Download PDF | Laury Silvers - A Soaring Minaret_ Abu Bakr Al-Wasiti and the Rise of Baghdadi Sufism -State Univ of New York Pr (2010).
154 Pages
Introduction
Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Musa al-Wasiti (d. ca. 320 AH/932 ce) was an unpopular shaykh. He had the knack of alienating almost anyone with his exquisitely honest observations on the divine-human relationship. When a man asked Wasiti if his good or bad deeds will matter on the Last Day, Wasiti bluntly informed the man that God creates one’s bad deeds and then punishes one for them. Despite being theologically sound in its particulars, Wasiti’s explanations for positions such as this one do not make them any more comforting. It is not hard to imagine why he may have been driven out of nearly every town he visited and died with only one known devoted companion.
But these same statements are also praised in the classical Sufi literature for their uncompromising eloquence and theological sophistication. Several biographers depicted his habit of calling people to account with his sublime if forceful expressions by naming him “a soaring minaret.”1 Wasiti’s legacy is a number of fi rsts: He was one the fi rst students of the great Baghdadi Sufi s, Abu al-Qasim al-Junayd (d. 298/910) and Abu al-Husayn al-Nuri (d. 295/907–08). He may have been the fi rst of them to migrate east and establish the Baghdadi Sufi tradition in Khurasan. He was among the fi rst Sufi s to articulate a complete metaphysics in keeping with developments in early Ahl al-Hadith theology. Wasiti’s thought anticipates important discussions in later Islamic metaphysics, demonstrating that questions concerning ontology and ethics were being explored with subtlety and rigor from the earliest period onward. Moreover, his sayings offer insight into the development of theological norms in the period just prior to the rise of Ashºarism.
Finally, he was one of the fi rst Sufi s to compose a Qurªan commentary. Although the original text of his commentary is now lost, Abu ºAbd al-Rahman al-Sulami (d. 412/1021) included Wasiti’s work in his compendium of Sufi glosses on the Qurªan, Haqaªiq al-tafsir and its appendix Ziyadat haqaªiq al-tafsir preserving his thought and establishing his infl uence for the later tradition.2 Part One is Wasiti’s life told as a story about the development of Sufi sm in the formative period. The account of Abu Bakr alWasiti’s studies, travels, and teaching—especially the story of his Qurªan commentary and its transmission—takes us through the beginnings of Sufi sm in Baghdadi Ahl al-Hadith culture, the spread of Ahl al-Hadith culture and Baghdadi Sufi sm East to Khurasan, the consolidation of Baghdadi Sufi sm and the Khurasani interiorizing traditions by Sulami’s day in the fi fth/eleventh century, and fi nally the contribution of Khurasani Sufi sm to the rise of the Sufi orders in the sixth/twelfth century. Sufi sm developed in an environment that I would argue is best characterized as Ahl al-Hadith culture. Scholars typically refer to the Ahl al-Hadith—literally “the Folk of the Prophetic Reports”—as early Hanbali traditionalists or as an even more circumscribed group within the Hanbalis themselves. These Hanbalis were known for taking the position that one should settle ethical, legal, or theological matters by referring to already established principles transmitted from the Prophet through his companions and their followers.
But the Hanbali Ahl al-Hadith were not the sole owners of the interpretive conviction that the chief source of religious authority was the Qurªan and the Sunna of the Prophet. A myriad of interpretive communities shared this position and thus a common culture of authority grounded in a perceived continuity between the Prophet’s community and their own. Scholars considered themselves representatives of the followers of the companions, through them the companions of the Prophet—each to be followed like stars—and through the companions, the scholars saw themselves as representatives of the Prophet himself. Ahl al-Hadith culture scholars taught as if they were transmitting teachings from scholar to scholar back to the followers, then the companions, and ideally resting their positions on the strength of a report (or reports) concerning the Prophet himself. New ideas were presented through already established frameworks and thus established a perceived continuity with the Prophetic mission. While these communities shared a common culture of authority, they could disagree on nearly everything else, including the methodological frameworks they used to establish authoritative interpretations.
The Iraqi community that would become known as “Sufi s” grew out of a ritually scrupulous and theologically uncompromising trend within the broader Ahl al-Hadith movement that included Ahmed b. Hanbal (d. 241/855) and his followers, Hasan al-Basri (d. 110/728), Rabiºa al-ºAdawiyya (d. ca. 184/801), and others, including an odd band of renunciants derisively named “Sufi s” for the harsh wool clothing they wore. The wool wearers are reported to have been more than willing to set others straight when their conscience demanded it. In particular, they were well known for being hard-line devotees of the Ahl al-Hadith culture penchant of “enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong.” In his book Sufi sm: the Formative Period, Ahmet Karamustafa writes that Sufi sm took shape as a distinct social movement challenging the interpretive authority of the more exoterically inclined traditionalists in and around Baghdad.3 He makes the delightful observation that the term Sufi may have caught on in Baghdad because it had a hip, cutting-edge quality to it.
What better name to adopt in a theologically tough town than one associated with socially unconventional woolwearing renunciants? The name stood as a challenge to the Hanbalis and others who claimed to be the true inheritors of the Prophet’s way. Imagining Wasiti in this light, if Sufi sm was the avant-garde scene back in the day, then I would describe Wasiti as the guy who was around when the scene was fi rst starting, before anyone knew the scene was a scene, and who ends up producing an edgy body of work that has always been respected by insiders but less appreciated by those not in the know. Wasiti was educated in Qurªan and Hadith by Hanbali Ahl alHadith scholars in his hometown of Wasit. Dissatisfi ed with the limits of exoteric scholarship, he turned to the interiorizing counterpart of the Ahl al-Hadith coming to be known as “Sufi sm” in Baghdad.
There he became one of the earliest students of Abu al-Qasim al-Junayd and Abu al-Husayn al-Nuri. The Sufi s of Baghdad have been called “the lords of tawhid (arbab al-tawhid),” meaning literally, they were the masters of the doctrine and practice of “declaring God one.”4 Under the guidance of Junayd and Nuri, Wasiti developed a rigorous and subtle monotheism in keeping with Ahl al-Hadith theology. His contemporaries, as well as commentators in succeeding years, had mixed responses to his thought and provocative style of expression. He typically rubbed Sufi s, scholars, and lay folk the wrong way. In some cases, the criticism he received was so harsh that it does us the favor of illustrating signifi cant points of tension during this burgeoning period of Islamic intellectual history.
Wasiti was among the early migration of scholars who transmitted the Ahl al-Hadith tradition to Khurasan from Baghdad. In fact, he may have been the fi rst Baghdadi-oriented Sufi to settle and teach in Khurasan. Khurasan was an important center of scholarship in its own right. It was the birthplace of the madrasa, home to a strong Hanafi tradition, as well as the interiorizing Malamati “Path of Blame.” The lay folk of Khurasan did not care much for Wasiti’s teachings. It seems that no sooner would he begin to teach than they would send him packing. As we will see, he did not get along well with some of the Malamatiyya either. Wasiti ultimately found a home in Marw where the lay people accepted him and often came to hear him speak. Nevertheless, he only had one devoted companion there.
One seems to have been enough. Abu al-ºAbbas al-Sayyari (d. 342/953–54) collected and then passed on the bulk of Wasiti’s work through his own companion and nephew, ºAbd al-Wahid al-Sayyari (d. 375/985–86), to Abu ºAbd al-Rahman al-Sulami, the reknowned Khurasani scholar of Qurªan, Hadith, Sufi sm, and the Malamati path. Sulami preserved Wasiti’s legacy and passed it on to the later tradition. Taken in this light, Wasiti’s life and work can be seen as a testament of the historical consolidation of the Baghdadi and Khurasani communities over the succeeding centuries. Part Two turns to an analysis of Wasiti’s understanding of the nature of the divine reality. As is typical of nearly all classical Islamic theology, no matter how intellectually detached or theoretical the language may sound, one primarily seeks to understand the divine reality for the sake of conforming one’s own nature to God and His will. In keeping with the theological trends of his day, Wasiti stresses God’s utter incomparability even as he affi rms God’s self-manifestation through creation. Wasiti is at pains to preserve the proper boundaries of God’s incomparable Essence such that even as one recognizes God’s manifestation of His attributes through the creatures, one also affi rms that the creatures possess nothing of those attributes.
Wasiti’s position is seemingly at odds with the goal to conform one’s nature to divine reality. By denying human agency, he claims all human activities, even worship, are “indecent acts.”5 But in Wasiti’s way of looking at things, abandoning agency is nothing other than conforming to the divine nature and will. First I examine Wasiti’s understanding of God from the perspective of His Essence, or inasmuch as “nothing is like Him.” All of Wasiti’s thought follows from the primary assumption of God’s utter incom-parability. On the subject of language, Wasiti stresses the impossibility of describing God. Wasiti said, “People have nothing from Him other than a name, a description, or an Attribute. People are veiled by His names from His descriptions, and by His descriptions from His attributes, and by His attributes from His Essence.”6 In the Formative Period, the theological stress is on God’s rights and God’s incomparability; and Wasiti is theologically scrupulous on the matter. Second, I turn to the discussion of God’s attributes inasmuch as He can be known and is in relationship to creation. Wasiti describes God’s relationship to His creatures as “standing through” them by means of His attributes. For Wasiti, one should pass away from oneself to realize that God stands alone not only through oneself, but also through all of creation. Using Qurªanic language, Wasiti describes God’s presence manifesting through the realm of being as “the Standing” (al-qaªim) (Q 13:33). “The Standing” is not one of the traditionally accepted names of God; it is more common to use the name of God al-qayyum which might be best translated here as “the Self-Standing.” I translate the verb “qama bi” as standing through, but it also carries the meanings of “undertaking,” “standing up for,” and “making something one’s concern.”
The existence of all things is by means of God standing through them, in other words by His undertaking their creation, upholding and maintaining their existence, taking care of them, and acting through them. Third, I discuss Wasiti’s understanding of God’s acts, which are creation inasmuch as God is manifest through it and acts through it. Wasiti seems to leave no room for human agency and to deny the effi cacy of works on the Day of Judgment. Wasiti ultimately offers an account of human agency and judgment, but it is so starkly characterized that one can understand the attraction of Muºtazili limitations on the divine attributes or the Ashºari notion of “accrual.” For Wasiti, human agency is possible when all claims to it are abandoned. His argument relies on the notion of taking the proper perspective, God’s perspective. For example, Wasiti argues that there are no good or ill deeds because human actions have no reality in and of themselves.
The acts themselves are ethically neutral. If human beings perceive or experience that a deed or an action—good or ill—originates from them or belongs to them in any way, that act is destitute and damning. If human beings perceive or experience that a deed or an action—good or ill—originates from God and only belongs to God, then that act has power and is salvifi c.
Wasiti’s Works None of Wasiti’s written works have survived as extant texts. His sayings survive through oral and then written transmission as quotes in the works of other Sufi s. At least two works were still extant in the in fourth/tenth century. Kalabadhi lists Wasiti in his chapter entitled “A List of the Sufi s who published the sciences of allusion in books and treatises.”7 A century later, Sulami made use of Wasiti’s tafsir for his compendium of Sufi glosses on the Qurªan, Haqaªiq al-tafsir and its appendix Ziyadat haqaªiq al-tafsir. Gerhard Bowering, the editor of Sulami’s Haqaªiq, considers Wasiti’s contribution to have been a written source for Sulami transmitted from Sayyari, or more likely, his nephew ºAbd al-Wahid, during Sulami’s many trips to Marw and to be one of the most important sources for the Haqaªiq al-tafsir. 8 While a number of Sufi s and other fi gures from this period are quoted as commentators of various Qurªanic verses in surviving texts, only three may have had their sayings compiled into commentaries on the Qurªan, Sahl al-Tustari (d. 283/896), Ibn ºAtaª (d. 309/921), and Wasiti.9 Wasiti’s commentary on the Qurªan belongs to what Andrew Rippen calls the classical period of tafsir, roughly the third/ninth and fourth/ tenth centuries.
He writes that this was a period of intense development of works of tafsir of diverse theological viewpoints, many of which survive and nearly all of which have yet to be studied. The commentary of Abu Jaºfar al-Tabari (d. 311/923) is probably the best known from this period. Rippen describes it as “a vast compendium of traditions and analysis in which grammar plays its role as the major arbitrator between rival meanings.”10 Walid Saleh further refi nes our understanding of Qurªan commentaries from this period by calling attention to their common genealogical method in his important study The Formation of the Classical Tafsir Tradition. 11
Walid Saleh’s defi nition allows us to recognize a common culture of authority shared by Sufi s and other Ahl al-Hadith–oriented scholars despite the differences in their method. Sufi commentaries typically appeal to the authority of direct knowledge from God as a source of knowledge complementary to the Qurªan and Hadith. Exoteric commentators argue a point by citing earlier scholars whose authority can be traced back to the early Muslim community, reports of the companions, and, ultimately, the Prophet himself. The Sufi s do not deny transmitted knowledge.
On the contrary, direct knowledge affi rms transmitted knowledge and offers insight into it that is unavailable to exoteric scholars. Focusing on the nature of direct experience rather than Sufi claims to authority can result in overemphasizing the “spiritual” elements of Sufi engagement with the Qurªan and deemphasizing the more sober elements. As a result, we may miss the full expression of Sufi experience even as we produce accurate accounts of other phenomena. Gerhard Bowering’s account of Sufi gatherings to plumb the meanings of the Qurªan is an example of the emphasis on ecstasy and immediate expression over sober refl ection in the scholarship. He is not wrong. On the contrary, he offers insight into the inward processes of Sufi engagement with the Qurªan. The Sufi shaykh sits with his students listening to the recitation of the Qurªan and responds to what Bowering calls “keynotes.”
The keynote, Qurªanic words or phrases striking the Sufi ’s mind, may be taken up in total isolation from the actual context or, less frequently, presuppose familiarity with a wider frame of Qurªanic reference. It is signifi cant to realize that these keynotes are not studied as a text, but aurally perceived by men experienced in listening attentively to Qurªan recital and intent on hearing God, the actual speaker of the Qurªanic word. Listening to the Qurªanic word, the Sufi is captured by a keynote, a fl eeting touch of meaning communicated to him by the divine speaker. This keynote signals to the Sufi the breakthrough to God, revealing Himself in His divine speech and opening a way to Himself through and beyond His divine word.12
He continues, these “encounters” with the Qurªanic word were taken down as they occurred, sometimes in an abbreviated form.13 But in Wasiti’s case, at least, the “text” of the tafsir looks to be a transcription of a sober course of study in which individual verses were introduced and then unpacked on the authority of the shaykh’s direct knowledge of God. Again, I do not doubt that many Sufi gatherings held to interpret the Qurªan were ecstatic in tone. I would only suggest caution in taking it as a general rule given the example of Wasiti’s case. As a further observation—entirely unrelated to Bowering’s work—we should keep in mind that knowledge gained through ecstasy should not be thought at odds with sober and rational refl ection on the same. I would suggest thinking in terms of Wordsworth’s defi nition of poetry as a spontaneous overfl ow of powerful feelings recollected in tranquility.
Poems to which any value can be attached were never produced on any variety of subjects but by a man who, being possessed of more than usual organic sensibility, had also thought long and deeply. For our continued infl uxes of feeling are modifi ed and directed by our thoughts, which are indeed the representatives of all our past feelings; and, as by contemplating the relation of these general representatives to each other, we discover what is really important to men, so, by the repetition and continuance of this act, our feelings will be connected with important subjects, till at length, if we be originally possessed of much sensibility, such habits of mind will be produced, that, by obeying blindly and mechanically the impulses of those habits, we shall describe objects, and utter sentiments, of such a nature, and in such connexion with each other, that the understanding of the Reader must necessarily be in some degree enlightened, and his affections strengthened and purifi ed.14
In the Kitab al-lumaº, Sarraj distinguishes Sufi Qurªan interpretations between two modes of language used to express direct experience, “a mode of understanding” and “a mode of allusion.” In her book on Sufi Qurªan commentary, Kristin Sands explains that the mode of understanding typically uses straightforward explanations of a verse in light of Sufi concepts.
In this method, the apparent meaning of the verse remains recognizable. In the mode of allusion, the apparent meaning of the verse is transformed by a metaphor. If we are overly attuned to the ecstatic in Sufi sm, we might expect the mode of understanding to be typically straightforward and the mode of allusion to be typically subtle in expression as well as meaning. I would argue that while that may be the case in many examples, the sources on the whole suggest that Sarraj’s modes are primarily descriptive. Meaning, the mode of allusion should be understood as the mode in which metaphors or allusions are used. Reading Wasiti’s glosses through Sarraj’s criteria, they appear soberly argued and rooted in the authority of his claim to direct knowledge of God.
In the following example of the mode of understanding, Wasiti offers a subtle discussion of what belongs to the human being of his or her existence and what belongs to God. He is saying in the following gloss on the verse Easy that is for Me, seeing that I created you before, when you were nothing that nothing belongs to human beings except for not possessing existence or nonexistence. Easy that is for Me, seeing that I created you before, when you were nothing (Q 19:9). Wasiti said, “You are with Us in the state of your existence, just as you are in the state of your nonexistence. In your nonexistence and your existence, no state occurs for Us that was not [already there], because the things are not fi xed in their state of existence and are not passing away in the state of their nonexistence, for their existence and their nonexistence are the same for the Real, and nothing has fi xity in the face of Him.15 In the following example of the mode of allusion the slave is a metaphor for the human being. This one is a little more straightforward despite the use of metaphor: What shall we teach you what is the steep path, [It is] freeing a slave (Q 90:12–13), Wasiti said, Slaves are freed from four things: from their souls, from their actions, from looking at bounty, and seeking nearness.16 The culled sayings from Sulami’s Haqaªiq amount to ninety pages of Arabic text, but should not be considered Wasiti’s reconstituted tafsir.
First, Sulami’s Haqaªiq is not a straightforward compilation of collected glosses and sayings.17 Sulami used the Sufi s’ sayings to construct his own commentary of Qurªanic verses. As a scholar, Sulami handled his sources in an utterly traditional manner. He collected vast amounts of biographical material, sayings, and literature of the early Sufi s, Malamatiyya and others. In the Tabaqat for example, he collected, organized, and published the biographies and representative sayings exactly as one would do for Hadith transmitters or other traditional scholars. In doing so, he offi cially established their bonafi des. In the Haqaªiq, he published the collected glosses in a style that reads to me as a Sufi version of a tafsir biªl-maªthur (commentary by transmitted report). Sulami’s tafsir seems consistent in style with the genealogical commentaries typical of Ahl al-Hadith culture described by Walid Saleh in The Formation of the Classical Tafsir Tradition. In other words, the author buries his voice by arguing through the citations of authorities who represent the authority of an earlier community that can be traced back to the Prophet. Only in Sulami’s case, the authorities are the Sufi s whose knowledge goes back directly to God through the Prophet.
The author’s voice is absent or in the background while others’ opinions make his case for him. In this light, Sulami’s editorial approach seems more likely to be a commentary itself rather than a straightforward compilation of glosses. In the introduction to the Haqaªiq, Sulami explains that he excluded all biographical material, anecdotes, or sayings from his sources that did not specifi cally address the meanings of the verses of the Qurªan.18 Moreover, he uses his collected sources wherever he decides they might be relevant. In Wasiti’s case, Sulami partially quotes a gloss to comment on one verse and then quotes it more fully elsewhere.19 In these situations, it is not always easy to tell which verse Wasiti was originally commenting on. Second, Sulami indicates that a number of the glosses are oral sayings transmitted to him distinct from the material he received directly from Wasiti’s community. If Sulami had not used Wasiti’s sayings commenting on the Qurªan in his collection, the bulk of them would probably have been lost. None of his works seem to have been widely known outside of Khurasan or Sufi circles.
In the late fourth/tenth century Wasiti is not found listed in the Baghdadi bookseller Ibn Nadim’s Kitab al-fi hrist in any capacity.20 If any one of the writings mentioned by Kalabadhi and Sarraj remained in Marw, they would have certainly been destroyed in 618/1221 when the Mongols laid waste to the city, including, of course, all of its libraries. The geographer Yaqut describes the extraordinary libraries in Marw, including a small but valuable collection held in a khanqah library. He said it carried only two hundred volumes, but each was unique and worth two hundred gold pieces.21 There is some evidence that by the eleventh/seventeenth century there were no longer any extant copies of Wasiti’s works even outside of Marw. In 1057/1656, Ibn Miskin made a collection and translation of Wasiti’s sayings from the various sources into Persian for Dara Shukoh/Shikoh (d. 1059/1659), which possibly indicates the lack of complete works available to him.22 Thus, all that remains of Wasiti’s legacy are his sayings found quoted in the biographies, treatises, and manuals, and in his tafsir preserved by Sulami.
Wasiti in Western Scholarship There has only been one piece of published scholarship devoted to Wasiti; Richard Gramlich’s chapter on him in Alte Vorbilder des Sufi - tums, Zweiter Teil: Scheiche des Ostens. 23 The chapter is long and amounts to a short book. It includes an abbreviated biography and a topical summary of Wasiti’s thought. The biography provides an overview of the basic outline of Wasiti’s life and a review of the biographical sources. Gramlich takes Wasiti’s sayings from the biographical works, other sayings sources, and Sulami’s Haqaªiq al-tafsir and organizes them according to themes found in Wasiti’s sayings. I build on Gramlich’s work by broadening the discussion of the historical context in which Wasiti lived and taught as well as offer a more in-depth analysis of Wasiti’s thought. Wasiti is only mentioned in passing in other contemporary studies on Sufi sm, such as Annemarie Schimmel’s The Mystical Dimensions of Islam, Ernst’s Words of Ecstasy in Sufi sm, and Massignon’s The Passion of al-Hallaj and his Recueil de textes inédits. 24
But Massignon incorrectly identifi es Wasiti as one of the main disciples of Hallaj, his literary executor and editor, and the author of the prologue to Hallaj’s Tawasin, the Haª mim al-qidam. 25 Massignon was aware that there was no historical record linking Hallaj and Wasiti. He writes, “As it stands, the work of Wasiti raises a question: how does it happen that none of the biographical accounts studied above mention this devoted disciple of Hallaj, whose Ha’ Mim al-qidam was at times attributed to his master [Hallaj]?”26 In defending his identifi cation he confl ates Wasiti with both Abu Bakr al-Rabiºi, the disciple and editor of Hallaj’s works, and another of Hallaj’s disciples, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ismaºil al-Farghani (d. 331/942–43). Many of Massignon’s proofs for the identifi cation of the three as one man, Wasiti, rely on interpretative leaps that would require lengthy and tedious unraveling. Thankfully, the historical evidence quickly undermines his claims. With regard to Abu Bakr al-Rabiºi he writes, “I believe Abu Bakr al-Wasiti to be identical to Abu Bakr al-Rabiºi, called ‘Muhammad ibn ‘Abdallah Hashimi,’ the enigmatic ‘prophet,’ that is to say, the publisher of the last works of Hallaj, the probable publisher of the Tawasin . . .”27 In 308/920–21, al-Rabiºi is found as the leader of a group distributing Hallaj’s books in Baghdad and is cited by one of Hallaj’s opponents as being among those whom Hallaj has led astray.28 The timing and location are highly unlikely for Wasiti, since all available evidence shows that he had long been established in Marw. Likewise the timing is unlikely with regard to Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ismaºil al-Farghani (d. 331/942–43).29 Massignon’s authority for the identifi cation of these two is based upon the wrong opinion of Ghulam Muhammad Sarwar b. Mufti Rahim Allah Lahuri (1837–1890).
Massignon describes this Farghani as escaping to Marw with those Hallajians who found refuge in Khurasan and Transoxiania because the Samanid government refused to track them down in and after the year 309/921–22. 31 Although it is possible that Wasiti was traveling back and forth between Marw and Baghdad, stirring up trouble in the streets of Baghdad and keeping company with Hallaj, there is no positive evidence for it. It would be surprising if there were such a strong relationship between the two without one surviving anecdote connecting them. All positive evidence points to Wasiti leaving Baghdad long before, and having been well settled and teaching in Marw during this time. Other factors add to the frailty of Massignon’s evidence identifying Wasiti as the three men above.
On the authority of Muhammad b. Dushm Jagir (d. 591/1195) Massignon claims that Wasiti is the author of Haª mim al-qidam, the prologue of Hallaj’s Tawasin. 32 Baqli also remarks that Wasiti is the author of a text by this name.33 I have seen no other attributions to Wasiti of a work by this name, and I suspect that Baqli was quoting Jagir on this matter.34 Most probably, then, we are left with only one attribution of the prologue to Wasiti with problems remaining. Massignon plausibly maintains that the author of that text is also the editor of Hallaj’s works. Yet it is not likely that Wasiti was his editor, Abu Bakr al-Rabiºi. The dictation and collection of the Tawasin was done while Hallaj was in prison sometime between 301/913 and his execution in 309/922. 35 Again, although it is possible that Wasiti was traveling from Marw to be with Hallaj during his fi nal years, there is no positive evidence to support it. The most likely scenario following from the available evidence points to him being in Marw during this time. The attribution to him of any text by this name is most unlikely.
The Primary Sources Used in This Work In general, I have used four types of texts for biographical information: (1) Tabaqat works or hagiographies on important Sufi s, consisting of short biographical sketches followed by samples of their sayings; (2) Sufi treatises, which defi ne Sufi technical terms and concepts; (3) Sufi manuals, which discuss practical matters of the path. Manuals also include some elements found in Tabaqat literature, such as short biographical sketches, and elements from treatises, such as technical defi nitions; and (4) Sulami’s collection of Sufi comments on Qurªan mentioned above.36 All these texts are also sources of Wasiti’s sayings, which, while not explicitly biographical, reveal his attitude toward various issues. The most important of these sources are Sarraj’s Kitab al-lumaº, Kalabadhi’s Kitab al-taºarruf, Sulami’s Tabaqat al-sufi yya, Haqaªiq al-tafsir, and Ziyadat haqaªiq al-tafsir, oral transmissions from Abu Saºid b. Abu al-Khayr recorded in various texts, Qushayri’s Risala, Hujwiri’s Kashf al-mahjub, Ansari’s Tabaqat al-sufi yya, and ºAttar’s Tadhkirat al-awliya ª, which contain original biographical material. Most of the material is quite early and transmitted from Wasiti’s foremost companion and the inheritor of his tradition, Abu al-ºAbbas al-Qasim b. al-Qasim b. Mahdi b. bint Ahmad al-Sayyari alMarwazi (d. 342/953–54), or his followers. Other sources give either biographical information of minor importance or information that derives from the sources mentioned above.
Since it is not my intention to establish the lines of transmission for the various statements made in the biographical sources I will not be describing these texts.37 The treatise Kitab al-lumaº by Abu Nasr ºAbd Allah b. ºAli al-Sarraj (d. 378/988) is the earliest source.38 In addition to the biographical information he gives, Sarraj provides insight into the manner in which Wasiti was perceived only fi fty years after his death. Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ishaq al-Kalabadhi’s (d 380/990 or 385/995) treatise Kitab al-taºarruf li-madhhab Ahl al-tasawwuf gives little information about Wasiti, but the few facts it does provide are signifi cant on account of its early date of composition.39 The entry on Wasiti in Sulami’s Tabaqat, while brief, gives useful data about Wasiti’s life.40 Sulami often traveled to Marw, the city in which Wasiti taught, and received his transmissions directly from those who were well informed about Wasiti. It is possible that he received the transmission of Wasiti’s glosses on the Qurªan from Wasiti’s foremost companion Sayyari. It is more likely that Sulami received his transmissions after Sayyari’s death from Sayyari’s own companion and nephew, ºAbd al-Wahid b. ºAli al-Naysaburi al-Sayyari (d. 375/985–86). He also received transmissions of sayings and individual glosses that stand apart from Sayyari’s collection from Muhammad b. ºAbd Allah b. ºAbd al-ºAziz b. Shadhan Abu Bakr al-Razi (d. 376/986–87) who often visited Wasiti’s circle in Marw and passed on the greatest number of his sayings in general.41 Moreover, it is Sulami’s text that contributes much of the basis for the later biographies. Although Wasiti’s commentary on the Qurªan, preserved by Sulami in the Haqa ªiq and the Ziyadat, does not contain explicit biographical information, it does provide insight into Wasiti’s life. Wasiti commented on the meanings of the verses while sitting with his companions and sometimes in response to questions from them. Thus, his commentaries can indicate his interactions with his companions, his use of language with them, and his character. Abu Saºid b. Abu al-Khayr (d. 440/1049) lived near Marw and visited it often. His few transmissions concerning Wasiti were most likely passed on to him by Sayyari’s later followers during his visits to Marw. Two of these transmissions are preserved in Asrar al-tawhid, a biography of Abu Saºid compiled by his descendant Muhammad b. al-Munawwar (d. 598–99/1202).42 Abu al-Qasim ºAbd al-Karim b. Hawazin al-Qushayri’s (465/1072) Sufi manual al-Risala fi ºilm al-tasawwuf contains almost no biographical information with the exception of one interesting anecdote not found in any earlier texts.43 Abu al-Hasan ºAli b. ºUthman al-Jullabi al-Hujwiri’s (469/1077) treatise Kashf al-mahjub gives some important anecdotal information that he collected during visits to Marw. He received his information directly from the later followers of Wasiti’s companion Sayyari and his nephew and companion ºAbd al-Wahid.
The main source for the Tabaqat al-sufi yya of Abu Ismaºil ºAbd Allah b. Muhammad al-Ansari al-Harawi (d. 481/1089) was Sulami’s own Tabaqat. 44 It was compiled as lecture notes with Sulami’s work most probably serving as the textbook.45 Ansari’s Tabaqat has been called “an enlarged Persian version” of Sulami’s work, but this assessment does not adequately take into account the nature of Ansari’s contribution.46 For example, Ansari built upon the bare bones of Sulami’s account of Wasiti with numerous anecdotes, a letter in his possession from Wasiti’s shaykh, Junayd, to Wasiti, and his own incisive comments. Farid al-Din Muhammad b. Ibrahim ºAttar (d. 627/1230) had numerous sources for his information on Wasiti in the Tadhkira— Sulami’s Tabaqat, Qushayri’s Risala, and Hujwiri’s Kashf al-mahjub, to name a few.47 But the sources of the larger part of his information are unknown. One source on Wasiti can be traced to transmissions ultimately derived from Abu Saºid b. Abi al-Khayr. At least a few of his sources, such as Sulami, Hujwiri, and Abu Saºid, provided him with information gathered from Sayyari or his followers. As for ºAttar’s other unknown sources, we can take these anecdotes as supporting evidence despite his well-known habit of elaborating and dramatizing some of his source material.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق