Rouayheb - Islamic Florescence of The 17th Century

Opening the Gate of Verification: The Forgotten Arab-Islamic Florescence of the 17th
Century
Author(s): Khaled El-Rouayheb
Source: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 38, No. 2 (May, 2006), pp. 263-
281
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3879973
Accessed: 15-08-2022 15:16 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3879973?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to International Journal of Middle East Studies
This content downloaded from 202.185.209.0 on Mon, 15 Aug 2022 15:16:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Int. J. Middle East Stud. 38 (2006), 263-281. Printed in the United States of America
DOI: 10.1017.S0020743806382050
Khaled El-Rouayheb
OPENING THE GATE OF VERIFICATION: THE

FORGOTTEN ARAB-ISLAMIC FLORESCENCE
OF THE 17TH CENTURY
Little research has been done on the intellectual life of the Arab-Islamic world be-
tween the 15th and 19th centuries. This scholarly neglect almost certainly reflects the
widespread assumption that intellectual life in the Arab-Islamic world entered a long
period of stagnation or "sclerosis" after the 13th or 14th century. This state of affairs
is often believed to have lasted until the 19th century, when European military and
economic expansion awakened the Arab-Islamic world from its dogmatic slumber, and
inaugurated a "reawakening" or "renaissance" (nahda). An influential statement of
this view of intellectual life in the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire before the
19th century is to be found in Gibb and Bowen's Islamic Society and the West. Al-
though they noted that "the barrenness of the period has been greatly exaggerated,"
they still stated that Arabic scholarly culture had degenerated, on the whole, into a rote,
unquestioning acquisition of a narrow and religiously dominated field of knowledge.
No "quickening breath had blown" on Arab-Islamic scholarship for centuries. Isolated
even from Persian and Turkish influences, it was reduced to "living on its own past."'
The intellectual "sclerosis" that has been thought to characterize the Arab-Islamic
world between the 15th and 18th century is often portrayed as one aspect of a more
general decline. The period between 1516 and 1798 was also supposed to have been
marked by economic decline and urban decay, as a result of Ottoman (mis)rule and/or the
European discovery of the Cape of Good Hope and subsequent changes in international
trade routes. The research of economic historians, in particular Andr6 Raymond, has
undermined this view. Despite periodic crises and depressions, the Arab provinces
of the Ottoman Empire seem, on the whole, to have experienced both economic and
demographic growth in the period, and this is reflected in the substantial growth of the
major Arab cities of the Empire. Cairo, Aleppo, and Damascus were all substantially
larger and more populous in the late 18th century than they were in the early sixteenth.2
This new view of the economic history of the Arab provinces during this period should
invite a reconsideration of the thesis of intellectual decline or sclerosis. Sadly, this has
not yet happened. Raymond himself contrasts the urban and economic expansion with
what he supposes was the prevalent "cultural apathy" in the Arab provinces.3
Khaled El-Rouayheb is British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Faculty of Divinity, University
of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9BS, U.K.; e-mail: ke217@cam.ac.uk.
? 2006 Cambridge University Press 0020-7438/06 $12.00
264 Khaled El-Rouayheb
In recent decades, there has been some dissatisfaction among historians with this idea
of intellectual stagnation. Hitherto, there seems to have been two major lines of attack.
Marshall Hodgson, in his influential The Venture of Islam, argued that the traditional
notion of a post-Mongol decline of Islamic civilization does not do justice to the in-
tellectual and cultural florescence in 16th and 17th century Ottoman Turkey, Safavid
Persia, and Moghul India. Influenced by Hodgson, Ehsan Yarshater has argued recently
that the theory of "decline" is "Arabocentric" in equating the decline of Arab-Islamic
civilization with the decline of Islamic civilization as such.4 The second line of attack,
represented by scholars such as John Voll, Peter Gran, and Reinhardt Schulze, argues
that the 18th century witnessed an indigenous intellectual revival or "Enlightenment,"
before the onset of westernization in the 19th century.5 Welcome as they are, I believe
that these revisionist arguments concede too much. They typically do not contest the
idea that the Arabic-speaking parts of the Islamic world entered into a long period of
stagnation after the 13th or 14th century. They merely insist that this stagnation did
not extend to, say, Safavid Persia or Moghul India, or argue that the revival dates back
to the 18th rather than the 19th century, and was due to indigenous factors rather than
to European influences and challenges. Indeed, insofar as they accuse the theory of
decline or stagnation of being "Arabocentric," or insofar as they speak of a "revival" or
"enlightenment" (concepts which suggest a preceding period of dormant or benighted
intellectual life), both approaches presuppose rather than challenge the received theory
of stagnation.
In the present article, I would like to challenge this idea of intellectual apathy and
stagnation by drawing attention to some hitherto neglected intellectual developments
in the Arabic-speaking parts of the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century. One of these
developments was the introduction of a range of new handbooks in the fields of gram-
mar, semantics-rhetoric, logic, and theology, mostly of either Persian or Maghribi origin.
Contemporary witnesses believed that this development was significant, because Persian
and Maghribi scholars were imbued, or so it was believed, with an ethos of "verifica-
tion." Another major development was the spread of originally non-Arabic mystical
orders such as the Shattariyya, Naqshbandiyya, and Khalwatiyya in the region. This
development appears to have had the effect of strengthening support for monist, pro-Ibn
'Arabi doctrines, which had hitherto been regarded with suspicion by most Arab-Islamic
scholars (ulama). The two trends were distinct, but at times coalesced, as in the case of
two of the intellectual giants of the 17th century, Ibrahim al-Kurani (1616-90) and 'Abd
al-Ghani al-Nabulusi (1640-1731).
"THE WAY OF THE PERSIAN AND KURDISH VERIFYING

SCHOLARS"
In the first decade of the 17th century, the Shi'ite Safavids under Shah 'Abbas (r. 1588-
1629) managed to wrest Azerbaijan and Shirwan from the Ottomans, thus sparking off
a westward exodus of Sunni Azeri and Kurdish scholars. One Kurdish scholar who
settled in Damascus at precisely this time was Mulla Mahmud al-Kurdi (d. 1663-64),
who went on to teach in the city for around sixty years. He seems to have gained
a considerable reputation as a teacher, and several of his local students went on to
become prominent teachers in their own right. One of their students, Muhammad Amin
Opening the Gate of Verification 265
al-Muhibbi (d. 1699), included an entry on Mulla Mahmud in his biographical dictio-
nary of Muslim notables who died in the 11th century of the Muslim era (i.e., 1591-
1689 AD). Al-Muhibbi wrote:
He mostly taught the books of the Persians (kutub al-a'ajim), and he was the first to acquaint the
students of Damascus with these books, and he imparted to them the ability to read and teach
them. It is from him that the gate of tahqTq in Damascus was opened. This is what we have heard
our teachers say.6
The meaning of the word tahqTq in this context is clear from a story involving another
Eastern scholar who settled in Damascus in the 17th century, 'Abd al-Rahim al-Kabuli
(d. 1723). The Afghan scholar was once approached by a local student who wished to
study the commentary of the Egyptian scholar Zakariyya al-Ansari (d. 1519) on Isaghuji,
an introductory handbook on logic by Athir al-Din al-Abhari (d. 1265). Al-Kabuli had
not seen this particular commentary before and was reportedly unimpressed when he
discovered that Zakariyya al-Ansari had merely explained the text, "rather than going the
way of the muhaqqiqTn."'7 TahqTq obviously meant doing more than merely explaining the
contents of the handbook commented upon. As an Ottoman contemporary of al-Kabuli
stated, tahqTq is to give the evidential grounds (dalTi) of a scientific proposition.8
If it is relatively straightforward to understand what al-Muhibbi meant by speaking
of tahqTq, it is somewhat more difficult to ascertain what he meant by "the books of
the Persians." One clue is offered by an 18th century biography of the Damascene
scholar and mystic 'Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi (1640-1731), in which it is stated that he
studied logic, semantics-rhetoric ('ilm al-ma'amn wa-l-bay-in), and grammar with Mulla
Mahmud al-Kurdi.9 Another Damascene scholar, Abu al-Mawahib al-Hanbali (1635-
1714), also stated that he studied logic and the sciences of language with Mulla Mahmud
al-Kurdi.10 He also mentioned some of the books that he had studied with the Kurdish
scholar: the earlier mentioned Isaghuji by al-Abhari with its standard commentaries, and
Talkhis al-miftah, a condensed manual on semantics-rhetoric by Jamal al-Din al-Qazwini
(d. 1338) with the shorter and longer commentaries on the work by Sa'd al-Din al-
Taftazani (d. 1390). Al-Abhari, al-Qazwini, and al-Taftazani were all of Persian origin,
and their works could easily be referred to as "the books of the Persians." However,
the mentioned works were hardly unknown in Damascene scholarly circles in the
16th century. For instance, the Damascene scholar Hasan al-Burini (d. 1615) studied
the semantic-rhetorical works of al-Taftazani before the arrival of Mulla Mahmud.'1
Al-Burini himself went on to teach al-Taftazani's commentaries on Talkhis al-miftah, as
well as al-Abhari's Isaghuji with the commentary of Husam al-Din al-Kati (d. 1359). If
al-Muhibbi's comments about Mulla Mahmud al-Kurdi introducing Damascene students
to new works are to be taken seriously, then he must have been referring to works by other,
and presumably later, Persian scholars. The identity of at least some of these scholars
may be gauged from a work by Ibrahim al-Kurani (d. 1690), another 17th century
Kurdish scholar who settled in the Arabic-speaking lands, listing the works he had a
certificate to teach. Kurani mentioned the standard works of al-Taftazani and al-Sayyid
al-Sharif al-Jurjani (d. 1413) on semantics-rhetoric, grammar, logic, and theology. He
then went on to mention other works in these fields by later Persian scholars such as
Jalal al-Din al-Dawani (d. 1501) and 'Isam al-Din al-Isfara'ini (d. 1537).12 Some of
these new works were the following:
1. The supercommentary of al-Isfara'ini on Sharh al-kafiya (on grammar) by the well-known

Persian scholar and poet 'Abd al-Rahman al-Jami (d. 1492);
2. The lengthy commentary of al-Isfara'ini, entitled al-Atwal, on Talkhis al-miftah (on semantics-
rhetoric);
3. The commentary of al-Isfara'ini on Risalat al-wad' (on the theory of conventional reference)
by 'Adud al-Din al-Iji (d. 1355);
4. The commentary of al-Isfara'ini on al-Risala fi al-isti'arat (on metaphors) by Abu-al-Qasim
al-Samarqandi (fl. 1488);
5. The commentary of al-Dawani on the creed ('aqa'id) of 'Adud al-Din al-Iji (on theology);
6. The commentary of al-Dawani on Tahdhib al-mantiq by al-Taftazani (on logic).
The cited works were widely used handbooks in Ottoman scholarly circles from the
17th century, as attested by the bibliographer Katib Celebi (d. 1657).'" Older Damascene
scholars such as the previously mentioned Hasan al-Burini (1556-1615) and Najm al-Din
Muhammad al-Ghazzi (1570-1651) do not seem to have studied such works.14 Younger
Damascene scholars such as al-Muhibbi (1650-99) and Ibn al-'Imad al-Hanbali (1623-
79), by contrast, were well aware of the later Persian scholars' "useful works in all the
disciplines."'" There is thus some reason to believe that the works of the later Persian
scholars were indeed introduced to the scholarly milieu of Damascus in the early 17th
century by Mulla Mahmud al-Kurdi. The supposition is strengthened by the fact that
some of the Damascene pupils of Mulla Mahmud, such as CAbd al-Qadir ibn 'Abd
al-Hadi (d. 1688) and 'Uthman al-Qattan (d. 1704), are known to have taught the works
of al-Dawani and al-Isfara'ini.'6
In the somewhat more cosmopolitan atmosphere of the two Holy Cities of Mecca
and Medina, the works of al-Dawani and al-Isfara'ini may have become known at an
earlier time than in Damascus. A grandchild of 'Isam al-Din al-Isfara'ini, Qadi 'Ali
al-'Isami (d. 1598-99) settled in the holy cities, and he and his nephew 'Abd al-Malik
al-'Isami (d. 1627-28) are known to have taught the works of al-Isfara'ini there."7 From
western Arabia, the works of al-Isfara'ini seem to have spread to Egypt. The Egyptian
scholars Ahmad al-Ghunaymi (d. 1634) and Ahmad al-Khafaji (d. 1659) both studied
his works while they were in the Hijaz.'8 Egyptian scholars of the 17th century went
on to write commentaries and glosses on some of the "works of the Persians." For
instance, al-Ghunaymi wrote glosses on al-Isfara'ini's commentary on al-Samarqandi's
al-Risala fi al-isticarat. Al-Ghunaymi's student, Yasin al-'Ulaymi al-Himsi (d. 1651)
wrote glosses on the commentary of the Persian-born Transoxanian scholar 'Ubaydallah
al-Khabisi (fl. 1540) on Tahdhib al-mantiq by al-Taftazani. These glosses reveal that
al-'Ulaymi was acquainted with the commentary of al-Isfara'ini on the same work.19 The
Moroccan scholar 'Abdallah al-'Ayyashi (d. 1680), who passed through Egypt on his
way to the hajj, asked a local specialist in semantics-rhetoric what handbooks he used
to teach the subject. The Egyptian scholar replied that the standard handbook had long
been al-Taftazani's longer commentary, called al-Mutawwal, on Talkhis al-miftah, but
that there was now a more recent and longer commentary by 'Isam al-Din al-Isfara'ini,
called al-Atwal, which offered a synthesis of the most important scholia written on
al-Taftazani's work.20
Most of the works alluded to by al-Muhibbi were written in Arabic, but this was
not always the case. For instance, 'Isam al-Din al-Isfara'ini wrote a work in Persian on
figurative use of language (majaz) that was translated into Arabic in the 17th century.
The Egyptian historian 'Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti (d. 1825-26) attributed the translation
to one of his father's teachers, the Egyptian scholar Ahmad al-Mallawi (1677-1767).21
However, he was almost certainly mistaken about this. Surviving manuscripts of the work
mention the translator's name as Ahmad al-Mawlawi (i.e., of the Mawlawi mystical
order), not al-Mallawi (i.e., from the Egyptian town of Mallawi).22 Furthermore, a
student of al-Mallawi, in a work in which he consistently refers to al-Mallawi as "our
teacher the commentator (shaykhuna al-sharih)," also referred to the translator of al-
Isfara'ini's work as "al-Mawlawi."23 The translator seems rather to have been Ahmad
ibn Lutfallah al-Mawlawi, also known as Munajjim Bashi (d. 1702). Originally from
Salonica, Ahmad al-Mawlawi served as court astronomer/astrologer for Mehmed IV
(r. 1648-87) in Istanbul before retiring to Cairo and Mecca, where he died. His other
works include a universal chronicle; a commentary on a work on ethics by 'Adud al-Din
al-Iji; a treatise on logical predication (haml); and a work on the medical properties of
European herbs.24
What was the significance of the introduction of the new "books of the Persians" in the
late 16th and early 17th century? Most of the works mentioned have not received modem
scholarly attention, and it is therefore difficult to answer the question with confidence.
Even many of the authors remain largely unknown. For instance, the Encyclopaedia of
Islam has no entry on 'Isam al-Din al-Isfara'ini, whose works on semantics-rhetoric,
grammar, theology, and logic remained standard textbooks for centuries. Its short entry
on Dawani focuses on his Persian work on ethics (which has been translated into
English), rather than on his Arabic theological, logical, and philosophical works that
were much more influential in scholarly circles in the Ottoman Empire.25 It seems clear,
however, that the commentaries and supercommentaries of al-Isfara'ini and al-Dawani
did not simply consist of an explication of the meaning of the texts. For instance, the
Ottoman bibliographer Katib Celebi stated that al-Isfara'ini's glosses on al-Jami's Sharh
al-kafiya were highly critical and that "he argued against him [i.e., al-Jami] on most
points."26 Even allowing for some exaggeration, such a comment would make no sense
if al-Isfara'ini were simply expounding the meaning of al-Jami's work. For his part, al-
Dawani's widely studied commentary on the creed of al-Iji is prefaced with an emphasis
on the need for tahqiq rather than taqlid in creedal matters, and a declaration that the
work will not merely catalogue views but pursue the truth even when it goes against
current opinion.27 Although explicitly written from an Ashcari perspective, al-Dawani's
commentary repeatedly adopted an irenic stance toward points that had traditionally
divided Ash'aris from Mu'tazilis and Islamic philosophers. For example, he stated that
on many central theological points, such as the correct understanding of the divine
attributes, the arguments of the Ash'aris and the Mu'tazilis were both inconclusive, and
he emphasized that the latter should not be considered unbelievers.28 He also went out
of his way to argue that many of the accusations often levied at the Islamic philosophers
by theologians-for example, that they believed that God did not know particulars-
were based on misunderstanding.29 Al-Dawani was also sympathetic to the ideas of the
Andalusian mystic Ibn 'Arabi, such as "the unity of existence" (wahdat al-wujfid), and
his arguments on this point were invoked by later supporters of Ibn 'Arabi's theory. By
contrast, earlier theologians such as al-Iji and al-Taftazani were explicitly hostile to the
idea of wahdat al-wujiid.30
Al-Muhibbi linked the teaching of the "books of the Persians" to the "opening of
the gate of tahqTq." To understand why he did so, it should be kept in mind that the
full significance of the introduction of "the books of the Persians" may not become
apparent merely by looking at the contents of the works themselves. The new works
were not mere additions to library collections but were taught initially by scholars of
Kurdish or Persian origin. There is some evidence that Persian and Kurdish scholars had
a distinctive manner of teaching. Al-Muhibbi described one of the scholars he met in
Istanbul as "following the way of the Persian and Kurdish verifying scholars (muhaqqiqT
al-'ajam wa-l-akraid) in adhering to the principles of dialectic (iadiib al-bahth)."31 A
17th century Moroccan scholar has left a vivid description of a contemporary Kurdish
scholar's way of conducting classes:
His lecture on a topic reminded one of discussion (mudha/kara) and parley (mufawada), for he
would say: "Perhaps this and that," and "It seems that it is this," and "Do you see that this can be
understood like that?." And if he was questioned on even the slightest point he would stop until
the matter was established.32
Indeed, works on dialectic (adaib al-bahth) were almost certainly among the new "books
of the Persians" that came to be taught in Arab-Islamic circles from the 17th century.
One of the numerous works of al-Isfara'ini was a commentary on a tract on dialectic by
'Adud al-Din al-Iji.33
Remarks by the earlier Egyptian scholar Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 1505) offer some
further indication of the significance of the "books of the Persians." Al-Suyuti was
notoriously opposed to logic and philosophy, and repeatedly condemned these dis-
ciplines as inimical to religious faith. He also condemned the-in his view mainly
Persian-scholars who introduced logical concepts and argument forms into the study
of theology, the principles of jurisprudence and grammar. He prided himself in mas-
tering jurisprudence, grammar, and rhetoric "according to the principles of the Arabs
and the erudite, not according to the way of the Persians and philosophers."34 The
grammatical, semantic-rhetorical, and theological handbooks to which al-Muhibbi al-
luded were written by Persian scholars who also wrote on logical and/or philosophical
topics. Apparently, the logically and philosophically informed methodology that al-
Suyuti despised received renewed impetus in Arab-Islamic scholarly circles in the 17th
century.
MAGHRIBI SCHOLARS IN THE EAST
The 18th century Egyptian-based scholar Muhammad Murtada al-Zabidi (d. 1791), like
al-Suyuti, was more comfortable with the tradition-relating (naqliyyah) sciences such
as hadith, as opposed to rational ('aqliyyah) sciences such as logic or philosophical
theology. Like al-Suyuti, he considered the latter fields to be pernicious, although he
was well aware that his view was far from being typical of the Islamic scholars of his
time. Indeed, he regretted what he saw as an inordinate enthusiasm for logic among his
Egyptian contemporaries. This enthusiasm, according to al-Zabidi, had been imparted

by incoming scholars from the Maghrib, that is, present-day Morocco, Algeria, and
Tunisia. Such scholars, according to al-Zabidi, had "delved into it [i.e., logic] until they
became leaders in the field who are singled out for their proficiency."35 In an arresting
passage, al-Zabidi described how Maghribi scholars coming to Egypt a few generations
before his time had spread this enthusiasm for logic:
Thus you see that those of them who came to Egypt in the times of the teachers of our teachers
had few hadith to relate, and due to them it [logic] became popular in Egypt and they [i.e., locals]
devoted themselves to studying it, whereas before that time they had only occupied themselves
with it occasionally to sharpen their wits.36
As I have shown elsewhere, al-Zabidi is in this passage referring to several Maghribi

scholars who settled temporarily or permanently in Egypt toward the end of the 17th
century and the beginning of the 18th, and taught logic, among other things, to local
students.37 Many of these scholars were students of the prominent Moroccan theologian
and logician al-Hasan al-Yusi (d. 1691). They brought with them a number of logical
handbooks that were of Maghribi provenance, such as the following:
1. al-Sullam al-munawraq, a didactic poem introducing the basic principles of Aristotelian logic,
by 'Abd al-Rahman al-Akhdari (d. 1546), often read in conjunction with al-Akhdari's own
prose commentary, and the glosses of the Maliki mufti of Algiers, Sa'id Qaddura al-Tunisi
(d. 1656).
2. al-Mukhtasar fi al-mantiq, a somewhat more advanced work by Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-
Sanusi (d. 1490), often read in conjunction with al-Sanusi's own commentary, and the glosses
of al-Hasan al-Yusi.
3. al-Jumal, by Afdal al-Din al-Khunaji (d. 1249), a yet more advanced work commented upon
by various Maghribian scholars such as Muhammad al-Sharif al-Tilimsani (d. 1370), Ibn
al-Khatib al-Qusantini (d. 1409), and Ibn Marzuq al-Hafid (d. 1439).38
In addition to these logical works, the students of al-Yusi taught the theological
works of the earlier mentioned 15th century scholar Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Sanusi,
particularly his longer creed 'Aqidat ahl al-tawhid and the shorter Umm al-barahin, along
with the commentaries of the author and various glosses by later Maghribi scholars such
as 'Isa al-Suktani (d. 1651/52), Yahya al-Shawi (d. 1685), and al-Yusi. Like al-Dawani,
al-Sanusi repeatedly emphasized the unsatisfactory nature of imitation (taqlTd) in matters
of creed, and the need for tahqTq.39 In al-Dawani's case, the emphasis led to a more
reconciliatory position vis-h-vis the claims of the Mu'tazilis and Islamic philosophers
on several points. By contrast, al-Sanusi-whose works have been described as marking
the apogee of "intellectualism" in Muslim theology--evinced a firm confidence in the
possibility of demonstrating the truth of the Ash'ari creed and relied heavily on the
modal concepts and argument forms of Aristotelian logic in expounding and defending
the principles of the Islamic faith.40 Although staunchly opposed to the Mu'tazilis and the
Islamic philosophers, al-Sanusi was also disparaging of what he called the hashwiyya,
that is, fideist and literalist groups such as anti-Ash'ari Hanbalis. Such people, he
argued, are led astray in theological matters by their ignorance of rational sciences
such as semantics, logic, and rhetoric. They do not heed the necessary truths of reason,
oblivious of the fact that to undermine reason is to undermine the basis for religious
belief.41
Al-Sanusi's disparagement of taqlTd was shared by his later Maghribi commentators.

Al-Yusi, who wrote influential supercommentaries on al-Sanusi's theological and logical
works, was no less intent on "going the way of the muhaqqiqTn" than his Persian and
Kurdish colleagues. For instance, in his extended treatise on the difference between
the proprium (i.e., distinct but nonessential attributes, like laughter to man) and the
differentia (i.e., essential attributes, like rationality to man), he wrote:
There will occasionally be things we write that you will not, O reader, find elsewhere, so do not
hasten to disapprove of it, being misled by those who take it upon themselves to relate what others
have said and piece it together, and for whom the ultimate in knowledge and mental exertion is to
say: so and so has said. No by God! ... For there is no difference between an imitator (muqallid)
being led and an animal being led, so know O reader that I have only included in my treatment of
this and other topics what I believe to be true.., .and heed the words of the Imam [Fakhr al-Din
al-Razi (d. 1209)]: What the Prophet has said we accept wholeheartedly, and what his companions
have said we accept partially; as to what others have said: they are men and we are men.42
The Maghribi students of al-Yusi were not the first scholars from that region to make
an impact on the Arabic-speaking parts of the Ottoman Empire. A number of Maghribi
scholars went eastward during the 17th century, many presumably seeking to escape the
political turmoil that had engulfed Morocco after the break-up of the Sa'dian dynasty in
1603. The scholar and belletrist Ahmad al-Maqqari al-Tilimsani (d. 1632), who settled in
Damascus and Cairo, is well known for his literary history of Islamic Spain, Nafh al-tib
fi ghusn al-Andalus al-ratib.43 Another Maghribi scholar who was no less renowned in
his day was the polymath Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Rudani (d. 1683).44 He was both
a specialist in hadith and an accomplished logician, grammarian, jurist, and astronomer.
A contemporary Moroccan scholar wrote that al-Rudani traveled far and wide in search
of prominent teachers, particularly those who could impart anything relating to the
philosophical sciences (al-'ult-m al-hikmiyyah), such as astronomy, mathematics and
logic, for which al-Rudani had a particular aptitude. Al-Rudani's search eventually took
him to Algiers, where he studied with the earlier-mentioned supercommentator on al-
Akhdari's didactic poem on logic, Sa'id Qaddura al-Tunisi.45 He then traveled further
East, to Egypt, Turkey, the Hijaz, and Damascus, where he died. A Damascene scholar
who studied with al-Rudani is quoted as saying the following:
His knowledge of hadith and of the principles of jurisprudence is unequalled by anyone we

have met. As for the science of belles-lettres (adab), he is the ultimate authority. And in the
philosophical sciences: logic, physics and metaphysics, he was the teacher whose knowledge could
not be acquired through natural means. And he was proficient in the sciences of mathematics:
Euclid, astronomy, geometry, Almagest, calculus, algebra, arithmetic, cartography, harmony, and
geodesy. His knowledge of these fields was unique, other scholars knowing only the preliminaries
of these sciences, rather than the advanced issues.46
Some of al-Rudani's major works include the following:
1. Jamc al-fawa'id min jamic al-usul wa-majmac al-fawa'id; an extensive topical collation of
hadith recognized by Sunni Muslims, based on two earlier partial collections.47 There has
been some interest recently in the issue of whether there was a reinvigoration of hadith studies
in Mecca and Medina in the 18th century. In this regard, it is significant that al-Rudani, who
earned the epithet "the muhaddith of the Hijaz," was the principal teacher of one of the central
figures in this purported revival, 'Abdallah ibn Salim al-Basri (d. 1722).48
2. Bahjat al-tullabfi al-'amal bi-l-asturlab; a short treatise on the astrolabe.49

3. Qala'id al-la'ali fi 'amal al-ayyam wa-l-layali, a didactic poem on chronology ('ilm al-awqa-t),
with a lengthy commentary in prose, entitled Maqasid al-'awali bi-qala'id al-la'ali. Accord-
ing to a contemporary, al-Rudani's work was based on the "new" astronomical observations
made at the observatory of Ulugh Beg (d. 1449) in Samarqand, on the basis of which al-Rudani
corrected the information contained in earlier works on chronology.50
4. Al-Nafi'a 'ala al-'ala al-jami'a, a description of, and user's guide to, an astronomical in-
strument invented by al-Rudani himself. Al-Rudani was a skilled craftsman as well as an
astronomer and made copies of the instrument himself and sold it to interested buyers. The
Moroccan scholar 'Abdallah al-'Ayyashi, who met al-Rudani in Medina, wrote that "the
like has not previously been made, rather he invented it with his acute mind and sophisticated
skills.""' The Damascene biographer al-Muhibbi, who visited al-Rudani when the latter settled
in Damascus, noted: "he invented a sphere (kura) that was superior to previous spheres and
astrolabes, and which spread to India and the Yemen and the Hijaz."52 Charles Pellat, who
has edited and translated Rudani's treatise, has noted that his astronomical instrument was an
armillary sphere adapted to also allow topographical measurements. 53
SHATTARIS, NAQSHBANDIS, AND KHALWATIS
A few years before Mulla Mahmud al-Kurdi came to Damascus and started teaching
"the books of the Persians," an Indian mystic of the Shattariyya order settled in Medina.
Sibghatallah al-Barwaji (d. 1606) quickly gained renown as a Sufi master and initiated
several local scholars into his order.54 He brought with him several books written by
Indian Shattari mystics such as al-Jawahir al-Khams by Muhammad Ghawth Gwaliori
(d. 1562). Al-Barwaji translated this work from Persian into Arabic, and a commentary
on it was later written by his leading disciple, the Egyptian-born Ahmad al-Shinnawi
(d. 1619). Al-Shinnawi became the successor of al-Barwaji and was in turn succeeded
by Ahmad al-Qushashi (d. 1661), who in turn was succeeded by the Kurdish-born
Ibrahim al-Kurani (d. 1690).55 Al-Shinnawi, al-Qushashi and al-Kurani were all outspo-
ken adherents of the controversial idea of the "unity of existence" (wahdat al-wujfid),
associated with Ibn 'Arabi and his followers. Indeed one of the major Shattari texts
studied in their circle was al-Tuhfa al-mursala ila al-nabi, a work by the Indian Shattari
mystic Muhammad al-Burhanpuri (d. 1619-20) defending the idea of wahdat al-wujtid.
Ibrahim al-Kurani wrote a commentary on Burhanpuri's work and also several inde-
pendent treatises expounding and defending wahdat al-wujuid. Al-Kurani's student and
disciple Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rasul al-Barzinji (d. 1693) translated from Persian into
Arabic a work by the Persian mystic Abu al-Fath Muhammad al-Kazaruni, also known
as Shaykh Makki (fl.1518), defending this and other controversial ideas of Ibn 'Arabi.56
This open adherence to monism marks a contrast with the Arab mystics of the 16th
century whose works have come down to us, such as 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha'rani
(d. 1565), Muhammad ibn Abi-l-Hasan al-Bakri (d. 1585), and 'Abd al-Ra'uf al-Munawi
(d. 1622). All of these writers seem to have been uneasy with the idea of wahdat al-wujiid,
and tended to explain away the claims of earlier monist mystics as excusable ecstatic
utterances (shatahait). To be sure, such mystics defended Ibn 'Arabi against the charge
of heresy, but they did so apologetically, claiming that the Greatest Master's language
was difficult to decipher for the uninitiated and should not be judged at face value and
that many heretical statements had been interpolated into his works.'57 The attitude of al-
Shinnawi, al-Qushashi, al-Kurani, and al-Barzinji seems to have been much bolder and
to have consisted of an open espousal of controversial ideas associated with Ibn 'Arabi
and his school, such as wahdat al-wujiid and the idea that the Pharaoh whom Moses
had challenged died as a believer (Tma n fir'awn). The Moroccan pilgrim 'Abdallah al-
'Ayyashi, who studied with al-Kurani in Medina, thus related that al-Kurani repeatedly
would urge him to accept the ideas of Ibn 'Arabi. Al-'Ayyashi, however, preferred to
remain uncommitted, arguing that this position was in accord with the Shadhili order
into which he had first been initiated.58
Another example of the new boldness of the Shattari mystics of Medina is evinced
in the famous commentary by Muhammad Murtada al-Zabidi (d. 1791) on Ghazali's
Ihya' 'ulum al-din. In the first volume of his extensive commentary, al-Zabidi wrote that
Ibn 'Arabi had never meant to maintain the thesis of Iman fir'awn. Rather, Ibn 'Arabi
should be interpreted allegorically, Pharaoh being a symbol of the human soul.59 In the
second volume of his commentary, however, al-Zabidi retracted his earlier interpretation
that-he wrote-was inspired by the interpretation of 16th century Egyptian mystics
such as 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha'rani and 'Abd al-Karim al-Khalwati (d. 1578). Al-Zabidi
had since looked at Ibn 'Arabi's works and came to the conclusion that the allegorical
explanation was untenable. He then informed the reader that there were nevertheless
scholars who defended Ibn 'Arabi's thesis understood literally, such as Jalal al-Din al-
Dawani and Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rasul al-Barzinji in his translation of Kazaruni's
Persian treatise.60 It is clear that the position of al-Dawani and al-Barzinji on the issue
was much bolder and less apologetic than Sha'rani's.
This straightforward espousal of the more controversial ideas of Ibn 'Arabi was appar-
ently not received with enthusiasm by all local scholars. For instance, some indication of
resentment may be gauged from the following biographical entry on the Yemeni mystic
Muhammad al-Habashi (d. 1642):
He was preoccupied with the works of [the uncontroversially orthodox Abu Hamid] al-Ghazali
[(d. 1111)], and hence was nicknamed "al-Ghazali." Then he left for the two Holy Cities and
frequented al-Sayyid Sibghatallah and [Sibghatallah's disciples] al-Sayyid As'ad [al-Balkhi
(d. 1636)] and Shaykh Ahmad al-Shinnawi, and regularly read the works of Ibn 'Arabi and
followed his way, and would at times make ecstatic statements and some jurists would censure
him.6'
The passage suggests that al-Habashi's enthusiasm for Ibn 'Arabi and his ensuing
problematic statements was a result of his coming into contact with Sibghatallah and his
Medinan disciples.
A similar outspoken adherence to the theories of Ibn 'Arabi seems also to have
been characteristic of a branch of the Khalwati order that spread in Damascus in the
17th century. It was introduced into the city by a Kurdish immigrant, Ahmad al-'Usali
(d. 1639), a disciple of a Khalwati master from Gaziantep.62 Al-'Usali's Damascene dis-
ciples went on to initiate a substantial number of local scholars, including the previously
mentioned scholars Muhammad Amin al-Muhibbi and Abu al-Mawahib al-Hanbali. The
latter wrote a work enumerating the scholars with whom he had studied, and included a
separate section in which he gave the chain of transmitters on whose authority he related
the works of Ibn 'Arabi.63 One of the most prominent local disciples of al-'Usali was
Ayyub al-'Adawi al-Khalwati (d. 1660), who left behind several mystical works. Ayyub
al-Khalwati was an outspoken and controversial adherent of the views of Ibn 'Arabi, and
was on good terms with the Shattari disciples of Sibghatallah al-Barwaji in Medina.64
Another Indian mystic who settled in the Hijaz in the early 17th century was Taj
al-Din al-Naqshbandi (d. 1640), a rival of the more famous Indian Naqshbandi mystic
Ahmad al-Sirhindi (d. 1624).65 Like his contemporary Sibghatallah al-Barwaji, Taj al-
Din translated some of the influential works of his order from Persian into Arabic, in
particular the hagiographical collections Nafahat al-Uns by Jami (d. 1492) and Rashahat
'ayn al-hayat by 'Ali Kashifi (d. 1532-33). He also wrote a treatise in Arabic on the
principles of the Naqshbandi order. The Naqshbandi order has often been portrayed as
hostile or lukewarm to the monism of Ibn 'Arabi, but this view has been shown to be
simplistic. Although some Naqshbandis, most famously Taj al-Din's rival Ahmad al-
Sirhindi, were critical of the idea of wahdat al-wujuid, other prominent members of the
order explicitly defended it.66 This seems to have been the case with Taj al-Din and his
disciples, who are known to have taught Ibn cArabi's controversial work Fusus al-hikam
in the holy cities.67
Another Naqshbandi who openly espoused the more controversial aspects of the
teachings of Ibn 'Arabi was the Damascene scholar cAbd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi
(d. 1731). Al-Nabulusi was initiated into the Naqshbandi order by a certain Abu Sacid al-
Balkhi, a second-generation disciple of the prominent Central Asian-born Indian-based
Naqshbandi Mahmud Khawand (d. 1642), yet another Naqshbandi rival of Ahmad al-
Sirhindi. The first task Nabulusi was set by his master was to write a commentary on
Taj al-Din al-Naqshbandi's treatise on the principles of the order.68 Al-Nabulusi, along
with al-Qushashi and al-Kurani, was perhaps the best-known defender of the ideas of
Ibn cArabi in his time. He wrote influential commentaries on the classics of monist
mysticism, such as the Diwan of Ibn al-Farid and the Fusus al-hikam of Ibn cArabi. He
prefaced these mystical commentaries with the remark that he had not consulted any
other work while writing them, and instead relied entirely on divine inspiration (fath).
This deliberate reliance on inspiration rather than books was a recurrent feature of the
mystical and illuminationist traditions and was also referred to as tahqTq, although in
this case the "verification" was afforded by mystical experience rather than reason.69
Al-Nabulusi also wrote a series of polemical works defending controversial mystical
practices and ideas such as listening to music, adoring handsome beardless youths, vener-
ating the tombs of saints, and wahdat al-wujiid.70 In these exoteric writings, al-Nabulusi
often did cite other works, either to criticize them or to buttress his own views. In his
major apology for wahdat al-wujiid, entitled al-Wujud al-haqq wa-l-khitab al-sidq, he
repeatedly supported his position by citing passages from al-Dawani's Sharh al-caqa'id
al-'adudiyya, a work that was presumably first taught in Damascus by Nabulusi's teacher
Mulla Mahmud al-Kurdi.71
Ibrahim al-Kurani was also well acquainted with this work by Dawani and wrote a
supercommentary on it.72 He also taught such straightforwardly philosophical works
as the commentary of Muhammad ibn al-Sharif al-Jurjani (d. 1434-35) on Hidayat al-
hikma by al-Abhari (d. 1265); Hikmat al-Ishraq by the illuminationist philosopher Yahya
al-Suhrawardi al-Maqtul (d. 1191); and the metaphysical sections of Sharh al-Mawaqif
fi 'ilm al-kalam by al-Sayyid al-Sharif al-Jurjani (d. 1413).73 Before his initiation into
the Shattari order, al-Kurani had been trained in philosophy and philosophical theology
by his Kurdish teacher Muhammad al-Sharif al-Kurani (d. 1676), who wrote, among
other things, a supercommentary on the commentary of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (d. 1274)
on Avicenna's condensed epitome of philosophy al-Isharat.74 Al-Kurani's works in
defense of wahdat al-wujfid tend to be more philosophically involved than those of
al-Nabulusi, who in general seems to have represented a more fideist strand of mystical
thought.75
The Damascene scholar Muhammad Khalil al-Muradi (d. 1791) wrote that students
came to study with al-Kurani from all corners of the Islamic world.76 Some of al-Kurani's
treatises were explicitly written at the request of scholars and students from Fez in the
west to Java in the east.77 Other 18th century scholars in Turkey and Egypt, writing before
the notion of pre-19th century decadence took root, treated al-Kurani as a thinker of the
same stature as the now better-known Persian philosophers Mir Damad (d. 1631) and
Mulla Sadra (d. 1640/41).78 The Moroccan pilgrim 'Abdallah al-'Ayyashi, who studied
with al-Kurani in Medina, has left a description-already quoted earlier-of al-Kurani's
teaching style:
His lecture on a topic reminded one of discussion (mudhakara) and parley (mufdwada), for he
would say: "Perhaps this and that", and "It seems that it is this", and "Do you see that this can be
understood like that?." And if he was questioned on even the slightest point he would stop until
the matter was established.79
Al-'Ayyashi's Damascene contemporary, the biographer al-Muhibbi described al-Kurani

as "the Imam of tahqTq."80
With scholars such as al-Nabulusi and al-Kurani the 17th century trends toward
tahqlq and toward an open espousal of wahdat al-wujaid coincided. Both scholars,
to be sure, were conservative thinkers in the sense that they were to a large extent
concerned with defending, expounding, and developing theories that had been articulated
centuries earlier by Ibn 'Arabi and his followers. This characteristic corresponds to what
Marshall Hodgson has described as the "conservative spirit" of the 17th century cultural
and intellectual florescence in Persia and India."' Having said this, it is important
to emphasize that both scholars did much more than merely repeat old maxims. For
instance, both had to address the metaphysical objections to the idea of wahdat al-
wujuid that had been formulated by Sa'd al-Din al-Taftazani (d. 1390), perhaps the most
influential Sunni theologian of the "post-classical" period.82 Both of them also responded
to problems and currents of thought that were peculiar to their times. Al-Nabulusi, for
example, intervened in the debate concerning the religious permissibility of tobacco,
introduced into the Middle East in the early 17th century.83 He also argued against the
moralist vigilantism of the violently puritan Kadizadeli movement that spread in the
Ottoman Empire in the 17th century.14 Al-Kurani, for his part, got involved in a dispute
with the followers of the controversial Indian Naqshbandi mystic Ahmad al-Sirhindi
in Medina.85 He also got involved in scholarly disputes because of his acceptance
of the historicity of the Satanic verses and of his elaboration and defense of a non-
Ash'ari position on the issue of free will. On both issues, he was strongly opposed by
contemporary Maghribi theologians in the tradition of al-Sanusi, such as al-Hasan al-Yusi
and Yahya al-Shawi.86 These scholarly disputes have yet to be studied thoroughly, but
their very existence belies the predominant image of the lethargic, moribund character
of intellectual life in the Arabic-speaking parts of the Ottoman Empire in the 17th
century.
CONCLUSION
The fact that al-Kurani and prominent Maghribi theologians were at loggerheads is a
salutary reminder that the scholarly trends presented in the present article were distinct
and did not necessarily agree on substantial issues. An emphasis on verification, logical
demonstration, or Aristotelian dialectic in scholastic culture did not necessarily lead to
the same conclusions. Maghribi theologians in the tradition of al-Sanusi, for example,
were staunch Ash'arites and tended not to share the more irenic attitude toward Mu'tazilis
and Islamic philosophers characteristic of al-Dawani. Mystics of the Ibn 'Arabi tradition,
such as al-Nabulusi, could at times strike a fideist note and criticize excessive preoc-
cupation with rational sciences such as logic, semantics, and philosophical theology.
The point of the present article has not been to suggest that the new intellectual trends
formed a united front sharing common ideas that may be captured by a single term
such as "revival" or "reawakening" or "enlightenment." Such terms are problematic and
best avoided, partly because they tend to elide significant differences between various
thinkers and traditions, and partly because-as stated at the outset of the present article-
they suggest, without adequate support in the sources, a previous period of dormant and
benighted intellectual and cultural life. This idea of centuries of intellectual darkness
needs, I believe, wholesale questioning, and it has not been my intent merely to quibble
about the date at which it came to an end.
What I have tried to do in this article is to question the received picture of intellectual
life in the Arabic provinces of the Ottoman Empire in what is often assumed to be a
dormant, "prerevival" period. I should emphasize that I do not claim to have presented
a full account of each of these developments. My aim has rather been to draw attention
to them and to suggest some lines for further research, unencumbered by preconceived
ideas of an Islamic "dark age." The sources of the period do not support a picture of
unmitigated intellectual stagnation or "cultural apathy" that stands in contrast to the
economic and urban expansion of the period. There is also no basis for saying that
Arabic scholarly culture was isolated from more general trends in the Islamic world
and feeding off its own classical past. Nor is it true that scholarly culture was mired in
rote acquisition of the religious sciences. On the contrary, the figures usually presented
as 18th century "revivalists" and "reformers" such as Muhammad Murtada al-Zabidi
(d. 1791), Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792), Shah Wali Allah al-Dihlawi
(d. 1762), and Muhammad al-Shawkani (d. 1834), despite their differences, all shared
a much dimmer view of the value of the rational sciences than Maghribi and
Persian-Kurdish scholars in the traditions of al-Sanusi and al-Dawani.87 They can indeed
be seen as reverting to the tradition of hostility to such sciences represented by earlier
scholars such as Ibn Taymiyya and al-Suyuti.
For many of the "revivalists" of the 18th and 19th century, the emphasis fell on ijtihad,
rather than on tahqTq in the sense of rational or mystical-experiential verification of
received scholarly opinions. As has been pointed out by R. Peters, the call for renewed
ijtih-d in the 18th and 19th centuries tended to go hand in hand, not with "rationalism"
or "modernism" as is often supposed, but with "fundamentalism," that is, a radically
scripturalist and antischolastic stance.88 The prevalent scholastic tradition was found
wanting, not because it was insufficiently "rational" or "flexible," but precisely because
it was believed to have been too flexible and rational through the ages and had ceased
to be sufficiently grounded in the Qur'an and the Sunna. The 18th and 19th century
"revivalists," naturally enough, tended to portray their opponents as rigid and unthinking
imitators. Less understandably, a host of modern historians, both Western and Eastern,
have uncritically adopted this partisan view. Consequently, the very existence of an
alternative to both scripturalist ijtihad and unthinking imitation was lost to sight. The
age before the 18th and 19th century "revivalist" ijtihatd movements was accordingly
viewed as marred by rigid and unthinking imitation.
The Damascene biographer al-Muhibbi would hardly have recognized the picture
of pervasive intellectual apathy and unthinking imitation in the 17th century. He was
initiated into the Khalwati order that, apparently for the first time, gained popularity
with Damascene scholars and promoted a bolder and more enthusiastic espousal of
the theories of Ibn 'Arabi. His teachers told him that a Kurdish scholar who settled in
Damascus in the first decade of the 17th century had introduced new scholarly handbooks
by Persian scholars, thus "opening the gate of verification." He was also personally
acquainted with a host of intellectual luminaries. The polymath Ahmad ibn Lutfallah al-
Mawlawi, who wrote a universal history, translated from Persian into Arabic the treatise
on figurative language by Isfara'ini, and wrote a work on the medical properties of
European herbs, was a personal acquaintance. When the Moroccan scholar Muhammad
al-Rudani settled in Damascus, al-Muhibbi and al-Mawlawi visited him and noted the
strong impression he made on local scholars with the breadth of his knowledge and
his new astronomical instrument.89 Al-Muhibbi also met the renowned literary scholar
'Abd al-Qadir al-Baghdadi (d. 1682), the author of a still esteemed compendium of
early Arabic poetry Khizanat al-adab, and of an Arabic commentary on the versified
Persian-Turkish dictionary of Ibrahim al-Shahidi (d. 1550).90 The towering reputation
of the mystic and scholar Ibrahim al-Kurani, the "imam of tahqtq," had also reached
him from Medina, and he was well aware of the intellectual standing of his fellow
Damascene 'Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi, "our teacher, our relative, and our blessing."91
Indeed al-Muhibbi himself was a considerable scholar, whose writings belie the idea
that Arab-Islamic scholars were parochial and feeding off their own classical past.
Al-Muhibbi's anthology of contemporary poets, Nafhat al-rayhana is an impressive
testimony to the opposite. Not only did al-Muhibbi go to great lengths to gather poems
from all corners of the Arab world, but he also included contemporary Turkish and
Persian poets in his survey and he translated several of their poems into Arabic.92 Al-
Muhibbi also wrote one of the most extensive premodern works on foreign loanwords
in Arabic: Qasd al-sabil fimafi lughat al-'arab min dakhil.93
For some time, it has been conceded that a scholar like al-Nabulusi was a luminous
"exception" in a dark age of "imitation and compilation."94 Al-Rudani has also been
portrayed by a recent Arab historian as a lone genius in a civilization that had passed
its prime and descended into "ignorance" (jahl wa-ghafla) and "resignation" (ya's).95
More recently, Ibrahim al-Kurani has been presented as a "revivalist" in a century
otherwise marked by "extremist" Sufism and a "trivialized ulema discourse" that "could
no longer go any further."96 It is tempting at this point to make use of the historian of
science Thomas Kuhn's concept of an "anomaly," that is, an acknowledged fact that does
not fit comfortably with the overall assumptions guiding a community of scientists or
scholars. As Kuhn pointed out, the multiplication of anomalies puts additional pressure
on the guiding assumptions-what he calls the dominant "paradigm"-of a community
of scholars, and may well lead to a "revolutionary" situation in which this paradigm
is widely challenged.97 It may perhaps be plausible to represent a single scholar as
an "exception." However, as more and more "exceptions" are conceded, the standard
interpretation of the period comes under pressure. Rather than increasing the list of
exceptions, it may be more fruitful to ask whether the cultural and intellectual florescence
that is often thought to have occurred in the Safavid and Moghul Empires in the 17th
century was a more general phenomenon in the Islamic world. From this perspective,
scholars such as al-Hasan al-Yusi, Muhammad al-Rudani, Ibrahim al-Kurani, and 'Abd
al-Ghani al-Nabulusi appear, not as "exceptions" but as contemporaries and counterparts
of 17th century Persian and Indian scholars such as Baha' al-Din al-'Amili, Mulla Sadra
al-Shirazi, Ahmad al-Sirhindi, and 'Abd al-Hakim al-Siyalkuti.
NOTES
Author's note: I thank Professor Michael Cook, Professor Rob Wisnovsky, Dr. Basim Musallam, and the
anonymous referees of IJMES for their helpful remarks on earlier drafts of this paper, as well as Dr. Kate A.
Bennison for kindly taking the time to teach me how to read Maghribi script. I also thank the British Academy
for funding my research.
1H. A. R. Gibb and H. Bowen, Islamic Society and the West (London: Oxford University Press, 1957),
vol. 1, part II, 159-64.
2A. Raymond, "The Ottoman Conquest and the Development of the Great Arab Towns," International
Journal of Turkish Studies 1 (1980): 84-101; A. Raymond, The Great Arab Cities in the 16th-18th Centuries:
An Introduction (New York: New York University Press, 1984), 5-9; A. Raymond, Cairo (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 2000), 216-25; See also A. Abdel Nour, Introduction a l'histoire urbaine de la
Syrie ottomane, XVIe-XVIIIe (Beirut: Publications de l'Universit6 Libanaise, 1982).
3Raymond, "The Ottoman Conquest," 97-98.
4M. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), vol. 3. See also
E. Yarshater, "The Persian Presence in the Islamic World," in The Persian Presence in the Islamic World, ed.
R. Hovanissian and G. Sabbagh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
5See N. Levtzion and J. O. Voll (eds.), Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam (Syracuse:
Syracuse University Press, 1987); J. O. Voll, "Foundations for Renewal and Reform," in The Oxford History of
Islam, ed. J. Esposito (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Reinhardt Schulze, "Das islamische achtzehnte
Jahrhundert,"Die Welt des Islams 30 (1990): 140-59; Reinhardt Schulze, "Was ist die islamische Aufklhrung?",
Die Welt des Islams 36 (1996): 276-325; P. Gran, The Islamic Roots of Capitalism: Egypt 1760-1840 (Austin,
Tex.: University of Texas Press, 1978).
6Muhammad Amin al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar fi a'yan al-qarn al-hadi 'ashar (Cairo: al-Matba'a
al-wahbiyya, 1284H), 4:329-30.
7Muhammad Khalil al-Muradi, Silk al-durarfi a'yan al-qarn al-thani 'ashar (Istanbul & Cairo: al-Matba'a
al-miriyya al-'amira, 1291H-1301H), 3:10.
8Kara Halil (d. 1711), Mehmed Emin Hagiyasi (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire 1258H), 7. For the translation of
tahqfq as "verification," and its juxtaposition to taqlfd, see D. Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988), 188-91.
9Kamal al-Din al-Ghazzi, al-Wird al-unsi wa-l-warid al-qudsifi tarjamat al-'arif bi-llah 'Abd al-Ghani
al-Nabulusi (MS: British Library: Or.11862) 54a-b.
10Abu-al-Mawahib al-Hanbali, Mashyakha, ed. Muhammad Muti' al-Hafiz (Damascus: Dar al-fikr, 1990),
86-87.
" Al-Burini studied the semantic-rhetorical works of al-Taftazani and al-Jurjani with Isma'il al-Nabulusi
(d. 1585) and 'Imad al-Din al-Hanafi (d. 1578), see Hasan al-Burini, Tarajim al-a'yan min abna' al-zaman,
ed. Salah al-Din al-Munajjid (Damascus: al-Majma' al-'ilmi al-'Arabi, 1959-63), 2:65, 2:303.
12Ibrahim al-Kurani, al-Amam li-iqaz al-himam (Hyderabad: Matba'at majlis da'irat al-ma'arif al-
nizamiyya, 1328H), 104-10.
13 Katib Celebi, Kashfal-zunun Can asami al-kutub wa-l-funun (Istanbul: Maarif Matbaasi, 1941-43), 2:1372
(al-Jami's commentary on al-Kafiya and the glosses of Isfara'ini); 1:477 (Talkhis al-miftah and its commentary
by Isfara'ini); 1:898 (al-Iji's Risalat al-wad' and the commentary of al-Isfara'ini); 1:845 (al-Samarqandi's
Risalat al-isti'ara and its commentary by al-Isfara'ini); 1:516 (al-Taftazani's Tahdhib al-mantiq and its
commentary by al-Dawani); 2:1144 (al-Iji's 'Aqa'id and its commentary by al-Dawani).
14This is of course an argument that is difficult to prove conclusively, but we have quite detailed information
on the education of both scholars, and the works of al-Dawani and al-Isfara'ini are not mentioned in this context.
On al-Burini, see the references above, which show him to have studied the rhetorical works of al-Taftazani
and al-Jurjani. On al-Ghazzi, see al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 4:189-200.
15Ibn al-'Imad al-Hanbali, Shadharat al-dhahab fi akhbar man dhahab (Cairo: Maktabat al-qudsi, 1351H),
8:291 (on al-Isfara'ini) and 8:160 (on al-Dawani). See also al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 3:87. Ibn al-'Imad's
biographical information on al-Isfara'ini and al-Dawani is scanty, and his dates of death are wrong. However,
it is significant that he still felt the need to include a reference to the two scholars. By contrast, Najm al-Din al-
Ghazzi, in his biographical dictionary of Muslim notables of the tenth century of the Muslim era (1494-1591),
did not provide an entry on either scholar; see Najm al-Din Muhammad al-Ghazzi, al-Kawakib al-sa'ira fi
acyan al-mi'a al-'ashira, ed. J. Jabbur (Beirut: American University of Beirut Publications, 1945-58).
16Ibn cAbd al-Hadi taught al-Isfara'ini's Sharh al-risala al-wadCiyya to the biographer al-Muhibbi, see
al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 2:438. Al-Qattan taught al-Dawani's commentary on the creed of al-Iji to the
chronicler Ibn Kannan al-Salihi (d. 1740), see Ibn Kannan al-Salihi, al-Hawadith al-yawmiyya min tarikh
ihda 'ashar wa-alf wa-mi'a, ed. Akram Hasan al-'Ulabi (Damascus: Dar al-Tabbac, 1994), 84.
17Al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 3:147-48, 3:87-88.
18Al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 1:313 (on al-Ghunaymi) and 1:332 (on al-Khafaji).
190n al-'Ulaymi, see al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 4:491-92. He was accused by a later scholar of
plagiarizing from al-Isfara'ini's commentary, see Ibn Sa'id al-Tunisi, Hashiya cala Sharh al-Khabisi [printed
on the lower margins of Hasan al-'Attar, Hashiya cala sharh al-Khabisi (Cairo: MatbaCat Bulaq, 1290H)], 3.
20'Abdallah al-'Ayyashi, Rihla (Rabat: Dar al-Maghrib, 1977 [reprint of lithographed edition of 1316H]),
1:140.
21'Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti, 'Aja'ib al-athar fi al-tarajim wa-l-akhbar (Bulaq: al-MatbaCa al-'amira,
1297H), 1:287.
221 have consulted the manuscript of the translation in the Berlin Staatsbibliothek (MS: Sprenger 1093), in
the preamble of which the translator's name is given as Ahmad al-Mawlawi (fol. 2a). Another manuscript of
the work, extant in the Biblotheque Nationale in Paris, also give this as the translator's name, see M. Le Baron
de Slane, Catalogue des Manuscrits arabes (Paris: Imprimeries Nationale, 1883-95), 4429.
23Muhammad al-Sabban, Hashiya 'ala Sharh al-Sullam (Cairo: al-Matba'a al-azhariyya, 1319H), 10 (lines
3-4).
24Mehmed Stireyya, Sicill-i Osmani (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1308-15H), 1:232; Mehmed Tahir Bur-
sali, Osmanl Miiellifleri (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1333-42H), 3:142. Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der
Arabischen Literatur (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1937-49), Supplement 2:637.
25Encyclopaedia of lslam, 2nd ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1954), s.v. "Al-Dawani" (A. K. S. Lambton), 2:174.
26Hajji Khalifa, Kashf al-zunun, 2:1372.
27Jalal al-Din al-Dawani, Sharh al-'aqa'id al-Cadudiyya (Istanbul: 'Arif Efendi, 1316H), 2.
28A1-Dawani, Sharh al-Caqa'id al-'adudiyya, 27.
29Al-Dawani, Sharh al-'aqa'id al-Cadudiyya, 28 ff.
30See A. Knysh, lhbn 'Arabi in the Later Islamic Tradition (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1999), 141-65. It
should be noted, however, that Knysh relies heavily on the tract Fadihat al-mulhidin that has been falsely
attributed to al-Taftazani. The author of the tract is rather 'Ala' al-Din al-Bukhari (d. 1438), as shown by Bakri
Aladdin in the introduction to his edition of 'Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi, al-Wujud al-haqq (Damascus: Institut
Francais de Damas, 1995), 16-30. The hostility of al-Taftazani to the theory of wahdat al-wujtd is not in
doubt, however, and is attested by his other works.
31Al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 2:242 (line 5).
32Al-Ayyashi, Rihla, 1:333.
33See Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arabische Literatur [henceforth GALJ (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1937-
49), 2:208-9.
34Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Sawn al-mantiq wa-l-kalam 'Can fannay al-mantiq wa-l-kalam, ed. 'Ali Sami al-
Nashshar (Cairo: Maktabat al-Khanji, n.d.), page lam of editor's introduction, citing Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti,
Husn al-muhadara fi akhbar Misr wa-l-Qahira, ed. Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim (Cairo: 'Isa al-Babi
al-Halabi, 1967-68), 1:338.
35 Muhammad Murtada al-Zabidi, Ithaf al-sada al-muttaqin bi-sharh Ihya' 'ulum al-din (Cairo: al-Matba'a
al-muyammaniyya, 1311H), 1:179.
36Al-Zabidi, Ithaf al-sada al-muttaqin, 1:179-80.
37See my "Was there a Revival of Logical Studies in Eighteenth-Century Egypt?", Die Welt des Islams 45
(2005): 1-19.
38The first two works (and their commentaries) were taught by Yusi's student 'Abdallah al-Kinaksi to Ahmad
al-Damanhuri (d. 1778), see al-Jabarti, 'Aja'ib al-athar, 2:25-27. The third work (and its commentaries) was
taught by Maghribi scholars such as 'Isa al-Tha'alibi (d. 1669) and Yahya al-Shawi (d. 1685), both of whom
settled in the eastern Arab lands, see al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 2:240-43, 4:486-88.
39Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Sanusi, Sharh umm al-barahin [printed with the Hashiya of Muhammad ibn
'Arafa al-Dasuqi (d. 1815)] (Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-'ilmiyya, 2001), 70 ff.; Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Sanusi,
'Umdat ahl al-tawfiq bi sharh 'aqidat ahl al-tawhid (Cairo: Matba'at jaridat al-Islam, 1316H), 11 ff.
40See M. Horten, "Sanusi und die griechische Philosophie," Der Islam 6 (1915): 178-88, and
A. J. Wensinck, The Muslim Creed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932), 248.
41Al-Sanusi, 'Umdat ahl al-tawfiq, 140 ff., 276-77.
42Quoted in 'Abbas al-Samlali, al-I'lam bi-man halla Marrakush wa-aghmat min al-a'lam, ed. 'Abd al-
Wahhab ibn Mansur (Rabat: al-Matba'a al-malakiyya, 2001), 3:162.
43A1-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 1:302-11.
44A1-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 4:204-8.
45Al-'Ayyashi, Rihla, 2:30.
46A1-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 4:207.
47This work was printed in 1961 in Medina (Matba'at al-Sayyid 'Abdallah Hashim al-Yamani).
48On Basri, see J.O. Voll, "'Abdallah ibn Salim al-Basri and 18th century Hadith Scholarship," Die Welt
des Islams 42 (2002): 356-72. Al-Rudani is described as muhaddith al-Hijaz in Muradi, Silk al-durar, 4:27.
'Abdallah ibn Salim al-Basri's son wrote that his father studied "all the sciences" with al-Rudani, "especially
the science of Hadith," see Salim ibn 'Abdallah al-Basri, al-Imdad bi-ma'rifat 'uluww al-isnad (Hyderabad:
Matba'at majlis da'irat al-ma'arif al-nizamiyya, 1328H), 68.
49See R. Mach, Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts (Yahuda Section) in the Garrett Collection, Princeton
University Library (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977), 4950.
50Al-'Ayyashi, Rihla, 2:42. For an extant manuscript of the work, see Mach, Catalogue, 5017.
52Al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 4:206.
53See C. Pellat (ed.), "Muhammad al-Rudani: al-Naqi'a cala al-'ala al-naficah," Bulletin d'etudes orientales
26 (1973): 7-82. C. Pellat (trans.), "L'astrolabe spherique d'al-Rudani," Bulletin d'etudes orientales 28
(1975): 83-165. I follow Muhammad Hajji in amending the title of al-Rudani's tract given by Pellat on the
basis of manuscripts not available to Pellat, see Muhammad al-Rudani, Silat al-khalaf bi-mawsul al-salaf, ed.
Muhammad Hajji (Beirut: Dar al-Gharb al-Islami, 1988), 13, n. 9.
54A1-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 2:243-44. See also A. Copty, "The Naqshbandiyya and its offspring,
the Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiya, in the Haramayn in the 1 lth/17th Century," Die Welt des Islams 43 (2003):
321-48. Although al-Barwaji, vocalization given in al-Muhibbi, ibid., 2:243 (line 19-20), was also initiated
into the Naqshbandi order, his primary allegiance seems-pace Copty--to have been to the Shattariyya order.
He was a disciple of Wajih al-Din al-'Alawi (d. 1609), a disciple of the prominent Shattari mystic Muhammad
Ghawth Gwaliori, see J. S. Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998),
97-98; and A. Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina
Press, 1975), 355. In giving the Sufi chains into which he was initiated, Barwaji's second-generation disciple
Ahmad al-Qushashi gives the Shattari chain first. See Ahmad al-Qushashi, al-Simt al-majid (Hyderabad:
Da'irat al-ma'arif al-nizamiyya, 1327H), 67. The Naqshbandi chain is given much later, on page 78.
55On al-Shinnawi, see al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 1:243-46. On al-Qushashi, see al-Muhibbi, Khulasat
al-athar, 1:343-46. The vocalization al-Qushashi is given in al-'Ayyashi, Rihla, 1:408 (lines 23-24). On
al-Kurani, see al-Muradi, Silk al-durar, 1:5-6; A. Knysh, "Ibrahim al-Kurani (d. 1101/1690), an apologist
for wahdat al-wujud," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 5 (1995): 39-47; Encyclopaedia oflslam, 2nd ed.
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1954), s.v. "Al-Kurani" (A. H. Jones), 5:432-33; B. Nafi, "Tasawwuf and Reform in
Pre-Modern Islamic Culture: In Search of Ibrahim al-Kurani," Die Welt des Islams 42 (2002): 307-55.
56The translation is extant in the British Library (MS: Or. 9039). On the Persian original, see Brockelmann,
GAL, Supplement 1:794, and O. Yahia, Histoire et classification de l'oeuvre d'Ibn 'Arabi (Damascus: Institut
Francais de Damas, 1964), 1:119. Secondary sources usually give the vocalization al-Barzanji, but I presume
the scholar hailed from the present-day Iraqi Kurdish town of Barzinja.
57See Muhammad ibn Abi-al-Hasan al-Bakri, Tarjuman al-asrar wa-diwan al-abrar, MS: Berlin
Staatsbibliothek: Wetzstein II 227: 3b-4a; 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha'rani, al-Yawaqit wa-l-jawahir fi bayan
'aqa'id al-akabir (Cairo: Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi, 1959), 7, 13; 'Abd al-Ra'uf al-Munawi, al-Kawakib
al-durriyafi tarajim al-sada al-sufiyya, ed. Muhammad Adib al-Jadir (Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1999) 2:421, 2:503,
2:515. On al-Sha'rani's apologetic attitude to the work of Ibn 'Arabi, see also M. Winter, Society and Religion
in Early Ottoman Egypt (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1982), 165-72.
58A1-Ayyashi, Rihla, 1:417.
59Al-Zabidi, Ithaf al-sada al-muttaqin, 1:256.
60A1-Zabidi, Ithaf al-sada al-muttaqin, 2:245-46.
61 Quoted in al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 4:80.
62A1-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 1:248-50. Al-Muhibbi gives the vocalization al-'Usali on 1:249 (line 16).
63Abu al-Mawahib al-Hanbali, Mashyakha, p. 106-7.
64A1-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 1:428-33. Ayyub's admiration for al-Qushashi is apparent from a letter
partly reproduced in Ibid., 1:244-45.
65Al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 1:464-70.
66Hamid Algar, "A Brief History of the Naqshbandi order," in Naqshbandis: cheminements et situations
actuelle d'une ordre mystique musulman, ed. M. Gaborieau, et al. (Paris: Editions Isis, 1990), 21.
67A1-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 4:203-4 (a student of Taj al-Din teaches the works of Ibn 'Arabi) and
4:442 (a scholar from Hadramawt studies the Fusus with Taj al-Din).
68A1-Ghazzi, al-Wird al-unsi, 56a.
69For the use of the word tahqTq in the mystical and illuminationist traditions to denote inspirational
knowledge or gnosis, as opposed to scholastic rational knowledge, see E. Kohlberg, "Aspects of Akhbari
Thought in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries," in Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Revival in Islam,
ed. Levtzion and Voll, 139-45; W. Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn 'Arabi's Metaphysics of
Imagination (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1989), 166-68.
70See his Ghayat al-matlub fi mahabbat al-mahbub, ed. S. Pagani (Rome: Bardi, 1995); Idah al-dalalatfi
sama' al-alat, ed. A. Hammush (Damascus: Dar al-Fikr, 1981); Kashf al-nur 'an ashab al-qubur (Princeton,
N.J.: MS: Princeton University Library Yahuda 3977), 157-66.
71Al-Nabulusi, al-Wujud al-haqq, 25, 69, 98, 140.
72Passages from these glosses are quoted in Khayr al-Din Nu'man al-Alusi, Jala'al-'aynaynfi muhakamat
al-Ahmadayn (Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-'ilmiyya, no date), 339.
73Al-'Ayyashi, Rihla, 1:333-36. Al-'Ayyashi studied the three works with al-Kurani in Medina.
74Al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 4:280-81.
75This is suggested by comparing al-Nabulusi's al-Wujud al-haqq and al-Kurani's Matla' al-jud bi-tahqiq
al-tanzihfi wahdat al-wujud (MS: Chester Beatty 4443), 15-39.
76A1-Muradi, Silk al-durar, 1:5.
77For example, his al-Jawabat al-ghurrawiyya Can al-as'ila al-Jawiyya (mentioned by al-Muradi) and
Nibras al-inas bi-ajwibat su'alan li-ahl Fas (MS: Suleymaniye Laleli 3744).
78See for example Raghib Pasha (d. 1763), Safinat al-raghib (Beirut: Maktabat Lubnan), 279, 296, 339,
857; Ibrahim al-Madhari (d. 1776), al-Lumca fi tahqiq mabahith al-wujud wa-l-huduth wa-l-qadar wa-af'al
al-'ibad (Cairo: Matba'at al-anwar, 1939), 24, 34, 54, 57.
oAl1-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar 2:122 (line 33).
81Hodgson, The Venture of lslam 3:14-15.
82A1-Nabulusi countered the arguments of al-Taftazani in his al-Wujud al-haqq, 36-8, 121-48. Al-Kurani
argued against al-Taftazani in his commentary on al-Tuhfa al-mursala-at least this is what he states in another
work Tanbih al-'uqul 'ala tanzih al-sufiyya 'an i'tiqad al-tajsim wa-l-'Cayniyya wa-l-ittihad wa-l-hulul (MS:
Chester Beatty 4443), 45b-46a.
83Al-Sulh bayna al-ikhwanfi hukm ibahat al-dukhkhan (Damascus: al-Matba'a al-salafiyya, 1924).
84Michael Cook, Commanding the Right and Forbidding the Wrong in Islamic Thought (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000), 325-28.
85Al-'Ayyashi, Rihla, 1:404. Al-Kurani's pupil and disciple al-Barzinji wrote a tract denouncing the ideas
of Sirhindi, see Y. Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (Montreal: McGill Institute of Islamic Studies, 1971),
97-99; Copty, "The Naqshbandiyya," 331-45.
86A1-Kurani's tract on the Satanic verses has been studied and edited by A. Guillaume, see his "al-Lum'at
al-saniya by Ibrahim al-Kurani" in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 20 (1957): 291-
303. It provoked a virulent attack by Yahya al-Shawi, and a defense by al-Kurani's student al-Barzinji, see
P.K. Hitti et al., Descriptive Catalog of the Garrett Collection ofArabic Manuscripts in the Princeton University
Library (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1938), 460-61. Al-Kurani's works on free will provoked
rejoinders from several Maghribi scholars, including al-Hasan al-Yusi, see Muhammad ibn al-Tayyib al-Qadiri,
Nashr al-mathani li-ahl al-qarn al-hadi cashar wa-l-thani, ed. Muhammad Hajji and Ahmad Tawfiq (Rabat:
Maktabat al-matalib, 1986), 3:9-10.
87A1-Zabidi's opposition to logic has been noted above. For the lukewarm attitude of al-Shawkani and Shah
Wali Allah to the rational sciences, see, respectively, B. Haykal, Revival and Reform in Islam: The Legacy of
Muhammad al-Shawkani (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 86, 104; and B.D. Metcalf, Islamic
Revival in India: Deoband, 1860-1900 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982), 38.
88R. Peters, "Idjtihad and Taqlid in 18th and 19th Century Islam," Die Welt des Islams 20 (1980): 132-45.
89Al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 4:204 (line 21).
90A1-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 4:453. Al-Baghdadi's commentary on Tuhfat al-Shahidi is extant (British
Library MS: Or. 13880).
91Al-Muhibbi, Khulasat al-athar, 1:52 (lines 13-14).
92Muhammad Amin al-Muhibbi, Nafhat al-rayhana wa-rashhat tila' al-hana, ed. 'Abd al-Fattah Muham-
mad al-Hilu (Cairo: Dar ihya' al-kutub al-'Arabiyya 1967-69), 3:3-138 (Turkish poets) and 3:214-38 (Persian
poets).
93'Uthman Mahmud al-Sini (ed.) (Riyad: Maktabat al-tawba, 1994).
94Gibb and Bowen, Islamic Society and the West, vol. 1, part II, 164.
95See Muhammad al-Hajji's comments in the introduction to his edition of al-Rudani's Silat al-khalaf
bi-mawsul al-salaf, 13.
96Nafi, "Tasawwuf and Reform in Pre-Modern Islamic Culture."
97T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970),
chap. 6.

Rouayheb - Islamic Florescence of The 17th Century

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rouayheb - Islamic Florescence of The 17th Century

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Opening the Gate of Verification: The Forgotten Arab-Islamic Florescence of the 17th

OPENING THE GATE OF VERIFICATION: THE

? 2006 Cambridge University Press 0020-7438/06 $12.00

"THE WAY OF THE PERSIAN AND KURDISH VERIFYING

1. The supercommentary of al-Isfara'ini on Sharh al-kafiya (on grammar) by the well-known

MAGHRIBI SCHOLARS IN THE EAST

Egyptian contemporaries. This enthusiasm, according to al-Zabidi, had been imparted

As I have shown elsewhere, al-Zabidi is in this passage referring to several Maghribi

Al-Sanusi's disparagement of taqlTd was shared by his later Maghribi commentators.

His knowledge of hadith and of the principles of jurisprudence is unequalled by anyone we

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

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

SHATTARIS, NAQSHBANDIS, AND KHALWATIS

Al-'Ayyashi's Damascene contemporary, the biographer al-Muhibbi described al-Kurani

You might also like