Status of Suffism according to Hanbali school of thought

THE HANBALI SCHOOL AND SUFISM:

The course of Sufism in the history of Islamic religious move— ments, as may be gathered from our manuals on Islam, may be summarized as follows. Sufism, born in Islam at an early date, enjoyed a period of calm and tranquility in the first and second centuries after the Prophet. In the third century, it met with opposition from official Islam, and a troubled period followed, culminating in the notorious torture and execution on the gallows ot the great mystic martyr, al-I-:lalläj. This execution took place in the first quarter of the fourth century (tenth century of the Christian era). The period which followed brought a change for the better, for in this period works on mysticism were written, reproduced and circulated. In the 5th/ 11th century, so goes the story, al-Ghazzäli succeeded almost single-handedly in reconciling, once for all, official Islam with Sufism. But his triumph did not come Without a bitter struggle within the ranks of Islamic orthodoxy. The Hanbalis, who are variously regarded as conservative to the core, rigid, intransigent, even fanatical, fought tooth and nail, we are told, in opposing Sufism's admission into the ranks of the orthodox. They fought Sufism before its triumph, and they continued to fight it after its triumph. But Sufism spread out and went on to make great conquests in a vas and growing Muslim world, thanks to the heroic efforts of al-Ghazzäli, and in spite of the unrelenting resistance of the 1--lanbali School down through the centuries.

mis story varies in its details, but three distinct stages emerge from the various versions: (1) the birth and rise of Sufism; (2) the struggle of Sufism with official Islam; and (3) the triumph and spread of Sufism in spite of tenacious Hanbali opposition.

The consensus of scholars has faltered on all but the third stage; namely, the triumph of Sufism in the face of unbending Hanbali opposition.

On the other hand, the most persistent differences of opinion have centered around the problem of the origins of Islamic mysticism: whether endogenous, arising from its own religious sources, or exagenous, with the impetus coming from other religions. The consensus, of late, seems to be in favor of its origins being Islamic, a result of the continual meditation of the Koran itself. This is the thesis defended by Louis Massignon in his Essai sur les origines du lexique technique de la mystique musulmane in 1922 1, based on a brilliant study of documents of the first three centuries of Islam.

It is not my intention to treat of the origins or the development of Sufism; though, with regard to the origins, my conclusions will be found to support the endogenous theory of Islamic mysticism as expounded by Louis Massignon. However, the primary concern of my paper lies elsewhere; i. e. to test the truth value contained in the thesis of Hanbali opposition to Sufism.

Ever since the work of Ignaz Goldziher, the Hanbali School has been a favorite whipping boy of modern scholarship in Islamic studies. It is hardly necessary for me to say that Islamists owe a great debt of gratitude to this eminent scholar whose works, taken as a whole, constitute one of the most solid foundations in our field of studies. But he had, as it were, a blind spot as regards the Hanbali School; a blind spot which he acquired from antiHanbali sources, and which was naturally included in that exceIlent legacy he has passed on to us. This lack of clear sight may be attributed in part to the historical sources available in print at the turn of the century; sources which, replete with an antiHanbali bias, have supplied the materials used for laying the foundations of our knowledge regarding the Hanbali School. And although many other sources have become available, the impressions resulting from the first sources and the studies based upon them have lingered on.

Many well-read Islamists are to this day still surprised to hear that the Sufis al-Ansäri al-Harawi (d. 481/1089) 2 and 'Abd al-Qädir al-Jili (d. 561/1166) 3 were both very strong Hanbalis. Those who know these two Sufis to have been fervent Hanbalis usually concede this fact only as an exception to the general rule of so-called Hanbali anti-Sufism. In this they are following the lead of Goldziher who sees the affiliation of these two Sufis with the Hanbali School as due to a flight from rationalist theology 4.

However, the persistence of the notion of Hanbali anti-Sufism .is not due to the matter of sources alone; it is also due to the language of the sources, a perennial problem in the case of do-

cuments coming down to us from the middle ages.

1 Second revised edition (Paris: J. Vrin, 1954).

2 On this Sufi, see E12, art. al-Ansäri al-Harcwi (by S. de Beaurecoeil). 3 On this Sufi, see E12, s. v. 'Abd cl-#ädir al-Dfiläni (by W. Braune).

1. Goldhizer, Le dogme et la toi de I'lstcm (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1920),

144—145.

117

The language problem may be seen quite clearly in the Han— bali sources themselves. When one refers to the biographical notices of the two above-mentioned Sufis in Ibn Rajab's biographical work on the Hanbali School, one finds al-Ansäri referred to as "as-$üfi"5 and al-Jili referred to as "az-zähid"6. If these terms were to be interpreted literally, we would have a mystic ($üfi) in Ansäri and a simple ascetic (zähid) in Jili.

But even one Sufi in the Hanbali School, admitted as such by a Hanbali biographer, would be, under the circumstances, cause enough for concern. A Hanbali biographer should, one would have thought, be circumspect enough to pass over the matter in silence. From Ibn Rajab's designations of these two Sufis, two tentative conclusions may be drawn: (1) Ibn Rajab appears not to have felt the need for circumspection as regards Sufism in the ranks of the Hanbali School; and (2) his use of the terms $üfi and zähid indicates the possibility of their being interchangeable.

These conclusions were strengthened by a subsequent reading in Ibn Rajab's Dhail. This two-volume biographical work covers a period of three centuries of Hanbalism, from the middle of the 5th/ 11th century to the middle of the 8th/ 14th. By reading merely the headings of the notices which consist of the full names and epithets of the Hanbali biographies, the reader can come across ten "Sufis" referred to as such 7. By reading beyond the names into the text of the notices, he can find again nearly three times as many Hanbalis easily identifiable as Sufis 8. And with still closer scrutiny, the total number can amount to over one hundred, that is to say, over one-sixth of the Hanbalis treated by Ibn Rajab. But the true number of Hanbali Sufis is yet higher than that, for Ibn Rajab supplies no noticeable hints of the Sufism of other Hanbalis who, on the basis of still other sources, are known to have been Sufis 9.

A few years ago I wrote briefly on 1--lanbali Sufism in eleventhcentury Baghdad, in the era of Ibn 'Aqil (d. 513/1119) 10. Since that

5 See Ibn Rajab, Dhail •ala Tcbaqät al-vanabita, ed. H. Laoust-S. Dahhän, vol. I (Damas: Publications de I'lnstitut Francais de Damas, 1951) Dhail), I, 64, line 11; Ibn Rajab, Dhail 'alä Tabaqät al-Vanäbila, ed. M. Hämid al-Fiqi, 2 vols. (Cairo: as-Sunna al-Muhammadiya Press, 1372/1952) Dhail (ed. Fiqi), 1, 50, line 9.

6 See Dhail (ed. Fiqi), 1, 2%), line 10.

7 See Dhail (ed. Fiqi), at the following numbers of biographical notices: 2, 27, 136, 137, 389, 393, 398, 445, 463, 466.

See Dhait (ed. Fiqi), numbers 139, 193, 196, 197, 200, 233, 274, 289, 302, 307, 313, 323, 369, 370, 373, 381, 396, 397, 405, 436, 448, 472, 473, 492, 493, 514, 551. 9 For these Hanbali Sufis, see the schemata below.

10 See G. Makdisi, Ibn 'Aqil et la résurgence de I'lslam traditionaliste au xr siécle (Publ. de I'lstitut Francais de Damas, 1963) Ibn 'Aqil), 377-383.

time, and especially recently, I have come across sources shedding further light on the extent of the commitment of the Hanbali School to Sufism.

Two works by the Hanbali jurisconsult Ibn Qudäma (d. 620/ 1223) indicated the need for research in this direction . The first was Kitåb at-Tauwäbin in which a two-fold message was strongly indicated, one in favor of Hanbalism, the other in favor of Sufism . The second work was Taftrim an-napar fi lcutub Aht atKaLåm in which Ibn Qudäma condemned his fellow Hanbali Ibn 'Aqil for theological rationalism, but passed over, in almost complete silence, Ibn 'Aqil's Halläjism . Those who are familiar with Ibn 'Aqil's cause célébre will remember that he was made to give up his Mu'tazili tendencies, and retract a work which he had written in justification and glorification of the mystic al-Halläj . Ibn Qudäma quotes the retraction of Ibn 'Aqil word for word; but when he comes to the passage dealing with Halläj, he omits it, inserting the following remark in its place: "Ibn 'Aqil mentions something else here, then goes on to say 15 This remark Of Ibn Qudäma shows that his omission of the passage on al-Halläj was a conscious one.

The tradition of scholarship pointing to a hostile relationship between Sufism and Hanbalism being as deep-rooted as it is, I contented myself with adding the name of Ibn Qudäma to the list of Hanbalis cited by Massignon as merely favorable to alHalläj 16.

But the next thing that happened was as startlingly conclusive as it was unexpected; namely, the discovery of an isnäd, or chain of Sufi initiation, in which figured, quite clearly and unmistakably, the name of our Hanbali doctor, Ibn Qudäma. Furthermore, not only was Ibn Qudäma's own name to be seen in this chain of Sufis, but also those of seven other Hanbalis, each investing the 119

other with the Sufi cloak, or khirqa, with Ibn Qudäma receiving it directly from his Shaikh, the famous Hanbali mystic, 'Abd alQädir al-Jill.

This chain of Sufi initiation I found in one of the manuscripts of the ?ähiriya Library of Damascus , the city in which Ibn Qudäma had lived and taught seven centuries ago. Corroborative evidence came later in manuscripts studied in Istanbul, Leiden, Dublin and Princeton. I also found further corroborative evidence in the biographical notice of one of the non-Hanbali links in the Sufi chain, Shams ad-Din ad-Dunaisiri, in Ibn k-lajar al-'Asqaläni's ad-Durar at-kämina where the Sufi pedigree of Dunaisiri is traced on his own authority to Ibn Qudäma, through two other Hanbali Sufis. The Zähiriya Hanbali chain of Sufi initiation, corroborated by these several sources, has been studied in a separate article 19.

Hanbali Sufism in consistent with Massignon's theory of the Koranic origins of Sufism. There is hardly any need to emphasize the role played by the Koran in Hanbali doctrine; for the Hanbalis, like the early Sufis, are known for their constant meditation of the Koran. It is therefore understandable when Massignon does not subscribe to the theory of Hanbali anti-Sufism , though he names Ibn al-Jauzi and Ibn Taimiya as Sufism's two great opponents . On the other hand, the alleged Hanbali anti-Sufism is consistent with the theory of the foreign origin of Islamic Sufism. That is why Goldziher can see the Hanbali School as hostile to Sufism, since Hanbali traditionalism would regard Sufism as a foreign heretical innovation smuggled into Islam.

Recently, the late Marijan Molé, in subscribing to Massignon's view of the endogenous character of Islamic mysticism, found it necessary to explain why the Hanbalis, who issued from the same origins as Sufism, had taken, as he believed, different direction. "Sufism", he writes, "was born in an atmosphere of deep Koranic impregnation. But other Islamic movements —such as Hanbalism— had likewise sprung from that source without having taken, for that reason, a similar direction. To the initial summons of the sacred text, some individuals were reacting in a special way which was consonant with their profound aspirations" 2. This statement represents an earnest attempt to explain the apparent paradox in the common origin but divergent development of Sufism and Hanbalism. Like Massignon, Molé was right in seeing a common origin for Sufism and Hanbalism; if he saw a divergence between these two movements in their later development, the fault lies in his acceptance of Goldziher's thesis of Hanbali hostility to Sufism.

In reality, there exists a very strong kinship between 1--lanbalism and Sufism. This kinship can be seen not only in their common spiritual origin, namely, the meditation of the Koran; it can also be seen in their common membership in one of Islam's earliest religious movements. Both the Hanbalis and the Sufis were members of Ah! al-Hadith, i. e. the Traditionalists, as opposed to the Rationalists, not merely the tradition experts. This kinship explains their common, active and unremiting hostility to kaläm, or rationalist theology. Moreover, both Sufis and Hanbalis go beyond the formalism of works. The tradition that good works are judged only by the intentions behind them (innamü 'I-a'mäl bi 'n-niyät), is a tradition found most frequently in the Musnad of Ahmad b. kianbal. If some Hanbalis condemned al-Halläj and other Sufis, they were simply acting like other Traditionalist Sufis who did the same; on the other hand, other Traditionalist Sufis, including Hanbali Sufis, opted for the sainthood of al-Halläj.

The theory of Hanbali hostility to Sufism does not stand up to close scrutiny. This hostility is attributed in a special way to Ibn al-Jauzi (d. 597/1200) and Ibn Taimiya (d. 728/1328), both of whom lived and died after the eleventh century. These so-called arch-enemies of Sufism, it will readily be noticed, died after the alleged reconciliation of Sufism with Islamic orthodoxy and its triumph in the eleventh century, a triumph which was supposed to have occurred in spite of Hanbali opposition 23. But even if we

22 Marijan Molé, Les Mystiques musulmans (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965), 35-36: "Le soufisme este né dans une atmosphére de pro— fonde imprégnation coranique. Mais d'autres mouvements islamiques —tel le hanbalisme— en étaient également sortis, sans que pour cela ils aient évoulé dans un sens analogue. A l'appel initial du texte sacré, certains individus réagissaient d'une facon spéciale qui était conforme å leurs aspirations profondes".

23 In order to become reconciliated with Islamic orthodoxy, Sufism would first have had to break away from it. But this could never have taken place, since we know from the lives of the Sufis that they were also jurists, and participated in all the Islamic sciences and in the life of the community. Cf. the various gabaqät-works; cf. also M. Molé, Les Mystiques musuLmanS, 87-88.

12L

shored up this anachronism by adding the name of Ibn 'Aqil who lived in the eleventh century , the theory of Hanbali hostility would still fall flat for lack of sufficient support. The reason is simply that neither of these three Hanbali doctors qualifies as an enemy of Sufism. Let ut look at the record.

Ibn 'Aqil, as a youth in his twenties, wrote a work venerating the mystic al-Halläj . An accusation brought against him by a member of his Hanbali school, but not in the name of the school forced him to retract, among other things, his k-lalläjism. However, this work on klalläj, which he was supposed to destroy, was later found in Ibn al-Jauzi's library, in the handwriting of Ibm 'Aqil himself . And later still, it was used by another Hanbali doctor, Ibn al-Ghazzäl (d. 615), for the latter's own work venerating al-Halläj . Clearly Ibn 'Aqil does not qualify as an opponent Of Sufism.

Nor does Ibn Taimiya. Henri Laoust has already written of Ibm Taimiya's affinities with Sufism , and that one would seerch in vain to find in his works the least condemnation of Sufism. He opposed the pantheistic Sufism of the ittiftädiya, but he showed his admiration for the works of the Sufis Junaid, Sahl at-Tustari, Abü Tälib al-Makki, Qushairi, 'Abd al-Qädir al-Jili, and Abü Haf$ as-Suhrawardi .

At present we are in a position to go much farther and show that this allegedly great opponent of Sufism was himself a Sufi

who belonged to more than one tariqa , but especially to that of 'Abd al-Qädir al-Jili . In a Hanbali work on the wearing of the Sufi cloak (khirqa) , preserved in a unique manuscript in Princeton , and entitled Bad' at-'ulqa bi-labs al-Ichirqa by Yüsuf b. 'Abd al-Hädi (d. 909/1503), himself also a Hanbali, Ibn Taimiya is found in a Sufi spiritual genealogy with well-known 1--lanbali doctors, all, except one (al-Jill), heretofore unknown as Sufis. The links in this Sufi chain are, in descending order : (1) 'Abd alQädir al-Jill (d. 561/1166) ; (2) Abü 'Umar b. Qudäma (d. 607/ 1210) ; (3) Muwaffaq ad-Din b. Qudäma ; (4) Ibn Abi 'Umar b. Qudäma (d. 682/1283) ; (5) Ibn Taimiya (d. 728/1328) ; (6) Ibn Qaiyim al-Jauziya (d. 751/1350) ; (7) Ibn Rajab (d. 795/1393) .

In the above Sufi genealogy, Ibn Abi 'Umar b. Qudäma (no. 4) is linked to his uncle Muwaffaq ad-Din b. Qudäma (no. 3), not through his father Abu 'Umar b. Qudäma (no. 2), but with both directly, as illustrated in the following schema:

(1) 'Abd al-Qädir al-Jili (d. 561)

€(2) Abü 'Umar b. Qudäma (3) Muwaffaq ad-Din b. Qudäma

(d. 607) (d. 620)

(4) Ibn Abi 'Umar b. Qudäma (d. 682)

(5) Ibn Taimiya. (d. 728)

(6) Ibn Qaiyim al-Jauziya (d. 751)

(7) Ibn Rajab (d. 795)

THE 123

Elsewhere in this same work , Ibn Taimiya's Sufi pedigree is traced to 'Abd al-Qädir al-Jili, through the same two interme diaries as cited above; namely, Ibn Abi 'Umar b. Qudäma (no. 4) and Muwaffaq ad-Din b. Qudäma (no. 3) .

Further corroboration of two links in the chain separating him from 'Abd al-Qädir al-Jili comes from Ibn Taimiya himself as quoted in a unique manuscript in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin. This work is entitled Targhib al-Muta@äbbin fi Labs Ichirqat al-mutamaiyizin, by Jamäl ad-Din at-Talyäni . Here are Ibn Taimiya's own words, as quoted from a work of his, al-Mas'ata atTabriziya, confirming his affiliation with 'Abd al-Qädir al-Jili with two links between them: "I wore the blessed Sufi cloak of 'Abd al-Qädir (al-Jili), there being between him and me two (Sufi

44

In a lost work entitled I?fä' Ourqat at-frauba bi-iZbäs Ichirqat at-tauba, by Ibn Näsir ad-Din , of which frequent use was made by Yüsuf b. 'Abd al-Hädi in Bad' al-'uLqa, Ibn Taimiya is quoted affirming his Sufi affiliation in more than one Sufi order and praising that of 'Abd al-Qädir al-Jili as the greatest of them all: "I have worn the Sufi cloak of a number of Shaikhs belonging to various Variqas, among them the Shaikh 'Abd al-Qädir al-Jill, who se tariqa is the greatest of the well-known ones" . When Ibn Taimiya died, he was buried in the Sufi cemetery in Damascus, where other Damascene members of his family, also Sufis, were buried before him.

The foregoing remarks will suffice, I believe, to show that Ibn Taimiya hardly qualifies as an opponent of Sufism.

We must now turn our attention to Ibn al-Jauzi whose work Talbis Iblis is perhaps the most important single factor in keeping alive the notion of Hanbali hostility to Sufism. This work has been printed more than once, translated into English by D. S. Margoliouth, and studied by Professor Walther Braune in his Ibn at-Gauzi's Streitschrift gegen den Sufismus. In reality, this work was not written against Sufism as such, nor against Sufis alone 47. It was written indeed against certain Sufi practices; but it was written also against certain practices of several other groups: philosophers, pagans, theologians, traditionalists, jurists, preachers, philologists, poets, Sufis, common people and the rich. Tatbis Iblisy or The Devil's Delusion 48, is an indictment of "unorthodox", i. eunscriptural, doctrines and practices wherever found in the Islamic community, especially in Ibn al-Jauzi's times. That the section on the Sufis is the lengthiest should not make us lose sight of a very important fact; namely, that Ibn al-Jauzi did not spare those groups in the community to which he himself belonged, such as traditionists, jurists and preachers.

Ibn al-Jauzi has written other works which are quite obviously in favor of Sufism. Two works considered as pillars in the field of Sufism were abridged by him: (1) Abü Nu'aim al-Isfahäni's Hilyat at-autiyä' was abridged by him in $afwat as-safwa 49 ; and GhazzäLi's Ittyä' 'ultim cd-din was abridged in his Minhäj al-qä$idin ua-mufid as-sädiqin 50. Full lenght biographies of the Fcdä'il and Manäqib type in praise of the early Sufis are due to Ibn al-Jauzi's pen; such as his Fadä'it Hasan al-Basri 51, and the Manäqib's52 on Ibrähim b. Adham, Bishr al-Häfi, Ma'rüf al-Karkhi, not to mention a number of hagiographical works. In the biographical sections of his history, al-Muntapam, several biographical notices may be found in praise of Sufis 53 . It is true that a work is attributed

47 It is also know under the title Naqd al-'ilm wa'l-'ulamä', au [ = or]: Tclbis Ibiis (Cairo: Muniriiya Press, 1368 1949); see GAL, Suppl. 1, 918 (no. 38), for other editions.

48 D. S. Margoliouth, The Devil's Delusion by Ibn al-Jauä, in Islamic Cul— ture, IX-XII (1935-1938), XIX-XXI (1945-1948). 49 GAL, Suppl. 1, 614, line 14.

so GAL, 1, 504 (no. 36), Suppl. 1, 748, no. 25, 2.

51 GAL, Suppl. 1, 917 (no. 17).

52 Ibn Rajab, Dhail (ed. Fiqi), 1, 418.

53 Ibn al-Jauzi, al-Muntapam fi tärikh al-mulük wa'l-umam, ed. Krenkow (Haidaräbäd: Dä'irat al-Ma'ärif Press, 1357-59/1938-40, 6 vols. = v-X); see for instance, vol. X, p. 64 (Ibn al-Jinäza, d. 530); p. 75 (Abü Ghälib as-Saiqali ad- Dämaghäni, d. 532); p. 97 (Bbü Sa'd az-Zauzani, d. 536, whom he defends against criticism of as-Sam'äni, author of the Ansäb); p. 99 (Abü Nasr alHamadhäni, d. 536); p. 100 (Abü 'I-Khair at-Takriti, d. 536); p. 113 (Abü'l-Ma'älT al-Bazzäz, d. 539); p. 127 (Abü Muhammad ad-Darir al-Jubbi, d. 542); p. 182

THE 125

•to him in which he censures the great contemporary Sufi, his fe.110w Hanbali, 'Abd al-Qädir al-Jili 54 ; on the other hand, he has another work to his name in which he praises the great woman sun, Räbi'a al-'Adawiya (d. 185/801) 55.

Ibn al-Jauzi's qualifications as an opponent of Sufism are hardly any better than those of other so-called Hanbali opponents of Sufism. He could not have opposed Sufism, since he himself was a Sufi, as one can see in the chain of Sufi affiliation cited in Yüsuf

b. 'Abd al-Hädi's Bad' al- eutqa. It is in the same spiritual pedigree in which we found Ibn Taimiya and Ibn Qudäma.

Muwaffaq ad-Din b. Qudäma, on coming to Baghdad, was received by 'Abd al-Qädir al-Jili who died fifty days later, after investing Ibn Qudäma with the Sufi cloak (khirqa) of initiation 56. .1bn Qudäma then worked under the direction of Ibn al-Jauzi, with whom he later was in correspondence, as can be seen in Kitäb at-Tauwäbin 57. The schema shown above, when completed with Ibn al-Jauzi's name, appears as follows 58 :

'Abd al-Qädir al-Jili (d. 561) Ibn al-Jauzi (d. 597)

-Abü 'Umar b. Qudäma (d. 607) Muwaffaq ad-Din Qudäma (d. 620)

Ibn Abi 'Umar b. Qudäma (d. 682) Ibn Taimiya (d. 728)

Ibn Qaiyim al-Jauziya (d. 751)

Ibn Rajab (d. 795)

There is no denying the fact that Ibn 'Aqil, Ibn al-Jauzi, and -Ibn Taimiya, as well as other Hanbalis before and after them, censured Sufi practices and Sufi doctrines. But this does not necessarily mean that they condemned Sufism as such. Whatever censure issued from the pens of these Hanbali doctors should be understood for what it was: not an indictment of Sufism itself, but of practices and doctrines considered by the censurers as he retical, as with no basis in scripture or tradition, deviating from the Koran and from the Sunna of the Prophet. Sufism, itself, was not being condemned, no more than jurisprudence, preaching and traditions were being condemned. What was being condemned were

(as-Sijzi al-Harawi, d. 553); p. 226 (Hibat Alläh b. 'Abd Alläh, d. 563); p. 128 (Tahir b. Said d. 542); p. 239 (Nasir al-Khuwaiyi, d. 567); and others. 54 see Ibn Rajab, Dhail (ed. Fiqi), 11, 420 (line 17): Kitäb fi dhamm 'Abd al-Qädir.

55 See Ibn Rajab, op. cit., Il, 418 (line 7): Manaqib Räbi'a al-'Adawiya. 56 See G. Makdisi, La Chaine d'initiation mystique de Muwaffaq ad-Din b. Qudäma, in Cahier de l'Herne (Paris, in pres).

57 Ibn Qudäma, Kitäb at-Tauwäbin, 77 (para. 185).

58 See Yüsuf b. 'Abd al-Hädi, Bad' at-'ulqa bi-labs al-khirqc, fol. 171b-172a.

the innovations introduced by Sufis, jurists, preachers or tradi— tionists.

One must recall the function of disagreement in Islam, in or— der to put such polemics in proper perspective. Orthodoxy in Is lam, as is well-known, is not determined by councils or synods. It finds its instrument in the concept of ijmä', consensus, agreement. Agreement may be tacit; and tacit agreement is as binding as spoken or written agreement. Since silence can be interpreted as tacit agreement, there is a serious obligation upon doctors of Islam to voice their views. This they did in their polemics. Polemic is one of the most widely represented genres in the history of Islamic religious literature. KhiLäf, or disagreement, must be made known vocally or in writing. To keep quiet, to hold one's peace, when in fact one opposes a published doctrine, or a given practice, is tantamount to giving one's tacit consent to it.

In the Islamic community, polemic is not the preserve of Hanbali doctors. Other Muslim doctors, acknowledged as great Sufis, have also criticized the Sufis; as did al-Junaid, al-BisVämi, Sari as-Saqati, al-Husain an-Nüri, and al-Ghazzäli, among others. This criticism did not dub them as enemies of Sufism any more than it should have dubbed Hanbali Sufis as enemies of Sufism. Sufism itself was not being brought into question. By the same token, Hanbali doctors are also known to have criticized other Hanbali doctors, without bringing Hanbalism itself into question .

The Hanbali School preserves Sufism in the spirit of the early Sufis who, as Massignon has pointed out, belonged to AM al-Ha— dith, the Traditionalists, from whose ranks al-klalläj emerged and which he never renounced. The function of Traditionalism in Islam has been to safeguard Islamic culture, overseeing all that developed within Islam, sanctioning what is finally accepted in the Islamic community. For the Traditionalists there is a right kind of law, of theology. of Sufism, of dialectic; and any kind but the right kind was stubbornly fought and opposed. Thus Traditionalist Sufis, proponents of a moderate Sufism, opposed what to them was the wrong kind of Sufism; as Ibn 'Arabi's Sufism was opposed by Ibn Taimiya. But they did not oppose Sufism itself. They could not have done so without denying their own Sufism: a Sufism which they proudly proclaim as being 'aki tariqat as-salaf, that is, inspired by the pious forefathers, and adhered to by the early Sufis.

Philadelphia GEORGE MAKDISI