Review of Yousef Casewit’s “The Mystics of al Andalus” – Michele Petrone, Medieval Encounters 26 (2020)
Abstract :
“Before being a work on the life and thought of Barrajān, the book of Y. Casewit is a modern introduction to the mystical movements that sprung up in al-Andalus, starting from the tenth century. In this review I will avoid giving a summary of the work, which is already provided in a thoughtful preface to the book. What seems to be more important to note is the methodology the authoruses to describe the thought of Ibn Barrajān. Contemporary scholarly works on medieval Islamic thought seem to befocused on the reconstruction of networks. The circulation of diverse ideas in al-Andalus has been the object the attention of a number of studies, all reviewed by the author in the introduction of his book. This preliminary over- view is carried out not only as a state of the art. Casewit here dealt with the scholarship devoted to the reconstruction of a framework of historical and philosophical inquiry in tenth- to thirteenth-century al-Andalus. The issues of bāṭinism, Ismaili influences, and the role of the Rasāil Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ are synthetically discussed and establish a large framework for the following inquiry. The most important part of the preliminary phase of the research is the definition of the role (if any) played by al-Ghazālī in the formation of Ibn Barrajān’s thought”
Journal of Islamic Philosophy 6: A Special Issue on Mulla Sadra
Abstract:
“Mohammed Rustom is Professor of Islamic Thought at Carleton University. He has been the recipient of a number of academic distinctions and prizes such as the Ibn ‘Arabi Society Latina’s Tarjuman Prize (Spain), a Templeton Foundation/University of Birmingham Global Philosophy of Religion grant (USA/UK), a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Fellowship (Canada), the 21st International Book of the Year Prize (Iran), The Institute of Ismaili Studies’ Annemarie Schimmel Fellowship (UK), and Senior Fellowships courtesy of the NYU Abu Dhabi Institute’s Library of Arabic Literature and Humanities Research Fellowship programs (UAE). An internationally recognized scholar whose works have been translated into over ten languages, Professor Rustom’s research focuses on Islamic philosophy, Sufism, Quranic exegesis, and cross-cultural philosophy. He is also Editor of Equinox Publishing’s Global Philosophy series, Associate Editor of the Journal of Sufi Studies (Brill), Commissioning Editor of the Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi Society (JMIAS), and Editorial Board member of the Library of Arabic Literature (NYU Press). This profile is maintained by students of Professor Rustom.”
Philosophical Sufism in the Sokoto Caliphate: The Case of Shaykh Dan Tafa – Oludamini Ogunnaike
Abstract:
It has long been assumed that the discipline of falsafa (Islamic philosophy) died out in the Western lands of the Islamic world after the fall of Andalusia, and that philosophical intellectual work was largely limited to the disciplines of theology (kalām) and Sufism (taṣawwuf). Moreover, the more creative and discursive tradition of theoretical of philosophical Sufism is also supposed to have migrated East in the 13th-C along with figures such as Ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 1240) and Ibn Sab‘in (d. 1271). However, the oeuvre of the Sokoto scholar Shaykh ‘abd al-Qādir ibn Muṣṭafā (d. 1864) (better known as dan Tafa, the grandson of Shaykh ‘Uthmān dan Fodio) poses a significant challenge to these assumptions. Shaykh Dan Tafa’s works include a defense of philosophy, a treatise on universals (kulliyāt), a versified introduction to the study of philosophy, a critical evaluation of materialist and naturalist philosophies, as well as several works of philosophical Sufism, including a treatise on certain topics from ‘abd al-Karīm al-Jīlī’s masterpiece of Philosophical Sufism, al-Insān al-Kāmil. It seems unlikely that Shaykh Dan Tafa studied and produced these works entirely on his own, indicating the existence of little-known West African traditions of Islamic philosophy and philosophical Sufism. This chapter evaluates some of Shaykh Dan Tafa’s works and their ramifications for our understanding of the history of Islamic philosophy and philosophical Sufism in West Africa, and the role of these two traditions in the intellectual history the region.
Rūmī on Traveling the Path of the Prophet – William Chittick
Abstract:
“Rūmī saw himself as belonging to the line of prophets (anbiyā ) and saints (awliyā ), the God-given function of whom is to guide the human race. He had a great deal to say about most sorts of Islamic teachings, as can be verified by the traditional commentaries on the Mathnawī or modern studies like that of Jalāl al-Dīn Humā ī. Despite the extent to which he has been singled out in modern times as a unique spokesman for love, much of what he said about the topic was fairly standard in Sufi works; it was prefigured by poets like Sanā ī and Aār as well as in Persian prose classics like Kashf al-asrār wauddat al-abrār , the great Quran commentary by Maybudī (begun in 520/1126), andRaw al-ar-wā fī shar asmā al-malik al-fattā , a long commentary on the divine names by A mad Samānī (d.534/1140). Perhaps the most systematic exposition of the worldview of love that infuses Rūmī’s works is provided by another Persian classic, Mir ād al-ibād min al-mabda ila’l-ma ād , written by his con-temporary Najm al-Dīn Rāzī (d. 654/1256). No one other than Rūmī, however, was so successful in combining magical poetry with explicit and detailed teachings on love as the path to God“
Rule of the One: Avicenna,Bahmanyār, and al-Rāzī on the Argument from the Mubāḥathāt – Davlat Dadikhuda
Abstract:
“Avicenna is a strong proponent of what some of the later ones call qāʻidat al-wāḥid or ‘rule of the one’(RO). The gist of RO states: from the one only one directly proceeds. In the secondary literature, discussion of this Avicennian rule is usually limited to a particular application of it i.e., the issue of emanation. As result, it’s not really clear what RO means, nor why Avicenna endorsed it. In this paper, I try and remedy this situation by doing two things – one on the taṣawwur front, the other on the tasdīq. First, explain just what the terms of RO amount to – that is, its subject and predicate. In doing this, I distinguish between a narrow and a broad understanding of RO, and the show that, on the Avicennian view, the scope of RO is broad; it is meant to be a general principle of efficient causality. This is why it is appealed to in various contexts to establish substantial philosophical theses. Second, I consider an argument Avicenna offers for RO in the Mubāḥathāt. In unpacking it, I uncover some of its realist presuppositions, and then further clarify it in light of a critique first raised by Bahmanyār and then later made famous by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. I then conclude by seeing whether the Avicennian has the resources within the initial premises of the argument to meet the objection that’s raised”