A Reconsideration of the Life and Works of Ibn Barrajān, al-Abhath, No. 60-61 (2012-2013), pp....

A Reconsideration of the Life and Works of Ibn Barrajān

Yousef Casewit1

1 Assistant Professor of Qur’anic Studies, The University of Chicago Divinity School

Abstract: Section I of this article examines historical sources on al-Andalus and fragments of evidence scattered throughout Ibn Barrajān’s extant works to determine: (a) the signi�canceof his honori�c epithet “al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus”; (b) his ambivalent association with theMālikī school of jurisprudence; and (c) his retreat from society (ʿuzla) to focus on spiritual practices. Section II sheds light on Ibn Barrajān’s works by providing: (a) the de�nitivesequential chronology and titles of his works on the basis of internal references gleaned from the author’s writings; (b) a translation of an illustrative excerpt from al-Irshād ilā subul al-rashād, Ibn Barrajān’s �rst, lost, and often confused opus; and (c) the general thematiccontents of his works.Keywords: al-Ghazālī, al-Andalus, Mālikism, Almoravids (al-Murābiṭūn), Ibn Ḥazm, retreaters (munqabiḍūn), Ashʿarism, contemplative cross-over (ʿibra/iʿtibār), Ibn Barrajān, al-Irshād ilā subul al-rashād

أع�ل ابن يف موزعة األندلس عن تاريخية ومقاطع مصادر هذه املقالة من األول القسم يدرس املستخلص:و(ج) باملذهب املال�؛ امللتبس ربطه (ب) األندلس“؛ ”غزايل الرشيف لقبه داللة (أ) تحديد: بهدف وذلك برجان،خالل: من برجان ابن أع�ل عىل فييضء القسم الثا� أما م�رساته الروحية. عىل املجتمع للرتكيز انعزاله عنكتابات من املستقاة الداخلية اإلشارات إىل باالستناد ولعناوينها األع�ل لهذه نها� تاريخي تسلسل (أ) تحديدعمل مفقود وهو برجان، ابن أع�ل أول الرشاد، سبل إىل اإلرشاد من ملقطع إيضاحي ترجمة (ب) املؤلف؛

العام ألع�له. الثيمي املضمون (ج) النسبة؛ وملتبس

برجان، ابن العربة/االعتبار، األشعرية، املنقبضون، حزم، ابن املرابطون، املالكية، الغزايل، الكل�ت-املفاتيح: الرشاد سبل إىل اإلرشاد

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)112

2 The earliest study on Ibn Barrajān was conducted in German by Ignaz Goldziher, “Ibn Barraǧān,” ZDMG 69 (1914): 544–546. See also A. Faure, “Ibn Barradjān,” in EI2, vol. 3; introductory study on Ibn Barrajān in Šarḥ asmāʾ Allāh Al-Ḥusna – Comentario sobre los nombres mas bellos de Dios, ed. Purificacion dela Torre (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas: Agencia Espanola de CooperacionInternacional, 2000); Gharmīnī, Al-Madāris al-ṣūfiyya al-Maghribiyya wa-l-Andalusiyya (Casablanca: Dār al-Rashād al-Ḥadītha, 2000), 114–154; Denis Gril, “La ‘Lecture Supérieure’ du Coran Selon Ibn Barraǧān,” Arabica 47 (2000): 510–522; and “L’interprétation par transposition symbolique (i‘tibâr) selon Ibn Barragân et Ibn ʿ Arabî,” in Symbolisme et herméneutique dans la pensée de Ibn ʿ Arabī (Damascus: Presses de l’Ifpo, 2007), 147–161; Matthew Melvin-Koushki, Ibn Barrajān, Seer of God’s Cycles: The Seven ‘Years’ of Sūrat al-Rūm 1–5, n/p, 2008 and “The Quest for a Universal Science: The Occult Philosophy of Ṣāʾin al-Dīn Turka Iṣfahānī (1369–1432) and Intellectual Millenarianism in Early Timurid Iran” (Ph.D. Diss, Yale University, 2012), 186–87, 220, 243, 245, 275, 292–306; A. González Costa, “Un Ejemplo de la Hermeneutica Sufí del Corán en al-Andalus: El Comentario Coránico Īḍāḥ al-Ḥikma De Ibn Barraŷān (m. 536/1141) de Sevilla,” in Historia del Sufismo en al-Andalus; Maestros Sufíes de al-andalus yel Maghreb, eds. Amina González Costa and Gracia López Anguita (Cordoba: Almuzara, 2009), 41–65, and “Ibn Barraŷān, Abū L-Ḥakam (Abuelo),” in Biblioteca de al-Andalus Vol.2: De Ibn Adha a Ibn Busra, eds. Jorge Lirola Delgado and Jose Miguel Puerta Vilchez (Almería: Fundación Ibn Tufayl de Estudios Árabes, 2009), 524–538; Fateh Hosni, “Manhaj al-imām Ibn Barrajān fī tafsīri-hi – Interpretation Methodology of Ibn Barrajān” (Ph.D. Diss, Jāmiʿat al-Yarmūk, Kulliyyat al-Sharīʿa wa-l-Dirāsāt al-Islāmiyya, Qism Uṣūl al-Dīn, Jordan, 2009); Hülya Küçük, “Light Upon Light in Andalusian Sufism:Abū al-Ḥakam Ibn Barrajān (d. 536/1141) and Muḥyī l-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 638/1240) as Developer of His Hermeneutics. Part I: Ibn Barrajān’s Life and Works,” ZDMG 163 (2013): 87–116 and “Part II: Ibn Barrajān’s Views and Legacy,” ZDMG 162 (2013): 383–409; José Bellver, “‘Al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus’: Ibn Barrajān, Mahdism, and the Emergence of Learned Sufism on the Iberian Peninsula,” JAOS 133, no. 4 (2013): 659–681; and “Ibn Barraǧān and Ibn ʿArabī on the Prediction of the Capture of Jerusalem in 583/1187 by Saladin,” Arabica 61 (2014): 252–286; See introduction to A Qurʾān Commentary by Ibn Barrajān of Seville (d. 536/1141): Īḍāḥ al-ḥikma bi-aḥkām al-ʿibra (Wisdom Deciphered, the Unseen Discovered), eds. Gerhard Bowering and Yousef Casewit (Leiden: Brill, 2015); Yousef Casewit, “The Forgotten Mystic: Ibn Barrajān (d. 536/1141) and the Andalusian Muʿtabirūn”, (Ph.D. Diss., Yale University, 2014); and “A Muslim Scholar of the Bible: Prooftexts from Genesis and Matthew in the Qur’an Commentary of Ibn Barrajān of Seville (d. 536/1141),” Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 18.1 (2016), pp. 1-48; and The Mystics of al-Andalus: Ibn Barrajān and Islamic Thought in the Twelfth Century, (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).

The life and works of the preeminent Andalusī mystic and Qurʾān commentator Abū al-Ḥakam ʿ Abd al-Salām b. ʿ Abd al-Raḥmān b. Barrajān al-Lakhmī al-Ifrīqī thumma al-Ishbīlī (d. 536/1141), who earned the honorific title “al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus”,have been the subject of several recent studies. These scholarly inquiries have refinedour understanding of the important status which Ibn Barrajān enjoyed among his contemporaries in sixth/twelfth century al-Andalus, as well as his role in shaping and disseminating mysticism in the region. An outline of Ibn Barrajān’s life can be dispensed with here, as the relevant details have been presented elsewhere.2 However, studies to date have been noticeably dependent upon the patchy and often conflictingdata furnished by later medieval sources. To date, Ibn Barrajān’s own works have yet to


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 113

3 For many scholars, Ibn Barrajān represents primarily the reception of al-Ghazālī’s ideas in al-Andalus. See, for instance, A. Faure, “Ibn al-ʿArīf,” “Ibn Barradjān,” and “Ibn Ḳasī,” EI2; Gharmīnī, Al-Madāris al-ṣūfiyya, 193; A. Bel, “Le Sufisme en Occident musulman au XIIe et au XIIIe siècle de J.C.,”Annales de l’Institut d’étude Orientales (Alger) I (1934–1935): 145–161.

4 To name a few examples, two Andalusī poets, Ibn Hāniʾ (d. 362/973) and Ibn Darrāj (d. 421/1030) came to be called respectively the “Mutanabbī of the West” and the “Mutanabbī of al-Andalus”; Ismāʿīl b. Badr (d. 351/962) earned the title of “the Andalusī Euclid”; the Mālikī jurist Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī (d. 386/996) was lauded as “the Minor Mālik”; the celebrated North African Sufi AbūMadyan (d. 594/1198) was hailed the “Junayd of the West”; and the theologian Abū ʿAmr al-Salālijī (d. 574/1178) of Fez has sometimes been referred to as the “Juwaynī of the Maghrib”. In each case, what is at stake is not so much intellectual indebtedness as high scholarly status.

be carefully explored for precious fragments of historical contextual and biographical information. Building on and supplementing previous examinations of Ibn Barrajān, this paper analyzes fragmentary historical evidence scattered throughout his multi-volume corpus. Section I makes three contributions to Ibn Barrajān’s biography by reexamining: (a) the significance of his honorific epithet “al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus”;(b) his ambivalent association with the Mālikī school of jurisprudence; and (c) his retreat from society (ʿuzla) to focus on spiritual practices. Section II clarifies certainmisunderstandings about the titles and number of Ibn Barrajān’s written works. This section (a) determines the sequential chronology and titles of his works on the basis of internal references gleaned from the author’s writings; (b) provides a translation of an illustrative excerpt from al-Irshād ilā subul al-rashād, Ibn Barrajān’s first, lost, andoften confused opus; and (c) describes the general thematic contents of his works.

I. Significance of his epithet “al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus”Ibn Barrajān’s preeminent status among sixth/twelfth century Andalusī mystics

is affirmed by his epithet “al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus,” which he earned during his ownlifetime. This epithet is all the more fitting, not only because both were remarkablyinfluential figures, but also because Ibn Barrajān’s legacy, like that of Abū Ḥāmidal-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), was from the outset simultaneously contested and lauded by scholars in the Muslim West. But does this honorific title necessarily imply that IbnBarrajān was intellectually indebted to, or even mildly influenced by al-Ghazālī?3 In short, no. Ibn Barrajān would only have earned his epithet at the tail end of his career, after both Ibn Barrajān and al-Ghazālī’s works had circulated throughout al-Andalus. Moreover, pairing up prominent luminaries of the Muslim West with eastern counterparts was common practice among Andalusī and Maghribī biographers, even when no clear intellectual links were involved.4 Ibn Barrajān’s epithet should be appreciated in the context of this long-standing biographical custom. Second, it is

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)114

not al-Ghazālī, but the writings of Ibn Masarra al-Jabalī, Sahl al-Tustarī, Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī, and Ikhwān al-Ṣafā that loom large over Ibn Barrajān’s writings.5

The influence of al-Ghazālī upon Ibn Barrajān’s earlier writings, the Irshād and Sharḥ al-asmāʾ, is virtually impossible to trace for chronological reasons.6 The Iḥyāʾ was introduced to al-Andalus in 495/1102 by Abū Bakr b. al-ʿArabī upon his return from the Mashriq.7 By that year, Ibn Barrajān, who was born circa 450/1058, was already a noted scholar and an accomplished middle-aged mystic in his mid-forties.8 In all likelihood, he had written the Irshād and the Sharḥ well before coming into contact with al-Ghazālī’s Maqṣad. Al-Ghazālī’s writings, in other words, could not have formed part of Ibn Barrajān’s core curriculum for simple chronological reasons. His formative years did not include studies of al-Ghazālī, and did not leave an imprint on his early seminal writings. Moreover, there is no pronounced turn to Ghazālian thought in Ibn Barrajān’s later Qurʾān commentaries.9

Moreover, it should be stressed that the Sharḥ and Maqṣad al-asnā, Ibn Barrajān and al-Ghazālī’s respective commentaries on the divine names, differ markedly inapproach and emphasis. The two authors diverge often in their interpretations of

5 See my forthcoming book, The Mystics of al-Andalus.6 It should first be noted that it is certain that our author composed four works. The first, al-Irshād ilā

subul al-rashād, is devoted to ḥādīth-Qurʾān concordance; the second, Sharḥ asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā, is a commentary on the divine names; the third, Tanbīh al-afhām ilā tadabbūr al-kitāb al-ḥakīm wa-taʿarruf al-āyāt wa-l-nabaʾ al-ʿaẓīm, is his major Qurʾān commentary; and the fourth, Īḍāḥ al-ḥikma bi-aḥkām al-ʿibra, is his minor Qurʾān commentary.

7 Muḥammad al-Mannūnī, “Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn fī manẓūn al-gharb al-islāmī ayyām al-murābitīn wa-l-muwaḥḥidīn,” in Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī: Dirāsāt fī fikri-hi wa-ʿaṣri-hi wa-taʾthīri-hi (Rabat: Kulliyyat al-Ādāb wa-l-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyya, 1988), 126–127.

8 The precise year of Ibn Barrajān’s birth is not specified by the biographers, although a tentative datecan be put forth with some certainty. The biographers do not mention that he attained longevity (muʿammar), so it can be safely assumed, as per biographical convention, that he was not muʿammar, i.e., that he died before reaching the age of ninety. This would place his birth sometime after 446/1051. As well, we know that he studied the entirety of Ṣaḥīh al-Bukhārī under Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Manẓūr (d. Shawwāl 469/May 1077). Ibn Barrajān would have been qualified for this undertakingonly in his late teens or early twenties, after having committed the Qurʾān to memory, acquired fundamental reading and writing skills, and mastered rudimentary Arabic grammar (naḥw) and jurisprudence (fiqh). It is very rare for a student to study a large primary ḥadīth text like Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ before his teens. Presumably then, Ibn Barrajān was born circa 450/1058 in the late ʿAbbādī period, under the rule of ʿ Abd Allāh b. al-Qādir bi-Llāh, known as al-Qāʾim bi-Amr Llāh. He witnessed the rise and decline of the al-Murābīṭūn in al-Andalus, and died in his mid-eighties in 536/1141 at Marrakesh during the late al-Murābiṭūn period.

9 For a detailed discussion, see Chapter Four of my dissertation, “The Forgotten Mystic”.


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 115

the overlapping divine names featured in their works. More importantly, there are fundamental differences in doctrinal outlook. To name one example, contra al-Ghazālī, Ibn Barrajān rejects etymological derivations of the divine names a priori. He holds that creation and language proceed from the names, not the other way around, and thus discards the possibility that the name Allāh, for instance, is derived from W-L-H or ʾ-L-H. Second, Ibn Barrajān adamantly rejects the concept of “assuming the character traits of God” (takhalluq bi-asmāʾ Allāh) which al-Ghazālī adopts extensively in his Maqṣad. What is surprising is that Ibn Barrajān draws no connection between takhalluq and Sufism or al-Ghazālī at all. To his knowledge, this doctrine hailed fromthe writings of the falāsifa and gave them grounds to trump the sharīʿa and turn away from prophetic knowledge in favor of unbridled intellectualism. The fact that Ibn Barrajān associates the doctrine of takhalluq not with al-Ghazālī but with the latter’s arch-nemeses, the falāsifa (possibly Miskawayh’s Tahdhīb al-akhlāq) speaks volumes of his presumed indebtedness to the latter. His dismissal of the doctrine of takhalluq as a deviation of the falāsifa signals that he knew nothing of the Maqṣad when he wrote the Sharḥ.10 Ibn Barrajān therefore probably penned his Sharḥ in a pre-Ghazālian Andalus, between 490–495/1096–1102, during his early to mid-forties.

If anyone merited the title “al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus” on the basis of intellectual affiliation, it would have probably been the contemporaneous mystic Ibn al-ʿArīf,who was influenced by the writings of ḥujjat al-islām. It is noteworthy that he was thirty years younger than Ibn Barrajān. This generational gap is of crucial importance for understanding sixth/twelfth century mysticism in al-Andalus and the impact that al-Ghazālī had upon figures in the region. Ibn Barrajān was regardedas a representative of “old-school” Andalusī mysticism. Al-Ghazālī’s writings found fertile soul among a younger generation of scholars, and served as a catalyst and intellectual rallying point for an already thriving mystical movement in al-Andalus. That Ibn Barrajān was likened to al-Ghazālī denotes a function of parallel importance, an attachment to mystical doctrine, opposition to Mālikī legal pedantism, and a hint of anti-Murābiṭūn politics since al-Ghazālī was unabashedly critical of the state jurists and the al-Murābiṭūn dynasty.

His Affiliation with a Legal School (Madhhab)In addition to his honorific title, Ibn Barrajān’s ambivalent relationship to the

Mālikī juridical class and the al-Murābiṭūn structures of religious authority remains somewhat of a mystery. Why was the aloof Ibn Barrajān perceived as a threat to the

10 For Ibn Barrajān’s discussion of takhalluq, see Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 2:126.

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)116

al-Murābiṭūn emir and his jurists? Did he challenge Mālikism? What were his juridical affiliations? To begin with, the extent of his juridical training, his commitment toMālik’s legal principles, and the names of his teachers in fiqh and uṣūl al-fiqh are unknown. His affiliational ambiguity in this regard is unusual, since the networks ofsixth/twelfth century fuqahāʾ were thoroughly mapped out by biographers. Although none of the biographers describe Ibn Barrajān as a Mālikī, Ibn al-Zubayr describes him most tellingly as a scholar who “bound his opinions to the outward [meanings] of the Book and the Sunna.”11

Broadly speaking, Ibn Barrajān’s criticisms of Mālikism in his writings were covert and moderate in tone. Two reasons account for his guardedness. First, he was non-polemical by nature and avoided head-on confrontations at all costs, especially with powerful jurists of his day. In contrast to al-Ghazālī’s onslaught against the jurists, Ibn Barrajān was much less vocal in criticizing the dry legalism perpetuated by “worldly scholars” (fuqahāʾ al-dunyā). In fact, he only rarely differentiated between “worldlyjurists” and “scholars of the Hereafter” (ʿulamāʾ al-ākhira) in the first place, since hepresumably found this dichotomizing to be too strong.12 Even when criticizing the philosophers, he did not provide names of his intellectual enemies. Second, unlike the audacious and sharp-tongued Ibn Ḥazm, Ibn Barrajān lacked authority as an established faqīh or an independent scholar (mujtahid) to go against the grain of Mālikism. He preferred to express his dissent more elliptically.

Ibn Barrajān was versed in legal discourse, but was not remembered as a faqīh.13 Juridical discussions are infrequent in his writings,14 and when he employed the

11 Ibn al-Zubayr, K. ṣilat al-ṣila, no. 45, 32.12 Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 1:256.13 The illustrious legal expert al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273) refers to him diffidently as al-faqīh Ibn Barrajān,

insisting that he belonged among “the people of knowledge and practice” (ahl al-ʿilm wa-l-ʿamal). See Kitāb al-tadhkira bi-aḥwāl al-mawtā wa-umūr al-ākhira, 3 vols., ed. al-Ṣādiq Ibn Ibrāhīm (al-Riyāḍ: Maktabat Dār al-Minhāj li-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 1425/2004), 1:408–409.

14 Rarely do Ibn Barrajān’s writings give way to extensive juridical discussions. In his exegetical works, he typically glosses over Qurʾānic verses of legal import or he interprets them allegorically. For instance, in a discussion animal slaughter (budn) among the rites of the ḥajj pilgrimage, he understands budn to denote a symbol (āya) for blessings bestowed upon believers in the Hereafter (see Īḍāḥ, Bowering and Casewit, eds., #628). For a juridical discussion of the legally prescribed period during which it is not permissible for a woman to remarry after being widowed or divorced (ʿidda) and marriage of pleasure (nikāḥ al-mutʿa), see Tanbīh, ed. Mazyadī, 1:425–426; for rules pertaining to shortening the canonical prayers (ṣalāt al-qaṣr), see vol. 2, 99–100; on sensual stroking (mulāmasa) and the ritual ablution (ghusl), see vol. 2, 151–152; on the permissibility of embracing (muʿānaqa) and handshaking (muṣafaḥa), see vol. 3, 128; on spying (tajassus) and slander (ifk), see vol. 4, 125–132; for rules pertaining to the alms tax (zakāt, niṣāb), see vol. 4, 284–285.


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 117

term fiqh, it was typically in the non-technical and broader sense of “understanding,” “implication,” “deep insight,” or “moral lesson.”15 Ibn Barrajān tolerated jurists as gatekeepers of Islam, conceding that they fulfilled a necessary function in thepreservation and transmission of religion. He was not always averse to taqlīd – that is, “delegating authority to religious specialists.”16 At the same time, he categorically affirmed the superiority of gnostics (ʿārifūn) and contemplative mystics (muʿtabirūn) over exoteric jurists. Ibn Barrajān was thus both tolerant and condescending: he acknowledged the validity and salvific efficacy of the ʿulamāʾ’s exoteric knowledge, while proclaiming a mystical knowledge (maʿrifa) to be above the epistemological confines circumscribed by the Mālikī fuqahāʾ.17

In some of his writings, Ibn Barrajān’s comments on jurists (fuqahāʾ) and jurisprudence (fiqh) are quite critical. Although he never names Mālikism, he disapproved generally of jurists who fixated on legal minutiae and pedanticallydefended the positions of their legal school (madhhab) instead of seeking divine truth.18 He was critical of the Andalusī educational curriculum for its exaggerated emphasis on the law, and believed that fiqh should play a more limited role in determining the content and parameters of religious discourse. Ibn Barrajān counseled his pupils to only become “acquainted with that which is indispensable (mā lā budd min-hu) in matters of the “permissible and the prohibited.”19 He discouraged them from delving too deeply into hairsplitting legal injunctions of fiqh, and urged them to channel their efforts into the “most beneficial” (anfaʿ) form of knowledge, namely direct knowledge of God and natural symbols.

What is surprising is that Ibn Barrajān adopts legal positions that go against not only mainstream Mālikism, but Sunnī jurisprudence as a whole. For instance, in his commentary on Qurʾānic verses pertaining to temporary “marriage for pleasure” (nikāḥ al-mutʿa) in the Qurʾān, he criticizes jurists for maintaining the position that this

15 For examples of non-technical employment of the term fiqh, see Tanbīh, ed. Mazyadī, 4:162, 234, 554; 5:15, 170, 193.

16 See his discussion of taqlīd in the Tanbīh (ed. Mazyadī, 3:61–62) where he describes a muqallid as a blind person using a staff to find his way along a path.

17 For example, speaking in the first person in his writings, he often encouraged his readers whofailed to grasp his mystical interpretations to remain faithful to the theological literalism of the Mālikīs. After expounding upon the symbolic meanings of the ṣirāṭ over Hellfire on Judgment Day,Ibn Barrajān tells his reader that, should he feel incapable of grasping the import of his discourse, he should “halt and affirm the literal wording [of the ṣirāṭ]” for that, Ibn Barrajān affirms, is also a path to salvation. (Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 2:108.)

18 Īḍāḥ, ¶196.19 Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 1:280.

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)118

form of nikāḥ was abrogated (mansūkh) by Caliph ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and therefore impermissible. Ibn Barrajān insists that during times of jihād, temporary contractual marriages may be reinstituted for the purposes of expanding Muslim dominion in northern Iberia. While these remarks do not constitute an open fatwā permitting “marriage for pleasure” among Muslim troops waging jihād in the northern frontiers of al-Andalus, they are certainly loaded with implications.20

Ibn Barrajān’s views on legal theory (uṣūl al-fiqh), with which he was intimately familiar, were more positive. He held uṣūl in great esteem and occasionally delved into theoretical uṣūlī discussions in his works.21 He believed that studying uṣūl enables one to grasp the perceived ambiguities of the Qurʾān, as well as the complex nuances of Ḥadīth, in contrast to legal studies which detracted from man’s essential spiritual pursuits.22 He praised pious ʿulamāʾ who mastered the different legal sciences, includingits “branches” or legal rulings (furūʿ), uṣūl, theology (uṣūl al-dīn), Prophetic ḥadīth, reports of the Companions and early generations of scholars (akhbār), grammar, and Arabic language for an ability to comprehend the so-called mutashābihāt of the Qurʾān23 and for being the “heirs to the prophets.”24

Thus Ibn Barrajān could be most accurately described as an independent scholar, a mujtahid who practiced juridical reasoning outside the confines of a particular legalschool. It is no surprise that he was never appointed as qāḍī by the al-Murābiṭūn. Like Ibn al-ʿArīf, he was a second-generation Andalusī and had no ambitions of becoming a state jurist. He was neither entrenched in the old juridical structures of power, nor was he vested in the fuqahāʾs long-established approaches to scholarship.25 His criticisms and non-committal attitude were shared by other Andalusī mystics of the period who maintained a merely “national” allegiance to their madhhab and did not strictly confine themselves to its rulings.26 Interestingly, similar reservations about

20 Tanbīh, ed. Mazyadī, 1:425–26. The question of Shiʿī influence can be dismissed here, since IbnBarrajān’s position on nikāḥ al-mutʿa is a consequence of his peculiar understanding of naskh and naẓm in the Qurʾān.

21 See his juridical-uṣūlī discussion of abrogation (naskh) in the Qurʾān and Sunna in Tanbīh, ed. Mazyadī, 1:259–263; and Īḍāḥ, #388.

22 Īḍāḥ, #200.23 Tanbīh, ed. Mazyadī, 1:489–490.24 Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, vol. 1:282; vol. 2:14; vol. 5:413.25 Fierro, “Opposition to Sufism,” 187.26 Cornell, Realm of the Saint: Power and Authority in Moroccan Sufism (Austin: University of Texas Press,

1998), 17. In the Īḍāḥ (#14), Ibn Barrajān holds that the basmala is a part of the opening chapter of the Qurʾān, not an opening formula. This position is a Shāfiʿī opinion which goes against theMālikī position. Since the Prophet specified that prayers are not valid without reciting the Opening


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 119

the madhāhib can be detected in the writings of earlier Sufis of the Mashriq like AbūṬālib al-Makkī’s Qūt al-qulūb which Ibn Barrajān had direct access to.27

It should be noted with some caution that a scripturalist Ẓāhirī streak runs through Ibn Barrajān’s writings. This literalism was picked up by biographers like Ibn al-Zubayr who described him as being “bound to the outward [meanings] of the Book and the Sunna.”28 Ibn Barrajān firmly believed that ḥadīth reports, regardlessof the weakness of their chains of transmission (isnād), should be accepted or rejected expressly on the basis of their alignment with the Qurʾān. That is, even if a prophetic report has a fabricated chain of transmission (mawḍūʿ), it should be accepted as true if it is in alignment with the message of the Qurʾān.29 This idea was a foundational hermeneutical principle to which he adhered in all of his scholarship, and could be called the “principle of Qurʾānic hegemony.” Although quite radical in its undercutting of the isnād approach to Sunnī ḥadīth, his alternative approach of assimilating ḥadīth into Sunnī discourse was not intended to broaden juridical but mystical discussions. While this idea is not to be found in Ibn Ḥazm’s works, Ibn Barrajān’s drastic scripturalism, his opposition to the Sunnī scholarly consensus (ijmāʿ), occasional criticism of taqlīd and the madhhabs, and undercutting of the Sunnī tradition of assessing ḥadīth reports on the basis of chains of transmission betrays a Ẓāhirī leaning in his thought.30 Ẓāhirī writings of Ibn Ḥazm were accessible and widely known to scholars of sixth/twelfth century Muslim Spain, especially in Seville,31

chapter 1 (sūrat al-Fātiḥa/Umm al-Qurʾān), the status of the basmala in relation to the entire sūra had consequences for the validity of one’s canonical prayer. For Shāfiʿī jurists, reciting the basmala is compulsory (farḍ) since omitting it invalidates one’s prayer, whereas for Mālikīs adding the basmala is reprehensible (makrūh).

27 For a discussion of Makkī’s juridical affiliations, see Yazaki’s Islamic Mysticism and Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī (Oxon: Routledge, 2013), 21.

28 Ibn al-Zubayr, K. ṣilat al-ṣila, no. 45, 32.29 Ibn Barrajān drew on the authority of an isnād when it suited him, even though he usually stressed

his principle of Qurʾanic supremacy and the corrective function of the Qurʾān.30 There are significant differences between the two thinkers. Contra Ibn Ḥazm, Ibn Barrajān accepts

weak ḥādīth reports and analogical reasoning (qiyās), submits that there is utility in the madhhab system while criticizing it, and endorses the idea that the Qurʾān contains inner meanings which are accessible to spiritually qualified scholars. Whereas Ibn Ḥazm considered Qurʾānic verses andstrong ḥadīth reports as equally authoritative. See Adam Sabra, “Ibn Ḥazm’s Literalism: A Critique of Islamic Legal Theory,” in Ibn Ḥazm of Cordoba: The Life and Works of a Controversial Thinker, eds. Camilla Adang, Ma. Isabel Fierro, and Sabine Schmidtke (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 99–103.

31 See Adang, “The Spread of Ẓāhirism in Post-Caliphal al-Andalus: The Evidence from the Biographical Dictionaries,” in Ideas, Images, and Methods of Portrayal: Insights into Arabic Literature and Islam, ed. Sebastian Günther, (Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 336–337.

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)120

and Ibn Barrajān probably integrated some of its teachings into his own thought-patterns.32 Thus, it could be said with caution that there is a line to be drawn at the level of the ẓāhir, from Ibn Ḥazm onto Ibn Barrajān and even Ibn al-ʿArabī. However, these lines should not be drawn too rigidly since none of these figures appear to havecommitted themselves to a legal school wholeheartedly.

Seclusion and Spiritual PracticeIbn Barrajān was remembered by biographers as a recluse who shunned fame

and celebrity.33 He spent time studying and teaching in Seville,34 but preferred to live outside the city in the relatively remote villages of al-Jarafe’s greater province (iqlīm al-Sharaf). In his day, al-Jarafe spanned a massive area west of Seville and comprised some 8000 villages.35 The exact location of Ibn Barrajān’s village is hinted at by his disciple Ibn al-Mālaqī (d. 574/1178), who is reported to have paid him a visit at a remote village (qarya) in the district (iqlīm) of al-Sharaf (al-Jarafe) west of Seville, in the direction of Ṭilyāṭa (Tejada) of the al-Baṣal district. Bellver identifies this locationwhere Ibn Barrajān presumably led his discreet life as the modern-day village of Albaida de Aljarafe or Olivares,36 which are both approximately seventeen kilometers west of Seville.

It is noteworthy that the rural provinces of Aljarafe were, and continue to be an important center for olive oil production, a business which Ibn Barrajān was probably invested in. Despite basic methods of extraction, the output of olive oil in the medieval period sometimes exceeded local needs, and surpluses were exported to different regions of the Islamic world. Unlike many scholars, Ibn Barrajānprobably did not move around the peninsula in search of patronage of rulers for his livelihood. Assuming that Ibn Barrajān had limited financial means, and that he didnot receive a state pension as a qāḍī and also taught pro-bono, it is almost certain

32 For instance, we know that the Ẓāhirī Ibn Yarbūʿ (d. 522/1128) studied the ḥadīth collection of Bukhārī with Ibn Manẓūr, who was Ibn Barrajān’s ḥadīth teacher. Ibn Barrajān’s Mālikī student ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Ishbīlī transmitted Ẓāhirī works of Ibn Ḥazm. There are also connections to Ibn Barrajān through Abū Bakr al-Mayūrqī’s Ẓāhirī teacher Ibn Barrāl/Buriyāl who was a student of Ibn Ḥazm and who came into contact with Ibn al-ʿArīf; See Adang, “The Spread of Ẓāhirism,” 329.

33 Ibn al-Zubayr, Ṣilat al-ṣila, no. 45, 33.34 Qanṭarī reportedly studied with him in Seville. Dhahabī, Siyar, vol. 20, 455, no. 291, (al-Qanṭarī).35 This is according to the explorer and historian al-Ḥimyarī (d. 900/1495), al-Rawḍ al-miʿṭār fī khabar

al-aqṭār, ed. and trans. into French by Lévi-Provençal (Cairo-Leiden, 1938), 101; al-ʿProve, Aḥmad b. ʿUmar, Nuṣūs ʿan al-Andalus, ed. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Ahwānī (Madrid, 1965), 23–24. Cf. Ṭāha, The Muslim Conquest and Settlement of North Africa and Spain, (London; New York: Routledge, 1989), 111.

36 Bellver, “Al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus,” 664.


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 121

that he owned or inherited some land or family property, and earned his livelihood from seasonal agricultural harvests. Interestingly, the olive tree (shajarat al-zaytūn) figures prominently in Ibn Barrajān’s mystical imagination and takes on a centralcosmological significance in his later writings, figuring as a concrete symbol for hisdoctrine of the Real According to Which Creation Is Created (al-ḥaqq al-makhlūq bi-hi al-khalq).37 That the natural world provided inspiration for his spiritual quest is palpable throughout his works, and particularly in his last work the Īḍāḥ, where he ceaselessly draws inspiration from the natural world in almost every page. Further, Ibn Barrajān betrays a knowledge of seasonal crops and harvests.38

At a remote distance from central authorities, state jurists, and Seville’s commotion, Ibn Barrajān taught, wrote, and led a contemplative life of worship, study, and meditation. It is tempting to speculate that he retreated into his remote village in 490/1096 when he had reached the age of forty, an age that he liked to call “the second repentance (al-tawba al-thāniya), that is, renunciation of the world and its people, and devoting oneself entirely to God.”39 From his village, he took students who were spiritually inclined or who possessed enough resolve to temporarily forsake the comforts of the city for a spartan life in the country. In his audiences, he preached about the benefits of solitude (waḥda) and famelessness (khumūl), and taught that they are more beneficial to the heart and more conducive to spiritual wayfaring:40

Solitude is closer to wellbeing (salāma), a relief from confronting people, and a healing for the soul. It is a surer means of cultivating truthfulness, and a [source of] wellbeing for those who want to journey to God and the Hereafter.41

Ibn Barrajān’s reclusiveness suggests that he identified himself with thoseAndalusī scholars who had scruples about the state-jurist entente and looked askance at wealthier legal experts who associated with the al-Murābiṭūn and received state pensions. Medieval biographers called scholars with such scruples “the munqabiḍūn,” or “retreaters.” They “withdrew from rulers” (inqibāḍ ʿan al-sulṭān) out of pious precaution with respect to worldly authority. Echoing an age-old ethos which harks back to Imām Mālik himself, the eponymous founder of the Mālikī legal school,

37 E.g., see Tanbīh, ed. Mazyadī, 4:93, 144–146, 148–155. 38 E.g., see Īḍāḥ, #582. 39 Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 2:140.40 Hosni, Manhaj al-imām Ibn Barrajān, 7; n/p, cited from Tanbīh al-Afhām.41 Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 1:280.

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)122

they considered the alliance with corrupt courts to be a worldly compromise.42 Ibn Barrajān’s preference for isolation bore the mark of scrupulous “retreat from political power” (inqibāḍ ʿan al-sulṭān), since it was a common for the munqabiḍūn to confinethemselves in their homes, mosques, rural hermitages, military outposts (ribāṭ), or out-of-the-way villages.43 Although he was not formally recorded as a munqabiḍ by the biographers—since he was not offered a qāḍīship and therefore never turned down an official post—Ibn Barrajān clearly identified with this tradition. Moreover, certain quotations which he attributes to his anonymous teachers suggest that they too were practitioners of inqibāḍ. In typical fashion, Ibn Barrajān advised followers not to seek social prominence (jāh) and to keep away from the court. He preached: “Do not associate with the rich, and do not befriend sons of rulers (abnāʾ al-mulūk). Convene instead with the poor and destitute.”44

Ibn Barrajān’s inqibāḍ and voluntary isolation suggests that he methodically practiced esoteric Masarrī teachings which stressed the severing of worldly ties and leading a life of seclusion away from larger towns as a means of spiritual realization.45 As I show elsewhere,46 Masarrī doctrines were the central cornerstone of Ibn Barrajān’s writings. He taught that beholding God’s signs in nature with a contemplative eye is more spiritually beneficial than perusing books, for direct experience of the naturalworld where God discloses Himself leaves an imprint upon the soul and allows it to ascend in contemplation all the way to the divine Throne. Indeed, it is the surest way of unveiling the realities of the hereafter, since:

The heart is alive, and the pen is dead . . . and the shortest path [to unveiling] that I know of is to train the soul by cultivating stillness of its inner movements, then stillness of the outward body . . . and if possible to reside in a setting where you can behold natural phenomena from near and afar, for that is most helpful in your quest. But if you cannot [live in solitude] then behold it by casting your sight upon the sky,

42 N. J. Coulson, “Doctrine and Practice in Islamic Law,” B.S.O.A.S, no. 28 (1956): 17–26. For a discussion of inqibāḍ by an early Andalusī scholar, see Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Jāmiʿ bayān al-ʿilm wa-faḍli-hi, 2 vols., ed. al-Zuhayrī (Riyadh: Dār Ibn al-Jawzī, 1994), 1:631–47. In one chapter, numerous ḥadīths and reports by Companions, Followers (tābiʿūn), and early renowned scholars are collected. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr stresses that inqibāḍ is only a virtue when dealing with an oppressive ruler. To withdraw from a just ruler such as ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, for instance, is sinful.

43 Marín, “Zuhhād of al-Andalus (300/912–420/1029),” in The Formation of al-Andalus, Part 2: Language, Religion, Culture and the Sciences, ed. M. Fierro (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), 113.

44 Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 1:282.45 Fierro, “Opposition to Sufism in al-Andalus,” 183.46 See Chapter Six of my dissertation, “The Forgotten Mystic”.


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 123

earth, winds, plants, animals and other existents… and on that basis consider their [archetypal] realities in the unseen.47

Ibn Barrajān’s specific spiritual method can be gleaned from his writings. Firstand foremost, he stressed the centrality of invocation (dhikr)48 and of regular spiritual retreats (khalwa) where the aspirant withdraws completely from the world for an unspecified period of time.49 He maintained that aside from the obligatory ritual prescriptions (farāʾid) of Islam, the most sublime spiritual practice is to invoke the divine name Allāh, combined with other divine names or the first shahāda (lā ilāha illā Allāh) as aids in concentration. His spiritual method marks a continuation of Sahl al-Tustarī’s teachings.50 Unlike later codified North African Sufi practices with litaniescontaining fixed numbers of invocations, Ibn Barrajān’s spiritual practice was at oncefervent, loose and unregimented.51

The most sublime invocation is to say Allāh, Allāh with a conscious presence of heart, then to repeat There is no god but Allāh, and then return to Allāh, Allāh, Allāh, There is no god but Allāh, and to do so over and over again. And if you wish, one can invoke Allāh, Allāh, Allāh, the Forbearing (al-Ḥalīm), the Noble (al-Karīm). Allāh, Allāh, the Exalted, the Majestic . . . thereby pairing up the name [Allāh] with all the names with a witnessing heart and a present remembrance. That is his most beneficial remembrance and the noblest of moments. Repeating there is no god but Allāh purifies the heart, whereas repeating Allāh, Allāh returns the invocation to a cleansed heart and a purified inmost consciousness(sirr). And the same goes for repeating all the names with the name Allāh.52

47 Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 1:101. A similar passage is found in ibid., 2:113.48 See Ibn Barrajān’s section (faṣl) on dhikr in the Tanbīh, where he explains that the end purpose of

all ritual obligations and prohibitions in Islam is the institution of remembrance of God (dhikr). He argues that this is confirmed by the Prophetic saying “actions are judged in accordance to intention(al-aʿmāl bi-l-niyyāt).” Intention, without which actions are invalid, is pure remembrance, for it is remembrance of the heart and orientation of our actions toward God with sincerity. (Tanbīh, ed. Mazyadī, 1:284.) A similar passage is repeated in Tanbīh, ed. Mazyadī, 1:410–413; 4:313–314.

49 Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 1:62.50 The practice of invoking a series of divine names after the name of Allāh echoes the dhikr practices

of Sahl al-Tustarī (d. 283/896). See G. Böwering, The Mystical Vision of Existence in Classical Islam (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980), 201–207.

51 Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 1:69. 52 Ibid., 1:64.

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)124

Ibn Barrajān was heir to a longstanding ascetic tradition in al-Andalus, and his biographer Ibn al-Abbār describes him as an ardent worshiper and ascetic (zāhid). The practice of fasting and asceticism (zuhd) figured into his piety as means for gainingdivine knowledge. His asceticism rested on “three pillars,” namely: (1) forsaking all [worldly] attachments (tark al-ʿalāʾiq) and sources of livelihood; (2) disciplining the body by curbing its desires (shahwa); (3) and severing ties from people in order to foster intimacy (uns) with God alone.53 Yet our author was critical of the excessively rigorous renunciatory practices of the Sevillan ascetics, for he deemed that they detracted from the essentials; namely contemplating God’s signs and thoroughly immersing oneself in mystical teachings. He taught his followers to not overexert themselves in matters of ritual purification, worship, and seeking exoteric knowledge(ʿilm al-ẓāhir) at the expense of esoteric knowledge (ʿilm al-bāṭīn) reflective thought(fikr), and meditation (tadabbur) upon God’s signs, for otherwise, “You will not rise above the rank of ordinary believers to the rank of Scholars Who Contemplate God’s Dominion” (ʿulamāʾ nāẓirīn malakūt Allāh).54

He aimed at striking a balance between bookish studiousness which broadened one’s understanding of God, and spiritual-ascetic piety which did not overburden the soul. For just as God did not reveal the Qurʾān to burden Muḥammad (20:2), so Ibn Barrajān emphasized maintaining a balance between theoretical study and practical worship. In his words, he sought to stay on the “straight path” which consists in “seeking knowledge in such a way that it does not deter from one’s worship, and worshiping in a way that does not deter from one’s studies.”55

II. Titles, Sequence, Dates of Composition, and ManuscriptsOver the course of his long and prolific career, Ibn Barrajān authored several

sizeable works. The content and titles of these works have frequently been the subject of confusion. Virtually all medieval scribes, biographers, and scholars have confused the exact number, titles, or sequence of Ibn Barrajān’s books, and many recent western and Arab editors and scholars have reproduced these errors.56 A

53 For a discussion of zuhd, see Tanbīh, ed. Mazyadī, 4:558.54 Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 1:212.55 Tanbīh, ed. Mazyadī, 3:512.56 The chronology of Ibn Barrajān’s titles is correctly noted in the first folio of MS Jārullāh 53m (f. 1a),

which is a manuscript of the Tanbīh, wherein the twelfth/eighteenth century bibliophile scholar Walī al-Dīn Muṣṭafā al-Rūmī Jārullāh (or possibly an anonymous scribe) observes that Abū l-Ḥakam compiled first, Kitāb al-irshād, second, Sharḥ asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā, and third, his Tafsīr al-Qurʾān. He does not mention the Īḍāḥ. (For Jārullāh, see Kaḥḥāla, 4 vols., Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1985), 4:75, no. 17910; Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām, 8 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-ʿIlm li-l-Malāyīn, 2002), 8:118–119).


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 125

detailed formal analysis of his corpus, on the basis of internal references provided by Ibn Barrajān, is thus an indispensable starting point for scholarship on Ibn Barrajān.

Al-Irshād ilā subul al-rashādHis first work was K. al-Irshād ilā subul al-rashād (“The Guidebook to the Pathways

of Guidance”), a sizeable book on the concordance between the Qurʾān and the ḥadīth reports in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. It was lauded by ḥadīth experts, uṣūlīs, and Qurʾān exegetes, especially in the Mamlūk period, and excerpts from it continue to be quoted into the twentieth century.57 The Irshād must have been of considerable length, probably spanning several hundred folios, since he alleges to cover every ḥadīth mentioned in Muslim’s collection. He probably penned the Irshād between 480–490/1087–1096; that is when he was in his thirties, having completed his ḥadīth studies under Ibn Manẓūr (d. 469/1077), and while teaching ḥadīth in Seville.

Unfortunately, this work is lost probably because Ibn Barrajān’s major tafsīr, whose authentic title is Tanbīh al-afhām, was mistakenly also named K. al-Irshād by a scribe sometime in the late sixth/twelfth century. This error was possible because Ibn Barrajān did not state the title of his tafsīr in the introduction, which explains why the later copyists and scholars never spotted the authentic title of the major tafsīr. As a result, Andalusī authorities such as Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273) confused the two works and erroneously cited the Tanbīh as the Irshād.58 The authentic title of Ibn Barrajān’s

57 Ibn Barrajān’s famous introductory quote “Every Prophetic utterance is [contained] in the Qurʾān, or its root [lies therein], however closely or remotely [this may seem], and regardless of whether one comprehends [this truth] or is blinded [from it]; for we have neglected nothing from the Book (6 : 38)” is cited by: Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī in a fatwā on the subject in al-Ḥāwī li-l-fatāwī, 2 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr li-l-Ṭibāʿa wa-l-Nashr, 2004), 195; and Suyūṭī, al-Itqān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1999), 2:258. Modern works reiterate this statement as well:

- The Mauritanian Qurʾān commentatory Muḥammad al-Amīn al-Shinqīṭī (d. 1974), Aḍwāʾ al-bayān fī īḍāḥ al-Qurʾān, 9 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1995), 2:429.

- Al-Jilālī, Sayyid Muḥammad Riḍā, Tadwīn al-sunna al-sharīfa (Iran: Maṭbaʿat Maktab al-Iʿlām al-Islāmī, 1997), 350.

Aḥmad Ḥusayn Yaʿqūb, Ayna al-sunna wa-mādhā faʿalū bi-hā? (Beirut: al-Dār al-Islāmiyya li-l-Ṭibāʿa wa-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 2001), 22.

cites Ibn Barrajān’s famous quote on concordance in his fatwā entitled bayn al-sunna wa-l-Qurʾān. See http://www.qaradawi.net/library/63/3215.html

58 See Qurṭubī’s encyclopedic work on eschatology entitled “The Reminder of the States of the Deceased and Affairs of the Hereafter” (Kitāb al-tadhkira bi-aḥwāl al-mawtā wa-umūr al-ākhira), ed. al-Ṣādiq Ibn Ibrāhīm, 3 vols. (Riyāḍ: Maktabat Dār al-Minhāj li-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 1425/2004), which cites Ibn Barrajān’s tafsīr five times and mistakenly refers to it as K. al-Irshād, or K. al-Irshād al-hādī ilā al-tawfīq wa-l-sadād (vol. 1, 396). The citations are typical of Ibn Barrajān’s tafsīr. They deal with

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)126

first work was accurately preserved in a different manuscript family which ended upin the hands of the Egyptian Mamlūk scholars Zarkashī (d. 794/1391) and Suyūṭī (d. 910/1505), who both knew the Irshād as a book on Qurʾān-ḥadīth concordance, not a tafsīr.59 Given the discrepancies in the manuscript tradition, there is reason to suspect that genuine copies of the Irshād survive in manuscript libraries under a differentauthor or title.60

The biographer Ibn al-Abbār (d. 658/1260) does not mention the Irshād in his notice on Ibn Barrajān, but only states that he “wrote other works.” But Ibn al-Zubayr (d. 708/1308) describes the Irshād accurately as follows:

[Ibn Barrajān] authored the book al-Irshād in which he undertook to extract Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj’s (d. 261/875) ḥadīths from the Book of God. That is, at times he shows you [how] a ḥadīth [can be extracted] from the wording of a Qurʾānic verse, or from the [verse’s] intended sense or import, or from the [verse’s] allusion (ishāra), or from a combination of two consecutive or isolated verses, or from several verses, and so on. The content of the book faithfully accomplishes its purpose [of demonstrating ḥadīth’s concordance with the Qurʾān], in a way that allows you to behold God’s description of His prophet he who does not speak of his own desire (Q 53 : 3) (wa-mā yanṭiqu ʿan al-hawā).61

Fortunately, key passages from the introductory preface and first chapter ofthe Irshād have survived in the writings of the prolific Mamlūk scholar Badr al-Dīnal-Zarkashī (d. 794/1391). Zarkashī’s monumental work, entitled “The Demonstration

the torments of the Day of Judgment (vol. 2, 585–586), descriptions of the different states of peoplein the hereafter (vol. 2, 592); the state of the hypocrites (vol. 2, 740); a ḥadīth commentary (vol. 1, 395–396) and a discussion of the intercession of the Prophet (vol. 2, 601). No mention is made of Qurʾān-Sunna concordance whatsoever, and by the editor Mazyadi’s own admission, Ibn Barrajān’s Qurʾān exegesis “Irshād” is in Maktabat al-Jāmiʿa al-Islāmiyya bi-l-Madīna al-Nabawiyya, MS 7292.

59 See Suyūṭī, al-Ḥāwī li-l-fatāwī, 2 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1982), 2:196, where, in response to a question concerning the circumstances of resurrection (aḥwāl al-baʿth), Suyūṭī begins his discussion of whether Satan, human unbelievers, and jinnī unbelievers shall walk across the bridge that spans over Hell (al-ṣirāṭ). He points out that Ibn Barrajān proclaims in the Irshād that unbelievers do not walk across the ṣirāṭ. This position, Suyūṭī contends, is confirmed by someḥadīth reports and contradicted by others. Suyūṭī is aware of Ibn Barrajān’s authentic Irshād on Qurʾān-ḥadīth concordance, so I take this reference at face value. This fatwā can be found reiterated in works by later scholars, such as the contemporary Shāfiʿī-Ashʿarī scholar of Jordan, Ḥasan b. ʿAlīal-Saqqāf in Ṣaḥīḥ sharḥ al-ʿaqīda al-ṭaḥāwiyya (Beirut: Dār al-Imām al-Rawwās, 2007), 560–561.

60 The Irshād may surface as falsely entitled Tafsīr al-Irshād which have yet to be catalogued, or among a miscatalogued commentaries on the ḥadīth collection of Muslim.

61 Ibn al-Zubayr, K. Ṣilat al-ṣila, no. 45, 31–33.


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 127

of the Sciences of the Qurʾān” (al-Burhān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān) was the first all-inclusivemedieval synthesis of Qurʾānic sciences ever written in medieval Islamic thought. It laid the foundations for Suyūṭī’s (d. 910/1505) famous work The Perfection of the Sciences of the Qurʾān (al-Itqān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān) which eventually eclipsed the Burhān. The forty-seven chapters of the Burhān treat various topics pertaining to the Qurʾān, from causal circumstances of revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl), legal verses, inimitability of the Qurʾān (iʿjāz), to orthography and the observance of courtesy during recitation of the Holy Book. In his discussions of these major themes, he often assesses opinions of ḥadīth scholars, theologians, exegetes, and grammarians side by side.62 In his fortieth chapter he discusses a theme that is commonly found in ḥādīth and uṣūlī discussions, namely the agreement or concordance between the Sunna and the Qurʾān (muʿāḍadat al-sunna wa-l-Qurʾān). The Irshād, it seems, was the capstone to this uṣūlī debate. Zarkashī’s chapter, which spans a mere fifteen pages, adopts Ibn Barrajān’s positionwholesale and quotes a lengthy excerpt from the Irshād.

Zarkashī explains that the Irshād forms part of a broader and longstanding uṣūlī discussion over the rationale behind the binding legal status of the Sunna, the Prophet’s actions, sayings, and tacit approvals. In their legal reasoning, Sunnī fuqahāʾ operated on the assumption that the Sunna is legally binding because God Himself vested Muḥammad with authority and commanded believers to emulate him in the Qurʾān. After all, God states: Say [Oh Muḥammad]: “If you love God, then follow me, and God will love you.” (Q 3:31). Uṣūlīs pushed the debate further and asked: how exactly does the divine Word validate prophetic custom? Is the Qurʾānic validation of the Sunna evident and binding for every single prophetic practice? Does every Sunna need to be validated Qurʾānically in order for it to be legally binding? To answer these complicated questions, theorizing uṣūlīs first examined specific cases of concordancebetween the Sunna and the Qurʾān (muʿāḍadat al-sunna li-l-qurʾān). The great legal thinker al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820), who was one of the earliest codifiers of the concept ofSunna, discerned between three categories of Sunna in relation to the divine Word: (1) a Sunna which is explicitly sanctioned by the Qurʾān and elucidated verbally or behaviorally by the Prophet; (2) a Sunna which is only implicitly sanctioned by the Qurʾān and elucidated verbally or behaviorally by the Prophet; (3) a Sunna performed by the Prophet which has no detectable Qurʾānic validation.

While both jurists and uṣūlīs are in agreement that even prophetic practices which are not explicitly validated by the Qurʾān carry juridical weight, uṣūlīs split into two camps as to rationale behind this precept. The first uṣūlī camp holds that God commanded believers to obey His Messenger because He possessed foreknowledge of

62 Rippin, “al-Zarkashī,” EI2.

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)128

Muḥammad’s rightful conduct. Therefore, it is God who bestowed Muḥammad with the freedom to institute a Sunna, and no explicit Qurʾānic foundation is necessary for every Sunna in order for it to be binding. While this argument secures the divinely-vested legal authority of the Sunna, it is also problematic. For it concedes that not every Sunna is Qurʾānically validated, and therefore implies that the Qurʾān does not encompass knowledge of all things, since only a select number of prophetic practices are sanctioned Qurʾānically. In other words, this uṣūlī argument contradicts the doctrine of the all-comprehensive Qurʾān, and flatly goes against the verse whichstates that We have neglected nothing from the Book (Q 6:38). Hence, the second uṣūlī camp emerged in opposition to the first. This second position rejects the concessionthat not every Sunna is Qurʾānically substantiated. These uṣūlīs contend that every prophetic practice a priori is rooted in the Holy Book, since the latter contains all knowledge. It is to this group that Ibn Barrajān not only adhered, but also became the most outspoken and iconic champion. His Irshād was written as a defense of this uṣūlī position. In Zarkashī’s words, he “categorically asserted and built his work al-Irshād upon this position, giving detailed justifications for it [therein].”63

Zarkashī opens his discussion of Qurʾān-Sunna concordance with the following iconic and categorical assertion quoted from Ibn Barrajān’s Irshād:

Every Prophetic utterance is [contained] in the Qurʾān, or its root [lies therein], however closely or remotely [this may seem], and regardless of whether one comprehends [this truth] or is blinded [from it]; for we have neglected nothing from the Book (6:38). 64

Despite being lost, the Irshād’s iconic opening quote continues to reverberate in writings of scholars up to the modern period as a slogan in support of the centrality of the Sunna.

The Irshād presupposes that the Prophet embodied the Word of God and acted in complete accordance with it. His utterances necessarily have a Qurʾānic origin, and are equally binding as the divine Word, since God commands believers to obey God and His Messenger (Q 3:32). In the context of al-Andalus, the purpose of the Irshād is to lay down a methodology to approach the broader ḥadīth corpus. All ḥadīths, whether weak or strong, are to be assessed in light of their Qurʾānic roots. Ibn Barrajān’s principle of Qurʾānic hegemony was an assertion that those ḥadīths which are

63 See Badr al-Dīn al-Zarkashī’s work on uṣūl entitled al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ fī uṣūl al-fiqh, 6 vols. (Kuwait: Wizārat al-Awqāf wa-l-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyya, 1992), 4:165–166, under Mabāḥith al-sunna, masʾalat al-sunan ʿind al-Shāfiʿī thalāthat aqsām.

64 Zarkashī, al-Burhān fī ʿulūm al-qurʾān, ed. Muḥammad Abū al-Faḍl Ibrāhīm, 4 vols. (Cairo: Dār al-Turāth, n/d), 2:129.


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 129

supported by the Qurʾān are to be accepted as authentic and to be absorbed into the tradition, whether they be purportedly strong, weak, or even fabricated. Similarly, those ḥadīths which do not accord with the Qurʾān are to be rejected regardless of their authenticity. The Irshād was thus written with a view to expanding the confinesof Mālikism by opening it up to the broader body of ḥadīth literature. In the wake of Imām al-Shāfiʿī, the Irshād sought to elevate the ḥadīth corpus and sunna to the status of a minor revelation which illuminates, supplements, but never contradicts the Qurʾān.

Zarkashī reproduced several pages from the Irshād to demonstrate Ibn Barrajān’s thesis of the Qurʾān’s concordance with the ḥadīth.65 Ibn Barrajān’s supreme command of ḥadīth is evident in this work, but the flow of his writing is choppy on account of itstechnical content and the continuous references to Qurʾān and ḥadīth. What follows is a translation of Zarkashī’s redaction of the Irshād’s introduction, where he cites a series of ḥadīth-Qurʾān concordance examples to prove his central thesis:

Are you not aware that the Prophet said in the ḥadīth of stoning (al-rajm): “Verily, I shall judge between you by the Book of God.” [Although stoning] is not explicitly stated (naṣṣ) in the Book of God, the Prophet vowed to judge by the Book of God [and decreed that the adulteress be stoned].Stoning is implicitly contained in (taʿrīḍ mujmal) the verse it shall avert from her the punishment (24:8).66 The specific [decree] of stoning thereforecomes from the general [Qurʾānic prescription] the punishment. This general verse is made clear by the Prophet’s ruling and by his command [to enact the punishment]. [The interpretation of this general verse] is also contained in the comprehensive [command] Whatever the Messenger gives you, take; whatever he forbids you, give over (59:7) and Whosoever obeys the Messenger, thereby obeys God (4:80). The same applies to all of the Prophet’s decrees and rulings.But the learner only perceives this [knowledge of concordance] in proportion to his degree of exertion, devoted capacity, and measure of understanding. Whoever seeks this knowledge attains only what God aids him in attaining, for He is the Bestower of blessings. This insight

65 Zarkashī, al-Burhān fī ʿulūm al-qurʾān, 2:129–145.66 This is in reference to the passage: And those who cast it up on their wives having no witnesses except

themselves, the testimony of one of them shall be to testify by God four times that he is of the truthful, and a fifth time, that the curse of God shall be upon him, if he should be of the liars. It shall avert from her thechastisement if she testify by God four times that he is of the liars, and a fifth time, that the wrath of God shallbe upon her, if he should be of the truthful (Q 24:6–9, Arberry).

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)130

[into the concordance between Qurʾān and ḥadīth] is an elevated knowledge, a great source of certainty.The Prophet alerted us to [this concordance] in many of his addresses:For instance, when [Muḥammad] mentioned what is in store for saints in paradise, he said, “in it is what no eye has seen, no ear has heard, nor has it occurred to a human heart, save that with which I have acquainted them.” Then the Prophet said: “if you wish you may recite No soul knows what comfort is laid up for them secretly (32:17).”In another ḥadīth, the Companions asked, “shall we not simply trust in God and forsake our deeds?” and the Prophet responded: “perform good works, for each of you is disposed to what he was created for (kullun muyassarun li-mā khuliqa lahu).” Then the Prophet recited: As for him who gives and is godfearing and confirms the reward most fair, We shall surely easehim to the Easing. But as for him who is a miser, and self-sufficient, and cries liesto the reward most fair, We shall surely ease him to the Hardship (92:5-10).The Prophet described paradise as follows: “verily in it is a tree under whose shade a rider journeys one hundred years without reaching its end.” Then he said: “you may recite and shade extended” (56:30).Thus the Prophet himself taught his Companions the concordance between ḥadīth and the Qurʾān, and he alerted them to the Qurʾānic validations of his ḥadīth, so that scholars from his community (umma) may extract ḥadīthī meanings from the Qurʾān, that they may findcertitude… and ascend in ranks (li-yartaqū fī al-asbāb).

The Irshād’s introduction ends here, according to Zarkashī. Notably, Ibn Barrajān generally follows the layout of ḥadīth in Muslim’s collection, though he does skip over certain closely worded reports and includes reports not in Muslim. For instance, the “ḥadīth of stoning” is from the Muwaṭṭaʾ, while the famous “ḥadīth of intention” below is taken from Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ.

Sharḥ asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnāFollowing the Irshād, the Sevillan master penned his monumental commentary

on the divine names. This work is usually entitled as Sharḥ asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā (“Commentary on God’s Beautiful Names”), and spans approximately 350 folios, or 700 pages in the modern printed edition of Mazyadī. In this work, he cites his previous Irshād several times.67 A remarkable number of manuscript copies of the Sharḥ are known to exist under the titles Sharḥ asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā, or Sharḥ maʿānī asmāʾ Allāh

67 Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 1:255; 2:275, 324–325.


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 131

al-ḥusnā, or even Tarjumān lisān al-ḥaqq al-mabthūth fī al-amr wa-l-khalq, standing as testimony to its fame. In his later works, Ibn Barrajān refers to his commentary as Sharḥ al-asmāʾ, so I take the latter to be the authentic title for his commentary on the names, instead of Tarjumān lisān al-ḥaqq. According to the earliest biographer Ibn al-Abbār, the Sharḥ was transmitted by Ibn Barrajān’s students Abū al-Qāsim al-Qanṭarī, Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Ishbīlī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Khalīl and others in Marrakesh and presumably to members of the circle of Abū Madyan. From there, it gradually spread into the Mashriq, and gained widespread renown among Mamlūk Egyptians and Ottoman scholars in Turkey. The Sharḥ has survived in many manuscripts,68 and is available in two printed editions.69

The Sharḥ was, by the biographer Ibn al-Zubayr’s own admission, one of the most renowned (shahīr) Sufi treatments of the names. The Sharḥ’s abridgement70 and

68 MS Topkapı Ahmet III 1495 (257 ff.; 595/1198); MS Şehid Ali 426 (221 ff.; 598/1198); MS Ayasofya 1869(242 ff.; 608/1211); MS Yusuf Aǧa 5084 (383 ff.; 667/1268); MS Atif Efendi 1525 (230 ff.; 709/1309);MS Brit. Museum 1612 (157; 709/1309); MS ʿĀ525 Hikmat 35 (270 ff.; 716/1316); MS Topkapı AhmetIII 1591 (349 ff.; 728/1327); MS Nuruosmaniye 2876 (238ff; 726/1325); MS Nuruosmaniye 2877 (237ff.; 733/1332); MS Jārullāh 1023 (235 ff.; 795/1392); MS Ṭalʿat 1502 (237 ff.; eighth/fourteenth c. h?); MS Fatih 766 (283 ff.; 879/1474); MS Laleli 1551 (198 ff.; 933/1526); MS Berlin 2221 (82 ff.; 934/1527); MS Ist. Univ. 2484 (311 ff.; 949/1542); Abridgement (mulakhkhaṣ) compiled by ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Ibrāhīm al-Maqdisī; MS Elmalı 2484 (310 ff.; 958/1551); MS Paris 2642 (276 ff; 984/1576); MS Tunis(Bibliothèque Nationale) 07651 (165 ff; n/d); MS Tunis (Bibliothèque Nationale) 03547 (170 ff; n/d).

69 The first critical edition of the Sharḥ was published by Purificación de la Torre as a Ph.D. dissertationat the University Complutense of Madrid (1996), under M. J. Viguera’s direction. This pioneering text includes a very useful introductory study of his biography and a near-comprehensive manuscript survey of the Sharḥ. Regrettably, her edition relies primarily on a faulty manuscript, Ahmet III 1591 (written in 728/1327) instead of the much more reliable Atif Efendi 1525 (written in 709/1309), which De la Torre was unable to obtain. (See De la Torre’s introduction, Sharḥ, 70) Regrettably, the edition is hindered by basic grammatical and editorial mistakes as well as a painfully small font. A second edition of the Sharḥ was brought out in a two-volume publication in Beirut by Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya in 2010. Its editor is the well-known Azharī Shaykh Aḥmad Farīd al-Mazyadī of Cairo who is a professional and prolific editor with dozens of publications to his name, including majorSufi works as well as edited tracts of theology and creed. However, Mazyadī’s introduction is verythinly researched, his introductory commentary on the divine names is a direct translation of De La Torre’s Spanish introduction which he does not cite, and his edition relies only on one MS, namely ʿĀntr Hikmat 35 (270 ff.; 716/1316). Nonetheless, his edition is far more reliable and readable thanDe La Torre’s, although it too is not free of minor typographical errors.

70 An abridgement of the Sharḥ was written by ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Ibrāhīm al-Maqdisī al-Shāfiʿī in 934/1528 entitled Mulakhkhaṣ min kitāb Sharḥ maʿānī asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā wa-tafsīruhā wa-l-iʿtibār min kitāb Allāh wa-l-irshād ilā al-taʿabbud bi-maʿānīhā wa-aʿmāl al-nufūs bi-muqtaḍāhā (MS 2221, Berlin). In it, al-Maqdisī presents only Ibn Barrajān’s taʿabbud passages for the names. (Sharḥ, ed. De La Torre, 41).

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)132

references to it in works of later authors, and its numerous manuscript renditions in libraries across the Muslim world stand as testament to its enduring fame and influence. Although preceded by earlier Andalusī and eastern commentaries,71 and by the Sufi Sharḥ of Qushayrī,72 Ibn Barrajān’s is in its own right a trailblazing work. It informed and influenced the works of scholars across ages and disciplines, includingexegetes like Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273),73 Abū Ḥayyān al-Gharnāṭī (d. 745/1344),74 Burhān al-Dīn al-Biqāʿī (d. 885/1480),75 Sayyid Maḥmūd al-Ālūsī (d. 1270/1854),76 and Muḥammad al-Ṭāhir b. ʿĀshūr (d. 1393/1972),77 as well as followers of Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 637/1240), like ʿAfīf al-Dīn al-Tilimsānī (d. 690/1291),78 and theologians like Abū Bakr b. al-ʿArabī (d. 543/1148) and Taqī al-Dīn b. Taymiyya (d. 728/1328).79 Furthermore, in the wake of Ibn Barrajān’s Sharḥ, a number of Sufisand scholars took direct inspiration from this work – Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Iqlīshī (d. 549/1154),80 Abū Bakr b. al-ʿArabī (d. 543/1148), and Muḥyī al-Dīn b. al-ʿArabī – to pen their own treatises on the names.81

The Sharḥ features a tripartite treatment of the divine names. In effect, itamounts to three separate layers of commentary on the divine names, since each name receives three distinct commentaries (fuṣūl). The first layer is a philologicalexamination (istikhrāj lughawī), the second doctrinal (iʿtibār), and the third devotional (taʿabbud). This tripartite organizational pattern informs the structure of his two Qurʾān commentaries as well, which as we shall see are divided under similar headings.

71 For a brief treatment of the pertinent works by Ibn Ḥazm, Ibn al-ʿArabī, al-Qushayrī and others, see De La Torre’s introduction to the Sharḥ, 26–28.

72 Sharḥ asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā, ed. Ḥalawānī (Cairo: al-Azhar, Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya, 1970).73 Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥkām al-qurʾān, ed. Aḥmad al-Bardūnī and Ibrāhīm Uṭfīsh, 10 vols. (Cairo: Dār

al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya, 1964), 7:327.74 Abū Ḥayyān, Al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ fī al-tafsīr, ed. Muḥammad Jamīl (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1992), 5:231.75 Biqāʿī’s citations of Ibn Barrajān in Naẓm al-durar fī tanāsub al-āyāt wa-l-ṣuwar are too numerous to

count. E.g., 22 vols. (Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb al-Islāmī, 1992), 22:371.76 Al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-maʿānī fī tafsīr al-qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm, ed. ʿAbd al-Bārī ʿAṭiyya (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-

ʿIlmiyya, 1415/1994), 8:155.77 Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-tanwīr, 30 vols. (Tunis: al-Dār al-Tūnusiyya li-l-Nashr, 1984), 9:188; 18:192–

193, 232; 28:354; 30:615.78 ʿAfīf al-Dīn al-Tilimsānī (d. 690/1291) authored an Akbarī commentary on the divine names in which

he contrasts the works of al-Bayhaqī, al-Ghazālī, and Ibn Barrajān. This work is extant in two MSS in Istanbul (Beyazit 8011, Laleli 1556), and one in Lucknow, India (H. L. 2579).

79 Ibn Taymiyya, Kitāb al-ṣafadiyya, ed. Muḥammad Sālim, 2 vols. Ṭubiʿa ʿalā nafaqat aḥad al-muḥsinīn, 1985), 2:337–339.

80 Iqlīshī’s work is entitled al-Inbāʾ fī sharḥ ḥaqāʾiq (sharḥ) al-ṣifāt wa-l-asmāʾ (Brockelmann, GAL 1: 361, 370; S. I, 633). Cf. De La Torre’s edition, 27.

81 Sharḥ, ed. De La Torre, 27–28.


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 133

The first linguistic analysis consists of an exposition of the name’s different shades ofmeaning in light of Qurʾānic, ḥadīth, poetic, literary, and lexicographic sources at his disposal.82 Ibn Barrajān’s mastery of the Arabic language shines forth here, and the Sharḥ was treasured by philologists as a mine for linguistic excavations. Notably, one of his obscure definitions under the name al-ʿAzīz caught the eye of the celebrated Cairene lexicographer Ibn Manẓūr (d. ca. 712/1312), who cites Ibn Barrajān’s definitionunder the entry ʿ-Z-Z of Lisān al-ʿarab.

Ibn Barrajān’s linguistic analysis sets the stage for his theological appraisal of the name, namely his contemplative cross-over, or “iʿtibār”. Having mapped out differentlinguistic possibilities, he proceeds to look at the name from a mystical-theological perspective. Typically he affirms that every connoted meaning can be applied toGod. For instance, al-Jalīl encompasses exaltedness (ʿuluww), outwardness (ẓuhūr) self-greatness (kibr), magnificence (ʿiẓam), and preeminence (khayrūra), which are all admissible designations for God as understood by Ashʿarism.83 However, certain names such as al-Matīn (the Firm) have corporeal or anthropomorphic implications, like “solidness” (ṣalāba) and “coming together of disparate parts” (ijtimāʿ al-abʿāḍ), which are not applicable.84 Generally, Ibn Barrajān attempts a theological middle way. He reasons that God is at once the utterly transcendent, other, and unique, while being comparable and describable by various names appearing throughout the Qurʾān and ḥadīth. If God were absolutely transcendent, then He would be unknowable. If totally immanent, then one risks opening the door to anthropomorphism. While the Muʿtazilīs emphasized incomparability (tanzīh) to the point of deeming anthropomorphic descriptions of God (His hand, face, etc.) incomprehensible (taʿṭīl), literalists took affirmations of similarity too literally and fell into the trap of anthropomorphism.By positioning himself as a straddler between two extremes, Ibn Barrajān squarely adopts the Ashʿarī camp.

But Ibn Barrajān’s allegiance to Ashʿarism in the Sharḥ is not wholehearted. He is not, for instance, fully persuaded by the doctrine of “without how” (bilā kayfa).85 Instead of promoting Ashʿarism, his iʿtibār is a non-discursive, participative, symbolic, and unitive engagement with God’s effects and marks in the cosmos, in scripture,and in the human self. It is, moreover, an attempt at turning abstract articles of belief into concrete awarenesses which are beheld directly in this life. In his words, iʿtibār is not a conventional articulation of creed, but a “quest for the realities of belief”

82 Cf. Ibid., 39–42 for further details on the istikhrāj lughawī sections.83 Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 1:171; see also 1:237; 2:249.84 Ibid., 2:155.85 Ibid., 2:100.

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)134

(ṭalab ḥaqāʾiq al-iʿtiqād).86 In order to present a world of tangible divine self-disclosures that serve as passageways into the world of the Unseen (ʿālam al-ghayb), Ibn Barrajān systematically identifies each name’s “traces” (āthār) and “pathways” (masālik) in the cosmos. These “traces” can then be used as ladders to ascend by contemplation up to the divine. This contemplative cross-over (ʿibra) represents the crux and central concern of Ibn Barrajān in the Sharḥ as in his later works, and herein lies its originality, for it is none other than a grafting of Ibn Masarra’s concept of ʿibra onto the Sharḥ al-asmāʾ genre.

To give an example of ʿibra as it applies to the divine names, Ibn Barrajān demonstrates how God’s name the One (al-wāḥid) is reflected in the cyclical returnof all things to their origin, or in the revolution of the planets around their orbits. The traces and pathways of the One are evident in the natural world, for instance disparate roots, stems, branches, leafs, and fruits unite to make up a single plant, which is called tree. The human constitution also manifests the One, by virtue of the fact that various body components such as toes, veins, and ligaments combine to form one limb, a foot; or the fact that the human body is presided over by a head which directs its thoughts, and by a heart which directs its consciousness. Just as all things are dependent upon the One, so the human body is dependent upon the human heart, for “if the heart decays, the entire body decays” according to the ḥādīth. Ibn Barrajān then turns his contemplative gaze to patterns in society, noting how fathers preside over families; large cities over smaller towns; countries over cities, and so on. Thus all things, from the minutest to the greatest, proclaim God as al-Wāḥid, the One.87 Just as the One is manifest in the world, it also manifests in the hereafter at a much higher scale: the ultimate sign of oneness is the beatific vision (al-ruʾya al-karīma) on Judgment Day, or even the fact that we die alone, are buried alone and recompensed alone, “for even if all creatures were to die with someone, that person would still be sentenced to a lonely death.” As well, paradise and hell are created by and for the affirmation of God’s oneness.88

Then Ibn Barrajān looks at the name al-Aḥad. He remarks that whereas al-Wāḥid denotes divine oneness as it relates to the world of duality and multiplicity, al-Aḥad denotes the “Exclusively One” and stands apart from creation; it is God’s exclusive unity in Himself and independent of all relationality. In his iʿtibār, Ibn Barrajān states that this name is inaccessible, incomprehensible, and closest to the Greatest Name (al-ism al-aʿẓam) and leaves no traces in this world. Our cross-over into the name, or ʿibra, is by conceiving the pre-cosmic reality of all existents within God’s knowledge

86 Ibid., 2:148.87 Ibid., 1:74–76.88 Ibid., 1:72–80.


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 135

before He said “Be!” to them.89 Given the inaccessibility of al-Aḥad, Ibn Barrajān offersno practical devotional recommendations for this name in his taʿabbud section.

The final devotional passage for each name centers on “the practice ofservanthood” (taʿabbud) in relation to a particular divine name. Having contemplated the meaning and reality expressed by each name, Ibn Barrajān addresses his listener directly as “oh my brother” (yā akhī) and enjoins him to expose himself to the name’s distinctive spiritual grace (baraka).90 For example, taʿabbud with respect to al-Wāḥid behooves a complete realization that only God creates, nourishes, and sustains us, and so it behooves upon the believer to worship Him exclusively and without a partner. As a consequence of His oneness, moreover, God only accepts only devotional works that are performed for His sake.91

In his later works, Ibn Barrajān also interjects admonitory passages within the fold of his exegetical, theological, or mystical discussions to enjoin his reader to fear God, strive in performing acts of worship, fight the temptations of the carnal soul,discern between good actions and blameworthy actions, and increase one’s God-consciousness at each and every moment of life. These passages, which are usually pronounced in the first person and addressed either to the reader directly or theauthor himself, and preceded by the expression “know, may God grant us both success” (iʿlam waffaqanā Allāh wa-iyyāka), are sometimes written in heartfelt rhymed and rhythmic prose (sajʿ).92 They afford Ibn Barrajān an opportunity to display hislinguistic artistry. It should be noted, however, that by the last third of the Sharḥ, his devotional sections grow increasingly thinner and repetitive. At this point in the work, Ibn Barrajān merely enjoins the listener to intense piety or to seek knowledge of the name as its form of taʿabbud.93 Here Ibn Barrajān seems to have exhausted his imagination and, to avoid redundancy he sometimes skips over the taʿabbud or iʿtibār sections altogether.94 This loss of creativity is not to be attributed entirely to Ibn Barrajān’s unimaginativeness, however. For it should be recalled that his work spans over one-hundred and thirty names, many of which are nearly identical in meaning. In many cases, he refers the reader back to a previous devotional discussion in the Sharḥ.95

89 Ibid., 1:84.90 E.g., ibid., 60.91 Ibid., 1:82.92 E.g., admonitory passages can be found in Tanbīh, ed. Mazyadī, 1:90; 5:300; Īḍāḥ, #36.93 Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 2:239.94 See “al-Fātiq”, Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 2:202. See also “al-Rāfiʿ”, “al-Khāfiḍ”, 2:213.95 Some synonymous names, like “Exalter of Ranks” (Rafīʿ al-Darajāt) and “Possessor of Majesty” (Dhū

al-Jalāl) are not commented upon, Sharḥ, ed. Mazyadī, 1:176; see also 2:213, 298.

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)136

Ibn Barrajān’s Two Qurʾān CommentariesThe last stage of Ibn Barrajān’s life was his most productive in terms of written

output. The Sevillan master appears to have dedicated his 50s and early 60s exclusively to teaching ḥādīth – and presumably other subjects – around Seville and its environs. His two Qurʾān commentaries appear to have been penned in his 60s and 70s. We know, for instance, that Tanbīh al-afhām ilā tadabbur al-kitāb al-ḥakīm wa-taʿarruf al-āyāt wa-l-nabaʾ al-ʿaẓīm, was written between the years of 515-525/1121-1130, when he was 65 to 75 years of age, and the Īḍāḥ was presumably written thereafter.96

The Tanbīh was presumably incorrectly given the name of al-Irshād by a scribe in the late sixth/twelfth century. As a result, the majority of the Tanbīh manuscripts in Istanbul and Konya are entitled K. al-Irshād fī tafsīr al-qurʾān. Others are called Tafsīr ʿAbd al-Salām al-musammā bi-l-Irshād, or Tafsīr al-Qurʾān li-Ibn Barrajān, and only rarely Tanbīh al-afhām. Unfortunately, this scribal mistake was canonized by the biographers who came after Ibn al-Zubayr (d. 708/1308), thereby rendering the authentic Irshād on ḥadīth-Qurʾān concordance obsolete for several centuries, only to break surface in the Mamlūk period. To this day, most modern and especially western secondary literature, – with the exception of a few authors, such as Gonzalez – continue to confuse the two titles.

The title of the Tanbīh can be literally translated as “Alerting Intellects to Meditation on the Wise Book and Recognition of Symbols and the Tremendous Tiding [of Judgment Day]”; it is one of the most important and understudied exegetical works produced in the Muslim West. In the Tanbīh, Ibn Barrajān cites the Sharḥ and the Irshād.97 The Tanbīh spans approximately 800 folios; five volumes in Mazyadī’s printededition. The popularity and renown of the Tanbīh is attested to by the considerable number of extant manuscripts found in European, Arab, and especially Turkish libraries. Many of the extant copies, especially in Turkish libraries, are mistakenly entitled K. al-Irshād or Tafsīr al-Irshād, or generically as Tafsīr Ibn Barrajān for reasons explained above. Presumably, these texts originate from a Murrākushī copy of the Tanbīh, transmitted by Ibn Barrajān’s ḥadīth student Qanṭarī, who faithfully narrated his master’s work as well as the Sharḥ to the circle of Abū Madyan in North Africa.

96 By 522/1128, he had already reached sūra 30 of Tanbīh. Since sūras 1–7 receive much more commentary than the rest of the Qurʾān, it is safe to assume that he composed his exegesis chronologically from sūras 1 to 114. He would have written just over half the Tanbīh by 522/1128.

97 In the Tanbīh, the Sharḥ asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā is cited quite frequently. See Tanbīh, ed. Mazyadī, 1:61, 75, 86. For reference to the Irshād, see 1:160.


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 137

There are a number of known extant manuscripts of the Tanbīh98 that are available in modern print.99

Shortly after finishing the Tanbīh, Ibn Barrajān wrote his minor and supplementary Qurʾān commentary entitled K. Īḍāḥ al-ḥikma bi-aḥkām al-ʿibra. The title of this work could be most accurately translated as “The Elucidation of Wisdom According to the

98 MS Yusuf Aǧa 4744 (247 ff.; ca. 600/1203; beginning – sura 6); MS Yusuf Aǧa 4745 (182 ff; ca. 600/1203;sura 7 – sura 18); MS Yusuf Aǧa 4746 (365 ff; ca. 600/1203; sura 19 – sura 111); MS Huseyin Çelebi 38(170 ff.; 652/1254; beginning - sura 2:160); MS Reisülküttap 30 (422 ff.; 667/1268; beginning - sura18); MS Damad Ibrahim 25 (204 ff.; 677/1278; beginning – sura 2); MS Feyzullah 35 (535 ff.; seventh/thirteenth century; beginning – sura 110); MS Darülmesnevi 42 (242 ff.; seventh/thirteenth century;sura 38 – sura 114); MS Jārullāh 53m (263 ff.; 738/1337; beginning – sura 5); MS Esmahan Sultan 38(265 ff.; 839/1435; beginning - sura 15); MS Şehid Ali 73 (441 ff.; 1127/1715; complete); MS DamadIbrahim 27 (621 ff.; 1128/1716; complete); MS Damad Ibrahim 26 (478 ff.; 1129/1717; complete);MS Reisulküttap 31 (316 ff.; 1168/1754; sura 19 – sura 114); MS Nuruosmaniye 148 (490 ff.; twelfth/eighteenth century; complete); MS Munich Aumer 83 (sura 17 – sura 114); MS Rabat 242 (sura 7 – sura 24); MS Tehran 350 (beginning – sura 18).

99 The first attempt at editing the Tanbīh was made by the Moroccan scholar Muḥammad al-ʿAdlūnī al-Idrīsī, who published its second half (sūras 17–114) in a two-volume edition in 2011 with carefully cited ḥadīth references. (Ibn Barrajān, al-Tafsīr al-ṣūfī li-l-qurʾān li-Abī al-Ḥakam b. Barrajān (d. 536h) aw Tanbīh al-afhām ilā tadabbur al-kitāb al-ḥakīm wa-taʿarruf al-āyāt wa-l-nabaʾ al-ʿaẓīm, 2 vols., ed. ʿAdlūnī (Casablanca: Dār al-Thaqāfa, 2011)). Regrettably, the edition relies solely on the incomplete MS Munich Aumer 83, since the editor at the time was apparently unaware of the other extant manuscript copies. ʿAldūnī’s edition is also beset by editorial problems, including a misleading and unfaithful demarcation of Ibn Barrajān’s fuṣūl sections and paragraphs (see, respectively, Tanbīh, ed. ʿAdlūnī, 1:71–87 and 90.), occasionally imprecise placement of brackets to mark end of ḥadīths (e.g., Tanbīh, ed. ʿ Adlūnī, 1:93), inconsistent usage of hamzas (see Tanbīh, ed. ʿ Adlūnī, 1:259), misplacement of diacritical marks (taṣḥīf), uncited Qurʾānic verses (Tanbīh, ed. ʿAdlūnī, 1:250), and poor indices. As well, the overall editorial quality of ʿAdlūnī’s edition deteriorates markedly toward the second half of volume II. (Tanbīh, ed. ʿ Adlūnī, 2:767ff). ʿAdlūnī’s work was superseded by Mazyadī’s completefive-volume edition of the Tanbīh (Tafsīr Ibn Barrajān: Tanbīh al-afhām ilā tadabbur al-kitāb al-ḥakīm wa-taʿarruf al-āyāt wa-l-nabaʾ al-ʿaẓīm, 5 vols., ed. Aḥmad Farīd al-Mazyadī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2013)) on the basis of four collated manuscripts that were at his disposal. These are: 1) primary manuscript is Fezullah 35 in Istanbul, copied in ninth/fifteenth century; 2) al-Khizāna al-ʿĀmma, Rabat, 232 Kāf, incomplete (from sūrat al-Aʿrāf to beginning of al-Nūr); 3) Qum, Tehran, 350, first half of Tanbīh; 4) Munich MS mscod83, second half of Tanbīh. Overall, Mazyadī’s welcome edition is fairly reliable, although it is not free of typographical errors and misplaced diacritics. Mazyadī includes footnoted ḥadīth references, and inserts his own clusters of verses prior to Ibn Barrajān’s fuṣūl. These inserted clusters of verses, which are easily distinguishable from the original text of the Tanbīh by their different font, are useful for locating the Qurʾānic passages Ibn Barrajān is aboutto comment upon, and render the work more navigable and reader-friendly. However, Mazyadī’s introductory study of Ibn Barrajān’s biography and exegetical method is disappointing, and as in the Sharḥ, he provides no indexes. A recent and promising edition of the Tanbīh was completed by Fateh Hosni in Amman, and published in five volume with Dār al-Nūr al-Mubīn (2016)

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)138

Principles of the Crossing” or, more loosely, “Wisdom: The Crossing into the Meanings of the Qurʾān.”100 Ibn Barrajān authored the Īḍāḥ as a supplement to the Tanbīh, and it may be that the two tafsīrs were originally bound together and studied as one unit. Throughout the Īḍāḥ, the author refers readers to the Tanbīh and presupposes familiarity with it.101 Moreover, this work is only “minor” in comparison with the slightly more lengthy Tanbīh. The Īḍāḥ spans approximately 600 manuscript folios, or 1000 pages in modern-day print. The Īḍāḥ was compiled on the basis of transcriptions of Ibn Barrajān’s lectures, which were delivered from memory when Ibn Barrajān still had the Tanbīh fresh in mind. The dictation of the Īḍāḥ could have easily spanned the course of 3–4 years, that is, between 526–530/1131–1135, when he was between 76 and 80 years of age. In the Īḍāḥ, only the Sharḥ and the Tanbīh are cross-referenced.102 The Īḍāḥ was taught and transmitted by Ibn Barrajān’s students over the course of two generations, probably together with the Tanbīh, then fell into disregard by the seventh/thirteenth century. Ibn Barrajān’s pupil Ibn al-Kharrāṭ presumably transmitted the Īḍāḥ to his own students, since Ibn al-Kharrāṭ’s student Mahdawī, in turn, read this work to the young Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī at Tunis in 590/1194. The two known surviving manuscripts of this work were used as the basis for the recent critical edition, “A Qurʾān Commentary by Ibn Barrajān of Seville,” published by Brill in 2015.103

100 MS Murat Mulla 36 adds: fī maʿānī al-qurʾān al-ʿazīz, “into the Meanings of the Exalted Qurʾān” to the end of the title.

101 Ibn al-ʿArabī refers to the Īḍāḥ and “Tafsīr Ibn Barrajān” interchangeably in his discussion of the Jerusalem prediction. See Melvin-Koushki, Ibn Barrajān, Seer of God’s Cycles, 6.

102 For references to the Tanbīh, see Īḍāḥ, #966, 993. For Sharḥ, see #13, 41, 42, 327, 438, 554. 103 Both surviving manuscripts are at the Süleymaniye Library in Turkey and were discovered by

Gerhard Böwering in the 1980s. The first, written in bold Naskhī script, is the two-volume MahmutPaşa 3–4, dated 596/1199 and spanning approximately 575 folios. Murat Molla 35 is miscatalogued as Kitāb al-Irshād. The second, also in two volumes, is Murat Molla 35–36, dated 612/1215, and spanning 323 folios. These two manuscripts are meticulously described in the forthcoming introduction to the Īḍāḥ. Both were copied within approximately half a century of the author’s death, presumably from the archetype. Together, they are extremely reliable, carefully transcribed, and almost orthographically identical. The complete Arabic text edition of the Īḍāḥ, conducted by Gerhard Bowering and Yousef Casewit, is based on Mahmut Paşa (A) and Murat Molla (B), is expected to be published in Brill’s TSQ Series, with an introductory study and extensive subject indexes. Since MS A is somewhat more reliable than MS B, scribal variants of B are usually noted in the footnotes, while A dominates the central text. Editorial interventions are very minimal in this edition. In the rare instances where we came across a passage in which neither A nor B made sense, or in which A and B both seemed to be in error (both had different grammatical mistakes, missing diacritic, etc.), thenusually A was noted in the central body of the text, then B in the footnote, followed by laʿalla-hā and a suggestion (perhaps + suggested correction).


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 139

ʿAyn al-yaqīnAside from these four works whose authenticity is beyond question, it is possible

that Ibn Barrajān wrote a fifth called “The Eye of Certainty” (ʿAyn al-yaqīn) which may have been lost during the uprising of Ibn Qasī’s Murīdūn and the downfall of the al-Murābiṭūn. The ʿAyn is not cited in any of his earlier works and, assuming its authenticity, this work would have been his last and probably shortest work. Its title is preserved in a fatwā by Ibn Khaldūn (d. 808/1406) where this title along with Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Futūḥāt, Ibn Sabʿīn’s Budd al-ʿārif, and Ibn Qasī’s Khalʿ al-naʿlayn are condemned to be burned.104 It is possible that one of Ibn Barrajān’s Qurʾānic commentaries was mistakenly entitled ʿAyn al-yaqīn by a scribe or a cataloguer, but further research is needed to bring this to light.105

By way of conclusion, what follows is a bird’s-eye glance of the central themes that run through his Qurʾān commentaries, notwithstanding differences in styleand emphasis between the two works; a discussion which falls outside the scope of this paper. The central themes of his exegetical works can be grouped under fivecategories – namely, God, revelation, man, the cosmos, and the hereafter:

I. GOD: Ibn Barrajān never tires of reminding his reader that God is Omnipotent (qadīr), Omniscient (ʿalīm), and Manifest (ẓāhir). He predetermined the destinies of all things past, present, and future at the dawn of cosmic existence (al-taqdīr al-awwal), inscribing His all-comprehensive knowledge of creation onto the Preserved Tablet (al-lawḥ al-maḥfūẓ). Above time and space, He resides on His throne (istiwāʾ ʿalā al-ʿarsh) from whence His command (amr) descends at every moment. These basic tenets are foundational to Ibn Barrajān and have far-reaching consequences for his thought system. For the world which he inhabits is not only fixed and unchangeable. It is

104 Ibn Khaldūn’s fatwā is found in Ṣāliḥ b. Mahdī al-Maqbalī’s (d. 1108/1696) reprint in al-ʿAlam al-shāmikh fī īthār al-ḥaqq ʿ alā al-ābāʾ wa-l-mashāʾikh (Cairo, 1328/1910, 500). Biqāʿī’s (d. 885/1480) version of the fatwā makes no mention of Ibn Barrajān’s ʿAyn al-yaqīn. See Biqāʿī, Maṣraʿ al-taṣawwuf wa-huwa kitābān: Tanbīh al-ghabī ilā takfīr Ibn ʿ Arabī wa-taḥdhīr al-ʿibād min ahl al-ʿinād bi-bidʿat al-ittiḥād, ed. ʿ Abd al-Raḥmān al-Wakīl (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Sunna al-Muḥammadiyya, 1953), 167.

105 See Qāsim Samarrāʾī’s ʿIlm al-iktināh al-ʿarabī al-islāmī/Arabic Islamic Palaeography & Codigology, (Riyāḍ: Markaz al-Malik Fayṣal li-l-Buḥūth wa-l-Dirāsāt al-Islāmiyya, 2001), 153, for a reference to a copy or an excerpt of Ibn Barrajān’s so-called K. al-yaqīn fī tafsīr al-qurʾān in Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya’s al-Inbāʾ fī ḥaqāʾiq al-ṣifāt wa-l-asmāʾ li-l-lāh taʿālā by Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Maʿd b. ʿĪsā b. Wakīl al-Tujībī al-Iqlīshī (d. 549/1154). I have not been able to obtain this MS from Dār al-Kutub. It seems to be part of a majmūʿa on divine names, and is therefore topically related to Ibn Barrajān’s Sharḥ despite the fact that it bears the title of tafsīr. My preliminary impression is that the ʿayn al-yaqīn is not an independent work of Ibn Barrajān, but rather a second title to one or part of his four major works. Brockelmann has a notice for Iqlīshī’s al-Anbāʾ fī ḥaqāʾiq (šarḥ) aṣ-ṣifāt wal-asmāʾ. Welīeddīn 64, Kairo2 I, 258, 344 (GAL, S. I, 633; see also vol. 1, 361, 370).

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)140

also (a) cyclical, (b) interconnected, and hence (c) predictable. First, all created things undergo God’s “cyclical decrees” (dawāʾir al-taqdīr), since they originate in God and return to Him. Within this great cycle of origin and return, existents – including revelations, historical events, and human destinies – undergo minor cycles of their own: religions come and go, empires rise and fall, and humans oscillate between joy and hardship. In addition to being cyclical, the cosmos is interconnected at every level of existence because God’s command (amr) descends from the Throne down to the minutest object at every instant. Consequently, “the above correlates with the below” (al-aʿlā yantaẓim bi-l-asfal), and the destiny of one existent is indicative of another’s. Rotations of the heavens have correspondences to historical events, and the rise of one empire foreshadows the collapse of another. The world of creation (ʿālam al-khalq) thus operates like a complicated clockwork, made up of rotating, interconnected parts. Contemplatives study the mechanics of this clockwork by meditating upon God’s signs and His rotating celestial spheres (dawāʾir al-aflāk). Gradually, they come to decipher the divine command (amr) and its “cyclical decrees” (dawāʾir al-taqdīr). They attain an insight into the Unseen world (al-ghayb), and foretell future events, just as Ibn Barrajān did.

II. REVELATION: The Qurʾānic revelation is the verbatim word of God and the final differentiation of the Archetypal Book (tafṣīl umm al-kitāb). The Qurʾānic text is a unified, coherent and compositional whole (naẓm) with multiple levels of meaning. Some meanings are accessed through assiduous formal study, others through mystical insight and the esoteric sciences. The formal Islamic disciplines, like the Qurʾānic sciences, ḥadīth, Arabic poetry, and literature, are indispensable supports for an understanding of the outward meaning (ẓāhir) of the Divine Word, whereas purity of soul and heart-knowledge enable the reader to penetrate into its inner meanings (bāṭin). One of the most sublime levels of meaning which can be attained is an understanding of the disconnected letters (ḥurūf muqaṭṭaʿa), since these issue directly from the Preserved Tablet (al-lawḥ al-maḥfūẓ). In addition, the Torah and the Gospels are “differentiations of the Archetypal Book” (tafṣīl li-umm al-kitāb), just like the Qurʾān, and therefore corroborate Qurʾānic stories and teachings.

III. MAN: Ibn Barrajān emphasizes two points with regard to man. First, the souls of humanity had already affirmed God’s Lordship before creation on the Day ofCovenant (lit. “The Day of Am I Not Your Lord,” Yawm Alastu Bi-Rabbikum). Therefore, all knowledge of God is imprinted upon man’s primordial disposition (fiṭra), and to know God is to return to the primordial state (fiṭra). Ibn Barrajān also stresses the direct and immediate reciprocity between God and man (tajāwub), and insists that God resides within the hearts of His favored saints. Second, Ibn Barrajān emphasizes a correspondence between man and creation, or microcosm and macrocosm. His


Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013) 141

discussions of the “Universal Servant” versus the “Particular Servant” clearly anticipate Ibn al-ʿArabī’s doctrine of the Universal Man (insān kāmil).

IV. COSMOS: Ibn Barrajān posits a fundamental dichotomy between the non-manifested “world of the divine command” (ʿālam al-amr) and the manifested “world of creation” (ʿālam al-khalq). At the same time, he rejects the idea that the world of creation is separate from the next world, and insists on an unbroken ontological link between the here below (dunyā) and the afterworld (ākhira). The here below derives its very existence from and is rooted in the latter – literally, “the herebelow is a bundle that was yanked out of the afterworld” (al-dunyā jadhba judhibat min al-ākhira). Ibn Barrajān marshals several scriptural proofs in support of the ontological continuity between this world and the next. The most important is the doctrine of the “Two Breaths” (nafasān) of Heaven and Hell, which he cites over eighty times in the Īḍāḥ. This conception originates in a ḥadīth from the Muwaṭṭaʾ in which the Prophet states: “Intense heat is from the raging of Hell” (shiddat al-ḥarr min fayḥ jahannam). Thus, reasons Ibn Barrajān, there is a direct and open channel between this world and the next. Scorching summer heat waves issue from the breath of hellfire, while coolspring breezes issue from the opening of the gates of paradise (fatḥ al-janna). These “breaths” operate like the dualistic forces of yin-yang, causing joy and suffering, easeand hardship, belief and unbelief, and other dualities that make up this world.

This brings us to another cosmological dichotomy that is prevalent in the Īḍāḥ. For Ibn Barrajān, everything that is “other than God” (mā siwā ʾLlāh) is a “differentiation”(tafṣīl) or an unpacking of the contents of the Preserved Tablet (al-lawḥ al-maḥfūẓ); in other words, existence is a spelling out of God’s all-comprehensive knowledge. God’s knowledge is differentiated into two basic modes, or “Two Beings” (al-wujūdān). The first“Being”isthecosmos(ʿālam) and the second, revelation (waḥy). These two “Beings” are complementary and ultimately identical because they are both differentiations ofthe Preserved Tablet. Therefore the revealed books of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are complemented by the book of nature and its symbols (āyāt). This being the case, the contemplative Crossing (ʿibra) into Qurʾānic āyas and natural symbols unlocks the gates of the Unseen world and affords man a foretaste of heaven (al-janna al-ṣughrā). The entirety of God’s symbols and cosmic order is “The Real Upon which Creation is Created” (al-ḥaqq al-makhlūq bi-hi al-khalq), a true understanding of which opens the door to spiritual realization (taḥqīq).

V. HEREAFTER : Between the here below and the afterworld lies the inter-world (barzakh) or isthmus. This intermediary reality, which is generally associated with the grave, has different modes. For instance, the deceased Prophets, martyrs, andrighteous servants await Judgment Day in a Paradisal inter-world (jannat al-barzakh), whereas unbelievers await in a hellish inter-world of torment. In his discussions

Yousef Casewit

Al-Abhath 60-61 (2012-2013)142

of the inter-world and afterworld (ākhira), Ibn Barrajān underscores the ineffableimmensity of these Unseen realms, their awesome paradisal delights and infernal torments. But the grandest of all spiritual realities is the beatific vision (al-ruʾya al-ʿaliyya), where believers meet face to face with the divine on Judgment Day. This vision is also called “The Reality to Whom is the Destination” (al-Ḥaqq al-ladhī ilayhi al-maṣīr) or “The Most-Evident Reality” (al-Ḥaqq al-mubīn), which are foreshadowed by “supreme natural symbols” (āyāt khāṣṣa) like sun and moon in the here below.

A Reconsideration of the Life and Works of Ibn Barrajān, al-Abhath, No. 60-61 (2012-2013), pp....

Documents

Transcript of A Reconsideration of the Life and Works of Ibn Barrajān, al-Abhath, No. 60-61 (2012-2013), pp....