Followers of Ibn ʿArabī are considered to constitute an “Akbari” school of thought. The use of the term ‘school’ assumes some sort of cohesion, but the nature of this has been little studied. I argue that adherents found a substitute for the in-person study sessions (sing. majlis) that were common among Sufis, by identifying Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam with Ibn ʿArabī. Thus they were able to establish a direct connection with their preferred master by reading and commenting on this book. By placing their own commentary among other commentar­ies on the Fuṣūṣ, they created a bookish majlis; a dialogue with their master and other students similar to an in-person majlis. Whether conscious or subconscious, this idea became prevalent: no real organization such as a Sufi order came to be, but instead we have dozens and dozens of direct commen­taries. Making Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam an icon for Ibn ʿArabī became, at times, so strong as to turn the book into an idol or effigy.

This article examines Mughulṭāy b. Qilīj’s (d. 762/1361) al-Zahr al-bāsim fī siyar Abī al-Qāsim, a ḥāshiya (gloss, marginal notes) on ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Suhaylī’s (d. 581/1185) commentary on Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīra. Drawing on evidence from Mamlūk-era chronicles, biographical dictionaries, and commentarial introductions, it analyzes Mughulṭāy b. Qilīj as a historical figure and the context and content of his work. This is done in order to demonstrate how commentaries and glosses are deeply related to the schol­arly and cultural life of the period. These resources testify to the antagonistic relationship between Mughulṭāy and his opponents and to the ensuing rivalry between them. Hence, this article seeks to examine the correlation between his personality and the rationale for his commentary, to determine the reasons behind his choice of text to write a gloss on and his sustained and harsh criticism against al-Suhaylī and his scholarly legacy.

This paper centers its analysis around the remarkable work of the transdisciplinary commentary al-Minaḥ al-quddūsiyya, written by the Algerian scholar Aḥmad al-ʿAlawī (d. 1934). Although they are incredibly rare in the Islamic textual tradi­tion, transdisciplinary commentaries are commentaries that are written in a discipline different from that of the base texts upon which they build. In the case of the Minaḥ, al-ʿAlawī wrote his text as an entirely Sufi commentary upon Ibn ʿĀshir’s (d. 1040/1631) al-Murshid al-muʿīn, a didactic poem that is often categorized as a work of Mālikī fiqh. Through an examination of the text of the Minaḥ and the biography of its author, this paper aims to uncover why al-ʿAlawī wrote his commentary and what his ideological assumptions were that allowed him to approach Ibn ʿĀshir’s Murshid in such a novel manner.

This article investigates the emergence of the first commentar­ies on al-Ḥikam al-ʿAṭāʾiyya (ʿAṭāʾian Wisdoms), written by Ibn ʿAbbād of Ronda (d. 792/1390) and Aḥmad Zarrūq (d. 899/1494), from within their respective contexts. Particular focus is placed on how the tradition of commenting on the text was undertaken against the backdrop of the formation of the Sufi movements and concerns from the scholarly community. The formation of the Shādhiliyya coincides with these first commentaries on the Wisdoms, and hence, it is no coincidence that both scholars intensively discuss different types of Sufism in their works.To date, when scholars discuss Ibn ʿAbbād and Zarrūq, their respective roles in society and the evolving Sufi move­ments are emphasized, but their commentaries on the Wisdoms are neglected to a certain extent. In addressing this gap, this contribution offers observations concerning the permissibility of reading Sufi books, the commentary culture in Western (maghribī) Sufism, and the development of the Shādhiliyya movement, and provides an outlook on how al-Ḥikam al-ʿAṭāʾiyya later became part of the university curriculum.

The Muqaddima of Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ on the science of Ḥadīth has attracted a large and complex commentary tradition. Its complexity lies in the fact that certain sorts of commentarial literature, such as abridgments (sg. mukhtaṣar), commentaries (sg. sharḥ), critical commentaries (nukat), and versifications (sg. manẓūma), were produced with a different focus across scholarly networks, locations, and time. Moreover, depending on the orientation of the scholarly networks that a commenta­tor belonged to, the commentaries show different degrees of intellectual loyalty to the base text. Some support the argu­ments of the base text and follow its structure closely, while others refute ideas and restructure the content. This article centers its analysis on two examples of commentaries on the Muqaddima. Its leading hypothesis is that social proximity or distance to Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ and the network of his close students determines the degree of moral obligation and intellectual loyalty to Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ and the base text. The commentaries of al-Nawawī and Ibn Jamāʿa demonstrate this relation clearly.

In this article, I examine al-Ghazālī’s methodological skepticism and its role in establishing foundational knowledge.Despite the considerable scholarly attention given to The Deliverance from Error (al-Munqidh min al-ḍalāl), the foundationalism present in it has received relatively limited investigation. Al-Ghazālī established the foundations of knowledge by taking his methodological skepticism to its logical conclusions. His engagement with the sources of knowledge, namely, taqlīd, sense perception, and self-evident truths form the cornerstone of his skepticism. To understand how al-Ghazālī finds deliverance from his skeptical impasse, and ultimately establish foundational knowledge, the concepts of “divine light” and fiṭra will be dis­cussed. Unlike Greek skepticism, al-Ghazālī’s skepticism was not a denial of the possibility of knowledge about the nature of reality, nor was it a denial of Muslim doctrine, but a methodological approach to establish the foundations of knowledge.

This paper investigates the doctrine of man’s essence and resurrection defended by the late Muʿtazilī Rukn al-Dīn b. al-Malāḥimī al-Khwārazmī (d. 536/1141). His anthropology combines substance reductionism and function organicism. Even though man is not a unitary substance additional to the sum of his atomic parts, the specific arrangement of parts we call “man” exhibits functions that are indivisible and irreducible (they are not sums of functions predicable of the indi­vidual parts). When it comes to resurrection, Ibn al-Malāḥimī abandons the recreation model, the standard view of the Muʿtazilīs, in favor of the reassembly model, which he claims to be adherent to the manifest meaning of the Qur’ān as well as capable of answering an objection concerning continuity of identity (there is no way to discriminate between the resur­rected individual and an equivalent copy). For Ibn al-Malāḥimī, the identity of the resurrected becomes unproblematic once we accept that the material parts of the body persist from the moment of death to that of resurrection: when exactly reassembled, such parts unequivocally identify the individual.

The twelfth-century narrative Ḥayy ibn Yaqẓān by Ibn Ṭufayl recounts the life of Ḥayy, a feral man who teaches himself philosophy while living on a desert island. Ibn Ṭufayl gives two explanations of how Ḥayy came to the island. In one version, Ḥayy generates spontaneously on the island; in another, he washes up on the island as an infant. This paper attempts to resolve these contradictory narratives by appealing to a previously unexplored source text for Ḥayy ibn Yaqẓān, Sarāʾir al-nutaqāʾ by Jaʿfar b. Manṣūr al-Yaman. Sarāʾir is an esoteric Ismāʿīlī text in which the author uses stories about Adam and other prophets to elaborate a Neoplatonist-inspired theology. Jaʿfar distinguishes between Adam as a symbol of the atemporal origination (ibdāʿ) of all natural forms, and the corporeal Adam of Ismāʿīlī history. Due to narrative and conceptual similarities between Jaʿfar’s and Ibn Ṭufayl’s treatment of their protagonists, I argue that the two versions of Ḥayy’s nativity allegorize the duality of Neoplatonic cosmology. Spontaneous generation dramatizes the atemporal creation of the human form, whereas the infant Ḥayy’s landing on the island reinforces the philosophical belief in the eternity of species. Both Jaʿfar and Ibn Ṭufayl appeal to the Neoplatonic doctrine of emanation to reconcile the eternity of the physical world with belief in God’s creative agency. The resemblance of Ḥayy ibn Yaqẓān to Sarāʾir prompts broader reconsidera­tion of Ismāʿīlī influence on non-Ismāʿīlī intellectual culture.