamlūk Studies Review 20 (2017): 45. Two elements can be added to the already known data on Ījī. (1) To the elements situating Ījī in Tabriz, the following should be added: he was in Tabriz at some time in 712, when he wrote his glosses (ḥawāshī) on Zamakhsharī's Kashshāf. See MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Molla Çelebî 4, f. 226r (end of the ḥawāshī on vol. 4 of the Kashshāf). This text was previously only known through a later copy, MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Hacı Beşir Ağa 70, casting some doubt on the attribution to Ījī. See Pourjavady, “The Legacy,” 349. In MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Molla Çelebî 4, copied in Tabriz in Jumādá I 713/August–September 1313 by M. b. Yaḥyá b. Bābak al-Farghānī (colophon, f. 363v), the name of the author is given at the beginning of the text as “mawlānā ʿAḍud al-Ḥaqq wa-l-Dīn, دام ظله ” (f. 1v). The title given by the copyist in the colophon is Fawāʾid al-Kashshāf wa-ḥawāshīh. There is a short statement by the author marking the completion of the ḥawāshī on each volume of the Kashshāf as follows: end of vol. 1 on f. 101r (before the sura al-Nisāʾ (4)); end of vol. 2 dated Thursday, end of Shawwāl 710(?) on f. 157r (before the sura al-Anfāl (8)); end of vol. 3 on f. 183v (before the sura al-Naḥl (16)); end of vol. 4 dated Tabriz, Dhū l-Ḥijja 712 on f. 226r (before the sura al-Nūr (24)); end of vol. 5 dated Wednesday ––2 on f. 290v (before the sura Sabaʾ (34)); end of vol. 6 dated 703 (sic, probably for 713) on f. 334r (end of sura al-Ḥujūrāt (49)). MS Hacı Beşir Ağa 70 appears to be a direct copy of Molla Çelebî 4. (2) For 26 Shaʿbān 734/May 2, 1334 for the redaction of the Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar al-Muntahá fī l-uṣūl, another witness is MS Princeton, PUL, RBSC, Islamic Manuscripts, Garrett 808H, colophon, f. 215v (reproduction accessible online).

⁸² Peacock, “Two Sufis,” 21.

⁸³ Fazlıoğlu, “What happened,” 19.

⁸⁴ I did not check the Rawḍāt al-jinān by Ibn al-Karbalāʾī (d. 997/1589). On this text and its importance to understanding the Tabriz milieu, see the studies by Daniel Zakrzewski, in particular “Local Elites and Dynastic Succession: Tabriz prior to, under and following Mongol Rule (Sixth/Twelfth to Ninth/Fifteenth Centuries),” Eurasian Studies 16 (2018): 352—394.

⁸⁵ See Shīrāzī, Nuṣūs al-khuṣūṣ, 4–6.

⁸⁶ The information is found in a note by Qūnawī included in the introduction of Farghānī's Mashāriq al-darārī, ed. Jalāl al-Dīn Āshtīyānī (Mashhad: Intishārāt-i Anjuman-i Islāmī-i Ḥikmat va-Falsafah-yi Īrān, 1398/1977), 77–78. Qūnawī adds that in 640/1242, he departed from Shām.

⁸⁷ This version can be found in manuscripts such as MS Konya, Yusuf Ağa 7838 (from Qūnawī's library) and MS Dublin, Chester Beatty, Arabic MS. 3643 (used by Arberry in The mystical poems of Ibn al-Fāriḍ (London: E. Walker, 1952)). On the versions of Ibn al-Fāriḍ's Dīwān and their respective manuscript witnesses, see Scattolin, “Towards a critical edition of Ibn al-Fāriḍ's Dīwān,” Annales islamologiques 35 (2001): 503–547; Homerin, “Ibn al-Fāriḍ's personal dīwān,” in Le développement du soufisme en Egypte à l'époque mamelouke, ed. Richard McGregor and Adam Sabra (Cairo: IFAO, 2006), 233–243, and the references mentioned there. Note that another manuscript from Qūnawī's library (MS Konya, Yusuf Ağa 5624), analyzed by Elmore for the ijāzas it records, is described as containing a copy of Ibn al-Fāriḍ's Dīwān. See G. Elmore, “Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī's personal study-list of books by Ibn al-ʿArabī,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 56 (1997): 164, no. 12 in the table of contents.

⁸⁸ On this, see Homerin, The Wine, xviii–xix; Homerin, “Ibn al-Fāriḍ's personal dīwān,” 240–242. For Homerin: “This raises the distinct possibility that al-Qayṣarī read the Wine Ode and other poems by Ibn al-Fāriḍ in Cairo. He may even have read them with the poet's grandson, ʿAlī, who is known to have held reading sessions as late as 733/1333.” Homerin, The Wine, xix. On Ibn al-Fāriḍ, his milieu, and the role of commentators on his texts and of ʿAlī Sibṭ Ibn al-Fāriḍ in the construction of his reputation as a saint, see Th. E. Homerin, From Arab Poet to Muslim Saint. Ibn al-Fāriḍ, his verse, and his shrine (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994).

⁸⁹ We know that the Persian commentary on another of Ibn al-Fāriḍ's texts, the Tāʾiyya, by Farghānī (m. 699/1300) was copied in Tabriz in 714/1314 on the basis of an autograph manuscript. See introduction by Jalāl al-Dīn Ashtiyānī to his edition of Farghānī, Mashāriq al-darārī, 139, and reproduction of the colophon, ibid., xvi. According to the article on Farghānī in the Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, this manuscript is MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Eyüp Camii, 177. See Mahmud Erol Kılıç, “Fergânî, Saîdüddin,” in TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul, 1995), 12: 378–382. It is noteworthy to point here to another line of commentaries on the Tāʾiyya, distinct from Qūnawī's, that can be seen in the Kashf al-wujūh al-ghurr li-maʿānī naẓm al-durr by ʿIzz al-Dīn al-Kāshānī, who studied with Naṭanzī, the master of ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī. This ʿIzz al-Dīn al-Kāshānī is known for his Persian translation of the ʿAwārif al-maʿārif by ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī, the Misbāḥ al-hidāya wa-miftāḥ al-kifāya. See J. W. Morris, “Ibn ʿArabī and His Interpreters Part II (Conclusion): Influences and Interpretations,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 107 (1987): 101, note 73. Early copies of the Kashf al-wujūh, dated to the early 8th/14th c., are still extant. Scattolin notes that this commentary is read in Cairo in 732 as attested by MS Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. Arab. 523, written by Abu l-Faraj al-Ṣūfī in the Khānqāh al-Muwāṣila in Cairo (Miṣr) in 732. See Scattolin, “Towards a critical edition,” 536 and the description in the catalogue by J. Aumer, Die arabischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in München (Munich, 1866), no. 523. Note that Tabriz is called “Miṣr Tabrīz” in a 9th/15th-century manuscript, MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Ragip Paşa 687. See below, note 92. Future scholarship on the commentaries on the Tāʾiyya should take into account the chain of transmission signed by ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-ʿUmarī al-Wāsiṭī in Damascus in Ṣafar <7>60 and going back to Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad al-Tilimsānī, found in a qirāʾa note in a copy of Farghānī's Mashāriq al-darārī dated 745/1344, found online at ketabpedia.com under no. mtof4498, p. 3 (described as MS IRN-020-0351 in the collection Iran, Nusakh-i Darāwīsh-i Shaykhiyyah-yi Kirmān; this ms. is the one described in DINA under no. 254811: Tehran, Dāʾirat al-maʿārif, no. 1596 ʿaksī). This completes the information on the transmission of the text found in MS Dublin, Chester Beatty, Arabic MS. 3643, the copy used by Arberry for his edition of Ibn al-Fāriḍ's Dīwān, where the line of transmission of the text goes back to Fakhr al-Dīn al-ʿIrāqī (d. 688/1289, in Damascus). See ijāza for the copyist by his father, dated 691, f. 1r. The text was later collated on several copies, notably one read in front of the shaykh Shams al-Dīn al-Īkī (or al-Aykī — but see Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān, s.v. —, d. 697/1298, in Damascus), including the glosses of the latter. This copy is said to have been corrected against the copy of the author (see collation note, f. 48v). On this, and more generally on what is known of the transmission of Ibn al-Fāriḍ's Dīwān, see Homerin, “Ibn al-Fāriḍ's personal Dīwān,” 235; Homerin, From Arab Poet, passim (reference to historical biographies for al-Īkī/Aykī, 109, note 21).

⁹⁰ See Homerin, “Ibn al-Fāriḍ's personal Dīwān,” 240, note 36. For a copy of this risāla, see MS Cairo, Dār al-kutub, Taṣawwuf Ṭalʿat 1328 mentioned by Homerin.

⁹¹ See Louise Marlow, “The Way of Viziers and the Lamp of Commanders (Minhāj al-wuzarā’ wa-sirāj al-umarā’) of Aḥmad al-Iṣfahbadhī and the Literary and Political Culture of Early Fourteenth-Century Iran,” in Writers and Rulers. Perspectives on their Relationship from Abbasid to Safavid Times, ed. B. Gruendler and L. Marlow (Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2004), 176—177. A comparative study of the (quest for) Ghiyāth al-Dīn's patronage, and that of another Ilkhanid vizier, Shams al-Dīn al-Juwaynī (in office 661—683/1262—1284), who is said to have favored the Akbarī poet Fakhr al-Dīn al-ʿIrāqī, the author of the Lamaʿāt, could shed more light on this period. The dedication by Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad (who is known for the Akbarī tone of another of his works, the Tawḥīd al-qawāʾid fī l-wujūd al-muṭlaq — known only through the quotations by his grandson Ṣāʿin al-Dīn Turka, however) of his al-Ḥikma al-Rashīdiyya fī taḥṣīl al-uṣūl al-ṭabīʿiyya wa-l-ilāhiyya to the vizier Rashīd al-Dīn should also be taken into account in this context. See H. Eichner, “Afḍal al-Dīn Turka,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2012).

⁹² Concerning Qayṣarī's ijāzas, the copyist of MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Ragip Paşa 687, a copy of Qayṣarī's Muṭṭalaʿ dated Miṣr Tabrīz, Saturday 14 Dhū l-Qaʿda 851/January 21, 1448 (colophon, f. 384r), reproduces at the end of the text an ijāza given by Qayṣarī for the transmission of the Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam and his own commentary on it (f. 385v). Qayṣarī's ijāza is unfortunately rather vague and refers to the grantee merely as “the brother in God (al-ākh fī Llāh), our mawlā, king of the ʿulamāʾ, ornament of those who search, pride of those who walk the path, he who reached the best station of those who know and the ultimate goal of those who realize.” No date or place is mentioned. The copy bears also on ff. 384v–385r, the text of an ijāza given by Muḥammad Shīrīn al-Maghribī (d. 809 or 810/1406–1408), here named M. b. ʿIzz al-Dīn b. ʿĀdil b. Yūsuf al-Maghribī, known as Muḥammad Shīrīn (see L. Lewisohn, A Critical Edition of the Divan of Muhammad Shirin Maghribi (Tehran, 1993), ix–xx; Lewisohn, “Shīrīn Maghribī, Muḥammad”) to a Kamāl al-Dīn Ismāʿīl, who read with him texts by Ibn ʿArabī (the Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, Naqsh al-Fuṣūṣ, Inshāʾ al-jadāwil wa-l-dawāʾir, ʿUqlat al-mustawfiz, R. al-Anwār, Ḥilyat al-abdāl), Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (the Nuṣūṣ, Tabṣirat al-mubtadiʾ, Maṭāliʿ al-īmān), the Manāzil al-Sāʾirīn by al-Anṣārī, the Qaṣīda al-tāʾiyya by Ibn al-Fāriḍ, the muqaddima of the commentary on this text by Saʿīd al-Farghānī and ʿIzz al-Dīn al-Kāshānī, the Lamaʿāt by al-ʿIrāqī, the Sharḥ iṣṭilāḥāt al-ṣūfiyya by ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Qāshānī, and Shīrīn Maghribī's Tafsīr al-Fātiḥa and Jāmah jihān namāʾ. Other texts not explicitly read are included in the ijāza: the Taʾwīlāt al-Qurʾān by Kamāl al-Dīn al-Kāshī, Tafsīr al-waṣīṭ, K. al-Maṣābīḥ, Mashāriq al-anwār, Shirʿat al-islām (by Imāmzādah al-Samarqandī), Qūt al-qulūb (by Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī), al-ʿAwārif wa-l-maʿārif (by ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī), and Minhāj al-ʿābidīn and Bidāyat al-hidāya (by al-Ghazālī). See transcription and reproductions of the manuscript in M. al-Daghīm, Fihrist al-makhṭūṭāt al-ʿarabiyya wa-l-turkiyya wa-l-fārisiyya fī maktabat Rāghib Pāshā (Jeddah: Saqīfat al-ṣafā al-ʿilmiyya, 1437/2016), 6: 144–8 (no. 881), transcription 144–7 (Shīrīn Maghribī's ijāza), and 147–8 (Qayṣarī's ijāza), reproductions of the folios at the end of the description.

⁹³ See above, p. 14.

⁹⁴ See colophon, f. 393v:

Another ms. written by the same copyist, here named Abū l-Riḍā Muẓaffar b. Sayyid ʿAlī al-Juwaynī, is MS Qom, Marʿashī Najafī 3638, a copy of the Majmaʿ al-baḥrayn by Aḥmad b. ʿAlī Ibn al-Sāʿātī dated Friday 11 Shaʿbān 724 (Aug. 3, 1324), made from a copy with an autograph ijāza by Ibn al-Sāʿātī kept at the Sumaysāṭiyya in Damascus. See description of the ms. in Fihrist-i nuskhat-hā-yi khaṭṭī Kitābkhānah-yi (…) Marʿashī Najafī, 10: 38, with a reproduction of the colophon, Plates 22–23.

⁹⁵ See colophons f. 90r and f. 144r. The first text in the ms. is dated 9 Jumādá I 737 (December 14, 1336). See online catalogue of the Princeton University Library, call no. Islamic MSS., Garrett 642Y. The ms. includes a copy of Qayṣarī's commentary on the Tāʾiyya of Ibn al-Fāriḍ (ff. 1r–90r, aceph.) and of the commentary on the Qaṣīdat al-nafs attributed to him (ff. 93r–98r). Qayṣarī's name does not appear in the copy, except for a later hand mentioning Shams(!) al-Dīn al-Qayṣarī as the author of the commentary on the Qaṣīdat al-nafs (f. 93r). The other texts in the manuscript are: Ḥāshiya li-l-Qaṣīda al-mansūba ilá al-shaykh al-raʾīs Abī ʿAlī ibn Sīnā / al-Samarqandī (the name of the author is written by a later hand; ff. 90v–92v); Duʿāʾ li-Shihāb al-Dīn maqtūl (f. 98v); Sharḥ Qaṣīdat Abī Bakr Ibn Durayd wa-iʿrābuhā li-Ibn Hishām / [Muḥammad b. Aḥmad] Ibn Hishām (ff. 99r–144r). Note the similarity in contents (for the first three texts only) with MS Oxford, Bodleian, Pococke 244.

⁹⁶ The date of copy and the name of the copyist appear in two colophons: one at the end of the muqaddima (f. 29r, dated end of Ṣafar 754 [April 1353]); the other at the end of the text (f. 206v, dated 16 Rabīʿ II 755 [May 10, 1354]). Two other mss. of the same text dating to the 750s are known, but they do not provide information on the place of copy: (1) MS Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. Arab. 137 (dated beginning of Muḥarram 757 [1356]; see http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0004/bsb00043880/images/index.html); and (2) MS Mashhad, Majmūʿah-yi ʿAbd al-Majīd-i Mawlavī 482 (dated Ṣafar 753 [1352]). See above, note 12.

⁹⁷ At least three other manuscripts written by the same hand are extant: (1) MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Atıf Efendi 768, a copy dated Tuesday 26 Jumādā II 756 (July 8, 1355) (colophon, f. 290v) of the Mukhtaṣar al-Jāmiʿ al-kabīr or al-Wajīz al-jāmiʿ li-masāʾil al-Jāmiʿ by Ṣadr al-Dīn Sulaymān al-Adhraʿī (d. 677/1278; identification of the text according to description of MS Istanbul, Millet, Feyzullah 947, a copy dated 695 [1296], in the catalogue of the Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā, Saudi Arabia, at https://dorar.uqu.edu.sa/uquui/handle/20.500.12248/108293; MS Dublin, Chester Beatty, Arabic MS. 3367 is a copy of the same text dated 673 [1274]); the ḥāshiyya copied on the margin in MS Atıf Efendi 768 apparently by the same hand, is dated the night of Tuesday 7 Rabīʿ I 757 (March 10, 1356), في محلة المعصرين , the same place mentioned in MS Ankara, Milli Kütüphane, Adana İl Halk Ktp. 100, see text of the colophon of the latter manuscript here below, note 98;

(2) MS Balıkesir, Balıkesir İl Halk Kütüphanesi 1096, a copy of the Mashāriq al-anwār al-nabawiyya by al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad al-Ṣaghānī (577–650/1181–1252), dated Monday, middle of Shaʿbān 761 (July 1360) (see colophon, f. 144r);

(3) MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Çelebi Abdullah Efendi 226, a copy of the Kāmil al-taʿbīr by Ḥubaysh b. Ibrāhīm al-Tiflīsī (12th c.) dated Kütahya, في محلّه مَيدان , Ramaḍān 772 (March 1371) (f. 200v).

To these manuscripts, one should probably add MS Bursa, İnebey Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Haraççıoğlu 1600, a copy of a Sharḥ al-Shāfiyya by ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Khālidī al-Zanjānī, described in the online catalogue as written in Kütahya in 749 (1348–1349) by Aḥmad b. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn (see http://ktp.isam.org.tr/ktpgenel/detailrecords.php). I did not verify this very likely hypothesis on the manuscript.

⁹⁸ The text of the final colophon (f. 206v) reads:

On Mehmed Bey and the Germiyanids, see Mustafa Çetin Varlık, “Germiyanoğulları,” in TDV İslâm ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1996), 14: 33–35; I. Mélikoff, “Germiyān-oghullarî,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, 2: 989–90 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1954–2004).

⁹⁹ I. Kalin, “Dāwūd al-Qayṣarī on being as truth and reality,” in Knowledge is Light, ed. Zeylan Morris (Chicago: ABC International Group, 1999), 236.

¹⁰⁰ The muqaddima of this text is referred to in a great number of Qayṣarī's writings: see Kashf al-ḥijāb (Bayrakdar, Rasāʾil, 100); Sharḥ al-Qaṣīda al-tāʾiyya (muqaddima edited by Bayrakdar, ibid., 111, 119, 133); Asās al-waḥdāniyya (ibid., 154); Nihāyat al-bayān (ibid., 170); Taḥqīq māʾ al-ḥayāh (ibid., 185); Sharḥ Taʾwīlāt al-basmala (ibid., 198).

¹⁰¹ The Nihāyat al-bayān is dedicated to a “Ẓahīr al-Dīn” (Bayrakdar, Rasāʾil, 164; the dedication does not appear in the edition by Ashtiyānī, Rasāʾil-i Qayṣarī, 111). The Asās al-waḥdāniyya is dedicated to a “Jalāl al-Dīn” (Bayrakdar, Rasāʾil, 150; this dedication does not appear in the edition by Ashtiyānī, Rasāʾil-i Qayṣarī, 46). Both texts refer to the muqaddima of the Sharḥ al-Fuṣūṣ (p. 170 and 154 respectively). The Asās refers also to the Kashf al-ḥijāb (p. 154). In the crossed-out portion of the ijāza, the Sharḥ al-Fuṣūṣ is also mentioned.

¹⁰² For the small discrepancy in the dating of these events in historical sources, see B. Spuler, Die Mongolen in Iran. Politik, Verwaltung und Kultur der Ilchanzeit 1220–1350 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 107 and note 66, 108, note 7. For 13 Rabīʿ II 736 as the date of Abū Saʿīd's death, see Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī, 2: 912; Khwāndamīr (d. ca. 1535), Tārīkh-i ḥabīb al-siyar, 3: 198. The Dustūr al-wuzarāʾ by the same Khwāndamīr has 13 Rabīʿ II 732(!). See Khwāndamīr, Dustūr al-wuzarāʾ, 330. Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (d. 1430) has Rabīʿ II 736 (Zubdat al-tawārīkh, ed. Javādī (Tehran: Nashr-i Nayy, 1372–80 [1993–2001]), 1: 8); Mīr Khwānd (1433–98) has 16 Rabīʿ II 736 (Rawḍat al-ṣafā, 8: 4397). For the date of Ghiyāth al-Dīn's execution, see Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī, where the date 15 Ramadan 736 is given (2: 914, entry #13); Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (d. 833/1430), Zubdat al-tawārīkh, 1: 56 (with the additional information that it was a Saturday); Mīr Khwānd, Rawḍat al-ṣafā, 8: 4404–5; Khwāndamīr, Tārīkh-i ḥabīb al-siyar, 3: 224; Khwāndamīr, Dustūr al-wuzarāʾ, 331. On the political situation after Abū Saʿīd's death, see Spuler, Die Mongolen in Iran, 107–115. On the end of the Ilkhāns, see references above, note 78.

¹⁰³ The Sharḥ al-Qaṣīda al-tāʾiyya mentions the Sharḥ al-Fuṣūṣ (the muqaddima and the text itself, see Bayrakdar, Rasāʾil, 133). The change in dedicatee between the two commentaries on Ibn al-Fāriḍ's poems, which we know were written one after another (as is explicitly mentioned in the second text's preamble), could be significant here, with the Sharḥ al-Qaṣīda al-tāʾiyya dedicated to Ghiyāth al-Dīn and the Sharḥ al-Khamriyya dedicated to (the so far unidentified) Amīn al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Kāfī b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Tabrīzī.

¹⁰⁴ MS Istanbul, Nuruosmaniye 2687, written in Jumādá II 741/December 1340 by Faḍl Allāh from a manuscript written by the author (f. 148r). This ms. also contains a copy of al-Rumūz wa-l-amthāl al-lāhūtiyya by Shahrazūrī (ff. 1r–138r) written by the same copyist, dated 22 Jumādá I 725 (May 6, 1325) (f. 138r), which was used by Michaël Privot in his edition of this text in his PhD thesis. Le Kitâb al-rumûz d'al-Shahrazûrî : une oeuvre ishrâqî ? (Liège, Université de Liège, 2007). The text reproduced from the exemplar reads:

“Here is the reproduction of what was written by the hand of the author: The end of its redaction and writing occurred on a Friday in the middle of Ṣafar (…) 732” (probably 13 Ṣafar 732/November 15, 1331). See Bayrakdar, al-Rasāʾil, 14, 19 (introduction). The Taḥqīq māʾ al-ḥayāh is dedicated to the qāḍī Fakhr al-Dīn Maḥmūd. It also mentions Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Ṣayrafī al-Jīlī (p. 181).

¹⁰⁵ For this mention, see Bayrakdar, Rasāʾil, 185.

¹⁰⁶ We know that it was the case later. See Lewisohn on what he calls the “Tabriz school” in the late 8th/14th c. and early 9th/15th c., for instance, Leonard Lewisohn, “The Life and Poetry of Mashreqi Tabrizi,” Iranian Studies 22 (1989): 99 and note 1. See also the studies on Muḥammad Shīrīn Maghribī (d. ca. 810/1408) by Giovanni Maria Martini.

¹⁰⁷ MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Laleli 1417, f. 206v. Depending on how one reads the annotation, it is not entirely clear whether Tabriz was the location of the commentary's redaction. Tabriz as the place of death is certain. This copy of Jandī's Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam is dated beginning of Muḥarram 824 (January 1421) (f. 206v, tail mg.), and includes the colophon of its exemplar at the end of the copy. The copyist adds a comment in the margin on Jandī's date and place of death (given as “a Saturday in the twenties of Dhū l-Ḥijja 711”). See Peacock, “Two Sufis,” 13; Ayşe Mine Akar, “Müeyyed Cendî’nin Hayatı, Eserleri pre Ekberî Gelenekteki Yeri,” Eskiyeni 41 (2020): 711 (where the text of the note on Jandī's death date is given) and 714 (on the date of the text's completion). O. Yahya mentions a late copy (MS Yahya Efendi 2231, dated 1282 [1865]) that bears the work's completion date as 704/1304-1305. See O. Yahya, Histoire et classification de l’œuvre d'Ibn ʿArabī (Damascus: Institut Français, 1964), 243. It is worth noting in relation to MS Laleli 1417 that there is a copy of the Fuṣūṣ dated 825 (1421–22) (MS Istanbul, Evkaf musesi 1882) made on a copy by Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (probably corresponding to MS Istanbul, Evkaf musesi 1933, that bears a samāʿ for Qūnawī dated 630 [1232–33]). MS Laleli 1417 and MS Evkaf musesi 1882 could be part of the same early 9th/15th-century endeavor. The Vatican ms. of Jandī's Sharḥ (MS Vatican, ar. 1389), a copy dated 2 Jumādá II 725 (May 16, 1325) written by ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿĪsā al-Arzinjānī (Erzincânî), does not contain this information (colophon, f. 348r). In the introduction of the text, Jandī states that he started writing his commentary while with Qūnawī, then worked on it in “Dār al-salām” (Bagdad?) after Qūnawī's passing (673/1274), and finalized it at a later time. On Jandī's whereabouts, see Peacock, “Two Sufis,” 13. The information claiming that Muʾayyad al-Dīn al-Jandī was in Tabriz in 677/1278, based on MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 293 (see for instance, R. Todd, The Sufi Doctrine of Man (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 183) needs to be corrected: the colophon in this manuscript indicates that the copy (a copy of Qunawī's Iʿjāz al-bayān) was made by a M. b. Maḥmūd b. M. al-Jandī (note that this name does not coincide with Jandī's usual name, which reads Muʾayyad b. Maḥmūd b. Ṣāʿid; in the original colophon reproduced in MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Laleli 1417, the name reads Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muʾayyad b. Maḥmūd b. Ṣāʿid b. M. b. Maḥmūd b. M. b. M. b. Sulaymān al-Ṣūfī al-Ḥātimī), and adds that the copy was completed on a Wednesday in Muḥarram 677, with no place mentioned (colophon, f. 165v). There is a note by a later hand on f. 166r of MS Fatih 293 relating the story of a man in Tabriz, which is probably the source of the misunderstanding. A. C. S. Peacock and Ayşe Mine Akar add that Jandī dedicated one of his works, al-Qaṣīda al-Lāmiyya, composed in Shawwāl 691 (September–October 1292), to Ṣadr al-Dīn Aḥmad al-Khālidī al-Zanjānī (executed 697/1298), the vizier preceding Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh. See Peacock, “Two Sufis,” 13, 16; Akar, “Müeyyed Cendî’nin Hayatı,” 712–713.

¹⁰⁸ A witness of the collective work on the Fuṣūṣ in Tabriz is MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Kadizade Mehmed 274, a copy of Qayṣarī's commentary on the Fuṣūṣ dated Tabriz 736, which mentions in the colophon that it was written in the presence of Qayṣarī “and his companions” (بمحضر منه واصحابه ). The Persian commentary on the Fuṣūṣ by Rukn al-Dīn-i Shīrāzī was completed in Muḥarram 743/June—July 1342 but its author started the redaction earlier, when studying the Fuṣūṣ with his ustādh (which one?). See Shīrāzī, Nuṣūs al-khuṣūṣ, 4. Jandī is also mentioned in the text. In the preamble, Rukn al-Dīn-i Shīrāzī alludes to his discussions on the Fuṣūṣ and a first draft of what would become the Nuṣūs with Nuʿmān al-Khwārizmī in Saray Berkeh, where Rukn al-Dīn eventually landed in 739/1338 or 1339 after leaving Tabriz. See above, note 79. A copy of the Nuṣūs al-khuṣūṣ dated 746/1346 is kept at Cambridge University: Cambridge University, University Library, Near and Middle Eastern Dept, E. G. Browne Collection, MS. D. 1 (11), copy completed on Tuesday, 14 Shawwāl 746/February 7, 1346, by Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. ʿAlī M. b. M. al-ʿAmūyah al-Shīrāzī (description from catalogue). Rukn al-Dīn-i Shīrāzī also wrote a commentary on Ibn al-Fāriḍ's Tāʾiyya, entitled Kashf al-ḍurr fī Naẓm al-durr, where he mentions his commentary on the Fuṣūṣ. See MS Tehran, Majlis 281S (dated 835/1431), f. 46r; title on f. 48v. This ms. also contains other texts, including texts by Fakhr al-Dīn al-ʿIrāqī.

¹⁰⁹ Qāshānī, Sharḥ al-Fuṣūṣ, 90, l. 16–17 on the text corresponding to Ibn ʿArabī, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. A. ʿAfīfī (Beirut, 1966), 48, l. 16. Qāshānī's text reads:

Qāshānī is very attentive to the text he comments on and there are numerous references to various readings in his commentary. This is also the case in his other commentaries. See the end of his sharḥ of the Manāzil al-sāʾirīn.

¹¹⁰ Note also that we know that ʿAbd al-Razzāq is aware of Tilimsānī's Sharḥ manāzil al-sāʾirīn, as he refers to it (again to ascertain the correct reading of the matn) in his own commentary on Anṣārī's text. A copy of Tilimsānī's commentary written in Tabriz in 724, probably by Qayṣarī (MS Istanbul, Köprülü, Fazıl Ahmet Paşa 744), has already been mentioned above, p. 14.

¹¹¹ ʿIzz al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Kāshī is the author of the commentary on the Tāʾiyya by Ibn al-Fāriḍ often wrongly attributed to ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Qāshānī.

¹¹² Jāmī, Nafaḥāt al-uns min ḥaḍarāt al-quds, 306 sq. (entry #509). The entry on Ibn ʿArabī is #543, p. 343 sq. On the organization of the entries on later Sufis in the Nafaḥāt al-uns, see Jawid Mojaddedi, The Biographical Tradition in Sufism (London: Curzon, 2001), 169–172.

¹¹³ Shabistarī, Saʿādāt-nāmah, in Majmūʿah-yi āthār-i shaykh Maḥmūd Shabistarī, ed. Ṣ. Muwaḥḥid (Tehran: Kitābkhānah-yi Ṭahūrī, 1371 h. sh. [1992]), 168.

¹¹⁴ See Hamid Algar, “Golšan-e rāz,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica Online (originally published December 15, 2001; last updated February 14, 2012); Nasrollah Pourjavady, “Amīn al-Dīn Abū l-Qāsim Ḥājjī Bula,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2012) (entry dated 2011) on the Ṣūfī shaykh of Tabriz Ḥājjī Bula (d. 720/1320). In this article, Pourjavady refers to the texts by Ḥājjī Bula copied in the early 8th/14th c. manuscript known as “Safīnah-yi Tabrīz” (MS Tehran, Majlis 14590). It is worth noting that in the biographical introduction opening the Kulliyyāt of Fakhr al-Dīn al-ʿIrāqī (d. Damascus 688/1289), a text that could date to the 9th/15th c. (see William Chittick, “ʿErāqī,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica Online (first publication 1998; updated 2011)), efforts are made to link both Ḥājjī Bula and his friend Humām al-Dīn al-Tabrīzī with ʿIrāqī, the author of the Lamaʿāt, in which the Akbarī influence is unmistakable. The life journey of ʿIrāqī brings him from Hamadhan to Multan —where he remained twenty-five years with the Suhrawardiyya shaykh Bahāʾ al-Dīn (d. 661/1262 or 666/1267–68) — to Hijaz and then Anatolia, where he followed the teaching of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī and Rūmī in Konya and gained the favor of Muʿīn al-Dīn Parvāna (executed 676/1277), who installed ʿIrāqī in a khānqāh in Tokat. This is where the introduction places a visit from Ḥājjī Bula and Humām al-Dīn, who accompanied the vizier Shams al-Dīn al-Juwaynī (d. 683/1284) in a punitive mission after the execution of the disgraced Parvāna. See Fakhr al-Dīn al-ʿIrāqī, Kulliyyāt, ed. Saʿīd Nafīsī, 4th ed. (Tehran: Kitābkhānah-yi Sanāʾī), 59–60. The known 8th/14th-century copies of ʿIrāqī's oeuvre (the earliest known still in existence) do not provide unequivocal elements proving these texts were read in Tabriz. See Eve Feuillebois-Pierunek, A la croisée des voies célestes. Faxr Al-Din 'Eraqi : poésie mystique et expression poétique en perse médiévale (Tehran: Institut Français de Recherche en Iran, 2002), bibliography, under “1.3. Quelques manuscrits consultés.” On the life of ʿIrāqī, see William Chittick, “ʿErāqī;” Eve Feuillebois, “ʿIrāqī, Fakhr al-Dīn,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2012) (entry dated 2017), where the reader will find that after having to leave Tokat, ʿIrāqī went first to Sinop, then Cairo, and finally Damascus, where he died.

¹¹⁵ Hamid Algar, “Golšan-e rāz.” MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Darülmesnevi 862 is described in the catalogue as dated 717. I did not check on the ms. if this date might refer to the date of composition.

¹¹⁶ Why this caution? Probably the influence of Peacock's razor. The correspondence is known mainly through the entry on Qāshānī in the 9th/15th-century Nafaḥāt al-uns by Jāmī and late manuscripts (the earliest known copy is contemporary with Jāmī). See Martini, ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla al-Simnānī, 469–470. For other manuscripts and references, see J. Elias, The Throne Carrier of God. The Life and Thought of ‘Alā’ al-dawla as-Simnānī (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 199–200. An element supporting the genuineness of the correspondence is the reference to the fact that ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla al-Simnānī wrote objections (iʿtirāḍāt) against ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Qāshānī (here written Kāshī) mentioned in an 8th/14th-century hagiographical biography on ʿAlī al-Hamadānī (714–786/1314–1385), the Khulāṣat al-manāqib by Badakhshī (started in 787/1385, see DeWeese, “Badakhshī, Nūr al-Dīn Jaʿfar,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2012)). This appears in an anecdote involving Rukn al-Dīn-i Shīrāzī, the disciple of ʿAbd al-Razzāq and Qayṣarī mentioned previously. See Nūr al-Dīn Jaʿfar Badakhshī, Khulāṣat al-manāqib (dar manāqib-i Mīr Sayyid ʿAlī Hamadānī), ed. Ashraf Ẓafar (Islamabad: Markaz-i Taḥqīqāt-i Fārsī-yi Īrān wa-Pākistān, 1374 sh. [1995]), 59–60.

¹¹⁷ Shams al-Dīn al-Kīshī is said to have rejoiced at the arrival of the Fuṣūṣ “here” (īnjā, meaning Shiraz), as he recognized his own experience in this text, and ʿAbd al-Ṣamad al-Naṭanzī is said to have held the Fuṣūṣ in high esteem.

¹¹⁸ This would also imply however that we accept that Qāshānī was in the service of Nūr al-Dīn al-Isfarāyinī (Simnānī's shaykh) in Bagdad, a fact for which we have no other source. A stay in Bagdad (but with no element linking Qāshānī with Isfarāyinī) is not out of line with what we know about Qāshānī, as one of his avowed masters, Shams al-Dīn al-Kīshī (if indeed all the sources are talking about the same Kīshī) is said in early sources to have taught in the Niẓāmiyya in Bagdad (since 665/1266–7, according to al-Ḥawādith al-jāmiʿa, attributed with no certainty to Ibn al-Fuwaṭī, d. 723/1323), as well as in Shiraz (according to Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shirāzī in the preamble of his Sharḥ al-Qānūn). See above, note 30.

¹¹⁹ Around the same time as the texts here considered — the date here is 732/1332 — and under the same patronage (mention is made of Abū Saʿīd and the vizier Ghiyāth al-Dīn, and a long passage refers to Tabriz), Awḥadī Marāghaʾī (d. 738/1338) writes his Jām-i Jam, in which no Akbarī influence is directly perceptible. Description of content in Lewisohn, “Awḥadī Marāghaʾī,” where the biographical elements are also found.

¹²⁰ It should be noted here that there seems to be no sign of these discussions, or the presence of al-Qāshānī and al-Qayṣarī, or Akbarīs in general, in Tabriz in the Ṣafwat al-ṣafāʾ, the hagiographical biography on Ṣāfī al-Dīn al-Ardabīlī (d. Ardabil, 735/1334) written by a murīd of his son and successor, Ibn al-Bazzāz al-Ardabīlī, where references to events in Tabriz, including anecdotes involving Burhān al-Dīn al-ʿIbrī and the vizier Ghiyāth al-Dīn, are numerous. There is also one anecdote in which the name of Sharaf al-Dīn Ḥusayn al-Ṭibī al-Tabrīzī (the Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭībī/al-Tayyibī mentioned above, p. 12 and note 47, as giving an ijāza to the copyist of MS Bodleian, Pococke 244) appears. See Ardabīlī, Ṣāfī al-Dīn Ibn Bazzāz, Ṣafwat al-ṣafāʾ, ed. Ghulām-Riḍā Ṭabāṭabāʾī (1373 h.sh.), index, s.v. “Tabrīz,” “Sharaf al-Dīn Ḥusayn Ṭibī Tabrīzī,” “Burhān al-Dīn ʿIbrī.”

¹²¹ Tanbīh lil-mustabṣirīn bi-lisān ahl al-naẓar, in Qayṣarī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. Ashtiyānī (Tehran, 1375 h. sh.), 17; Qayṣarī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. Ḥasan-zādeh al-Āmolī (Qom, 1382 h. sh.), 37; edition and English translation Ali, The Horizons of Being, 41.

¹²² See, for instance, Muqaddima, Faṣl 1, اشارة الى بعض المراتب الكلية واصطلاحات الطائفة فيها on the separate rational soul (corresponding to the heart [qalb] in the Akbarī lexicon) vs. the soul understood as the pneuma (Qayṣarī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. Ashtiyānī, 23; Qayṣarī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. Āmolī, 53–54) and the opening of the commentary on the Faṣṣ Shuʿayb on the meaning of heart, where Qayṣarī explains that this name is given to the rational soul when it contemplates at will the universal and particular intentiones (maʿnā), “and this level is called ‘acquired intellect’ (al-ʿaql al-mustafād) by the ḥukamāʾ.” Qayṣarī, Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, ed. Āmolī, 793.

¹²³ See paper at MESA 2022 by Zain Alattar (UC Berkeley). The Avicennian and Akbarian turn in Shiite Theology: an analysis of two sections of ‘Ali ibn Sulaymān al-Baḥrāni's (d. ca. 1274 CE) al-Ishārat wa-l-Tanbīhāt.

¹²⁴ Identified by Heidrun Eichner, “Tracing Changing Identities Through Static Doxographical Representations,” in Theological Rationalism in Medieval Islam, ed. Lukas Muehlethaler and Gregor Schwarb (Leuven: Peeters, 2018), 105–128; Eichner, The Post-Avicennian Philosophical Tradition. Samarqandī himself was in Tabriz in 688/1289, according to a dated observation reported in the ʿIlm al-āfāq wa-l-anfus and al-Muʿtaqidāt. See Samarqandī, Science of the Cosmos and the Soul, ed. Gholamreza Dadkhah (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2014), 221–222; al-Muʿtaqidāt, MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Laleli 2432, f. 47v, l. 7 (mentioned in Samarqandī, Science of the Cosmos and the Soul, 2 and note 7). This is the year of an autograph copy of Samarqandī's Bishārāt al-Ishārāt, completed in Rajab 688 (MS Tehran, Dānishgāh 2792). Six manuscript copies of texts by Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī written in Tabriz between 700–740 have been identified (the texts were composed in the 680s for the Ṣaḥāʾif, the Qisṭās, and the Bishārāt, and in 705 for the commentary on the Ṣaḥāʾif): (1) MS Manisa, Manisa İl Halk Kütüphanesi 2213 (a copy of the Qisṭās dated Tabriz 708, mentioned in note 44); (2) MS Tehran, Majlis 416Ṭ (a copy of al-Maʿārif fī sharḥ al-Ṣaḥāʾif dated Tabriz mid-Rabīʿ I 712; copyist: ʿAlī b. M. al-Arzanjānī (Erzincânî)); (3) MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Fatih 3033 (a copy of the same text dated Tabriz 716; see also note 46 above); (4) MS Istanbul, Ahmed III A 1853 (a copy of al-Ṣaḥāʾif dated Tabriz 729; copyist: M. b. al-Ḥusayn b. al-Ḥājj Muḥammad Shāh b. M. b. Isḥāq); (5) MS Tehran, Majlis 1289 (a majmūʿa containing a copy of the Ṣaḥāʾif, Kitāb al-anwār, commentary on the al-Qaṣīda al-ʿayniyya, etc. dated Tabriz, Rabʿ-i Rashīdī, 24 Shawwāl 733; copyist: Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr b. ʿUthmān ʿAfānī known as Fakhr al-Hamadānī; this copyist is known for a copy of the Sharh ʿUyūn al-ḥikma by Fakhr al-Dīn Rāzī dated Tabriz, Rabʿ-i Rashīdī, 29 Jumādá II 733, used in MS Manchester 380; see A. Mingana, Catalogue of the Arabic manuscripts in the John Rylands Library, Manchester (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1934)); and (6) MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Atıf Efendi 1351 (a copy of the Ṣaḥāʾif dated Tabriz 739; copyist: Aḥmad b. M. b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Harawī). The commentary on the al-Qaṣīda al-ʿayniyya attributed to Avicenna circulating in some copies under the name of Samarqandī and copied in MS Tehran, Majlis 1289 also appears in MS Pococke 244, the copy dated Tabriz 736 mentioned above for the ijāza from Qayṣarī for its copyist, and in MS Tehran, Majlis 14590, known as the Safīnah-yi Tabrīz, dated Tabriz, 721–723/1321–1323.

¹²⁵ Identified by R. Wisnowsky, “On the Emergence of Maragha Avicennism,” Oriens 46 (2018): 263–331. On the Tabrizi milieu in the Ilkhanid period and beyond, see also the studies by Daniel Zakrzewski (in particular “Local Elites and Dynastic Succession”). On the intellectual life in Tabriz in this period, see J. Pfeiffer, Politics, Patronage and the Transmission of Knowledge in 13th-15th Century Tabriz, (Leiden: Brill, 2013).

¹²⁶ On Ījī (d. 756/1355), see above, p. 19. Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftazānī (ca. 722–793?/1322–1389?), who wrote a refutation of the Akbarī positions, the Fāḍiḥat al-mulḥidīn wa-nāṣiḥat al-muwaḥḥidīn, mentions al-Ījī and his disparaging remarks on Ibn ʿArabī's Futūḥāt in the introduction. See Taftazānī, Ibṭāl madhhab waḥdat al-wujūd wa-l-radd ʿalá Ibn ʿArabī al-ṣūfī, ed. ʿAbd al-Badīʿ M. ʿAbd Allāh (Dammam: Maktabat Dār al-Mutanabbī, 1438/2017), 174–175. I was tempted to present this text as the Khurasan counterpart to the Damascene critiques by Ibn Taymiyya in the previous generation, but Taftazānī mentions in the text that he wrote his refutation while in Damascus. See ibid., 188. On this refutation and its position vis-à-vis Ibn Taymiyya, see A. Knysh, Ibn al-ʿArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition. The Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam (Albany: University of New York Press, 1999), ch. 6. On the alleged relationship between Taftazānī and Ījī and the doubts around it, see Pourjavady, “The Legacy,” 361–362 and the references mentioned.

¹²⁷ I supplied dots where needed in the Arabic text for an easier reading. The tashkīl is that found in the ms. Three dots between chevrons indicate a portion of text cut off by the repair affecting the upper portion of the folio. An asterisk indicates the beginning and end of a portion of text that has been crossed out. Words supplied are put between parentheses in the Arabic text and between chevrons in the translation. Words between parentheses in the translation are added for a better understanding of the text.

¹²⁸ For each Muslim, male and female.

¹²⁹ This portion of the text is crossed out.