Tripartite Formulation of Waḥdat Al-Wuǧūd and Its Relation to Divine Manifestation and Beauty in the Rubāʿiyyāt Attributed to Awḥad Al-Dīn Kirmānī

Unity, Form, and Meaning: Tripartite Formulation of waḥdat al-wuǧūd and its relation to Divine Manifestation and Beauty in the rubāʿiyyāt attributed to Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī

by Rafael Attila Tağıyev

M.A. Hons in Philosophy and Politics, June 2018, University of Edinburgh

A Thesis submitted to

The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

January 8, 2021

Thesis directed by

Seyyed H. Nasr Professor of Islamic Studies

ii Table of Contents

Note on Transliteration, Dates, Names, and Referencing iv–v

Abbreviations vi–vii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1–4

Chapter 2: Ṣūfī Bodies: Historiographic Setting of Kirmānī 5–20

Chapter 3: Theological, Philosophical, and Gnostic Setting of Kirmānī 20–25

Chapter 4: Unity, Form, and Meaning: Tripartite formulation of

waḥdat al-wuǧūd in Kirmānī’s Quatrains 26–38

Chapter 5: Divine Manifestation in the Context of Beauty in

Kirmānī’s Quatrains 38–40

Chapter 6: Conclusion 41–42

Appendix I: Referenced Manuscript Folios 43–46

Bibliography 47–48

iii Note on Transliteration, Dates, Names, and Referencing

For transliteration of Arabic and Persian the guidelines set by the International

Journal of Middle East Studies will be followed except for j as ǧ, ch as č, kh as ḫ, dh as ẕ, zh as ž, sh for š, gh for ġ, and s̱ , ż, and w will be used for all languages. The silent h at the end of Persian words will be rendered with -a, such as ḫāna; and the silent w in Persian will be transliterated as in ḫwāǧa, or Ḫwārazmšāh. For Ottoman Turkish, a synthesis of the

Modern Turkish orthography and the above-mentioned guideline will be used such as

Ḫocazāde. As for iżāfa constructions in Classical Persian, they will be rendered as -e after consonants and -ye after vowels; and -i/-ı and -yi/-yı in Middle Turkic and Ottoman

Turkish. Dates are given for the most part according to Hiǧrī calendar (al-taqwīm al- hiǧrī/Anno Hegirae) abbreviated as h., Solar Hiǧrī calendar (taqwīm-e hiǧrī-ye šamsī) abbreviated as Sh., or Rūmī calendar (taḳvīm-i rūmī) abbreviated as Rh., and their corresponding date in the Gregorian calendar (Common Era or Anno Domini) in that order and separated by a stroke. Throughout the study, ibn and bint are abbreviated as b. and bt., while certain individuals will often be referred through their unabbreviated patronymics

(nasab) such as Ibn Kammūna. Lastly, transliteration proceeds due consideration of the primary language of any text in which difference in language between the text and the title is overcome by the preference for the text itself, especially in terms of the Ottoman historiographic tradition in which texts often carry an Arabic title but the work itself is in

Ottoman Turkish, such as Nevʿīzāde Aṭāʾī (d. 1045 h./1635), Ḥadāʾiḳ el-ḥaḳāʾiḳ.

Referencing style majorly follows the Chicago Manual of Style Online (16th ed.), except in few cases in which a combination of sections in the referencing manual or novel additions are introduced in order to not only cite often elusive character of published

iv monographs in the Middle East but also formulating a framework that meticulously describes the details of primary and secondary writings. Usually book series titles will be omitted unless they are deemed to be necessary to clarify and to provide the readers further information on the nature of some limited or out-of-print monographs. Additionally, referencing editions and reprints of the primary and secondary works will be comprehensive to a certain extent but will leave out further detailing once renditions exceed five. While listing editions and reprints, only renditions that directly acknowledge continuation in relation to the original work will be considered as subsequent editions; hence, considering the rest as reprints. Often page numbering in later reprints – done by publishing companies in the Middle East – does not correspond to the original work in hand. As such, further specification of varied pages will only occur when the author deems it to be necessary based on the usage of these reprints in other relevant academic studies.

Majorly, academic monographs published in Arabic and Persian provide author’s name in native languages as well as in English or French (in original or in some form of transliteration). The preference in this study for indicating what form will vary from instance to instance.

v Abbreviations

AAn = Nāṣir al-Dīn Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. Bībī (d. after 684 h./1285), al-Awāmir al- ʿAlāʾiyya fī l-umūr al-ʿAlāʾiyya, in El-Evāmirü’l-ʿAlāʾiyye, vol. 1, II. Kılıç Arslan’ın Vefâtından I. ʿAlāʾü’d-din Keyḳubād’ın Cülûsuna Kadar, ed. Necati Lugal and Adnan Sadık Erzi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1957). AAž = Ibn Bībī, al-Awāmir al-ʿAlāʾiyya fī l-umūr al-ʿAlāʾiyya, ed. Žāla Mutaḥiddīn (Tihrān: Pižūhišgāh-e ʿUlūm-e Insānī wa Muṭālaʿāt-e Farhangī, 1390 Sh./2011). AS = Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, Ali Uzar Peker, and Kenan Bilici, eds., Anadolu Selçukluları ve Beylikler Dönemi Uygarlığı, 2 vols. (Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2006). BK = Buhara’dan Konya’ya İrfan Mirası ve XIII. YY. Medeniyet Merkezi Konya, ed. Dilaver Gürer, Murat Şimşek, Sami Bayrakçı, and Yusuf Büyükyılmaz, 2 vols. (Konya: Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, 2018–19). DẔT = Abī ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. al-Dabīs̱ ī (558–637 h./1163–1239), Ẕayl tārīḫ al- Madīnat al-salām, ed. Baššar ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, 5 vols. (Bayrūt: Dār al-Ġarb al-Islāmī, 1427 h./2006). IA = A. C. S. Peacock, Bruno de Nicola, and Sara Nur Yıldız, eds., Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia (Surrey, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2015). LRA = Lloyd Ridgeon, Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī and the Controversy of the Sufi Gaze (Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2018). MAb = Anonymous, Manāqib-e Awḥād al-Dīn Ḥāmid b. Abī l-Faḫr Kirmānī: az muʾallafāt-e nīma-ye duwwum-e qarn-e haftum, ed. Badīʿ al-Zamān Furūzānfar (Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Bungāh-e Tarǧuma wa Našr-e Kitāb, 1347 Sh./1969). MAm = Anonymous, Şeyh Evhadü’d-din Hâmid el-Kirmânî ve Menâkıb-Nâmesi, trans. Mikâil Bayram (Konya: Kardelen Yayınları, 2005); reprint in (Konya: Nüve Kültür Merkezi, 2008). MAk = Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Razzāq b. al-Fūwaṭī (642–723 h./1244–1323), Maǧmaʿ al- ādāb fī muʿǧam al-alqāb, ed. Muḥammad Kāẓim, 6 vols. (Tihrān: Muʿassasat al-Ṭabāʿa wa-l-Našr, Wizārat al-S̱ aqāfa wa-l-Iršād al-Islāmī, 1415 h./1995). MF = Faṣīḥ al-Dīn Aḥmad Ḫwāfī (777–845 h./1375–1441), Muǧmul-e Faṣīḥī, ed. Sayyid Muḥsin Nāǧī Naṣr Ābādī, 3 vols. (Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Asāṭīr, 1386 Sh./2007–8). MN = ʿAlī Şīr Nevāʾī (d. 906 h./1501), Mecālis el-nefāʾis’ Persian translations, one of them belonging to Faḫrī-ye Harawī under the title Laṭāʾīf-nāma (ca. 928 h./1522) and the other to Ḥakīmšāh Muḥammad b. Mubārak al-Qazwīnī (d. 966 h./1559), in Taẕkira-ye Maǧālis al-nafāʾis, ed. ʿAlī Aṣġar Ḥikmat (Tihrān: Kitābfurūšī-ye Manūčihrī, 1363 Sh./1984–85). NU = Nūr al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥman Ǧāmī (817–98 h./1414–1492), Nafaḥāt al-uns min ḥażarāt al-quds, ed. Maḥmūd ʿĀbidī, 6th ed. (1st ed. = Tihrān: Muʿassasa-ye Iṭṭilāʿāt, 1370 Sh./1991; Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Suḫan, 1363 Sh./2015). NM = ʿAlī Şīr Nevāʾī, Nesāʾim el-maḥabbe min şemāʾim el-fütüvve, ed. Kemal Eraslan, 2nd ed. (1979; Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu, 1996) [transliterated edition of Nafaḥāt’s Çağatāy translation].

vi NUt = Lāmiʿī Çelebī’s (d. 938 h./1532) Ottoman translation of Ǧāmī’s Nafaḥāt, ed. Süleyman Uludağ, 2nd ed. (1980; İstanbul: Marifet Yayınları, 1993). RSm = Firūdūn b. Aḥmad Sipahsālār (d. ca. 712 h./1312), Risāla-ye Sipahsālār dar manāqib-e Ḥażrat Ḫudāwandagār, ed. Muḥammad Afšīn Wafāʾī (Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Suḫan, 1385 Sh./2006). RSa = Firūdūn Sipahsālār, Risāla-ye dar manāqib-e Ḥażrat Ḫudāwandagār, ed. Muḥammad ʿAlī Muwaḥḥid and Ṣamad Muwaḥḥid, 2nd ed. (1391 Sh./2012; Tihrān: Kārnāma, 1395 Sh./2016). OA = Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, Ortaçağlar Anadolu’sunda İslam’ın Ayak İzleri: Selçuklu Dönemi (Makaleler-Araştırmalar), 4th ed. (1st ed. = 2011; İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2016). SDS = Seyfullah Kara, Selçuklular’ın Dini Serüveni: Türkiye’nin Dini Yapısının Tarihsel Arka Plânı (İstanbul: Şema Yayınevi, 2006). ST = Osman Turan, Selçuklular Târihi ve Türk-İslâm Medeniyeti, 23rd ed. (1st ed. = Ankara: Türk Kültürünü Araştırma Enstitüsü, 1965; İstanbul: Ötüken Neşriyat, 2020). SṬŠ = Taǧ al-Dīn al-Subkī (727–71 h./1327–70), Ṭabaqāt al-šāfiʿiyya al-kubrā, ed. Maḥmūd Muḥammad Ṭanāḥī and ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Muḥammad Ḥulūʾ, 10 vols. (al-Qāhira: ʿĪsā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1383–96 h./1964–76). SZA = Rauf Kahraman Ürkmez, Selçuklular Zamanında Anadolu’da Tasavvufî Zümreler (XIII. Yüzyıl) (Konya and İstanbul: Çizgi Kitabevi, 2020). TDVİA = Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 44 vols. (Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 1988–2013; online edition through https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr). TI = Šams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Ẕahabī (d. 748 h./1347), Tārīḫ al-islām wa-wafāyāt al- mašāhir wa-l-alām, ed. Baššar ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, 17 vols. (Bayrūt: Dār al-Ġarb al-Islāmī, 1424 h./2003). TIMs = Šaraf al-Dīn Abū l-Barakāt b. al-Mustawfī (d. 637 h./1239), Tārīḫ Irbil: al- musammā nabāhat al-balad al-ḫāmil bi-man waradahū min al-amās̱ il, ed. Sāmī b. al- Sayyid Ḫamās al-Ṣaqqār, 2 vols. (Baġdad: Dār al-Rašīd li-l-Našr/Manšūrāt Wizārat al- S̱ aqāfa wa-l-Iʿlām, 1980). TIMu = al-Mustawfī, Tārīḫ Irbil, ed. Muḥammad ʿUs̱ mān (Bayrūt: Dār al-Kutub al- ʿIlmiyya, 1432 h./2011). TŠe = Dawlatšāh Samarqandī (d. 900 h./1494–95), Taẕkirat al-šuʿarāʾ, ed. Edward G. Browne (London and Leiden: Luzac & Co. and E.J. Brill, 1901; reprint in Tihrān: Intišārāt- e Asāṭīr, 1382 Sh./2003–4). Ṭḫṣ = Taqī l-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Wāsiṭī (d. 744 h./1343–44), Ṭabaqāt ḫirqat al-ṣūfiyya al-musammā Tiryāq al-muḥibbīn fī ṭabaqāt ḫirqat al-mašāyyiḫ al-ʿārifīn (al-Qāhira: al- Maṭbaʿa al-Bahiyya al-Miṣriyya, Safar 1305 h./1887). WŠ = Qāżī Aḥmad of Niğde (d. after 734 h./1333), al-Walad al-šafīq wa-l-ḥāfid al-ḫalīq, in Niğdeli Kadı Ahmed’in El-Veledü’ş-Şefîk ve’l-Hâfidü’l-Halîk’ı (Anadolu Selçuklularına Dair Bir Kaynak), ed. and trans. Ali Ertuğrul, 2 vols. (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2015) [= Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4518 dated to be 733 h./1333]. WW = Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Ḫalīl b. Aybak al-Ṣafadī (696-764 h./1297–1363), al-Wāfī bi-l- wafayāt, ed. Aḥmad al-Arnāʾūṭ and Turkī Muṣṭafā, 29 vols. (Bayrūt: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turās̱ al- ʿArabī, 1420 h./2000).

vii Chapter 1: Introduction

Awḥad al-Dīn Ḥāmid b. Abī l-Faḫr Kirmānī (561–635 h./1165–1238) is an eminent

ṣūfī, whose writings – in comparison with his major contemporaries – are not investigated fully in terms of their literary achievement as well as their theological, philosophical, and esoteric dimensions. During the dynamic crystallisation of Ṣūfīsm through different orders

(ṭurūq, s. ṭarīqa) in the late 12th and the early 13th centuries, he contributed to the development of the ṣūfī tradition through his own intellectual perspective. Accordingly, in order to understand 13th century development of Ṣūfīsm in Medieval Anatolia and

Mesopotamia as well as the ṣūfī socio-political and intellectual environment that shaped

Kirmānī’s interactions, this paper will utilise two methodological approaches. One theoretical approach embodies historiographical analysis to capture origins, structure and development of the diverse and fluid character of Ṣūfīsm in its spiritual and socio-political facets during the 13th century in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. In the context of Kirmānī, this is majorly achieved through an anonymous hagiography called Manāqib-e Awḥad al-

Dīn Ḥāmid b. Abī l-Faḫr Kirmānī (hereafter, Manāqib),1 however, our primary aim is not to discuss extensively the historiographic facets of Medieval Anatolian Ṣūfīsm and

Kirmānī’s contribution to it,2 but to investigate and to analyse Kirmānī’s understanding of

1 MAb, 1–275 (critical text). In his Turkish translation, Mikâil Bayram has utilised other essential manuscripts that Furūzānfar did not use, see MAm, 97–98. For the English translation, see LRA, 108–249. All of these editions will be utilised in our study. 2 Recent crucial studies of LRA, 9–105, and Moharram Mostafavi’s 13. Yüzyılın Büyük Mutasavvıfı Evhadeddin-i Kirmani ve Anadolu Tasavvufundaki Yeri, ed. Ahmet Yaşar Ocak (İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2016), 25–78, 161–262, have elaborately discussed Kirmānī’s place and contribution to the 13th century Persianate Ṣūfīsm with its historical and historiographic dimensions; predominantly concentrating on Kirmānī’s connection with other major ṣūfī authors and his subsequent reception. Yet, Mostafavi’s study is more rigorous in terms of utilising and incorporating larger number of primary sources for analysing Kirmānī than Ridgeon’s monograph, see Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 15–25, 60–61. Unfortunately, ambiguity and mistakes in references are also present in Mostafavi’s work, which we have attempted to correct in this paper.

1 a crucial ṣūfī doctrine, namely, waḥdat al-wuǧūd (the transcendent unity of being) as well as the doctrine’s tripartite formulation of waḥdat (unity), ṣūrat (form) and maʿnā (meaning) in the rubāʿiyyāt (quatrains) that are attributed to Kirmānī.3 This will also be achieved in close scrutiny with Kirmānī’s notion of šāhid-bāzī (literally, ‘playing the witness’), which is a ritualised or meditative practice of gazing at beautiful forms (often faces of young males) – particularly during samāʿ – in order to witness the Divine Presence and Reality in manifestation.4 Matthew Thomas Miller has succinctly described the šāhid-bāzī practice as

“an unparalleled spiritual catalyst for the Sufi aspirant in their quest to reach the higher levels of divine love”.5 In this connection, the usage of love plays an essential foundation for Kirmānī’s conceptualisation of Divine manifestation in which insensible stratifications of the exterior ‘phenomena’ present through beautiful objects are a gateway to the Absolute

Both of these studies make Furūzānfar’s study of Kirmānī in MAb, 9–64 (author’s introduction), and Mikâil Bayram’s Şeyh Evhadü’d-din Hâmid el-Kirmânî ve Evhadiyye Hareketi, 3rd ed. (Konya: Damla Maatbacılık [published under a minor title difference, Evhadiyye Tarikatı], 1993; Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi Vakfı Yayınları, 1999; Konya and İstanbul: Çizgi Kitabevi, 2019) outdated from certain perspectives. 3 Our discussion will use three renditions of his rubāʿiyyāt, one by Peter Lamborn Wilson and Bernd Maneul Weischer, ed. and trans., Heart’s Witness: The Sufi Quatrains of Awḥaduddīn Kirmānī/Šāhid-e dil: rubāʿiyyāt-e Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī (Tehran: Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy, 1978), which is mostly based on manuscripts from European libraries, see 11, n. 5. The second one is the edition by Aḥmad Abū Maḥbūb and Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Bāstānī Pārīzī, eds., Dīwān-e rubāʿiyyāt-e Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī (Tihrān: Surūš, 1366 Sh./1987–88); reprint in Muḥammad Wafāʾī and Aḥmad Karimī, eds., Aḥwāl wa as̱ ar- e Awḥad al-Dīn Ḥāmid b. Abī l-Faḫr Kirmānī (Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Mā, 1375 Sh./1996–97), 591–801. The last edition is by Mehmet Kanar, ed., Rubaîler: Evhadüddîn-i Kirmânî (İstanbul: İnsan Yayınları, 1999), in which he has edited the largest collection of rubāʿiyyāt found in libraries of İstanbul, see 31–50. Whenever the quatrains from Kanar’s and Maḥbūb’s edition are cited, the translations from Persian will be mine. 4 The previous scholarship will be integrated to the conclusions of this study, especially Lloyd Ridgeon’s article on the practice of šāhid-bāzī, “The Controversy of Shaykh Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī and Handsome, Moon-Faced Youths: A Case Study of Shāhid-Bāzī in Medieval Sufism,” Journal of Sufi Studies 1, no. 1 (January 2012): 3–30; some short studies conducted by Bernd M. Weischer, which has already briefly looked at ṣūfī motives in Kirmānī’s rubāʿiyyāt, see “Auḥaduddīn Kirmānī und seine Vierzeiler,” Der Islam: Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients 56, no. 1 (January 1979): 130–34; and “Some Quatrains of Awhaduddin Kirmani,” Journal of Turkish Studies 18, (1994): 323–28; and Mostafavi’s insights from Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 82–132. 5 “Embodying the beloved: embodiment, (homo)eroticism, and the straightening of desire in the hagiographic tradition of Fakhr al-Dīn ʿIrāqī,” Middle Eastern Literatures 21, no. 1 (November 2018): 7.

2 that continuously interacts with it – unlocked through the inner yearning of love towards the Divine Oneness without His hierarchic veils.6 When all these theoretical facets are considered, we are more interested in the second methodological approach, namely, the notion of ‘philosophical Ṣūfīsm,’ which distinguishes the 13th century Ṣūfīsm from the earlier structures based on the dynamic formulations of ṣūfī doctrines through a synthesis of various trends of intellectual facets such as theology (kalām), philosophy (falsafa), and gnosis (ʿirfān), which produced an enormous amount of writings on complex set of speculations and discourses. Methodologically speaking, a preliminary issue that one faces in the endeavour of studying Kirmānī’s rubāʿiyyāt is that it is difficult to discern or verify from this large collection which quatrains are actually penned by Kirmānī.7 Of course, we do not mean that Kirmānī did not penned any quatrains at all as some of these rubāʿiyyāt include the agnomen ‘Awḥad’; while certain pieces are present in the Manāqib itself; and

6 Even though we will not deal with this factor, it is worthwhile to note that the various kinds of love as well as their corresponding philosophical-gnostic connotations has not been comprehensively investigated in terms of Kirmānī in contrast to his major contemporaries, see William C. Chittick, The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), 194–231; Süleyman Derin, “From Rābiʿa to Ibn al-Fāriḍ: Towards Some Paradigms of the Sufi Conception of Love” (PhD diss., The University of Leeds, 1999); Cyrus Ali Zargar, Sufi Aesthetics: Beauty, Love and the Human Form in Ibn ʿArabī and ʿIrāqī (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2011); cf. Jean-Jacques Thibon, “L’Amour mystique (maḥabba) dans la voie spirituelle chez les premiers soufis,” Ishraq: Islamic Philosophy Yearbook, no. 2 (2011): 647–66; William C. Chittick, Divine Love: Islamic Literature and the Path to God (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2013); Leonard Lewisohn, “Sufism’s Religion of Love, from Rābiʿa to Ibn ʿArabī,” in The Cambridge Companion to Sufism, ed. Lloyd Ridgeon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 150–80; and Carl W. Ernst, “The Stages of Love in Early Persian Sufism, from Rābiʿa to Rūzbihān,” in It’s Not Just Academic!: Essays on Sufism and Islamic Studies (New Delhi and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications India/Yoda Press, 2018), 196–216. 7 Kanar provides a list of rubāʿiyyāt that might have been misattributed to Kirmānī blatantly because they are quite similar in their poetic phrasing and structure to the ones that are penned by the ṣūfī authors such as ʿUmar Ḫayyam and Ḥāfeẓ-e Šīrāzī, see Rubaîler, 503–30. Yet, this is a small number of similarities within the larger body of quatrains written by Kirmānī. On the issue of attribution and authorship consider relevant insights from A. A. Seyed-Gohrab, “The Flourishing of Persian Quatrains,” in A History of Persian Literature, ed. Ehsan Yarshater, vol. 2, Persian Lyric Poetry in the Classical Era, 800–1500: Ghazals, Panegyrics, and Quatrains (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2019), 488–568.

3 others appeared in Medieval Persianate poetic anthologies as early as mid-13th century such as Nuzhat al-Maǧālis of Ǧamāl al-Dīn Ḫalīl al-Šīrwānī (ca. 616–69 h./1220–70).8

Additionally, there is also a commentary on Kirmānī’s rubāʿiyyāt in Ottoman Turkish by a Qalandarī ṣūfī Seher Abdal (or Seherī, ca. 1480–1530) entitled Şerh-i tercī-yi Evḥad el-

Dīn Kirmānī.9 Now returning to the point in hand, the hindrance of attribution and authorship are often encountered in Classical Persian poetry, yet an additional textual and codicological study of the rubāʿiyyāt for the determination of Kirmānī’s literary style will be beyond the scope of this paper. Yet, this shortcoming does not obstruct a thorough analysis of the rubāʿiyyāt and the theoretical conceptualisations of the 13th century Ṣūfīsm that are embodied in them.

8 Nuzhat al-Maǧālis, ed. Muḥammad Amīn Riyāḥī, 2nd ed. (Tihrān: Intišārāt-e ʿIlmī, 1375 Sh./1996–97), 121 (no. 2), 143 (no. 15), 146 (no. 39), etc.; cf. Ḥamd Allāh Mustawfī (ca. 680–744 h./1281–1344), Tārīḫ-e Guzida, ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn Navāʾī, 6th ed. (1st ed. = 1339 Sh./1960–61; Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Amīr Kabīr, 1394 Sh./2015–16), 667; NU, 589–90; NM, 417; NUt, 662–63; MF, 2:790; MN, 318–19; TŠe, 97, 210, 223; and Sayyid ʿAlī Mīr Afżalī, “Rubāʿiyyāt-e Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī dar kuhan tarīn manābiʿ,” Maʿārif 17, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 1379 Sh./2000): 53–89. We will utilise Ǧāmī’s Nafaḥāt al-uns as well as its later translations extensively, hence, see Jawid A. Mojaddedi, The Biographical Tradition in Sufism: The ṭabaqāt genre from al-Sulamī to Jāmī (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 2001), 151–82; and Alexandre Papas, “Individual Sanctity and Islamization in the Ṭabaqāt Books of Jāmī, Navāʾī, Lāmiʿī, and Some Others,” in Jāmī in Regional Contexts: The Reception of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Jāmī’s Works in the Islamicate World, ca. 9th/15th– 14th/20th Century, ed. Thibaut d’Hubert and Alexandre Papas (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2018), 378–423. 9 The manuscript is present in Yapı Kredi Sermet Çifter Araştırma Kütüphanesi, Türkçe Yazmaları under the number 168/1 contained between the folios 1b–54b with the colophon date 914 h./1508, see Yücel Dağlı, et al., Yapı Kredi Sermet Çifter Araştırma Kütüphanesi Yazmalar Kataloğu (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2001), 77; and Mustafa Özağaç, “Seher Abdal’ın ‘Saadet-nâme’ isimli Mesnevîsi (Metin-Muhteva-Tahlil) (PhD diss., Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, 2009), 20–21. Unfortunately, the manuscript was not available for us to incorporate it into this study, yet may our mentioning encourage future research on Kirmānī and Medieval Anatolian Ṣūfīsm and his reception by the esoteric authors and groups in the Ottoman intellectual sphere.

Chapter 2: Ṣūfī Bodies: Historiographic Setting of Kirmānī

During the rigorous Islamisation period of Salǧūq Anatolia (Salǧūqiyān-e Rūm,

467–707 h./1075–1308)10 in the late 12th and the early 13th century,11 some ṣūfī individuals either consistently travelled, or at least spend majority of their lives in various cities of the geographic location.12 These figures came to Medieval Anatolia not only for a variety of intellectual purposes but also for advancement of certain ideological daʿawāt (missions) in which they often searched for the support of royal patronage in order to build their intellectual and socio-political foundations in Salǧūq Anatolia. From a certain perspective, the Salǧūq ruling élite also needed (or less provocatively sought after) these figures for a legitimate re-construction of Medieval Anatolia.13 However, only a part of these daʿawāt

10 Speros Vryonis, Jr., “Nomadization and Islamization in Asia Minor,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, no. 29 (1975): 64–71; A. C. S. Peacock, “Islamisation in Medieval Anatolia,” in Islamisation: Comparative Perspectives from History, ed. A. C. S. Peacock (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017), 134–55; “Anadolu’da İslam,” in OA, 139–84; and “Islamisation in the Golden Horde and Anatolia: Some Remarks on Travelling Scholars and Texts,” Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 143, (2018): 151– 56. 11 On the Rūm Salǧūqs, see Salim Koca’s entries in AS, 1:71–105; ST, 288–94; and Songül Mecit, The Rum Seljuqs: Evolution of a Dynasty (Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2014), 54–126. 12 For studies on the historical development of ṣūfī activities amongst groups of distinct social and political stratifications in Asia Minor and the Middle East, see “Türkiye Selçukluları Devrinde Şehirli Tasavvufi Düşünce Yahut Mevlânâ’yı Yetiştiren Ortam,” in OA, 215–29; Haşim Şahin, Dervişler, Fakihler, Gaziler: Erken Osmanlı Döneminde Dinî Zümreler (1300–1400) (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2020), 57–80; Éric Geoffroy, Le soufisme en Égypte et en Syrie sous les Derniers Mamelouks et les Premiers Ottomans, ed. Michel Chodkiewicz (Damascus: Institut Française de Damas, 1995), 17–41; Daphna Ephrat, Spiritual Wayfarers, Leaders in Piety: Sufis and the Development of Islam in Medieval Palestine (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), 15–69; Alberto F. Ambrosio, Dervisci: storia, antropologia, mistica (Rome: Carocci, 2011), 39–45, 61–84; Vanessa Van Renterghem, Les élites bagdadiennes au temps des Seldjoukides: Étude d’histoire sociale, 2 vols. (Beirut and Damascus: Presses de l’ifpo, 2015), 1:119–26; Nathan Hofer, Popularisation of Sufism in Ayyubid and Mamluk Egypt, 1173–1325 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2015), 181–224; and Daphna Ephrat and Hatim Mahamid, “The Creation of Sufi Spheres in Medieval Damascus (mid-6th/12th to mid-8th/14th centuries),” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 25, no. 2 (April 2015): 189–208. 13 SDS, 445–523; Songül Mecit, “Kingship and Ideology under the Rum Seljuqs,” in The Seljuqs: Politics, Society, and Culture, ed. Christian Lange and Songül Mecit (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011), 63–78; and A. C. S. Peacock, Islam, Literature and Society in Mongol Anatolia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 31–50; cf. Suzan Yalman, “ʿAla al-Dīn Kayqubad Illuminated: A Rum Seljuq Sultan

5 should be associated or linked with the ḫalīfa al-Naṣr li-Dīn Allāh (r. 575–622 h./1180–

1225) in Baġdād, who initiated a religio-political framework that spread throughout the

Middle East, Asia Minor, and Iran for achieving a variety of multi-faceted and complex aims.14 In fact, Manāqib does suggest that Kirmānī was somewhat affiliated with al-Naṣr li-Dīn Allāh’s religio-political framework, yet during our research we could not find further historical validation for this claim.15 However, Kirmānī’s presence in Medieval Anatolia can be comprehensively understood within the context of perpetrated intellectual and ideological daʿawāt that indeed origin from many autonomous yet interconnected sources that envision distinct sociological and anthropological foundations and futuristic visions.

As such, these groups would often carry not only a broader sense of ‘Islamic’ or ‘Turco-

Persian’ identity against the presence of the Christian ‘others’ portrayed through the

Byzantium, Armenians, and Georgians,16 but also propagation of particular forms of

as Cosmic Ruler,” Muqarnas 29, (2012): 151–62, and insights from Zeynep Oğuz Kursar, “Sultans as Saintly Figures in Early Ottoman Royal Mausolea,” in Sacred Spaces and Urban Networks, ed. Suzan Yalman and A. Hilâl Uğurlu (İstanbul: Koç University, 2019), 67–88. 14 Angelika Hartmann, al-Naṣr li-Dīn Allāh (1180–1225): Politik, Religion, Kultur in der späten ʿAbbāsidenzeit (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1975), 69–108; “Türkiye’de Ahîlik Araştırmalarına Eleştirel Bir Bakış,” in Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, Türk Sufîliğine Bakışlar, 17th ed. (1st ed. = 1996; İstanbul: İletişim Yayıncılık, 2018), 177–98; and Haşim Şahin, “Selçuklular Döneminde Ahîler,” in AS, 1:299–307; Lloyd Ridgeon, Morals and Mysticism in Persian Sufism: A History of Sufi-Futuwwat in Iran (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), 61–92; and Peacock, Society in Mongol Anatolia, 117–44. 15 MAb, 195–96, cf. 161–62; LRA, 209–10, 191–92; MAm, 236–37, 216–17; and Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 166–70, 217–221, cf. 100–101. 16 SZA, 373–96; SDS, 565–90; Mehmet Ersan, Selçuklular Zamanında Anadolu’da Ermeniler, 2nd ed. (2007; Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2019), 239–66; Dimitri Korobeinikov, Byzantium and the Turks in the Thirteenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 111–170; and Koray Turak and Ivana Jevtić, “Identity and the Other in Byzantine Studies: An Introduction,” in Identity and the Other in Byzantium, ed. Koray Turak and Ivana Jevtić (İstanbul: Koç University, 2019), 3–22. On the theoretical understanding of the concept of the ‘other’ precisely in the sense of socio-political and anthropological ‘le sujet extérieur,’ see İbrahim Kalın, Ben, Öteki ve Ötesi: İslam–Batı İlişkileri Tarihine Giriş, 2nd ed. (İstanbul: İnsan Yayınları, 2017), 13–57, 453–64.

Ṣūfīsm17 and novel philosophical schools18 as well as opinion and practices of different sectoral factions.19 Here, in terms of Ṣūfīsm, most importantly, we have in mind not only

Persianate Ṣūfīsm of Naṣir al-Dīn Maḥmud Ḫūyī (d. after 660 h./1262), Ǧalāl al-Dīn al-

Rūmī (604–72 h./1206–73) and Ḥāǧī Baktāš Walī (d. ca. 669 h./1271), but also Andalusian

Ṣūfīsm of Muḥyī l-Dīn al-ʿArabī (560–638 h./1165–1240), Maǧd al-Dīn Isḥāq (d. ca. 618 h./1221); as well as other ṣūfī authors that somewhat reflect synthesis of some of these intellectual traditions,20 such as Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (605–673 h./1205–1274), and Faḫr al-Dīn Ibrāhīm al-ʿIrāqī (d. 688 h./1289).21

17 SDS, 278–355; Vahap Aktaş, “Islamization of Anatolia and the Effects of Established Sufism (Orders),” The Anthropologist 17, no. 1 (2014): 147–55; “13.–16. Yüzyıllar Anadolu Şehirlerinde Dinî-Sosyal Hayat: Selçuklular’dan Osmanlılar’a Genel Bir Bakış,” in OA, 18–40, and “Ortaçağlar Anadolusu’nda Toplum, Kültür, ve Entelektüel Hayat,” in OA, 247–338. 18 By novel philosophical school, we have in mind Illuminationist (išrāqī) trend of thought that has spread during Šihāb al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī’s (549–87 h./1154–91) continuous interactions with the ruling élite in which his distinctive stance in the Islamicate philosophical traditions has been noted by the Salǧūq historiographer, Nāṣir al-Dīn Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. Bībī (d. after 684 h./1285) in the context of his ردو بم ِیدا ت لیصح :affiliation with the Salǧūq prince Malīk Nāṣir al-Dīn Berk-Yāruq Šah b. Kılıç Arslan II

الوم ن ا باهش ا نیدل پ ر ت و نامه را به نا ِم همایونش تصنیف وتألیف کرد. سلطان آن را در بحث ومحاققه آورد برک ّل رموز واشارا ِت آن مهارت

یافت ونف ِس علیلش در وق ِت حصو ِل شفا ِی ع ََل ّم َ َك مَا ل َ ْم ت َكُن ت َعْل َمُ از ورط ه جهالت نجات مح ّصل گردانید وبر ضواب ِط قانون واصطلاح ِ آن ,In the early stages of his [Berk-Yāruq’s] education = هرمز او فق دش . نچ ا کن زا یو هب کشر دمآ ِناور وب یلع یس ن ا . our master (mawlānā) Šihāb al-Dīn wrote and dedicated Partaw-nāma (the Book of Radiance) to his blessed name. The Sulṭān brought that book under discussion and debates until he acquired mastery over all its mysteries and allusions and his sick soul was healed and saved from the depth of ignorance. He became aware of that book’s principles and terminology to the extent that Bū ʿAlī Sīnā [Avicenna] envied him (as the Qurʾān 4:113 dictates), “taught you what you did not know”, AAž, 26, and the verbatim text in AAn, 35–36; cf. Yalman, “ʿAla al-Dīn Kayqubad Illuminated,” 162–76; and Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, “Selçuklular ve Beylikler Devrinde Tasavvufî Düşünce,” in AS, 1:429–33. 19 Rıza Yıldırım, “Sunni Orthodox vs Shiʿite Heterodox?: A Reappraisal of Islamic Piety in Medieval Anatolia,” in IA, 287–308; and “Türkiye Tarihinde İslamın İkinci Yüzü: Anadoluda Şiilik Meselesini Yeniden Düşenmek Yahut İsmaili Etkilere Dair,” in OA, 339–57; cf. ST, 312–18. 20 For the dynamic interactions of these figures in Medieval Anatolia, their socio-political ambitions, divergences and convergences on certain facets of esoteric and spiritual practices and doctrines, see SZA, 53– 81, 139–279. 21 Even though Samarqandī’s TŠe, 223 (cf. 97, 210) states that Faḫr al-Dīn al-ʿIrāqī was a student of Kirmānī, this is highly unlikely from a chronological standpoint, cf. Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 195 n. 141. Possibly, Samarqandī tempered with the information provided by Ǧāmī who categorises these authors accorded to their formulations of the concept of beauty and their affiliation with the practice of šahīd-bāzī,

Accordingly, this dynamic unfolding of intellectual and socio-political activities in turn triggers a new phase of flourishing for Ṣūfīsm in the early 13th century, especially for

Persianate Ṣūfīsm in Medieval Anatolia.22 During this historical framework crucial biographical data about Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī’s travels, disciples, and interactions with political leaders and patrons in Anatolia comes from Manāqib written between 1260–1300 after Kirmānī’s death possibly by a collaboration of his students.23 Yet, earlier than this source, there are other historiographic writings that mention some aspects of Kirmānī’s life.24 To name a few, Šaraf al-Dīn Abū l-Barakāt b. al-Mustawfī (d. 637 h./1239) writes valuable short information about Kirmānī after meeting with him in Ǧumādā l-ūlā 624 h./May 1227 in Irbil (or Arbīl). Moreover, he states that Kirmānī was born in the city of

Bardasīr in Kirmān region of present-day Iran in 561 h./1161–62.25 In accordance with al-

NU, 589, NUt, 662; cf. Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥusayn Gāzargāhī (d. 909/1504), Maǧālis al-ʿuššāq: taẕkira-ye ʿurafā, ed. Ġulām Riżā Ṭabāṭabāʾī Maǧd, 2nd ed. (1375 Sh./1996; Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Zarrīn, 1376 Sh./1997), 103– 105. 22 Abdurrahim Alkış, “13. Yüzyılda Konya’nın Bir İlim Merkezine Dönüşmesinde İranlı Âriflerin Rolü,” in BK, 2:51–101; and “Ortaçağlar Türkiyesi’nde Tasavvufun Yerleşmesi: İran Tesirleri Meselesine Kısa Bir Bakış (13.–15. Yüzyıllar),” in OA, 358–66. 23 Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 15. On methodological issues that will be relevant for our understanding of Persianate hagiographic sources, see Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, Kültür Tarihi Kaynağı Olarak Evliya Menâkıbnâmeleri, 5th ed. (1st ed. = Ankara: Başbakanlık Basımevi, 1984; İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2016), 57–103; Jürgen Paul, “Hagiographische Texte als historische Quelle,” Saeculum: Jahrbuch für Universalgeschichte 41, no. 1 (1990): 17–26; John Renard, Friends of God: Islamic Images of Piety, Commitment, and Servanthood (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 237–81; and Haşim Şahin, “Menâkıbnâmeler ve Vilâyetnâmeler,” in Dervişler ve Sufi Çevreler: Klasik Çağ Osmanlı Toplumunda Tasavvufi Şahsiyetler, 2nd ed. (İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2017), 13–43. 24 Bayram’s Evhadiyye Hareketi claims that an early historiographic source in which we encounter Kirmānī’s name is Rawżat al-murīdīn of Abī Ǧaʿfar Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad b. Yazdānyār (referring to the manuscript in Princeton University Library, Islamic Manuscripts Collection, Garrett no. 968Y [dated to be 783 h./1383], fol. 86b). However, not only Bayram mistakenly attributes this work to someone called “el- Berzaî” (7, 10, 21 n. 53 [= 2nd ed.]; 19, 22, 34 n. 55 [= 3rd ed.]), this referenced folio number 86b does not also mention any details about Kirmānī’s life and interactions. In fact, Rawżat al-Murīdīn is written around mid 5th h./11th century long before Kirmānī’s birth, see Arin Salamah-Qudsi, “Abū Jaʿfar Ibn Yazdānyār’s Rawḍat al-Murīdīn: an Unknown Sufi Manual of the Fifth/Eleventh Century,” Journal of Royal Asiatic Society 30, no. 3 (July 2020): 542–46. 25 TIMs, 1:304–5; and the verbatim text in TIMu, 278–79.

Mustawfī, Kamāl al-Dīn Abū l-Barakāt al-Mubārak b. al-Šaʿār al-Mawṣilī (593–654 h./1197–1256) considers 635 h./1238 as the date in which Kirmānī died in Baġdād, yet with the additional data of 3rd of Šaʿbān/28th of March.26 Lastly, Abū Yaḥyā Zakarīyāʾ b.

Muḥammad al-Qazwīnī (ca. 600–82 h./1203–83) mentions that he was from the region of

Kirmān and describes him as a šayḫ that achieved saintly miracles (karāmāt) and was aware of the hidden or occult matters (al-muġaybāt).27 Most importantly, al-Qazwīnī also writes that for some time Kirmānī stayed in Irbil and died in Baġdād – an essential information that is parallel to both al-Mustawfī and al-Šaʿār.28

Considering these sources, such historiographic evidence is more reliable in detailing early life and family background of Kirmānī than Manāqib, which is efficiently written through the sanctifying lens of Kirmānī’s students. This is achieved most evidently through the claim that Kirmānī was the son of Tūrānšāh (the head of the Salǧūqs of Kirmān, although earliest historiographic evidence identifies his father’s name as Abī l-Faḫr) and through his mother’s advice, Kirmānī left his birthplace at the age of sixteen and travelled to Baġdād due to the hostility of opponent factions against his royal family.29 However, through an elaborate study of historiographic sources and Kirmānī’s rubāʿiyyāt, Mostafavi argues that Kirmānī left Bardasīr due to inner political strives as well as continuous famine and poverty that afflicted region’s socio-economic condition through wars and sieges.30 As

26 al-Šaʿār, Qalāʾid al-ǧumān fī farāʾid šuʿarāʾ hāẕā l-zamān al-mašhūr bi-ʿUqūd al-ǧumān fī šuʿarāʾ hāẕā l-zamān, ed. Kāmil Salmān al-Ǧubūrī, 9 vols. (Bayrūt: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1426 h./2005), 7:304; cf. TI, 14:171. 27 For a philosophically intriguing deconstruction of the ṣūfī concepts of ġayb and karāmāt, see Süleyman Uludağ, Tasavvuf Kültüründe Keşif ve Keramet, 2nd ed. (2008; İstanbul: Sufi Kitap, 2017), esp. 63–169. 28 al-Qazwīnī, Ās̱ ār al-bilād wa-aḫbār al-ʿibād, in Zakarija Ben Muhammed Ben Mahmud el-Cazwini’s Kosmographie, vol. 2, Die Denkmäler der Länder, ed. Ferdinand Wüstenfeld (Göttingen: Druck und Verlag der Dieterichschen Buchhandlung, 1848), 164–65; reprint in (Bayrūt: Dār Ṣādir, n.d.), 247–48; cf. MF, 2:790. 29 MAb, 1–2; LRA, 107; MAm, 119. 30 Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 28–45, 53–54.

9 such, by deliberately linking Kirmānī to the family of Salǧūq lineage of Turkic ancestry, composer(s) of Manāqib in Salǧūq Anatolia advocated biographical innovations of ideological nature, especially during the rivalry amongst various ṣūfī orders for gaining influence over political leaders and courtly patrons; a historiographic facet, which we will return to explicate later.31 However, this factor should not throw doubt upon all historical information that is present in the Manāqib, such as his appointment over the Marzbāniyya ribāṭ, an establishment built for Abū Hafṣ ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī (539–632 h./1145–1234) and his disciples and handed over to Kirmānī after al-Suhrawardī’s death, which has been mentioned in other historical accounts.32 Granted this, Manāqib accounts that during his studies in the city of Baġdād, Kirmānī became the disciple of Šayḫ Rukn al-Dīn al-Siǧāsī

(d. between 592–94 h./1196–98), whom was the spiritual successor (ḫalīfa)33 of Quṭb al-

Dīn al-Abharī (d. 577 h./1181).34 In consideration to this claim, al-Šaʿār’s account becomes

31 The factor of Kirmānī’s link to the Turkic royal linage resurfaces continuously in later historiographic tradition; for instance, Qāżī Aḥmad of Niğde describes him with the title of malikzāda, see WŠ, 2:289 (= fol. 118a of MS Fatih 4518). For a referential survey of historiographic sources from Salǧūq and Īlḫānīd Anatolia that will be majorly utilised throughout this study, see Charles Melville, “The Early Persian Historiography of Anatolia,” in History and Historiography of Post-Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East: Studies in Honor of John E. Woods, ed. Judith Pfeiffer, Sholeh A. Quinn, and Ernest Tucker (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006), 135–166; Mimi Hanaoka, “The View from Anatolia,” in Authority and Identity in Medieval Islamic Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 220–50; and Osman G. Özgüdenli, “XII–XIV. Yüzyıllarda Anadolu’da Tarih Yazıcılığı,” in Ortaçağda Türkler, Moğollar, İranlılar (Kaynaklar ve Araştırmalar) (İstanbul: Ötüken Neşriyat, 2020), 97–125. 32 MAb, 240–49; LRA, 232–37; MAm, 261–68; al-Fūwaṭī (attributed), Kitāb al-Ḥawādis̱ , ed. Maḥdī al-Naǧm (Bayrūt: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1426 h./2005), 72–74; and the verbatim text in Kitāb al-Ḥawādis̱ , ed. Baššār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf and ʿImād ʿAbd al-Salām Raʿūf, 2nd ed. (1997; Bayrūt: Dār al-Ġarb al-Islāmī, 2015), 101–3. 33 A spiritual successor is a title that is bestowed upon a chosen individual from šayḫ’s disciples whom possesses the spiritual and ethical capabilities for instructing devotees (murīdūn) of the esoteric path (ṭarīqa), Ethem Cebecioğlu, Tasavvuf Terimleri ve Deyimleri Sözlüğü, 6th ed. (1st ed. = Ankara: Rehber, 1997; Ankara: Otto Yayınları, 2014), 190. 34 MAb, 3–13, 56–59; LRA, 109–114, 134–38; MAm, 122–29, 151–55. The spiritual connection between Kirmānī and al-Siǧāsī is also mentioned in TIMs, 1:305; and TIMu, 279; al-Šaʿār, Qalāʾid al-ǧumān, 7:304; and NM, 302; NU, 466, 586; NM, 302, 416; NUt, 520, 660. On other sources that mention al-Siǧāsī, see Zakī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm al-Munẕirī (581–656 h./1185–1258), al-Takmila li-wafayāt al-naqala, ed. Baššar

10 prevalent in which he writes that Kirmānī was buried close to al-Abharī’s grave in the

Šūnīzī cemetery.35 Moreover, al-Abharī traced his spiritual lineage, or genealogy (silsila) to Abū l-Naǧīb al-Suhrawardī (490–563 h./1097–1168), whom was the uncle of famous

ṣūfī author Abū Hafṣ ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī, the supposed founder of the Suhrawardiyya order.36 Accordingly, one of the authors that elucidates these connections is Taqī l-Dīn

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Wāsiṭī (674–744 h./1275–1343) in which he describes ʿUmar al-

Suhrawardī as šayḫ al-ḫirqa (master and provider of the initiatory cloak)37 positing to his initiation authority and often a living head of an order, while Quṭb al-Dīn al-Abharī is described as the main spiritual successor (ḫalīfa) of Abū l-Naǧīb al-Suhrawardī; yet both

ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, 4 vols., 3rd ed. (Bayrūt: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1405 h./1984), 1:260; MAk, 2:340; and TI, 7:981–82. For the ṣūfī heritage of the city of Baġdād, see Boutheina Khaldi, “The Sufis of Baghdad: A Topographical Index of the City,” in The City in Arabic Literature: Classical and Modern Perspectives, ed. Nizar F. Hermes and Gretchen Head (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018), 223–46. 35 al-Šaʿār, Qalāʾid al-ǧumān, 7:304; cf. DẔT, 2:363 and WW, 8:54. On the Šūnīzī or Šūnīziyya cemetery, see Judith Ahola and Letizia Osti, “Appendix: Baghdad at the Time of al-Muqtadir,” in Crisis and Continuity at the Abbasid Court: Formal and Informal Politics in the Caliphate of al-Muqtadir (295–320/908–32), ed. Maaike van Berkel, Nadia Maria El Cheikh, Hugh Kennedy, and Letizia Osti (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013), 229–30. 36 Erik S. Ohlander, Sufism in Age of Transition: ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī and the Rise of the Islamic Mystical Brotherhoods (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008), 7–11, 78 chart 3, 278–83, 313–18. Ḫwāfī writes that Kirmānī and ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī was together in the city of Makka in 616 h./1219–20 (MF, 2:770), in which this can be historically possible as Manāqib details several ḥaǧǧ visits of Kirmānī with other individuals as well such as Rukn al-Dīn al-Siǧāsī (MAb, 52–55; LRA, 132–34; MAm, 149–51) and Šaraf al-Dīn ʿAbū Abd al- Allāh b. ʿUs̱ mān-e Rūmī (d. 684 h./1285–86) (MAb, 62–63; LRA, 138–39; MAm, 156–57); cf. Aḥmad Zarkūb Šīrāzī (d. 789 h./1387–88), Šīrāz-nāma, ed. Ismāʿīl Wāʿiẓ Ǧawādī (Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Bunyād-e Farhang-e Īrān, 1350 Sh./1971–72), 163; and Ǧunayd Šīrāzī (d. 855 h./1451), Šadd al-izār fī ḥaṭṭ al-awzār ʿan zawwār al-mazār, ed. Muḥammad Qazwīnī and ʿAbbās Iqbāl (Tihrān: Čāpḫāna-ye Maǧlis, 1328 Sh./1949–50), 310– 12. 37 Cebecioğlu, Tasavvuf Terimleri, 211, 213–14; For ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī as the provider of ḫirqa, see al- Ẕahabī, Siyār aʿlām al-nubalāʾ, ed. Šuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ and Ḥusayn Asad, 11th ed., 25 vols. (1st ed. = 1401 h./1981; Bayrūt: Muʾssasat al-Risāla, 1417 h./1996), 22:377; and SṬŠ, 8:214–15; cf. Erik S. Ohlander, “Mecca real and imagined: texts, transregional networks, and the curious case of Bahāʾ al-Dīn Zakariyyā of Multan,” in Sufism and Society: Arrangements of the Mystical in the Muslim World, 1200–1800, ed. John J. Curry and Erik S. Ohlander (Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2012), 36–42.

11 are presented in the context of the order labelled as al-Suhrawardiyya al-Naǧībiyya,38 which suggests that Abū l-Naǧīb was the founder of the Suhrawardiyya order.39

Furthermore, this information might be read or interpreted further as ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī takes over the order of al-Suhrawardiyya al-Naǧībiyya as its šayḫ while al-Abharī branched out of this lineage in which later on his students played a crucial role for the formulation of other orders during the Ottoman, Tīmūrīd, and Āq Quyūnlū periods.40 Accordingly,

38 .cf. Reşat Öngören, “Ebü’n-Necîb Sühreverdî,” in TDVİ, 38:35 ; بط ةق خلا ةقر ا ةفيرشل ا ل ةيبيجن ا ل درورهس ي ة :Ṭḫṣ, 58 Different individuals can have the titles of šayḫ al-ḫirqa and ḫalīfa in a ṣūfī order, yet ideally both authorities should be present within a single figure, Cebecioğlu, Tasavvuf Terimleri, 190. On al-Wāsiṭī’s Ṭḫṣ, see Carl Brockelmann, History of the Arabic Written Tradition, ed. and trans. Joep Lameer and Jan Just Witkam, 6 vols. (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016–18 [supplement vol. 3 is subdivided into two volumes]), supp. vol. 2: 33, 223. Other than the Qāhira edition, manuscripts of Ṭḫṣ include Cambridge University Library, MS Qq. 93; Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg (Carl von Ossietzky), Cod. Orient. 463; Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS Arabe 5291, fols. 243–75; and Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS Arab 362, fols. 26–38. 39 Ṭḫṣ, 58 and 61 respectively. In contrast, al-Dabīs̱ ī presents al-Abharī as one of the followers (aṣḥāb) of al- Suhrawardī, DẔT, 2:362 (cf. al-Dabīs̱ ī, al-Muḫtaṣar al-Muḥtāǧ ilayhi min taʾrīḫ […] al-Dabīs̱ ī, ed. Muṣṭafā Ǧawād, 2 vols. [Baġdād: Maṭbaʿa al-Maʿārif, 1371 h./1951], 1:207 and WW, 8:54); and similarly, al-Fūwaṭī describes him as one of the companions (rufaqāʾ) of al-Suhrawardī, MMk, 3:360–61. Additionally, there is also a biographical collection of the ṣūfī authors written during the Ottoman period by Maḥmūd Cemāl el- Dīn Hulvī (d. 1064 h./1654) called Lemeẓāt-ı Hulviyye ez lemeʿāt-ı ʿulviyye, which considers ʿUmar al- Suhrawardī one of four ḫulafāʾ and al-Abharī as the main ḫalīfa of Abū l-Naǧīb al-Suhrawardī, in Lemezât- ı Hulviyye ez Lemezât-ı Ulviyye (Büyük Velilerin Tatlı Halleri), ed. Mehmet Serhan Tayşi (İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları, 1993), 261. 40 Possibly following Hulvī’s account in Lemeẓāt-ı Hulviyye, 269, some modern sources label this distinct branching as Abhariyya, such as Ḥarīrīzāde Meḥmed Kemāl el-Dīn (d. 1882), Tibyān wasāʾil al-ḥaqāʾiq fī bayān salāsil al-ṭarāʾiq, Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Ibrâhim Efendi MS 430–32 (3 vols.), MS 430: fol. 32a–b and Ṣādıḳ Vicdānī (d. 1939), Ṭūmar-ı Turūḳ-ı ʿAliyye, part 1, Melāmīlik (İstanbul: Evḳāf-ı Islāmiyye Maṭbaʿası, 1340 h. (or 1338 Rh.)/1922), 100, and part 3, Ḫalvetiyye (İstanbul: Evḳāf-ı Islāmiyye Maṭbaʿası, 1341 h. (or 1338 Rh.)/1922), 3, 15, 17; yet, ʿOs̱ mānzāde Ḥüseyin Vaṣṣāf (d. 1929) does not note of the Abhariyya order, see Sefīne-yi Evliyā-yı Ebrār, ed. Mehmet Akkuş and Ali Yılmaz, 5 vols., 3rd ed. (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2015), 1:284–86, 358, 2:429–31, 3:132, 291, 4:377, 382, 5:297–99. As such, Hulvī’s account cannot be taken granted without further analysis as John J. Curry explains, major historical problems exist in Lemeẓāt in terms of detailing spiritual genealogies of various orders both in content and chronology, Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought in the Ottoman Empire: The Rise of the Halveti Order, 1350– 1650 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010), 22–23, 27. Accordingly, our study of other primary sources present that al-Abharī’s name usually appears without any mentioning of the Abhariyya order in the hagiographic genealogies of various orders, especially Zāhidiyya/Ṣafawiyya order of Ibrāhīm Zāhid-e Gīlānī (d. 700 h./1301) and Šayḫ Ṣafī l-Dīn Ardabīlī (d. 794 h./1391–92), see Tawakkulī b. Ismāʿīl al-Ardabīlī b. Bazzāz (d. 935 h./1334), Ṣafwat al-ṣafā: dar tarǧuma-ye aḥwāl wa aqwāl wa karāmāt-e Šayḫ Ṣafī l-Dīn Isḥāq

Kirmānī’s spiritual lineage is outlined by some of the historiographers of the 14th century as follows:4142 Qāżī Aḥmad of Niğde’s Abī l-Maʿālī Muḥammad (d. after 734 h./1333) al- b. Rāfiʿ al-Salāmī’s (d. Walad al-šafīq41 774 h./1372) Tārīḫ ʿulamāʾ Baġdād42 Aḥmad Ġazālī Aḥmad Ġazālī

Abū l-Naǧīb al-

Suhrawardī Abū l-Naǧīb al-

Suhrawardī

Rukn al-Dīn al-Siǧāsī

Quṭb al-Dīn al-Abharī

Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī

Ardabīlī, ed. Ġulām Riżā Ṭabāṭabāʾī Maǧd (Tihrān: Intišārāt-i Zaryāb, 1373 Sh./1994), 180–81, cf. Serap Şah, “Safvetü’s-Safâ’da Safiyyüddîn-i Erdebîlî’nin Hayatı, Tasavvufî Görüşleri ve Menkıbeleri,” 2 vols. (PhD diss., Marmara Üniversitesi, 2007), 1:54, 70–78, 337 and Farida Stickel, Zwischen Chiliasmus und Staatsräson: Religiöser Wandel unter den Ṣafaviden (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2019), 53– 63, 82–97; the Ḫalwatiyya order of ʿUmar al-Ḫalwatī (d. 800 h./1397) and Sayyid Yaḥyā Šīrwānī (or Bakūwī, d. 870 h./1466) and its branches, see Şemlelīzāde Aḥmed Efendī, Şīve-yi Ṭarīḳat-i Gülşeniyye, ed. Tahsin Yazıcı (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1982), 513; cf. Mustafa Akşar, “Bir Türk Tarikatı Olarak Halvetiyye’nin Tarihî Gelişimi ve Halvetiyye Silsilesinin Tahlili,” Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 39, no. 1 (1999): 556–57; and Mehmet Rıhtım, Seyid Yəhya Bakuvi və Xəlvətilik (Bakı: Qismət, 2005), 97–98; and the Bayrāmiyya order of Ḥāǧī Bayrām Walī (d. 833 h./1429–30) and its branches, see Ṣarı ʿAbd Allāh Efendī (d. 1071 h./1660), S̱ emerāt el-fuʾād fī mebdaʾ ve-l-meʿād (İstanbul: Maṭbaʿa-yı ʿĀmire, 1288 h./1871–72), 226; cf. Haşim Şahin, “Bayramiyye,” in Semih Ceyhan, ed., Türkiyede Tarikatlar: Tarih ve Kültür, 2nd ed. (2015; İstanbul and Ankara: İSAM Yayınları, 2018), 787–89. Similarly, Ottoman historiographers such as Nevʿīzāde Aṭāʾī (d. 1045 h./1635), Ḥadāʾiḳ el-ḥaḳāʾiḳ fī tekmīlāt el-Şeḳāʾiḳ (Ẕeyl el-Şeḳāʾiḳ [teʿlīf-i Ṭāşköprüzāde Aḥmed Efendī]) mentions Ḳuṭb el-Dīn Ebherī by name but does not attribute any Abhariyya order to him in his section of ṣūfī orders, in Nev‘îzâde Atâyî’nin Şakâ’ik Zeyli, ed. Suat Donuk and Derya Örs, 2 vols. (İstanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2018), 1:373–436; cf. Şeyḫī Meḥmed Efendī (d. 1144 h./1731), Veḳāyiʿ el-fużalā (Ẕeyl Ḥadāʾiḳ el-ḥaḳāʾiḳ), in Şeyhî’nin Şakâ’ik Zeyli, ed. Ramazan Ekinci and Derya Örs, 4 vols. (İstanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2018), 1:297–319. 41 WŠ, 2:289–90 (= fol. 118a–b of MS Fatih 4518). 42 al-Salāmī, Tārīḫ ʿulamāʾ Baġdād al-musammā Muntaḫab al-muḫtār, ed. ʿAbbās al-ʿAzzawī, 2nd ed. (Baġdad: Maṭbaʿat al-Ahālī, 1357 h./1938; Bayrūt: al-Dār al-ʿArabiyya li-l-Mawsūʿāt, 1420 h./2000), 148 (= 1st ed.), 118 (= 2nd ed.); NU, 420; NM, 262; and NUt, 473; and Ṭāşköprüzāde Aḥmed Efendī (d. 968 h./1561), al-Šaqāʾiq al-nuʿmāniyya fī ʿulamāʾ al-dawlat al-Us̱ māniyya, in eş-Şakâ’iku’n-Nu’mâniyye: Osmanlı Âlimleri, ed. Muhammet Hekimoğlu and Derya Örs (İstanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2019), 125.

Not only we possess an outline of Kirmānī’s silsila in Qāżī Aḥmad’s Walad al-

šafīq, there is also a list of active members of the Awḥadiyya order after Kirmānī’s death in which the silsila continues with Badr al-Dīn Hiraqlī, Šihāb al-Dīn Hiraqlī, Šayḫ Ẓahīr al-Dīn and Faḫr al-Dīn ʿAlī-Bey. Moreover, Qāżī Aḥmad describes Šayḫ Ẓahīr al-Dīn as one of the last representators (wuzarāʾ) of al-Awḥadiyyīn.43 In this context, by a ṣūfī order, we mean the development and the formulation of Ṣūfīsm in its multiple forms, which are observed from the 12th century onwards when the esoteric and mystical teachings of ṣūfī masters were increasingly cultivated in orders (ṭurūq).44 To explicate, the orders were usually located in special buildings where ṣūfīs practiced their rites and rituals and engaged in collective and individual worship; a factor that was introduced to the social structure of

Medieval Anatolia beginning from the late 12th century.45 Furthermore, the Awḥadī ṣūfīs

43 WŠ, 2:289 and 1:81–82. Rauf Kahraman Ürkmez and Mehmet Ali Kapar provide other relevant historiographic sources in accordance with Manāqib for tracing the presence of Awḥadiyya order in Pre- Ottoman Anatolian cities, “Menkıbevî Kayıtlara Göre XIII. Yüyzıl Anadolusu’nda Evhadî Dervişlerinin Yayıldığı Şehirler,” in BK, 1:346–63; cf. Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 263–64, SZA, 72–82; and Resul Ay, “Tasavvufî Hayat ve Tarikatlar,” in AS, 1:464–65. For a discussion of various mūrīds of Kirmānī and their lives derived majorly from Manāqib, see Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 248–62. 44 On the formation and varieties of ṣūfī orders, see John S. Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), 1–30, 31–66; Marshall G. S. Hodgson, “The Ṣûfism of the Ṭâriqah Orders, c. 945–1273,” in The Venture of Islam, vol. 2, The Expansion of Islam in the Middle Periods, 3rd ed. (1961; 1974; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1977), 201–245; Alexander Knysh, Islamic Mysticism: A Short History (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2000), 169–244; Ahmet T. Karamustafa, Sufism: The Formative Period (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 143–71; and Nile Green, Sufism: A Global History (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 71–124. 45 M. Baha Tanman and Sevgi Parlak, “Tarikat Yapıları,” in AS, 2:391–418; SDS, 648–64; and Ethel Sara Wolper, Cities and Saints: Sufism and the Transformation of Urban Spaces in Medieval Anatolia (University Park, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 16–82. For the feminine aspects of architectural patronage, which supported establishment of various ṣūfī buildings as well as the feminine identity in the socio-political structure of Anatolian Ṣūfīsm, see Suzan Yalman, “The ‘Dual Identity’ of Mahperi Khatun: Piety, Patronage, and Marriage across Frontiers in Seljuk Anatolia,” in Architecture and Landscape in Medieval Anatolia, 1100–1500, ed. Patricia Blessing and Rachel Goshgarian (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017), 224–52; Wolper, Cities and Saints, 82–91; and Bruno de Nicola, “The Ladies of Rūm: A Hagiographic View of Women in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Anatolia,” Journal of Sufi Studies 3, no. 2 (November 2014): 132–56.

14 owned such architectural establishments in various cities of Anatolia like zāwiya and

ḫānaqāh, especially the Köşk Hânikâhı in Kayseri.46 During this period, there is also a possibility to talk about some sort of institutionalisation amongst various ṣūfī groups, which were settled around a ṣūfī master and the establishment were run by the full-time devotees to the spiritual path. Gradually these institutions acquired rigidly fixed rules of fellowship and a complex hierarchical leadership. Within this structure, ṣūfī orders provided their members with a strong sense of identity, with a code of behaviour, and with the awareness of belonging to a respected spiritual tradition with its own rituals, ethos, and doctrinal system.47 In this connection, the practice of šāhid-bāzī might have been a part of the doctrinal aspects of the Awḥadiyya order as Aḥmad al-Ġazālī (d. 520 h./1126) is mentioned repetitively in the spiritual lineage of Abū l-Naǧīb al-Suhrawardī,48 and historically speaking this is an important factor because the practice of šāhid-bāzī was supposedly present in Aḥmad Ġazālī’s life and thought in a vivid manner.49 Additionally, another

46 For the historical and epigraphic evidence that Köşk Hânikâhı was built for and regulated by Awḥadī ṣūfīs, see Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 262–263; SZA, 329–36; Nermin Şaman and Turgay Yazar, “Kayseri Köşk Hânikâhı,” Vakıflar Dergisi, no. 22 (1991): 301–2; and Suat Kaymak, Türkiye Selçukluları ve Erken Beylikler Epigrafisine Giriş (1065–1350) (İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 2013), 182–83. Perhaps Marzbāniyya ribāṭ – after Kirmānī’s formal regulation – can be considered an establishment of the Awḥadiyya order as well, see p. 7 above. 47 Knysh, Islamic Mysticism, 172–76. Considering this, Ridgeon has suggested that the diversity of Ṣūfīsm in the 13th century supposedly posed a threat to moral and social cohesion in which it necessitated a unifying element to regulate a somewhat diffused and unconfined nature of various forms of Ṣūfīsm through institutionalisation, LRA, 33–34. For the ṣūfī identity in Medieval Anatolia, see, Jamal J. Elias, “Sufism and Islamic Identity in Jaluluddin Rumi’s Anatolia,” in Light upon Light: Essays in Islamic Thought and History in Honor of Gerhard Böwering, ed. Jamal J. Elias and Bilal Orfali (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2019), 291– 315. 48 DẔT, 4:297; Ṭḫṣ, 58; al-Ẕahabī, Siyār aʿlām al-nubalāʾ, 20:477; SṬŠ, 7:175; and NU, 420; NM, 262; NUt, 473. 49 On Aḥmad al-Ġazālī and šāhid-bāzī, see Nasrollah Pourjavady, “Stories of Aḥmad al-Ghazālī ‘Playing the Witness’ in Tabrīz (Shams-i Tabrīzī’s interest in shāhid-bāzī),” in Reason and Inspiration in Islam: Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim Thought, Essays in Honour of Hermann Landolt, ed. Todd Lawson (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2005), 200–20; and Joseph E. B. Lumbard, Aḥmad al-Ghazālī, Remembrance, and the Metaphysics of Love (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2016), 36,

15 relevant detail is that ʿAyn al-Qużāt al-Hamadānī (d. 525 h./1131), whom is also a major name in the practice of šāhid-bāzī, was initiated into the esoteric path no other than Aḥmad al-Ġazālī and he was said to the most favourite disciple of al-Ġazālī.50

Yet, we suggest the practice of šāhid-bāzī being a doctrinal part of the Awḥadiyya order in a tentative manner even though some ṣūfī individuals that affiliated with Kirmānī might be considered to be indulged into the practice šāhid-bāzī such as Šayḫ ʿAlī al-Ḥarīrī

(d. after 628 h./1230);51 a similar observation may also be noticed in terms of his disciples and followers, such as Šaraf al-Dīn ʿUs̱ mān-e Rūmī.52 The purpose for avoiding such hastiness, historiographically speaking, is that the practice of šāhid-bāzī disappears and resurfaces again with certain figures throughout Kirmānī’s spiritual silsila. To explicate, it is a complex issue to explain why the practice of šāhid-bāzī is vividly present in the historiography of Aḥmad Ġazālī and ʿAyn al-Qużāt al-Hamadānī, yet this cannot be comprehensively claimed in terms of Abū l-Naǧīb al-Suhrawardī, al-Siǧāsī, and al-Abharī.

Hence, there is a historical brake in the doctrinal chain in which the practice of šāhid-bāzī

42; cf. Hellmut Ritter, The Ocean of the Soul: Men, the World and God in the Stories of Farīd al-Dīn ʿAṭṭār, trans. John O’Kane and Bernd Radtke (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), 484–91. 50 NU, 418; NM, 260; NUt, 471; and Firoozeh Papan-Matin, Beyond Death: The Mystical Teachings of ʿAyn al-Quḍāt Hamadānī (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 10–11; cf. Salimeh Maghsoudlou, “La pensée de ʿAyn al-Quḍāt al-Hamadānī (m. 525/1132), entre avicennisme et héritage ġazālien” (PhD diss., École Pratique des Hautes Études, 2016), 12–47. 51 MAb, 263–64; LRA, 244–45; MAm, 276–77; cf. TI, 14:520–28; WW, 20:223–28; Šams al-Dīn Aḥmad Aflākī (d. 761 h./1360), Manāqib al-ʿārifīn, ed. Tahsin Yazıcı, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (1959–61; Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1976–1980), 2:641; and Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 204–8. 52 MAb, 62–63; LRA, 138–39; MAm, 156–57. On the sources that describe Šaraf al-Dīn b. Us̱ mān-e Rūmī’s ṣūfī practices, see Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 210–11. Šaraf al-Dīn was son of ʿUs̱ mān-e Rūmī – an acquaintance of Kirmānī (see, RSm, 21; and RSa, 118) – whom established a Qalandarī ṣūfī movement, see WW, 5:193–94 and ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muḥammad al-Nuʿaymī (d. 927 h./1521), al-Dāris fī tārīḫ al-madāris, ed. Ibrāhīm Šams al-Dīn, 2 vols. (Bayrūt: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1410 h./1990), 2:163–64; cf. ʿAzīz’s story from MAb, 212–18; LRA, 218–21; MAm, 245–49; and the case of a follower of Kirmānī’s conceptualisations of beauty and love called Šayḫ Awḥadī-ye Marāġī (or Iṣfahānī, d. 738 h./1274), see NU, 603–605; NM, 427–29; NUt, 675–76; TŠe, 210–14; MN, 327–28; and Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 213–14.

16 re-appears again with Kirmānī and continues with authors such as Faḫr al-Dīn al-ʿIrāqī, whom was the disciple of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (d. 673 h./1274);53 and al-Qūnawī also being spiritually trained by Kirmānī.54 In order to fill this doctrinal chasm, one may suggest the solution that Kirmānī’s formulation of šāhid-bāzī and conceptualisations of beauty and love can origin from his encounters with spiritual authorities that are affiliated with the doctrinal aspects of the eastern Iranian school of Ṣūfīsm, especially from Ḫurāsān.55

In light of this discussion, one might deduce that Kirmānī’s spiritual background embodies a synthesis of various forms of Ṣūfīsm thoroughly developed throughout his

53 NU, 554, 600–602; NM, 363, 424–26; NUt, 632, 672–73; cf. TŠe, 215–217; Miller, “Embodying the beloved,” 10–17; Zargar, Sufi Aesthetics, 85–119; and Ève Feuillebois-Pierunek, À la croisée des voies célestes: Faxr al-Din ʿErâqi: Pensée mystique et expression poétique en Perse médiévale (Paris and Tehran: Institut Français de Recherche en Iran/Peeters Publishers, 2002), 277–302. 54 For the master/disciple relationship between Kirmānī and al-Qūnawī, see MAb, 84–87; LRA, 148–50; MAm, 167–69; cf. RSm, 21, and RSa, 118; William C. Chittick, “The Last Will and Testament of Ibn ʿArabī’s Foremost Disciple and Some Notes on its Author,” Ǧāwīdān Ḫirad/Sophia Perennis 4, no. 1 (1978): 50–51; Gerald Elmore, “Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī’s Personal Study-List of Books by Ibn al-ʿArabī,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 56, no. 3 (July 1997): 178–79; Richard Todd, The Sufi Doctrine of Man: Ṣadr al-Dīn al- Qūnawī’s Metaphysical Anthropology (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014), 16; Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 237–42; and SZA, 147–49. Yet, again during our research, we have not encountered sources that describe al-Qūnawī as a šāhid-bāzī. 55 Manāqib accounts that Kirmānī visited Ḫurāsān and acquainted with Naǧm al-Dīn Kubrā (d. 618 h./1221), MAb, 202–203; LRA, 212–13; MAm, 240–41; cf. Bayram, Evhadiyye Hareketi, 30–31 (2nd ed.); 43–44 (3rd ed.) and Devin DeWeese, “Mapping Khwārazmian Connections in the History of Sufi Traditions: Local Embeddedness, Regional Networks, and Global Ties of the Sufi Communities of Khwārazm,” Eurasian Studies 14, nos. 1–2 (May 2016): 37–97. Accorded with this information, consider Kirmānī’s quatrain from Rubaîler, no. 87, 94: یجنگ هک هنیفد رد ِنیمز تسمور وت زا ِرس تلفغ ناسارخب بلطم A treasure that is hidden in the land of Rūm, Do not seek negligently after in Ḫurāsān. cf. Fritz Meier, “Ḫurāsān und das Ende der klassischen Sufik Ṣūfik,” in Atti del Convegno internazionale sul tema: La Persia nel Medioevo (Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lince, 1971), 545–70; Jacqueline Chabbi, “Remarques sur le développement historique des mouvements ascétiques et mystiques au Khurasan: IIIe/IXe siècle - IVe/Xe siècle,” Studia Islamica 46, (1977): 5–72; Terry Graham, “Abū Saʾīd ibn Abī’l-Khayr and the School of Khurāsān,” in Heritage of Sufism, vol. 1, Classical Persian Sufism from Its Origins to Rumi (700-1300), ed. Leonard Lewisohn, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1999), 116–35; cf. Margaret Malamud, “Sufi Organizations and Structures of Authority in Medieval Nishapur,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 26, no. 3 (August 1994): 427–42. Here, also consider the fact that Aḥmad Ġazālī was a native of Ḫurāsān, see Lumbard, Aḥmad al-Ghazālī, 51–74.

17 intellectual pursuit of gnostic knowledge. Together with this, throughout his extensive travels in Iran, Mesopotamia and Anatolia,56 Kirmānī build close relationships with Muḥyī l-Dīn al-ʿArabī (560–638 h./1165–1240)57 in which some characteristic notions of Ibn

ʿArabī’s doctrine of wuǧūd can be observed in the quatrains of Kirmānī.58 However, Šams al-Dīn Muḥammad Tabrīzī (d. 645 h./1247) and probably in this connection his disciple

Ǧalāl al-Dīn al-Rūmī (604–72 h./1207–73) have been portrayed through certain hagiographic sources with a negative perspective on Kirmānī’s individuality, especially criticising Kirmānī’s philosophical and gnostic roots of being a šahīd-bāzī.59 Of course, primary divergences in ṣūfī theoretical elements and doctrines expressed through distinct practices in turn established clashes when ṣūfī šuyūḫ interacted with political leaders and courtly patrons.60 As such, conscious envision of negativity over various ṣūfī élites in some

56 Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 186–262; cf. Bayram, Evhadiyye Hareketi, 17–37 (2nd ed.); 30–53 (3rd ed.). 57 al-ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya, ed. Aḥmad Šams al-Dīn, 9 vols. (Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1420 h./1999), 1:196; and MAb, 74–76; LRA, 148–50; MAm, 167–69; cf. RSm, 21, and RSa, 118; NS, 380, 586– 87; NM, 231, 416; NUt, 409, 660; James Winston Morris, “Ibn ʿArabi and His Interpreters Part II (Conclusion): Influences and Interpretations,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 107, no. 1 (January/March 1987): 101–19; and Claude Addas, Quest for the Red Sulphur: The Life of Ibn al-ʿArabī, trans. Peter Kingsley (Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1993), 228–30. 58 ʿAlī Muḥammad Muʾẕẕanī and Mahdī Ḥaydarī, “Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī, naqṭa-ye ẓuhūr-e afkār-e Ibn ʿArabī dar adabiyāt-e fārsī,” Adab-e Fārsī 5, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 1384 Sh./2015), 1–20; cf. TŠe, 233. 59 Šams-e Tabrīzī, al-Maqālāt, ed. Ǧaʿfar Mudarris Ṣādiqī, 20th ed. (Tihrān: Našr-e Markaz, 1398 Sh./2019– 20), 36, 53, 76, 164; and translations from Me and Rumi: The Autobiography of Shams-i Tabrizi, trans. William C. Chittick (Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 2004), 34–35, 72, 117–18; Aflākī, Manāqib al-ʿārifīn, 1:439–440, 2:616–17; and translations from The Feats of the Knowers of God, trans. John O’Kane (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2002), 302–3, 423–24; and NU, 464, 466, 587; NM, 300, 302, 417; NUt, 518, 520, 661; cf. Franklin D. Lewis, Rumi: Past and Present, East and West, 5th ed. (1st ed. = 2000; London: Oneworld Publications, 2008), 151–153. For a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between Kirmānī and Šams- e Tabrīzī, see Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 194–201. 60 Mikâil Bayram, Sosyal ve Siyâsî Boyutlarıyla Ahi Evren-Mevlânâ Mücadelesi (Konya and İstanbul: Çizgi Kitabevi, 2020 [reprint of the 1st ed. = Konya: Olgun-Çelik, 2005]), 103–60; and Judith Pfeiffer, “Mevlevi- Bektashi Rivalries and the Islamisation of the Public Space in Late Seljuq Anatolia,” in IA, 309–28. For the presence of ṣūfī individuals in the court of Salǧūq and Mongol Anatolia, see Sara Nur Yıldız and Haşim Şahin, “In the Proximity of Sultans: Majd al-Dīn Isḥāq, Ibn ʿArabī and the Seljuk Court,” in The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East, ed. Andrew C. S. Peacock and Sara Nur Yıldız

18 hagiographies and deliberate concentrations and support of royal patronage on certain individuals signals rivalry and competition amongst ṣūfī orders.61 Hence, only some forms of Ṣūfīsm enjoyed certain degree of popularity due to the social network it spread over popular mass as well as certain political figures. Yet, others occupied the margins due to self-preservation of their environment from the exterior forces, but some also were shunned because of the emergence of ‘charlatan šuyūḫ,’ who deviated from the šarīʿa.62 In this connection, perhaps Kirmānī was often portrayed through the lens of deviated form of

Ṣūfīsm and indeed some contemporary authors have characterised him as a literary or higher form of Qalandarī rather than a wondering ascetic embodied with scandalous conduct;63 a factor that ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī is often critical of, especially in the context

(London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2013), 173–205; A. C. S. Peacock, “Sufis and the Seljuk Court in Mongol Anatolia: Politics and Patronage in the Works of Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī and Sulṭān Walad, in The Seljuks of Anatolia, 206–26; and Peacock, Society in Mongol Anatolia, 75–116. 61 On this issue, see Resul Ay, “Sufi Shaykhs and Society in Thirteenth and Fifteenth Century Anatolia: Spiritual Influence and Rivalry,” Journal of Islamic Studies 24, no. 1 (January 2013): 1–24; and Anadolu’da Derviş ve Toplum: 13–15. Yüzyıllar, 4th ed. (1st ed. = 2008; İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2014), 123–58. 62 LRA, 21–32. 63 Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 94–109; and Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Marjinal Sûfilik: Kalenderîler (XIV–XVII. Yüzyıllar), 3rd ed. (1992; Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1999; İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2016), 131–33; cf. our mentioning of the Qalandarī Seher Abdal’s commentary on his Dīwān, p. 3 above; and Kirmānī connection with ʿUs̱ mān-e Rūmī and al-ʿIrāqī – both of them considered to be Qalandarī in historiographic sources, p. 13 above; Ahmet T. Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends: Dervish Groups in the Islamic Middle Period, 1200–1550, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994; Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2006), 51–85; Muḥammad Riżā Šafīʿī Kadkanī, Qalandariyya dar tārīḫ: digardīsī-hā-ye yik īdiʾūlūžī, 3rd ed. (Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Suḫan, 1387 Sh./2008–9), 280–331; Michel Boivin, Le Soufisme antinomien dans le sous-continent indien: La’l Shahbâz Qalandar et son héritage — XIIIe- XXe siècle (Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 2012), 24–89; Ève Feuillebois-Pierunek, “Le qalandar: Réalité et fiction dans la Perse médiévale,” in Etrangeté de l’autre, singularité du moi: Les Figures du marginal dans les littératures, ed. Ève Feuillebois-Pierunek and Zaïneb Ben Lagha (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2015), 111– 28; also, consider Saʿdī Šīrāzī’s (d. 691 h./1292) Būstān warning beardless youths against the influence of Qalandarī groups, which suggests šahīd-bāzī’s affiliation with this movement, in Kullīyāt-e Saʿdī: Gulistān, Būstān, ġazalīyāt, qaṣāʾid, qiṭʿāt wa rasāʾil, ed. Muḥammad ʿAlī Furūġī, 12th ed. (Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Amīr Kabīr, 1381 Sh./2002–2003), 380: ره آ سکن هک دنزرف ار مغ خن درو رگد سک شمغ دروخ و دب ن ما درک سیه روزتر زان مخنث مخواه که پیش از خطش روی گردد سیاه رسپ وک نایم ردنلق تسشن ردپ وگ ز شریخ ورف یوش تسد

19 of muwallah (fool of God) dervishes that went against social norms and šarīʿa regulations

– outlined thoroughly in ʿAwārif al-maʿārif.64

Chapter 3: Theological, Philosophical, and Gnostic Setting of Kirmānī

Now, other than the historical approach, another theoretical analysis comes from the scholarly current that has tendency to characterise the intellectual activity of this period as ‘philosophical Ṣūfīsm’, a term, which, as Anna Akasoy highlights, is quite vague.65

Accordingly, one interpretation of this approach attempts to single out the 13th century

Ṣūfīsm through the major theoretical developments of a complex philosophical and metaphysical nature, especially pointing to the ground-breaking contributions of Ibn

ʿArabī.66 This is predominantly achieved on the basis of distinguishing this period from the earlier forms of Ṣūfīsm, which are seen as ‘ascetic’ (or majorly devoted to ascetic practices) and less sophisticated manifestations in collective or individual practices.67 Another

cf. J.T.P De Bruijn, “The Qalandariyyāt in Persian Mystical Poetry, from Sanāʾī Onwards,” in The Heritage of Sufism, vol. 2, The Legacy of Medieval Persian Sufism (1150–1500), ed. Leonard Lewisohn, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1999), 75–86. 64 ʿAwārif al-maʿārif wa Ẕayl Maʿārif al-ʿawārif taʿlīf-e Ṣadr al-Dīn Ǧunayd al-Šīrāzī, ed. Umīd Surūrī (Tihrān: Bunyād-hā-ye Šukū/Safīr-e Ardihāl, 1393 Sh./2014–15), 26–77; cf. Ohlander, Sufism in Age of Transition, 187–249; Ahmet T. Karamustafa, “Antinomian Sufis,” in The Cambridge Companion to Sufism, 107–20; and Eyüp Öztürk, Velilik ve Delilik Arasında İbnu’s-Serrâc’ın Gözünden Müvelleh Dervişler, 2nd ed. (2013; İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2016), 88–95. For an analysis of the complex relationship between ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī, Kirmānī and the figures of later Suhrawardiyya order, see Mostafavi, Evhadeddin-i Kirmani, 129–30, 170–74; 185–87, 202–204. 65 Anna Akasoy, “What is Philosophical Sufism?,” in In the Age of Averroes: Arabic Philosophy in the Sixth/Twelfth Century, ed. Peter Adamson (London and Savigliano: The Warburg Institute and Nino Aragno Editore, 2011), 248. 66 Caner D. Dagli, “Theoretical Considerations: Cutting the Pie of Mysticism, Philosophy, and Theology,” in Ibn al-ʿArabī and Islamic Intellectual Culture: From Mysticism to Philosophy (Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2016), 7–20; cf. Muhammed Rustom, “Philosophical Sufism” in The Routledge Companion to Islamic Philosophy, eds. Richard C. Taylor and Luis Xavier López-Farjeat (Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2016), 399–411. 67 The understanding of earlier period of Ṣūfīsm without significant discussion or contribution of metaphysical discourses is extremely controversial, for instance, see Saer El-Jaichi, Early Philosophical Ṣūfism: The Neoplatonic Thought of Ḥusayn Ibn Manṣūr Al-Ḥallāğ (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2018), 1–14.

20 interpretation is similar to the previous one but especially crystallised in the intellectual boundaries of the Šīʿī Iran, which aims to make a distinction between higher/true and lower/false forms of Ṣūfīsm. In this case, a genuine form of Ṣūfīsm entitled as ʿirfān

(gnostic wisdom), or ʿirfān-e naẓārī (theoretical gnosis) is connected with ḥikma, or falsafa

(philosophical wisdom).68 By so doing, starting from the 17th century Ṣafawīd Iran, ʿirfān became higher form of Ṣūfīsm and not only was it sharply distinguished from the popular forms of Ṣūfīsm established through ṣūfī orders, but the term ṣūfī itself started to be identified with the tricksters and imposters that counteract the šarīʿa.69 Considering this, our theoretical approach should avoid the term ‘philosophical Ṣūfīsm,’ and all of its aforementioned constructions and embrace an approach that not only respects the varieties of ṣūfī practices (and avoid entitling one form of Ṣūfīsm as authentic, or correct), but it should also not diminish, or underestimate the intellectual component of the earlier forms of Ṣūfīsm. Therefore, our analysis will prefer to merely connote to the 13th century Ṣūfīsm as a period distinguished from the earlier structures based on the dynamic formulations and exchanges of ṣūfī doctrines between different forms of Ṣūfīsm and a synthesis of various

68 Both of these interpretations are discussed briefly in Alexander Knysh, Sufism: A New History Islamic Mysticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017), 36–40. 69 On this issue, see Andrew J. Newman, Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire, 2nd ed. (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009), 93–103; and Rula Abisaab, Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire, 2nd ed. (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2015), 89–120. On ʿirfān and taṣawwuf, see Leonard Lewisohn, “Sufism and the School of Iṣfahān: Taṣawwuf and ʿIrfān in Late Safavid Iran (ʿAbd al-Razzāq Lāhījī and Fayḍ-i Kāshānī on the Relation of Taṣawwuf, Ḥikmat and ʿIrfān),” in The Heritage of Sufism, vol. 3, Late Classical Persianate Sufism (1501–1750), ed. Leonard Lewisohn, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1999), 63–134.

21 trends of intellectual thought such as philosophy, theology, and gnosis, which produced an enormous amount of writings on complex set of intellectual speculations and discourses.70

Now, having clarified some preliminary information on Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī’s background, one such complex theoretical construct was the formulation of waḥdat al- wuǧūd; yet before its exposition and connection with the usage of form (ṣūrat) and meaning

(maʿnā) in his rubāʿiyyāt, one should start with the discussion of Kirmānī’s understanding of two complementary aspects of the Divine Reality. One of these aspects is the transcendent and immanent nature of the Divine Reality, and the other is the ‘outward’

(ẓāhir) and the ‘inward’ (bāṭin) character of the Divine manifestation; all these dimensions together making the cornerstone of the doctrine of waḥdat al-wuǧūd. Here, we will first concentrate on the explanation of the former and then proceed to explicate the meaning of the latter. Accordingly, the Qurʾān demonstrates both the immanent and the transcendent aspects of God in the verses such as “wherever you turn, there is God’s countenance”

(2:115) and “nothing is as His likeness” (42:11) respectively.71 This structure has reflected itself in the theoretical, or the methodological distinction between affirming resemblance

(tašbīh; via affirmativa) and affirming difference (tanzīh; via negativa) in order to understand, or at least comment on the nature of the Divine Reality. Within the former, one

70 Caner D. Dagli, “Setting the stage for the School of Ibn al-ʿArabī,” in Ibn al-ʿArabī and Islamic Intellectual Culture, 20–60. For a discussion of how gnosis is related to and distinguished from philosophy and theology, see Frithjof Schuon, Sufism: Veil and Quintessence, trans. Mark Perry, Jean-Pierre Lafouge, and James S. Cutsinger (Bloomington, Indiana: World Wisdom, 2006), 89–100; cf. Franz Rosenthal, “Ibn ʿArabī between ‘Philosophy’ and ‘Mysticism’: Ṣūfīsm and Philosophy are neighbors and visit each other,” Oriens 31, (1988): 1–35. 71 Muhammad M. Pickthall, “The Meaning of The Glorious Quʾrān,” in The Quʾrān, ed. Jane McAuliffe (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2017), 13 and 259.

22 predicates the qualities of God by way of excellence and attempts to bridge the chasm between the Creator and the created by focusing on the Divine Presence in the manifestation. However, the latter abstracts the qualities and removes God from any kind of contact or compromise with reality, i.e. the empirical world (al-ʿālam al-šahāda).72

These formulations shaped the generations of intellectual activity to understand and explain the relation between God and the created, the structure and foundation of cosmos and the nature of entities in the physical world. Now, within the rubāʿiyyāt, Kirmānī prefers an approach that embodies both tanzīh and tašbīh, however, before further elaboration, these two accompanying questions could be asked: (a) How God is related to or present in the cosmos but at the same time be distinct from it by His Being, or in Plotinus’ words how can there be only One, the same in many, while never itself divided up, bring forth others?

(Enneads, IV.9.4)73 and (b) If God can only be called ‘Being’ and every other existence is

72 Wesley Williams, “A Body Unlike Bodies: Transcendent Anthropomorphism in Ancient Semitic Tradition and Early Islam,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 129, no. 1 (January/March 2009): 23–43; cf. Nader El-Bizri, “God: Essence and Attributes,” in The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology, ed. Tim Winter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 121–40; Martin Nyugen, “Sufi Theological Thought,” in The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology, ed. Sabine Schmidtke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 325–33; and El-Jaichi, Early Philosophical Ṣūfism, 15–48. 73 Cristina D’Ancona, “Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle, Chapter I: Structure and Composition,” Oriens 36, (2001): 78–112; cf. Šihāb al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī’s graded manifestation of a single metaphysical Reality in Hayākil al-nūr (Temples of Light), from the Light of lights (nūr al-anwār) as the highest in the order of being to the basest, which is body as well as how bodies function as a mirror reflecting the One in multiplicity: “The One in every respect is so unique that in Its Essence It never permits any plurality.” He is “the First Light… to which all contingent beings finally return. “Bodies and [accidental] forms are multiple” and “they participate in corporeality, yet they differ from one another in enlightenment. This means that light is an accident in the bodies and the luminosity of the bodies is their manifestation.” Consequently, “it is the bodies that signify Him by their diversified forms” without which there would be no shapes, accidents, and magnitudes, nor even stages of the universe and corporeality would rather necessitate forms of the bodies

23 derived from Him, how real is our empirical world, i.e. the world of becoming, or the world of contingents (al-ʿālam al-mumkināt)? Considering this discussion, what we are interested in is that how Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī – in relation to the question (a) – manages to explain the locus of reality and explicate the nature or structure of what is considered to be true and real. Within this context, considering Islamic metaphysics, God is the Reality (al-ḥaqq) and the Principle (al-mabdaʾ) that gives or provides existence (al-mubdi), in which this is considered to be a bestowed benefit upon creation (ḫalq) or possible existents (al- mawǧūdāt al-mumkina) in the act of creation.74 Now, linguistically speaking, the explication of this metaphysical doctrine within the Islamic intellectuality is discussed under the Arabic term wuǧūd, (which can be rendered as existence, being and Being), or the Persian hastī.75 The term wuǧūd as being can be used as a univocal term (ištirāk maʿnawī) that encompasses all levels of reality, both that of creatures and the Divine; yet it can also be used to refer to Being as the absolute prerogative of God.76 However, it is

identical with one another, Bilal Kuşpınar, Ismāʿīl Anḳaravī on the Illuminative Philosophy, His Īżāḥuʼl-Ḥikem: Its Edition and Analysis (Kuala Lumpur: ISTAC, 1996), 151–55; and Suhrawardī’s Ḥikmat al-išrāq, in Philosophy of Illumination, ed. and trans. John Walbridge and Hossein Ziai (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1999), II.1–2, 76–114. 74 William C. Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Cosmology (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998), 3–16, 47–65; cf. insights from Elvira Wakelnig, “Metaphysics in al-ʿĀmirī: The Hierarchy of Being and the Concept of Creation,” Medioevo: Rivista di storia della filosofia medievale, 32, (2007): 39–59. 75 For the philosophical usage of the Persian hastī, see Mahdī Ḥāʾirī Yazdī, The Universal Science (ʿilm-i kullī): An Introduction to Islamic Metaphysics (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2017), 63–82; cf. William C. Chittick, The Heart of Islamic Philosophy: The Quest for Self-Knowledge in the Teaching of Afḍal al-Dīn Kāshānī (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 29–68. 76 One should note that there is an inherent ambiguity in the usage of verb ‘to be’ in English. As Ananda K. Coomaraswamy observes, it “can mean either to ‘become’ or ‘to be’; which

24 important to remark that the Ultimate Reality identified with the Divine Essence (al-ẕāt al- ilāhiyya) stands even above Being as the absolute prerogative because the Divine Essence is envisioned to be beyond all limitations of the qualifications of being. Hence, even though wuǧūd is used to refer to the Divine Being, the Absolute as Itself in Islamic metaphysics is always placed above all limitations.77 As Kirmānī elaborates in this quatrain:

رد ذ تا تسدقم یسک ار هر ن تسي زو نيع مک لا وت یسک آ هگ ن تسي

سر ماي ه سالکان هار تبلط زج فگ نت ال هلإ الا هللا ن تسي There are no gates, which open on your holy Essence, No one can know the depths of your perfection. For travellers on the path to you, there only remains, To repeat and repeat, ‘there is no divinity but God’.78

of these meanings is to be understood in a given proposition depending on the nature of the quality or property attributed to the subject of the proposition; a variable quality or property implies a variable subject, and conversely,” “Does Socrates Is Old Imply that Socrates Is?,” in Coomaraswamy: Collected Papers, vol. 2, Metaphysics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), 415. For instance, Plato writes that although a man is called himself, it can never mean he is, (Symposium, 207d–e, 208a). The notion of infallibility attributed to any individual man is irrational. The reality implicitly denies that he is for whatever is now old, must have been young and will be older; in fact, there is no now that we can pin him down. This man, say Socrates, is nowhere to be found. In light of this, what can be called or attributed to be eternal, immortal, and self-same (Phaedo, 79d) is our soul’s immortal and divine part (Timaeus, 73d, 90a) and our real Self (Laws, 959a–b). From the perspective of Islamic philosophy (falsafa), however, the metaphysical and philosophical formulations of wuǧūd attempt to assert distinctions carefully in order to connote rightful properties for the corresponding subject of the proposition. 77 Seyyed H. Nasr, “Existence (wujūd) and Quiddity (māhiyyah) in Islamic philosophy,” International Philosophical Quarterly 29, no. 4 (December 1989): 409. 78 Wilson and Weischer, The Sufi Quatrains, no. 81, 123.

Chapter 4: Unity, Form, and Meaning: Tripartite formulation of waḥdat al-wuǧūd in Kirmānī’s Quatrains Now, the various connotations, or meanings of wuǧūd have affinities with the falsafa tradition in which distinct philosophical schools contemplated upon what the word actually refers to within subjective and objective ‘realities’.79 The justification for this elaborate system of multiplicity is often based on the notion that the word ‘thing’ (šayʾ) can be used for every object, whether it is highest, or lowest, substance, or accident.80 From the linguistic perspective, the term ‘real’ itself is connected with Latin res, ‘thing’ and also reor, ‘to think’ or ‘to deem’, in terms of some ‘thing’ outside the mind (insofar as it exists, res rata).81 That would demonstrate that the word ‘thing’ is connected with concrete entities that appear to us and we name these appearances according to the semi-permanent reality that they possess. Similarly, the Arabic term wuǧūd (literally ‘finding’) requires the presence of a finder (wāǧid, related to the term wiǧdān, meaning consciousness, or awareness) and some ‘thing’ to be found. Here again the presence of a subject is required to estimate or think about the all dimensioned objects – who finds (or names) and what is found (or appears) is only available when there is a consciousness that investigates all the accountable individuals through cognition and interpretation. In light of this discussion, there are two critical developments derived from this exposition. One is related to nature

79 For a summary of the philosophical schools that have varied opinion of what wuǧūd in reality corresponds to, see Nasr, “Existence and Quiddity,” 425–27; cf. Olga Lizzini, “Wuǧūd-Mawǧūd/Existence-Existent in Avicenna: A Key Ontological Notion of Arabic Philosophy,” Quaestio 3, (2003): 111–38; and Heidrun Eichner, “Essence and Existence: Thirteenth-Century Perspectives in Arabic-Islamic Philosophy and Theology,” in The Arabic, Hebrew and Latin Reception of Avicenna’s Metaphysics, ed. Dag Nikolaus Hasse, and Amos Bertolacci (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2011), 123–152. 80 Robert Wisnovsky, “Notes on Avicenna's Concept of Thingness (šayʾiyya),” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 10, no. 2 (September 2000): 181–221. 81 Barbara Cassin, ed., Dictionary of Untranslatables: A Philosophical Lexicon (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), 804–901.

26 of our consciousness and language in which we can evidently claim that all differentiation is a matter of terminology. The other one is that in an empirical world which continually generates and corrupts, how can we speak of ultimate reality or ultimately real being which is ‘nameless’ or not anything, that is, no-thing among others? – a reminiscent of the question (b) that we have already mentioned.

Considering all these theoretical dimensions, with the aforementioned formulations of wuǧūd, one can clearly distinguish between the eternal and the self-same Being (as the absolute prerogative of God) and existence, that is, the derivative modes of Being that applies to contingent beings (excluding the Divine Being Itself), which are bound to generation and corruption. However, through the doctrine of waḥdat al-wuǧūd (the transcendent unity of being), some ṣūfī authors deny the various connotations of wuǧūd and claim that wuǧūd as Reality ultimately belongs to God alone, which clearly opposes to the idea that being can be predicated as a univocal term (ištirāk maʿnawī) from both Divine as well as the contingent existents that are prone to generation and corruption. As such, the doctrine of waḥdat al-wuǧūd asserts that not only is God One, but that He also is the only ultimate Reality and the source of all ‘existent things’ (mawǧūdat), which appear to possess independent existence. Moreover, this metaphysical formulation is particularly affiliated with wuǧūdī school of Ibn ʿArabī and his followers as well as some other intellectuals that were connected with him.82 Even if Kirmānī does not specifically use this term waḥdat al- wuǧūd in his rubāʿiyyāt, his understanding of wuǧūd is quite similar to this formulation. In

82 For instance, see William C. Chittick, “Ṣadr al-Dīn Qūnawī on the Oneness of Being,” International Philosophical Quarterly 21, no. 2 (June 1981): 171–84; and The Self-Disclosure of God, 65–91; cf. “Rūmī and waḥdat al-wujūd,” in Poetry and Mysticism in Islam: The Heritage of Rūmī, ed. Amin Banani, Richard Hovannisian and Georges Sabagh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 70–111.

27 other words, it will be shown comprehensively that Kirmānī’s quatrains posit wuǧūd to be only predicated from an eternal, immortal, and self-same being.

To begin, the doctrine of waḥdat al-wuǧūd is the crowning achievement of the synthesis between tanzīh and tašbīh in the rubāʿiyyāt. However, it is highly critical to remark beforehand that the doctrine neither suggests that the universe in its totality is God, nor proposes that God is only immanent without being transcendent. A quatrain from

Kirmānī provides more insight:

هرچند بقدرت وبعلم او باماست دانم که بذات از هم ه خلق جداست

وخ ا یه هک وت قح ار ب نخس یيامنب وخ د ار ب ن م یا هنرگ وا وخ د يچ د ا تسادي Even if He is with us through His knowledge and power, I know that He is differentiated from us with His essence, Would you like to show the Truth with words? Show yourself, otherwise He is present everywhere.83

Seemingly the language refers to the Divine presence in all of its manifestations, which cannot be identical in nature with the Divine; yet the cosmic existence is mysteriously connected with the transcendent Reality. Within the Divine creation and manifestation, there is the macrocosmic universe in all its indefinite multiplicity as well as microcosmic

‘man,’ which reflects the Divine Names and Qualities as a totality. The latter plays a particularly important role in the rubāʿiyyāt; therefore, one should provide some explanation on Kirmānī’s understanding of ‘self’ and its relation to the Divine.

Considering this, our context is related to the Quʾrānic tripartite division of spirit

(ruḥ), soul (nafs), and body (ǧism) within the compositional reality of a human being. As such, the root of every human spirit is the Divine Spirit (al-ruḥ al-ilāhī), in which the

83 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 143, 105.

Divine is present yet veiled from the mundane consciousness. In order to surpass or ‘unveil’ this mundane psycho-physical experience, one needs to actualise this potentiality through certain practical and intellectual endeavours. The presence of the Divine Spirit within the reality of human beings is encountered within the rubāʿī of Kirmānī:

در ديد ه ديده ام تويی یيانيب رد ظفل رابعو مت یيوت یيايوگ رد ره ممدق هار وت یم ُب ْن یيام یا نم وت هدش وت نم هچ یم ف مر ا یيام It is you that sees with my eyes, It is you that utters with my words and statements. It is you that guides my every step, O the one that is I, and I that is you. What do you command?84

In here, through the connection to the Divine Spirit, there is a complementary relation between microcosm and macrocosm in a way that man becomes the vessel in which the

Divine cosmic manifestation is contained. Hence, the knowledge of man’s ‘True Self’ in principle includes the knowledge of the whole universe. Due to the intimate connection between the human spirit and cosmos, the ṣūfī esoteric path towards the knowledge of God is a journey that is at once a penetration to the centre of the spirit and a migration to the beyond the cosmos. Whether in the centre of the spirit, or in the manifestation of cosmic existence, there is but a single locus in which the Divine Presence resides, that is, “the

Presence which is at once completely our-Self and totally other than ourselves”.85 The relation between the human spirit and the cosmos is well articulated in one of Kirmānī’s formulations of wuǧūd:

ما طف ِل قديميم وخرد ماي ه ماست موجودِ جهان بجملـگی پاي ه ماست مياق ِدوجوب ام همه نوک ناکمو ِتاذام اهج ين م وجهان ساي ه ماست

84 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 2192, 498–99. 85 Seyyed H. Nasr, Sufi Essays, 2nd ed. (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1973), 29.

We are ancient children and wisdom is our treasure, The existence of the universe is our foundation. And the entire universe is standing on our Being, We are the essence of the universe and the universe is our shadow.86

In this quatrain, Kirmānī links different levels of being to the Ultimate Being, in which the latter is connected with the foundation of universe as well as the essential part of the human reality, that is, the human spirit. Within this context, it should also be remarked that the last part of the quatrain does not suggest an identification of human spirit with the Divine Essence, as we have already ruled out such possibility in Kirmānī’s understanding of the Divine Essence. It is more probable that the reference is to the place of man within the cosmological structure itself, that is, ‘man,’ or particularly the Universal or Perfect Man (al-insān al-kāmil); here understood as the prototype of creation, who is not only the most perfect manifestation of the Ultimate Principle, but also the sum total of all levels of cosmic reality in a permanent synthesis. However, for Kirmānī, human being neither can essentially be unified with the Ultimate Principle Itself, nor can God enter the human form and enable the individual to have semi-divine status. As such, the concepts of

86 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 161, 109. A similar but certainly not identical notion is the idea that earthly existence is shadow; explicated by Plotinus (Enneads, II.4.16.3, II.5.4–5, III.6.7.1–19) and Suhrawardī (Ḥikmat al- išrāq, II.5.1.236, 144–45) in the context of the discussion that matter or body is non-being (Grk. τὸ/καὶ μὴ ὄν or στρησις; Arb. ʿadam). Accordingly, they perceive matter as the farthest reality away from the true Being, that is, it is otherness than Plotinus’ One and Suhrawardī’s Light of lights. This is surely what Mullā Ṣadrā al-Šīrāzī (979–1045 h./1571–1636) means when he says that matter is the lowest level of the Divine Existence and in al-Ḥikmat al-ʿaršiyya, in The Wisdom of the Throne: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mulla Sadra, trans. James W. Morris (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), I.1, 95, he states, “everything other than this Reality of Being is… mixed with privation (ʿadam) and imperfection… every quiddity other than Being (Itself) exists only through Being, not by itself”. Therefore, matter is the source of evil itself (κακόν, Enneads, I.8.8.37–44, I.8.13.7–14), and Suhrawardī in Ḥikmat al-išrāq, (II.1.3.109, 77) calls determinations of matter as dark bodies (al-haʾyāt al-ẓulmaniyya). The term ẓulma is usually rendered as darkness (cf. Mullā Ṣadrā parallels matter with shadow, al-Ḥikmat al-ʿaršiyya, I.7, 107–8) and it is related to ẓulm, which means wrong, injustice, or evil, and ẓalīm, evildoer.

30 essential unification with the Divine Essence as well as the incarnation of the Divine are utterly denied, as these quatrains demonstrate:

تا مرد ز خود فانئ مطلق نشود اثبات ز نف ِی او مح ّق ق ن دوش ديحوت لولح تسين ِندوبان تست هنرو فازگب یمدا قح دوشن Unless a person leaves himself and becomes completely annihilated, His (God’s) proof can never be assured through negation. Oneness (tawḥīd) does not mean Divine incarnation (ḥulūl) but your annihilation, Otherwise, human can never be the Truth.87

نظات یربن هک تسه نيا هتشر ود وت كي تسوت دوخ لصا و عرف وترگنب وکن نيا تسوا همه و كيل تساديپ هب نم كش تسين هک نيا هلمج منم كيل ودب The chain has two links, no doubt: both you, But look there is only one ‘you’; root and branch. Everything is He but He appears in me, No doubt: all this is me but in Him.88

The critical point within these quatrains is that the concepts of Absoluteness and Unity are only reserved for the Ultimate Principle in which not through logical systematisation but through certain spiritual practices one merely realises and participates in the Truth, yet never becomes completely unified with the Divine Essence.89 Now, having clarified some aspects of Kirmānī’s understanding of waḥdat al-wuǧūd, one should analyse how he further elaborates on the complex features of this notion. With this in mind, one observes in the quatrains:

نوچ ِدوب نم زا ِدوب وت آ دم ب دوجو یب ِدوب وت ِدوب نم جک ا دهاوخ ب دو

87 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 935, 259. 88 Wilson and Weischer, The Sufi Quatrains, no. 90, 135. 89 This is probably Kirmānī’s commentary and explanation of Manṣūr al-Ḥallāǧ’s famous dictum ‘I am the Truth’ (anā al-ḥaqq), which is often interpreted as the possibility that God can become incarnate in certain individuals; yet some others deny the ḥulūlī interpretation of Ḥallāǧ’s sayings, see M. Abdul Haq Ansari, “Ḥusayn ibn Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj: Ideas of an Ecstatic,” Islamic Studies 39, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 318–320.

ات ِدوب وت دوب دشابو دهاوخو دوب اب ِندوب نم لاوز یک دهاوخ دوب If my being becomes existent through your Being, then, without your Being what will happen to my being? You are a Being that was, now, will be, Hence, how can there be decadence in mine?90

زج وت همه ن ا نصق د رد نيع دوجو یا اک لم قلطم هب مک ملا ب ناسر All but Thee lacks the true source of Being, O Perfection! Bring me too to perfection.91

To explicate, Kirmānī here sees wuǧūd as the absolute and the single Reality that belongs solely to God (hereafter, al-wuǧūd al-ḥaqq), beside which there is no other reality. To put differently, He alone is the absolutely unconditioned wuǧūd. As such, this touches upon the notion that all existence is nothing but the manifestation or outward radiance of One

Being. If this is the case, then everything other than God is non-existent in itself, yet they

90 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 908, 254. 91 Wilson and Weischer, The Sufi Quatrains, no. 97, 143. Accordingly, being or existence is often identified with perfection in the philosophical schools of the Islamicate tradition and their connection has quite elaborate explications. For instance, on the one hand, Mullā Ṣadrā proposes a dynamic character between the two in which for him not only existence is perfection and the sheer good (al-ḫayr al-maḥż, cf. Plato, Timaeus, 29a) but also the continuous Divine creation of ‘beings’ makes them “reach their essential ends and main virtues” and removes “their evils and defects [in order to] make every defective being reach its perfection,” al-Maẓāhir al-ilāhiyya, in Divine Manifestations, trans. F. A. Amjad and M. D. Bozorgi (London: ICAS Press, 2010), 77. This outlook envisions ‘being’ to be transformative in itself – through the theory of substantial motion (al-ḥaraka al-ǧawhariyya) – in its arc of descent from the most noble and the Absolute to the lowest levels of being and in its ascent from that level to the Absolute again, hence, completing the circle of being (ḍairat al-wuǧūd). As such, for Mullā Ṣadrā, beings (including substances) are changing from the lowest grades of existence to the highest levels through gradation (taškīk) and intensification (ištidād) in a unidirectional manner. Suhrawardī, on the other hand, assigns a more static view between the two in which in Hayākil al-nūr, he emphasises, “it is inconceivable that the existence be more perfect than it is” because the Essence of the Real does not need the lower nor does it abandon the nobler (Kuşpınar, Illuminative Philosophy, 181; cf. Ḥikmat al-išrāq, I.3.4.91, 64). To put differently, if one claims that priority of created things is inferior in relation to the ones that possibly become superior through substantial motion, then this would imply that God chose inferior things over superior ones. This would introduce ignorance, impotence or greed in the Real whom surely transcends them in His perfection and nobility. In here, Kirmānī’s philosophical elaboration is almost precedent to Mullā Ṣadrā’s substantial motion in a way that the plea seemingly suggests a transformative elevation from one state of being (wuǧūd) to another.

32 can be considered existent to the extent that they are the manifestations of the Real. Again,

Kirmānī writes:

نم آ ِن َوت م ارت هچ دشاب یچيه وت آ ِن ینم ارم همه یتسه تسه I am yours but non-being does not have a meaning for you, Otherwise, you are mine and I always have being.92

دحوا یديد هک هچره یديد چيه تسا ناو زين هک یتفگ یدينشو چيه تسا رس ت ا رس آ ف قا ود ي ید ه چي تسا و نا زين هک رد جنک زخ ي ید ه چي تسا Awḥad, look now: all you saw was nothing, All you heard, all you said: nothing. Your hike from end to end of the horizon, Your crawling into a corner that too: nothing.93 This last piece is a clever wordplay on the Qurʾānic verse (41:53), “We shall show them

Our signs on the horizons and within themselves until it will be manifest to them that it is the truth. Does not your Lord suffice, since He is witness over all things?”.94 Accordingly, even though entities do not possess wuǧūd of their own in the empirical world, yet through these ‘beings’ in all their variety manifested in the universe are by which al-wuǧūd al-ḥaqq is present in the universe, and as which it is also differentiated. To illustrate, in its absolute sense, Truth (or, Reality) is concealed as the Sun is concealed by its rays. In addition, this

Reality can only be experienced when one goes through certain spiritual practices that eventually dispels all the apparent illusions; leaving only the Beloved in His true nature.

This picture is vividly captured in Kirmānī’s rubāʿiyyāt:

لد زغم قح ي تق ا تس نتو پ و تس بب نې رد توسک پ تسو تروص تسود بب نې ره يچ ز هک وا ناشن یتسه دراد اي وترپ تاذ ا تسو اي ا تسو بب ني

92 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 323, 142. 93 Wilson and Weischer, The Sufi Quatrains, no. 14, 37; also, in Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 193, 115. 94 Pickthall, “The Quʾrān,” 258.

Look: the heart is the pit of truth, the body the peel, Look: the peel is a garment sewn with the Beloved’s effigy. All that points to his existence is a ray, A beam of His Essence – Look! – or He Himself. 95

ادیپ ناهنو یداشو مغو همه تسوا ِداينب دوجو تسُس ومحکم همه اوست وخ ا یه هک وچ وخ شر ي د ینيبب وا ار رد ب دن ز وخ د هديد و ملاع همه ا تسو All that is happy, sad, apparent, hidden – it is He, Loose, firm, the foundation of existence – it is He. Do you want to see him like the image of the Sun? Close your eyes to yourself, then you will see: all universe is He.96

With this exposition, one answers the question (b) that we posited earlier in which

Kirmānī’s quatrains posit that the temporal world, or the world of contingents (al-ʿālam al- mumkināt) is somewhat both real and unreal simultaneously. In light of this, through

Kirmānī’s perspective, the doctrine of waḥdat al-wuǧūd functions as a Single Light reflected on the myriad of mirrors that constitute ‘beings’ in the cosmic scene. As such, all beings in the universe are reflections of the al-wuǧūd al-ḥaqq reflected on the mirror as nothingness. As Kirmānī’s asserts:

از جا ِم جهان نمای تا ک َی گويی صد جا ِم جهان نمای در سين ه ماست Until when will you talk about the mirror that reflects the world? Hundred such mirrors are in our chest.97

The reflection of al-wuǧūd al-ḥaqq upon other realities – although nothing in themselves

– is also entitled as theophanies (taǧallī) of the single Reality.98 Interestingly, this construction portrays the Divine Being not as fragmented, but wholly present in each

95 Wilson and Weischer, The Sufi Quatrains, no. 119, 171. 96 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 293, 135–36. 97 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 160, 109. 98 Henry Corbin, Alone with the Alone: Creative Imagination in the Sūfism of Ibn ʿArabī (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 120–35.

34 instance, that is, individualised in each theophany through the Divine Presence. However, within his quatrains, Kirmānī seemingly does not develop the idea of gradation, that is, there is no degrees of intensity and weakness within the rays of Sun accorded with their closeness to the source. As such, Kirmānī’s formulation expressed through the concepts of light and mirrors manages to explain the Qurʾānic picture of distinction without difference, which in turn becomes our answer for the aforementioned question (a), that is, how

Divinity can be present in the cosmos but at the same time be distinct from it. With

Kirmānī’s conceptualisation, one cannot bring multiplicity to the unified Divine Nature, yet explain the presence and the direct connection of the Divine to the cosmic existence.

After discussing the tašbīh and tanzīh formulations and their roots in the doctrine of the waḥdat al-wuǧūd, we can now turn to the analysis of Kirmānī’s understanding of the other aspects of the Divine Reality, that is, the Qurʾānic presentation of God as ‘the

Outward,’ or the manifest (ẓāhir) and ‘the Inward,’ or the unmanifest (bāṭin) (57:3)99 and their relation to the usage of two concepts, namely, form (ṣūrat) and meaning (maʿnā) in the rubāʿiyyāt. Moreover, the content of ẓāhir and bāṭin is quite similar to the earlier picture of tašbīh and tanzīh, yet they should not be considered identical. This is due to the understanding that this aspect of the Divine Reality is connected with the manifestation of all beings and forms from the source of God’s transcendent Reality in which every being possesses an external as well as an internal as aspect; that is, one which manifests it outwardly and another which connects it inwardly to the transcendent Reality.

Furthermore, the concepts of ẓāhir and bāṭin are often encountered in the quatrains of

Kirmānī:

99 Pickthall, “The Quʾrān,” 294.

يچ یز هک همه ناهج لکب ّ ی ا ن تس نيا هفرط تسيرت هک زا همه اهنپ ن تس از ديد ه تحقيق اگر در نگری رد چره هگن نک يقح تق ا ن تس What a perplexing thing! The One whom is the everything in the world is hidden! If you stare attentively and to whatever you stare at, Then you will see that He is the Truth.100

راي هچ ناهن هچ اراکشا هک یوت هن لقع دسر هن ملع اجنا هک یوت In everywhere there is you (my God), hidden or apparent, In a place where reason and knowledge cannot reach, there is you.101

As such, these two complementary aspects of God should not be considered identical because on the one hand tašbīh and tanzīh formulations are concerned with the static facet of the Divine Reality in which the self-same ‘Being’ is distinguished from and at the same time connected with the empirical ‘becoming.’ On the other hand, ẓāhir and bāṭin formulations envision the dynamic feature of the Divine Reality as they are concerned with the nature and structure of the continuous Divine manifestation in the universe. What is meant by the concept of dynamics is that the God’s manifestation of possible existents is not a one-time affair, but rather a continuous act of bestowing being on entities that initially lack it. In fact, ẓāhir and bāṭin as the dynamics of the Divine manifestation is a major part of Kirmānī’s formulation of waḥdat al-wuǧūd, and these concepts are usually expressed through the usage of form and meaning. As Kirmānī’s quatrain asserts:

هر نقش که بر تخت ه هستی پيد است ان صور ِت انکس است کان نقش ار است رد ي یا نهک وچ رب دنز ن یشق ون شجوم ناوخ دن و رد یقح تق رد ي تسا Every embroidery that is observed on the tablet of being, is the form of the one who embroiders. When the ancient sea adds a new embroidery,

100 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 275, 132. 101 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 2132, 487.

It is called a wave but in reality it is the sea itself.102

This quatrain includes a great number of imagery and symbolism for the explanation of the Divine manifestation, yet the influence of its wording is clearly Qurʾānic

(32:27), which dictates, “if all the trees on the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it, (were ink), the words of God could not be exhausted”.103 As such, the

Divine Reality is identified with the sea due to the apparent infinitude that it portrays. In addition, the quatrain’s main point is to demonstrate that whenever the Divine manifestation occurs perpetually, it is not the part of the Divine Reality that merely becomes apparent in the cosmic existence but the Divine Presence itself. Considering this,

God’s inward aspect becomes manifest only through the outer forms of instantiation.

Therefore, the knowledge of God as He is in Himself requires meaning rather than form, in which the former leads to unity and origin and the latter guards such access through the particular forms of Divine manifestation in multiplicity. This means that one should attempt to observe the Reality in the creation and the creation in the Reality in a way that neither of the two veils other. As Kirmānī writes:

شچ م م وچ هب مشچ لد رد نآ ینعم ديد وص تر مديد و ل كي ناج ینعم د ي د اد ین هک ارچ یم مرگن رد تروص زج رد تروص ن یم وت نا ینعم ديد While my eye looks with the heart’s eye at Meaning, I see the figure, but my soul sees the Essence. Then can you understand why I look at the form? Only in the outer can one see the inner.104

ز نآ یم مرگن هب مشچ رس رد تروص اريز هک ز ینعم تسا رثا رد تروص

102 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 112, 99. 103 Pickthall, “The Quʾrān,” 219. For the Quʾrānic usage and symbolism of water, see Muhammad A. Haleem, Understanding the Quʾrān: Themes and Style, 3rd ed. (London: I.B. Tauris, 2011), ch. 3; and Martin Lings, “The Qoranic Symbolism of Water,” Studies in Comparative Religion 2, no. 3 (June 1968): 136–41. 104 Wilson and Weischer, The Sufi Quatrains, no. 115, 167; also, in Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 1012, 274.

نيا ملاع تستروص ردامو متروص ینعم ناوتن ديد رگم رد تروص So I look with optic eye on earthly face, For outward form bears the seal of inner Meaning. The world’s but an image and we must live in forms, At last, outwardly Meaning must be found in form.105

Chapter 5: Divine Manifestation in the Context of Beauty in Kirmānī’s Quatrains

Having discussed some aspects of form and meaning in the rubāʿiyyāt, one should here remark that Kirmānī often links the presence of beautiful forms to the concept of meaning. Moreover, similar to our earlier discussion on the notion of cosmic existence as mirror that reflects the Divine Reality – human beauty, for Kirmānī, reflects the Divine

Beauty more completely than any locus of manifestation. However, in order to observe the real meaning – present through beautiful objects – there needs to be a loci of manifestation embodied in forms; as his quatrains elaborate:

یراي مراد هک مسج ناجو ِتروص تسوا هچ ناج هچو لد هلمج ناهج ِتروص تسوا هر معنئ خوب وصورت پاکيزه َکنْدَر نظرِ تو ايد ا َن صور ِت I possess a beloved: my body and spirit are his form, Heart and spirit aside, the universe is his form. Every pure face that you observe, Every beautiful meaning that you apprehend is his form.106

وت تروص یانعمو تقيقح انشب س ات زا هر كش ن ینام ردنا اوسو س كش ن تسي هک نآ وص تر عم ن تسي لو كي مه وص تر وخ ش تسشوخ اک ل ان س ل ب ا س Know: you are both form and meaning of the Truth, Do not stay stuck with the Whisperer on doubt’s road. For no doubt: the form is the meaning,

105 Wilson and Weischer, The Sufi Quatrains, no. 116, 167. 106 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 289, 135.

And the face beautiful in itself… like someone’s robe.107 Here the concepts of love and beauty in respect to meaning are so closely put that one might understand beauty as that which causes love. Accordingly, witnessing the Divine Beauty in the loci of manifestation is necessary for Kirmānī to experience and to comprehend the love and beauty of an infinite and incomparable God. Therefore, every level of cosmic creation is essentially and inherently beautiful as they participate in the nature of the

Supreme Beauty. This exposition is well-articulated in the rubāʿī:

اب لد فگ ت م هک نيا هچ ريز و تسيربز ليم وت مادم یوس دهاش زا تسيچ دل گفت مرا چونك درو می ترسم بی ساي ه او بگوکه چون شايد زيست I asked the spirit: What a complicated condition? Why are you always attracted to beauty? The spirit said: As I cannot reach him, tell me: How to live without his shadow?108

قشعرد ترگا ب لد رد آ دی د ی ند قوشعم ارت لهس دیامن د ی ند نز ه ا ر اسب هی شا ق ن تعا یم نك زج اس هی پم رادن هک اش دی ندید If in the state of love (ʿišq), you see with the heart, You would see the beloved (maʿšūq) more clearly. Yet, be aware! And be content with his shadow! Because you will not see anything other than his shadow.109

In light of this discussion, the exposition of ẓāhir and bāṭin formulations and their relation to meaning and beauty are expressed par excellence in practice of šāhid-bāzī

(literally, ‘playing the witness’). To repeat, this is a ritualised activity that was grounded on a belief that God can be experienced by contemplating pleasant faces that bear witness to the Divine Beauty. Within the hagiographic sources, it is noted that Kirmānī favoured

107 Wilson and Weischer, The Sufi Quatrains, no. 111, 163. 108 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 333, 144. 109 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 1648, 396.

39 this practice during the musical gatherings (samāʿ) in which he would gaze at and dance with young men that eventually culminated into spiritual ecstasy.110 The aim to experience the immanent God can be legitimised through the refence to the handful of Qurʾānic verses such as 41:53 and 85:3 in which the usage of šāhid, technically, means ‘one who is present,’ or ‘witness’. Within the case of Kirmānī, even though the apparent ‘witness’ is the young and beautiful males present in the samāʿ, the ultimate šāhid is always the Divine Reality, yet His presence is contemplated through the particular form of beauty that He manifests within. As such, the presence of a beautiful male šāhid signifies the inner meaning or image of the Absolute Beauty. As Kirmānī writes:

ام ار رطز ب يصن ب زا نآ شما ب ن تسي ک آ ن ربلد نم ارد ني يم نا شما ب ن تسي دنچره مس عا و عمش دهاشو همه تسه لصا همه و لص ا تسو و نآ ا شم ب ن تسي So we have no share of joy this evening, For the loved one is missing. The lute, the candle, the šāhid is present, But the source, the connection is not here tonight.111

رد هش ر رظ ي ف وخو ب یور هر ب س ی ن تسي یبوخ وچ ب ینعم دَوبن دهاش ن تسي ات نظ یربن هک تسه دهاش وص تر وص تر همه ز ح م ت تس دهاشو نعم ی تس Even though the city is full of beautiful and elegant faces, Without the beauty in the meaning, there is no šāhid. Do not assume that šāhid is a form, Form is trouble, yet šāhid is meaning.112

110 SZA, 312–17; Ridgeon, “A Case Study of Shāhid-Bāzī,” 6–7; Sīrūs Šamīsā, Šāhid-bāzī dar adabiyāt-e fārsī (Tihrāš: Intišārāt-e Firdaws, 1381 Sh./2002), 106–8. 111 Wilson and Weischer, The Sufi Quatrains, no. 44, 75. 112 Kanar, Rubaîler, no. 170, 111.

Chapter 6: Conclusion

To conclude our observations, the essay throughout its elaborations attempted to understand metaphysical and philosophical facets of Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī’s rubāʿiyyāt.

By doing so, firstly, it introduced some major approaches to clarify and to understand the intellectual environment that Kirmānī was part of and looked for some critical developments within the 13th century Ṣūfīsm that Kirmānī might have been affiliated with during his life. As such, his contributions to the ṣūfī tradition were investigated during the dynamic crystallisation of Ṣūfīsm through different orders in the late 12th and 13th century.

The essay concentrated on Kirmānī’s understanding of the doctrine of waḥdat al-wuǧūd and the religious context that has shaped the formulation of the doctrine, namely, the tašbīh and tanzīh distinctions on the one hand, and ẓāhir and bāṭin, on the other. By the former,

Kirmānī explains the Qurʾānic picture of distinction without difference in the context of the relation between the static facet of the Divine Reality as the self-same ‘Being’ to the empirical world of ‘becoming.’ This is achieved through the notions of light and mirrors in which the Divine is portrayed to be present in the cosmos but at the same time shown to be distinct from it. With the latter distinction, Kirmānī investigates the nature of the Divine manifestation in perpetuity through the concepts of form and meaning, in which the

Divine’s inward aspect becomes manifest only through the outer forms of instantiation.

Hence, Kirmānī emphasises greatly for the contemplation upon the meaning, that is, the bāṭin rather than the form, namely, ẓāhir because only the meaning is essentially connected with the Divine unity and origin. Lastly, the essay looked at how the notion of meaning is developed closely with the idea of beauty, which brought the discussion to the exposition of the practice of šāhid-bāzī. When all the facets of Kirmānī’s thinking are put together,

41 the practice of šāhid-bāzī seemingly becomes the actualisation of a theoretical framework, that is, the doctrine itself is expressed through the practice, which in a way completes the synthesis of theory and practice within the ṣūfī experiential and mystical knowledge

(ẕawq). Therefore, the ultimate šāhid, for Kirmānī, is always the Divine Reality, yet the

Absolute Beauty is contemplated through the particular forms of beauty that He manifests within; making the earthly šāhid only a means to an end in the spiritual experience and knowledge.

Appendix I: Referenced Manuscript Folios

Abī Ǧaʿfar Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad b. Yazdānyār, Rawżat al-murīdīn, Princeton University Library, Islamic Manuscripts Collection, Garrett no. 968Y, title page.

Abī Ǧaʿfar Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad b. Yazdānyār, Rawżat al-murīdīn, Princeton University Library, Islamic Manuscripts Collection, Garrett no. 968Y, 86b.

Ḥarīrīzāde Meḥmed Kemāl el-Dīn (d. 1882), Tibyān wasāʾil al-ḥaqāʾiq fī bayān salāsil al- ṭarāʾiq, Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, İbrâhim Efendi MS 430 (vol. 1), fol. 32a.

Ḥarīrīzāde Meḥmed Kemāl el-Dīn (d. 1882), Tibyān wasāʾil al-ḥaqāʾiq fī bayān salāsil al- ṭarāʾiq, Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, İbrâhim Efendi MS 430 (vol. 1), fol. 32b.

Bibliography Primary Sources in Arabic, Persian, and Ottoman Turkish and their Translations al-ʿArabī, Muḥyī l-Dīn. al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya. Edited by Aḥmad Šams al- Dīn. 9 vols. Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1420 h./1999. al-Dabīs̱ ī, Abī ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad. al-Muḫtaṣar al-Muḥtāǧ ilayhi min taʾrīḫ […] al-Dabīs̱ ī. Edited by Muṣṭafā Ǧawād. 2 vols. Baġdād: Maṭbaʿa al-Maʿārif, 1371 h./1951. al-Ẕahabī, Šams al-Dīn Muḥammad. Siyār aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. Edited by Šuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ and Ḥusayn Asad. 11th ed. 25 vols. Bayrūt: Muʾssasat al-Risāla, 1417 h./1996 [1st ed. = 1401 h./1981]. al-Salāmī, Abī l-Maʿālī Muḥammad b. Rāfiʿ. Tārīḫ ʿulamāʾ Baġdād al- musammā Muntaḫab al-muḫtār. Edited by ʿAbbās al-ʿAzzawī. 2nd ed. Bayrūt: al-Dār al- ʿArabiyya li-l-Mawsūʿāt, 1420 h./2000 [1st ed. = Baġdad: Maṭbaʿat al-Ahālī, 1357 h./1938]. al-Suhrawardī, Abū Hafṣ ʿUmar. ʿAwārif al-maʿārif. In ʿAwārif al-maʿārif wa Ẕayl Maʿārif al-ʿawārif taʿlīf-e Ṣadr al-Dīn Ǧunayd al-Šīrāzī. Edited by Umīd Surūrī. Tihrān: Bunyād-hā-ye Šukū/Safīr-e Ardihāl, 1393 Sh./2014–15. al-Suhrawardī, Šihāb al-Dīn Yaḥyā. Ḥikmat al-išrāq, in Philosophy of Illumination. Edited and translated by John Walbridge and Hossein Ziai. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1999. al-Šaʿār, Kamāl al-Dīn Abū l-Barakāt al-Mubārak. Qalāʾid al-ǧumān fī farāʾid šuʿarāʾ hāẕā l-zamān al-mašhūr bi-ʿUqūd al-ǧumān fī šuʿarāʾ hāẕā l-zamān. Edited by Kāmil Salmān al-Ǧubūrī. 9 vols. Bayrūt: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1426 h./2005. al-Šīrwānī, Ǧamāl al-Dīn Ḫalīl. Nuzhat al-Maǧālis. Ediyed by Muḥammad Amīn Riyāḥī. 2nd ed. Tihrān: Intišārāt-e ʿIlmī, 1375 Sh./1996–97. al-Fūwaṭī, Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Razzāq. Kitāb al-Ḥawādis̱ . Edited by Maḥdī al-Naǧm. Bayrūt: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1426 h./2005. ——— . Kitāb al-Ḥawādis̱ . Edited by Baššār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf and ʿImād ʿAbd al-Salām Raʿūf. 2nd ed. Bayrūt: Dār al-Ġarb al-Islāmī, 2015 [1st ed. = 1997]. al-Qazwīnī, Abū Yaḥyā Zakarīyāʾ b. Muḥammad. Ās̱ ār al-bilād wa-aḫbār al- ʿibād. In Zakarija Ben Muhammed Ben Mahmud el-Cazwini’s Kosmographie. Vol 2, Die Denkmäler der Länder. Edited by Ferdinand Wüstenfeld. Göttingen: Druck und Verlag der Dieterichschen Buchhandlung, 1848; reprint in Bayrūt: Dār Ṣādir, n.d. al-Nuʿaymī, ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muḥammad al-Nuʿaymī. al-Dāris fī tārīḫ al- madāris. Edited by Ibrāhīm Šams al-Dīn. 2 vols. Bayrūt: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1410 h./1990. al-Munẕirī, Zakī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm. al-Takmila li-wafayāt al-naqala. Edited by Baššar ʿAwwād Maʿrūf 4 vols. 3rd ed. Bayrūt: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1405 h./1984. Ibn Bazzāz, Tawakkulī b. Ismāʿīl al-Ardabīlī. Ṣafwat al-ṣafā: dar tarǧuma-ye aḥwāl wa aqwāl wa karāmāt-e Šayḫ Ṣafī al-Dīn Isḥāq Ardabīlī. Edited by Ġulām Riżā Ṭabāṭabāʾī Maǧd. Tihrān: Intišārāt-i Zaryāb, 1373 Sh./1994.

Aṭāʾī, Nevʿīzāde. Ḥadāʾiḳ el-ḥaḳāʾiḳ fī tekmīlāt el-Şeḳāʾiḳ (Ẕeyl el-Şeḳāʾiḳ). In Nev‘îzâde Atâyî’nin Şakâ’ik Zeyli. Edited by Suat Donuk and Derya Örs. 2 vols. İstanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2018. Aflākī, Šams al-Dīn Aḥmad. Manāqib al-ʿārifīn. Edited by Tahsin Yazıcı. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1976–1980 [1st ed. = 1959–61]. ——— . Manāqib al-ʿārifīn. In The Feats of the Knowers of God. Translated John O’Kane. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2002. Ibn Yazdānyār, Abī Ǧaʿfar Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad. Rawżat al- murīdīn. Princeton University Library, Islamic Manuscripts Collection, Garrett no. 968Y. Tabrīzī, Šams al-Dīn Muḥammad. al-Maqālāt. Edited by Ǧaʿfar Mudarris Ṣādiqī. 20th ed. Tihrān: Našr-e Markaz, 1398 Sh./2019–20. ——— . al-Maqālāt. In Me and Rumi: The Autobiography of Shams-i Tabrizi. Translated by William C. Chittick. Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 2004. Ṭāşköprüzāde, Aḥmed Efendī. al-Šaqāʾiq al-nuʿmāniyya fī ʿulamāʾ al-dawlat al-Us̱ māniyya. In eş-Şakâ’iku’n-Nu’mâniyye: Osmanlı Âlimleri. Edited by Muhammet Hekimoğlu and Derya Örs. İstanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2019. Šīrāzī, Aḥmad Zarkūb. Šīrāz-nāma. Edited by Ismāʿīl Wāʿiẓ Ǧawādī. Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Bunyād-e Farhang-e Īrān, 1350 Sh./1971–72. Šīrāzī, Ǧunayd. Šadd al-izār fī ḥaṭṭ al-awzār ʿan zawwār al-mazār. Edited by Muḥammad Qazwīnī and ʿAbbās Iqbāl. Tihrān: Čāpḫāna-ye Maǧlis, 1328 Sh./1949–50. Šīrāzī, Saʿdī. Būstān. In Kullīyāt-e Saʿdī: Gulistān, Būstān, ġazalīyāt, qaṣāʾid, qiṭʿāt wa rasāʾil. Edited bu Muḥammad ʿAlī Furūġī. 12th ed. Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Amīr Kabīr, 1381 Sh./2002–2003. Şemlelīzāde, Aḥmed Efendī. Şīve-yi Ṭarīḳat-i Gülşeniyye. Edited by Tahsin Yazıcı. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1982. Şeyḫī, Meḥmed Efendī. Veḳāyiʿ el-fużalā (Ẕeyl Ḥadāʾiḳ el-ḥaḳāʾiḳ). In Şeyhî’nin Şakâ’ik Zeyli. Edited by Ramazan Ekinci and Derya Örs. 4 vols. İstanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2018. Ṣarı, ʿAbd Allāh Efendī. S̱ emerāt el-fuʾād fī mebdaʾ ve-l-meʿād. İstanbul: Maṭbaʿa-yı ʿĀmire, 1288 h./1871–72. Kirmānī, Awḥād al-Dīn Kirmānī. Dīwān-e farsī (attributed). In Heart’s Witness: The Sufi Quatrains of Awḥaduddīn Kirmānī/Šāhid-e dil: rubāʿiyyāt-e Awḥad al- Dīn Kirmānī. Edited and translated by Peter Lamborn Wilson and Bernd Maneul Weischer. Tehran: Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy, 1978. ——— . Dīwān-e farsī. In Dīwān-e rubāʿiyyāt-e Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī. Edited by Aḥmad Abū Maḥbūb and Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Bāstānī Pārīzī. Tihrān: Surūš, 1366 Sh./1987–88; reprint in Aḥwāl wa as̱ ar-e Awḥad al-Dīn Ḥāmid b. Abī l-Faḫr Kirmānī. Edited by Muḥammad Wafāʾī and Aḥmad Karimī. Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Mā, 1375 Sh./1996– 97. ——— . Dīwān-e farsī. In Rubaîler: Evhadüddîn-i Kirmânî. Edited by Mehmet Kanar. İstanbul: İnsan Yayınları, 1999.

Gāzargāhī, Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥusayn. Maǧālis al-ʿuššāq: taẕkira-ye ʿurafā, ed. Ġulām Riżā Ṭabāṭabāʾī Maǧd. 2nd ed. Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Zarrīn, 1376 Sh./1997 [1st ed. = 1375 Sh./1996]. Mustawfī, Ḥamd Allāh. Tārīḫ-e Guzida. Edited by ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn Navāʾī. 6th ed. Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Amīr Kabīr, 1394 Sh./2015–16 [1st = 1339 Sh./1960–61]. Hulvī, Cemāl el-Dīn. Lemeẓāt-ı Hulviyye ez lemeʿāt-ı ʿulviyye. In Lemezât-ı Hulviyye ez Lemezât-ı Ulviyye (Büyük Velilerin Tatlı Halleri). Edited by Mehmet Serhan Tayşi. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları, 1993.

Secondary Sources in Arabic, Persian, and Ottoman Turkish and their translations Afżalī, Sayyid ʿAlī Mīr. “Rubāʿiyyāt-e Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī dar kuhan tarīn manābiʿ.” Maʿārif 17, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 1379 Sh./2000): 53–89. Ḥarīrīzāde, Meḥmed Kemāl el-Dīn. Tibyān wasāʾil al-ḥaqāʾiq fī bayān salāsil al-ṭarāʾiq. 3 vols. Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Ibrâhim Efendi MS 430–32. ʿOs̱ mānzāde, Ḥüseyin Vaṣṣāf. Sefīne-yi Evliyā-yı Ebrār. Edited by Mehmet Akkuş and Ali Yılmaz. 5 vols. 3rd ed. (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2015) [in Modern Turkish orthography and grammar]. Šamīsā, Sīrūs. Šāhid-bāzī dar adabiyāt-e fārsī. Tihrāš: Intišārāt-e Firdaws, 1381 Sh./2002. Kadkanī, Muḥammad Riżā Šafīʿī. Qalandariyya dar tārīḫ: digardīsī-hā-ye yik īdiʾūlūžī. 3rd ed. Tihrān: Intišārāt-e Suḫan, 1387 Sh./2008–9. Muʾẕẕanī, ʿAlī Muḥammad and Ḥaydarī, Mahdī. “Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī, naqṭa-ye ẓuhūr-e afkār-e Ibn ʿArabī dar adabiyāt-e fārsī,” Adab-e Fārsī 5, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 1384 Sh./2015), 1–20. Vicdānī, Ṣādıḳ. Ṭūmar-ı Turūḳ-ı ʿAliyye. Part 1, Melāmīlik. İstanbul: Evḳāf-ı Islāmiyye Maṭbaʿası, 1340 h. (or 1338 Rh.)/1922. ——— . Ṭūmar-ı Turūḳ-ı ʿAliyye. Part 3, Ḫalvetiyye. İstanbul: Evḳāf-ı Islāmiyye Maṭbaʿası, 1341 h. (or 1338 Rh.)/1922. Yazdī, Ḥāʾirī Mahdī. The Universal Science (ʿilm-i kullī): An Introduction to Islamic Metaphysics. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2017.

Studies in Secondary Languages Abisaab, Rula. Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire. 2nd ed. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2015. Addas, Claude. Quest for the Red Sulphur: The Life of Ibn al-ʿArabī. Trans. by Peter Kingsley. Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1993. Ahola, Judith and Osti Letizia. “Appendix: Baghdad at the Time of al- Muqtadir.” In Crisis and Continuity at the Abbasid Court: Formal and Informal Politics in the Caliphate of al-Muqtadir (295–320/908–32). Edited by Maaike van Berkel, Nadia Maria El Cheikh, Hugh Kennedy, and Letizia Osti. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013.

Akasoy, Anna. “What is Philosophical Sufism?.” In In the Age of Averroes: Arabic Philosophy in the Sixth/Twelfth Century, 229–50. Edited by Peter Adamson. London and Savigliano: The Warburg Institute and Nino Aragno Editore, 2011. Akşar, Mustafa. “Bir Türk Tarikatı Olarak Halvetiyye'nin Tarihî Gelişimi ve Halvetiyye Silsilesinin Tahlili.” Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 39, no. 1 (1999): 535–63. Aktaş, Vahap. “Islamization of Anatolia and the Effects of Established Sufism (Orders).” The Anthropologist 17, no. 1 (2014): 147–55. Ambrosio, F. Alberto. Dervisci: storia, antropologia, mistica. Rome: Carocci, 2011. Anjum, Tanvir. “Sufism in History and its Relationship with Power.” Islamic Studies 45, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 221–68. Ansari, Abdul Haq M. “Ḥusayn ibn Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj: Ideas of an Ecstatic.” Islamic Studies 39, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 291–320. Ay, Resul. “Sufi Shaykhs and Society in Thirteenth and Fifteenth Century Anatolia: Spiritual Influence and Rivalry.” Journal of Islamic Studies 24, no. 1 (January 2013): 1–24. ——— . Anadolu’da Derviş ve Toplum: 13–15. Yüzyıllar. 4th ed. 1st ed. = 2008; İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2014. Bayram, Mikâil. Şeyh Evhadü’d-din Hâmid el-Kirmânî ve Evhadiyye Hareketi. 3rd ed. Konya: Damla Maatbacılık [published under a minor title difference, Evhadiyye Tarikatı], 1993; Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi Vakfı Yayınları, 1999; Konya and İstanbul: Çizgi Kitabevi, 2019. ——— . Sosyal ve Siyâsî Boyutlarıyla Ahi Evren-Mevlânâ Mücadelesi. Konya and İstanbul: Çizgi Kitabevi, 2020 [reprint of the 1st ed. = Konya: Olgun-Çelik, 2005]. Brockelmann, Carl. History of the Arabic Written Tradition. Edited and translated by Joep Lameer and Jan Just Witkam. 6 vols. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016– 18 [supplement vol. 3 is subdivided into two volumes]. Cassin, Barbara, ed. Dictionary of Untranslatables: A Philosophical Lexicon Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014. Cebecioğlu, Ethem. Tasavvuf Terimleri ve Deyimleri Sözlüğü. 6th ed. Ankara: Otto Yayınları, 2014 [1st ed. = Ankara: Rehber, 1997]. Ceyhan, Semih, ed. Türkiyede Tarikatlar: Tarih ve Kültür,2nd ed. İstanbul and Ankara: İSAM Yayınları, 2018 [1st ed. = 2015]. Chabbi, Jacqueline. “Remarques sur le développement historique des mouvements ascétiques et mystiques au Khurasan: IIIe/IXe siècle - IVe/Xe siècle.” Studia Islamica 46, (1977): 5–72. Chittick, C. William. “The Last Will and Testament of Ibn ʿArabī’s Foremost Disciple and Some Notes on its Author,” Ǧāwīdān Ḫirad/Sophia Perennis 4, no. 1 (1978): 43–58.

——— . “Ṣadr al-Dīn Qūnawī on the Oneness of Being.” International Philosophical Quarterly 21, no. 2 (June 1981): 171–84. ——— . The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983. ——— . “Rūmī and waḥdat al-wujūd.” In Poetry and Mysticism in Islam: The Heritage of Rūmī, 70–111. Edited by Amin Banani, Richard Hovannisian and Georges Sabagh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. ——— . The Self-Disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Cosmology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998. ——— . The Heart of Islamic Philosophy: The Quest for Self-Knowledge in the Teaching of Afḍal al-Dīn Kāshānī. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. ——— . Divine Love: Islamic Literature and the Path to God. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2013. Coomaraswamy, K. Ananda. “Does Socrates Is Old Imply that Socrates Is?.” In Coomaraswamy: Collected Papers, 408–25. Vol 2, Metaphysics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. Corbin, Henry. Alone with the Alone: Creative Imagination in the Sūfism of Ibn ʿArabī. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. Curry, J. John. Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought in the Ottoman Empire: The Rise of the Halveti Order, 1350–1650. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010. Dagli, D. Caner. Ibn al-ʿArabī and Islamic Intellectual Culture: From Mysticism to Philosophy. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2016. Dağlı, Yücel, et al. Yapı Kredi Sermet Çifter Araştırma Kütüphanesi Yazmalar Kataloğu. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2001. D’Ancona, Cristina. “Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle, Chapter I: Structure and Composition.” Oriens 36, (2001): 78–112. De Bruijn, J.T.P. “The Qalandariyyāt in Persian Mystical Poetry, from Sanāʾī Onwards.” In The Heritage of Sufism. Vol 2, The Legacy of Medieval Persian Sufism (1150–1500), 75–86. Edited by Leonard Lewisohn, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1999. Derin, Süleyman. “From Rābiʿa to Ibn al-Fāriḍ: Towards Some Paradigms of the Sufi Conception of Love.” PhD diss., The University of Leeds, 1999. DeWeese, Devin. “Mapping Khwārazmian Connections in the History of Sufi Traditions: Local Embeddedness, Regional Networks, and Global Ties of the Sufi Communities of Khwārazm.” Eurasian Studies 14, nos. 1–2 (May 2016): 37–97. Eichner, Heidrun. “Essence and Existence: Thirteenth-Century Perspectives in Arabic-Islamic Philosophy and Theology.” In The Arabic, Hebrew and Latin Reception of Avicenna’s Metaphysics, 123–152. Edited by Dag Nikolaus Hasse, and Amos Bertolacci. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2011

El-Bizri, Nader. “God: Essence and Attributes.” In The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology, 121–40. Edited by Tim Winter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Elias, J. Jamal. “Sufism and Islamic Identity in Jaluluddin Rumi’s Anatolia.” In Light upon Light: Essays in Islamic Thought and History in Honor of Gerhard Bowering, 291–315. Edited by Jamal J. Elias and Bilal Orfali. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2019. El-Jaichi, Saer. Early Philosophical Ṣūfism: The Neoplatonic Thought of Ḥusayn Ibn Manṣūr Al-Ḥallāğ. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2018. Elmore, Gerald. “Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī’s Personal Study-List of Books by Ibn al-ʿArabī.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 56, no. 3 (July 1997): 161–81. Ephrat, Daphna. Spiritual Wayfarers, Leaders in Piety: Sufis and the Development of Islam in Medieval Palestine. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008. Ephrat, Daphna and Mahamid, Hatim. “The Creation of Sufi Spheres in Medieval Damascus (mid-6th/12th to mid-8th/14th centuries).” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 25, no. 2 (April 2015): 189–208. Ernst, W. Carl. “The Stages of Love in Early Persian Sufism, from Rābiʿa to Rūzbihān.” In It’s Not Just Academic!: Essays on Sufism and Islamic Studies, 196–216. New Delhi and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications India/Yoda Press, 2018. Ersan, Mehmet. Selçuklular Zamanında Anadolu’da Ermeniler. 2nd ed. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2019 [1st ed. = 2007]. Feuillebois-Pierunek, Ève. À la croisée des voies célestes: Faxr al-Din ʿErâqi: Pensée mystique et expression poétique en Perse médiévale. Paris and Tehran: Institut Français de Recherche en Iran/Peeters Publishers, 2002. ——— . “Le qalandar: Réalité et fiction dans la Perse médiévale.” In Etrangeté de l’autre, singularité du moi: Les Figures du marginal dans les littératures, 111–28. Edited by Ève Feuillebois-Pierunek and Zaïneb Ben Lagha. Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2015. Geoffroy, Éric. Le soufisme en Égypte et en Syrie sous les Derniers Mamelouks et les Premiers Ottomans: Orientations Spirituelles et Enjeux Culturels. Edited by Michel Chodkiewicz. Damascus: Institut Française de Damas, 1995. Graham, Terry. “Abū Saʾīd ibn Abī’l-Khayr and the School of Khurāsān.” In Heritage of Sufism. Vol 1, Classical Persian Sufism from Its Origins to Rumi (700-1300). Edited by Leonard Lewisohn. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1999. Green, Nile. Sufism: A Global History. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Hanaoka, Mimi. “The View from Anatolia.” In Authority and Identity in Medieval Islamic Historiography, 220–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Hatmann, Angelika. al-Naṣr li-Dīn Allāh (1180–1225): Politik, Religion, Kultur in der späten ʿAbbāsidenzeit. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1975.

Hodgson, G. S. Marshall. “The Ṣûfism of the Ṭâriqah Orders, c. 945–1273.” In The Venture of Islam, vol. 2, The Expansion of Islam in the Middle Periods, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1977 [1961; 1974]. Hofer, Nathan. Popularisation of Sufism in Ayyubid and Mamluk Egypt, 1173– 1325. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2015. Kalın, İbrahim. Ben, Öteki ve Ötesi: İslam–Batı İlişkileri Tarihine Giriş. 2nd ed. İstanbul: İnsan Yayınları, 2017. Karamustafa, T. Ahmet. God’s Unruly Friends: Dervish Groups in the Islamic Middle Period, 1200–1550. 2nd ed. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994; Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2006. ——— . Sufism: The Formative Period. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. ——— . “Antinomian Sufis.” In The Cambridge Companion to Sufism, 101–24. Edited by Lloyd Ridgeon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Kaymak, Suat. Türkiye Selçukluları ve Erken Beylikler Epigrafisine Giriş (1065–1350). İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 2013. Khaldi, Boutheina. “The Sufis of Baghdad: A Topographical Index of the City.” In The City in Arabic Literature: Classical and Modern Perspectives, 223–46. Edited by Nizar F. Hermes and Gretchen Head. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018. Knysh, Alexander. Islamic Mysticism: A Short History. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2000. ——— . Sufism: A New History Islamic Mysticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017. Korobeinikov, Dimitri. Byzantium and the Turks in the Thirteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Kursar, Oğuz Zeynep. “Sultans as Saintly Figures in Early Ottoman Royal Mausolea.” In Sacred Spaces and Urban Networks, 67–88. Edited by Suzan Yalman and A. Hilâl Uğurlu. İstanbul: Koç University, 2019. Kuşpınar, Bilal. Ismāʿīl Anḳaravī on the Illuminative Philosophy, His Īżāḥuʼl- Ḥikem: Its Edition and Analysis. Kuala Lumpur: ISTAC, 1996. Lewis, D. Franklin. Rumi: Past and Present, East and West. 5th ed. London: Oneworld Publications, 2008 [1st ed. = 2000]. Lewisohn, Leonard. “Sufism and the School of Iṣfahān: Taṣawwuf and ʿIrfān in Late Safavid Iran (ʿAbd al-Razzāq Lāhījī and Fayḍ-i Kāshānī on the Relation of Taṣawwuf, Ḥikmat and ʿIrfān).” In The Heritage of Sufism. Vol. 3, Late Classical Persianate Sufism (1501–1750), 63–134. Edited by Leonard Lewisohn. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1999. ——— . “Sufism’s Religion of Love, from Rābiʿa to Ibn ʿArabī.” In The Cambridge Companion to Sufism, 150–80. Edited by Lloyd Ridgeon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Lizzini, Olga. “Wuǧūd-Mawǧūd/Existence-Existent in Avicenna: A Key Ontological Notion of Arabic Philosophy.” Quaestio 3, (2003): 111–38. Lumbard, E. B. Joseph. Aḥmad al-Ghazālī, Remembrance, and the Metaphysics of Love. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2016. Maghsoudlou, Salimeh. “La pensée de ʿAyn al-Quḍāt al-Hamadānī (m. 525/1132), entre avicennisme et héritage ġazālien.” PhD diss., École Pratique des Hautes Études, 2016. Malamud, Margaret. “Sufi Organizations and Structures of Authority in Medieval Nishapur.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 26, no. 3 (August 1994): 427–42. Mecit, Songül. “Kingship and Ideology under the Rum Seljuqs.” In The Seljuqs: Politics, Society, and Culture, 63–78. Edited by Christian Lange and Songül Mecit. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011. ——— . The Rum Seljuqs: Evolution of a Dynasty. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2014. Meier, Fritz. “Ḫurāsān und das Ende der klassischen Sufik Ṣūfik.” In Atti del Convegno internazionale sul tema: La Persia nel Medioevo, 545–70. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lince, 1971. Melville, Charles. “The Early Persian Historiography of Anatolia.” In History and Historiography of Post-Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East: Studies in Honor of John E. Woods, 135–166. Edited by Judith Pfeiffer, Sholeh A. Quinn, and Ernest Tucker. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006. Miller, Thomas Matthew. “Embodying the beloved: embodiment, (homo)eroticism, and the straightening of desire in the hagiographic tradition of Fakhr al- Dīn ʿIrāqī.” Middle Eastern Literatures 21, no. 1 (November 2018): 1–27. Mojaddedi, A. Jawid. The Biographical Tradition in Sufism: The ṭabaqāt genre from al-Sulamī to Jāmī. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 2001. Morris, Winston James. “Ibn ʿArabi and His Interpreters Part II (Conclusion): Influences and Interpretations.”Journal of the American Oriental Society 107, no. 1 (January/March 1987): 101–19. Mostafavi, Moharram. 13. Yüzyılın Büyük Mutasavvıfı Evhadeddin-i Kirmani ve Anadolu Tasavvufundaki Yeri. Edited by Ahmet Yaşar Ocak. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2016. Nasr, H. Seyyed. Sufi Essays. 2nd ed. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1973. ——— . “Existence (wujūd) and Quiddity (māhiyyah) in Islamic philosophy,” International Philosophical Quarterly 29, no. 4 (December 1989): 409–28. Newman, J. Andrew. Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire. 2nd ed. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009.

Nicola, de Bruno. “The Ladies of Rūm: A Hagiograpfhic View of Women in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Anatolia.” Journal of Sufi Studies 3, no. 2 (November 2014): 132–56. Nyugen, Martin. “Sufi Theological Thought.” In The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology, 325–43. Edited by Sabine Schmidtke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Ocak, Yaşar Ahmet. Kültür Tarihi Kaynağı Olarak Evliya Menâkıbnâmeleri, 5th ed. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2016 [1st ed. = Ankara: Başbakanlık Basımevi, 1984]. ——— . “Türkiye’de Ahîlik Araştırmalarına Eleştirel Bir Bakış,” in Türk Sufîliğine Bakışlarm 177–96. 17th ed. İstanbul: İletişim Yayıncılık, 2018 [1st ed. = 1996]. ——— . Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Marjinal Sûfilik: Kalenderîler (XIV–XVII. Yüzyıllar). 3rd ed. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2016 [1992; Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1999]. Ohlander, S. Erik. Sufism in Age of Transition: ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī and the Rise of the Islamic Mystical Brotherhoods. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008. ——— . “Mecca real and imagined: texts, transregional networks, and the curious case of Bahāʾ al-Dīn Zakariyyā of Multan.” In Sufism and Society: Arrangements of the Mystical in the Muslim World, 1200–1800, 34–49. Edited by John J. Curry and Erik S. Ohlander. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2012. Özağaç, Mustafa. “Seher Abdal’ın ‘Saadet-nâme’ isimli Mesnevîsi (Metin- Muhteva-Tahlil).” PhD diss., Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, 2009. Özgüdenli, G. Osman. “XII–XIV. Yüzyıllarda Anadolu’da Tarih Yazıcılığı.” In Ortaçağda Türkler, Moğollar, İranlılar (Kaynaklar ve Araştırmalar), 97–125. İstanbul: Ötüken Neşriyat, 2020. Öztürk, Eyüp.Velilik ve Delilik Arasında İbnu’s-Serrâc’ın Gözünden Müvelleh Dervişler, 2nd ed. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2016 [1st ed. = 2013]. Papan-Matin, Firoozeh. Beyond Death: The Mystical Teachings of ʿAyn al- Quḍāt Hamadānī. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010. Papas, Alexandre. “Individual Sanctity and Islamization in the Ṭabaqāt Books of Jāmī, Navāʾī, Lāmiʿī, and Some Others.” In Jāmī in Regional Contexts: The Reception of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Jāmī’s Works in the Islamicate World, ca. 9th/15th–14th/20th Century, 378–423. Edited by Thibaut d’Hubert and Alexandre Papas. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2018. Paul, Jürgen. “Hagiographische Texte als historische Quelle.” Saeculum: Jahrbuch für Universalgeschichte 41, no. 1 (1990): 17–43. Peacock, A. C. S. “Islamisation in Medieval Anatolia.” In Islamisation: Comparative Perspectives from History, 134–55. Edited by A. C. S. Peacock. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017. ——— . “Islamisation in the Golden Horde and Anatolia: Some Remarks on Travelling Scholars and Texts.” Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 143, (2018): 151–64.

——— . Islam, Literature and Society in Mongol Anatolia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Pfeiffer, Judith. “Mevlevi-Bektashi Rivalries and the Islamisation of the Public Space in Late Seljuq Anatolia”. In Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, 309–28. Edited A. C. S. Peacock, Bruno de Nicola, and Sara Nur Yıldız. Surrey, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2015. Pickthall, M. Muhammad. “The Meaning of The Glorious Quʾrān.” In The Quʾrān. Edited by Jane McAuliffe. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2017. Pourjavady, Nasrollah. “Stories of Aḥmad al-Ghazālī ‘Playing the Witness’ in Tabrīz (Shams-i Tabrīzī’s interest in shāhid-bāzī).” In Reason and Inspiration in Islam: Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim Thought, Essays in Honour of Hermann Landolt, 200–20. Edited by Todd Lawson. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2005. Renard, John. Friends of God: Islamic Images of Piety, Commitment, and Servanthood. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008. Renterghem, Van Vanessa. Les élites bagdadiennes au temps des Seldjoukides: Étude d’histoire sociale. 2 vols. Beirut and Damascus: Presses de l’ifpo, 2015. Ridgeon, Lloyd. Morals and Mysticism in Persian Sufism: A History of Sufi- Futuwwat in Iran. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2010. ——— . “The Controversy of Shaykh Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī and Handsome, Moon-Faced Youths: A Case Study of Shāhid-Bāzī in Medieval Sufism.” Journal of Sufi Studies 1, no. 1 (January 2012): 3–30. Ritter, Hellmut. The Ocean of the Soul: Men, the World and God in the Stories of Farīd al-Dīn ʿAṭṭār. Trans. by John O’Kane and Bernd Radtke. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003. Rıhtım, Mehmet. Seyid Yəhya Bakuvi və Xəlvətilik. Bakı: Qismət, 2005. Rosenthal, Franz. “Ibn ʿArabī between ‘Philosophy’ and ‘Mysticism’: Ṣūfīsm and Philosophy are neighbors and visit each other.” Oriens 31, (1988): 1–35. Rustom, Muhammed. “Philosophical Sufism.” In The Routledge Companion to Islamic Philosophy, 399–411. Edited by Richard C. Taylor and Luis Xavier López-Farjeat. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2016. Salamah-Qudsi, Arin. “Abū Jaʿfar Ibn Yazdānyār’s Rawḍat al-Murīdīn: an Unknown Sufi Manual of the Fifth/Eleventh Century.” Journal of Royal Asiatic Society 30, no. 3 (July 2020): 541–60. Schuon, Frithjof. Sufism: Veil and Quintessence. Translated by Mark Perry, Jean-Pierre Lafouge, and James S. Cutsinger. Bloomington, Indiana: World Wisdom, 2006. Serap Şah. “Safvetü’s-Safâ’da Safiyyüddîn-i Erdebîlî’nin Hayatı, Tasavvufî Görüşleri ve Menkıbeleri.” 2 vols. PhD diss., Marmara Üniversitesi, 2007. Seyed-Gohrab, A. A. “The Flourishing of Persian Quatrains.” In A History of Persian Literature. Vol 2, Persian Lyric Poetry in the Classical Era, 800–1500: Ghazals,

Panegyrics, and Quatrains, 488–568. Edited by Ehsan Yarshater. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2019. Stickel, Farida. Zwischen Chiliasmus und Staatsräson: Religiöser Wandel unter den Ṣafaviden. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2019. Şahin, Haşim. “Menâkıbnâmeler ve Vilâyetnâmeler.” In Dervişler ve Sufi Çevreler: Klasik Çağ Osmanlı Toplumunda Tasavvufi Şahsiyetler, 13–43. 2nd ed. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2017. ——— . Dervişler, Fakihler, Gaziler: Erken Osmanlı Döneminde Dinî Zümreler (1300–1400). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2020. Şaman, Nermin and Yazar, Turgay. “Kayseri Köşk Hânikâhı.” Vakıflar Dergisi, no. 22 (1991): 301–14. Thibon, Jean-Jacques. “L’Amour mystique (maḥabba) dans la voie spirituelle chez les premiers soufis.” Ishraq: Islamic Philosophy Yearbook, no. 2 (2011): 647–66. Trimingham S. John. The Sufi Orders in Islam, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973. Todd, Richard. The Sufi Doctrine of Man: Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī’s Metaphysical Anthropology. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014. Turak, Koray and Jevtić, Ivana. Identity and the Other in Byzantine Studies: An Introduction.” In Identity and the Other in Byzantium. Edited by Koray Turak and Ivana Jevtić. İstanbul: Koç University, 2019. Uludağ, Süleyman. Tasavvuf Kültüründe Keşif ve Keramet. 2008; İstanbul: Sufi Kitap, 2017 [1st ed. = 2008]. Vryonis, Speros Jr. “Nomadization and Islamization in Asia Minor.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, no. 29 (1975): 41–71. Wakelnig, Elvira. “Metaphysics in al-ʿĀmirī: The Hierarchy of Being and the Concept of Creation.” Medioevo: Rivista di storia della filosofia medievale, 32, (2007): 39–59. Weischer, M. Bernd. “Auḥaduddīn Kirmānī und seine Vierzeiler.” Der Islam: Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients 56, no. 1 (January 1979): 130– 34. ——— . “Some Quatrains of Awhaduddin Kirmani,” Journal of Turkish Studies 18, (1994): 323–28. Williams, Wesley. “A Body Unlike Bodies: Transcendent Anthropomorphism in Ancient Semitic Tradition and Early Islam.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 129, no. 1 (January/March 2009): 19–44. Wisnovsky, Robert. “Notes on Avicenna's Concept of Thingness (šayʾiyya).” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 10, no. 2 (September 2000): 181–221. Wolper, Sara Ethel. Cities and Saints: Sufism and the Transformation of Urban Spaces in Medieval Anatolia. University Park, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003.

Yalman, Suzan. “ʿAla al-Dīn Kayqubad Illuminated: A Rum Seljuq Sultan as Cosmic Ruler.” Muqarnas 29, (2012): 151–86. ——— . “The ‘Dual Identity’ of Mahperi Khatun: Piety, Patronage, and Marriage across Frontiers in Seljuk Anatolia.” In Architecture and Landscape in Medieval Anatolia, 1100–1500, 224–52. Edited by Patricia Blessing and Rachel Goshgarian Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017. Yıldız, Nur Sara and Haşim Şahin, “In the Proximity of Sultans: Majd al-Dīn Isḥāq, Ibn ʿArabī and the Seljuk Court.” In The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East, 173–205. Edited by Andrew C. S. Peacock and Sara Nur Yıldız (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2013). Zargar, Ali Cyrus. Sufi Aesthetics: Beauty, Love and the Human Form in Ibn ʿArabī and ʿIrāqī. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2011.