Abū JaʻFar Ibn Yazdānyār's Rawḍat al-Murīdīn: an Unknown Sufi Manual of the Fifth/Eleventh Century

Abstract Rawḍat al-murīdīn of Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad Ibn al-Ḥusayn Ibn Yazdānyār al-Hamadhānī is a distinguished Sufi manual of the early fifth/eleventh century. Though an early Sufi textbook, this work is relatively unknown when compared with other Sufi textbooks written prior to and after it. This article draws on Williams’ edition from 1957 in addition to two manuscripts held in Princeton and Istanbul, in order to examine this early Sufi work and to appraise its contribution to the development of early Sufism. Rawḍat al-murīdīn presents us a unique formula of taṣawwuf that differs essentially from the famous manuals of the fourth/tenth and fifth/eleventh centuries which concerned themselves with Sufi rules of conduct. There is strong evidence to suggest that its author, if not formally a member of Karrāmiyya, was a pro-Karrāmī writer who operated in a historical context where the renunciatory-Karrāmī mode of piety was widely condemned. Unlike the early character of Abū Bakr Ibn Yazdānyār, who lived in the fourth/tenth century and was generally known as an opponent of ecstatic Sufism, the author of Rawḍa seeks to present a comprehensive umbrella of Sufism under which the teachings of al-Junayd co-exist side by side with those of al-Ḥallāj.


Introduction
Ibn Yazdanyar is the 'nickname' of two different yet little known personalities in the early, formative phase of Sufism. The first is AbūBakr Ibn ʿAlı̄Ibn Yazdanyar, the early mystic of Urmiya in north-west Persia who lived in the fourth/tenth century. The second is AbūJaʿfar Muḥ ammad Ibn al-Ḥ usayn Ibn Aḥ mad Ibn Yazdanyar al-Hamadhanı, who was born in the late fourth/tenth century and was active in the early fifth/eleventh century. While the first is not known to have authored any Sufi work, the latter is the author of Rawḍ at al-murı̄dı̄n, a Sufi work that is completely dedicated to Sufi manners and spiritual advice. In referring to this work in Kashf al-ẓ unun ʿan asamı̄al-kutub wa-l-funun, Ḥ ajjı̄Khalıfa cites the author's name not as 'Ibn Yazdanyar' but as 'AbūJaʿfar Muḥ ammad Ibn al-Ḥ usayn Ibn Aḥ mad of Rawḍ at al-murı̄dı̄n exists in the Escorial Library (Spain) (No. ). The author's name there appears as 'AbūJaʿfar Muḥ ammad Ibn al-Ḥ usayn al-Anbarı'.
Williams's work was, and still is, the only scholarly attempt to draw attention to Rawḍ at al-murı̄dı̄n and its author. Unfortunately, it has not been followed up by any further research to thoroughly investigate either the Sufi teachings or the components of the distinctive religious reality reflected in the text. Moreover, Williams's translation, on many occasions, is not a precise translation of the original text. 9 Other questions that remain unanswered through this lack of further research are the following: Why is the text of Rawḍ at al-murı̄dı̄n, though an early Sufi textbook, less well known or even completely unknown when compared with other famous Sufi textbooks written prior to and after it? Why do contemporary Sufi authors of that time such as AbūNuʿaym al-Iṣ fahanı̄(d. /) or ʿAbd al-Malik Ibn Muḥ ammad al-Khargushı̄(d. /), the author of Tahdhı̄b al-asrar, not refer to the author of Rawḍ a? What are the major Sufi doctrines of the author of Rawḍ a, and how can we evaluate the contribution of his work to the early Sufi tradition?
This paper, accordingly, draws on Williams's edition of Rawḍ a together with the Princeton and Istanbul manuscripts to examine this early Sufi work in great detail, and to appraise its contribution to the development of early Sufism. Special attention is also focused on the communal aspects of early Sufi life as demonstrated in its detailed discussions of samaʿ ceremonies and the ethics of the master-novice relationship. The following discussion also demonstrates that the presence of such communal aspects in the text of Rawḍ at al-murı̄dı̄n is very impressive. Its author's frequent references to the ethics that one should preserve in the company of his brothers (ikhwan), and the ethics that the novice should follow with his Sufi guide, are examples of what is meant here by 'communal aspects'.
When I came across the manuscripts of Rawḍ at al-murı̄dı̄n, I found myself asking: Why was this work ignored by the early Sufi and non-Sufi authors? Why has it not been added to the list of the best known Sufi manuals dating from the fourth/tenth and fifth/eleventh centuries? If we consider the detailed treatments of the relationship between the Sufi sheikh and his novice in the Rawḍ a, for instance, we see an early version of the famous discussions of this topic that we tend to attribute to Sufi theoreticians of the late sixth/twelfth century. In a previous article, I pointed out the significance of Abūal-Qasim al-Qushayrı's testament (waṣ iyya) to Sufi novices of his days, which appears as the last section in his Risala (though it was originally composed as a separate piece of advice directed to al-Qushayrı's contemporaries). This short yet forceful document provides us with an early version of Sufi systematic discussions of the sheikh-novice relationship which later came to be fully crystallised by AbuH ̣ afṣ al-Suhrawardı̄(d. /) in his influential magnum opus ʿAwarif al-maʿarif. 10 I would argue, therefore, that Ibn Yazdanyar's Rawḍ at al-murı̄dı̄n is the earliest known Sufi source to deal systematically with the sheikh-novice relationship. When compared with AbuN aṣ r al-Sarraj's Kitab al-lumaʿ, Ibn Yazdanyar's work presents a different portrait of taṣ awwuf that does not completely harmonise with that of Baghdadi mainstream Sufism. As thoroughly discussed by Ahmet Karamustafa, the early Sufis of Baghdad, a Sufi urban elite 9 See, for instance, his translation of the verses of al-Ḥ allaj in R.P., b. that revolved around central charismatic figures, came to be known as ṣ ufiyya; the most famous of these leaders was al-Junayd al-Baghdadı̄(d. /). The ṣ ufiyya developed a distinguished mode of renunciatory piety 11 as its great leaders sought to consolidate a high Sufi ethos that consisted of different codes of behaviour and well-defined rules of ethics to govern all Sufis. Even though this ethos was not completely formulated in any written source, it seems that commitment to this ethos was regarded as a sign of loyalty to Baghdadi Sufism, which succeeded in the course of the early third/ninth and fourth/tenth centuries to establish its position as the formal and even exclusive protector and mouthpiece of mainstream Sufism. Baghdadi Sufis, the ṣ ufiyya, presented a particular self-conscious mode of piety that relied basically on a renunciatory, devotional life. Sufi works produced during this period reflected the aspiration of the prominent representatives of the ṣ ufiyya to portray Sufis as a solid and harmonious group.
This seems to be the main agenda of al-Junayd. His Rasaʾil, as well as the huge body of statements and anecdotes attributed to him in early Sufi works, leaves a strong impression that this charismatic and pragmatic leader aspired to impose the Baghdadi umbrella over as many people as possible. One of his strategies for achieving this goal was to 'absorb' controversial tendencies from some of his contemporaries and to gloss over any differences with the ṣ ufiyya. This is the reason why individual voices appear to be very faint in the famous Sufi works of that period. Al-Junayd, for example, while referring to a passionate Sufi character like AbūYazıd al-Basṭ amı̄(d. / or /), chose to elucidate many of al-Basṭ amı's ecstatic utterances through his own moderate commentary. 12 This is also the case of AbuB akr al-Shiblı̄(d. /) whose controversial statements gain a special reference from AbūNaṣ r al-Sarraj. 13 On the other hand, personalities such al-Ḥ usayn Ibn Manṣ ur al-Ḥ allaj (executed / ) and Muḥ ammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Jabbar al-Niffarı̄(d. c. /) could not be absorbed by the Baghdadi institution because their modes of piety were diverse in a way that made them almost impossible for the Baghdadi institution to co-opt. The choice made by the Baghdadi leaders to ignore and sever such figures from their firm core was likely supported by the personal aspiration of these same figures to disassociate themselves from the spiritual monopoly of the Baghdadi elite. 14 AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar demonstrates an interesting form of the relationship between the circle of the Baghdadi Sufis, and the Sufi personalities who made up the Baghdadi monopoly of early Sufism. AbūBakr al-Ḥ usayn Ibn ʿAlı̄Ibn Yazdanyar was an early mystic of Urmiya in north-west Persia. A close reading of early Sufi sources reveals that AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar was one of the figures who tried to challenge the high ideal of Sufi solidarity as it was being consolidated by al-Junayd and his contemporaries. AbūNaṣ r al-Sarraj chooses to devote a separate section of his work to AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar where the former criticises Ibn Yazdanyar and reveals what he considers as Ibn Yazdanyar's attempts to defame 11 Ahmet T. Karamustafa, Sufism: The Formative Period (Berkeley and Los Angeles, ), pp. -.
the Sufis of Baghdad. Ibn Yazdanyar's problematic relationship with the Sufis of Baghdad is described as follows: AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar used to associate with the Sufi masters as well as travel with them […].When he became inclined to leadership (mala ilāal-riʾasa), and started to be fascinated by people's gathering around him, he started slandering his Sufi masters and accusing them of religious innovation (nasabahum ilāal-bidʿa), going astray (ḍ alala), committing faults (ghalaṭ ), and of lack of knowledge ( jahala). 15 Ibn Yazdanyar attempted to correspond with certain people in different parts of the Muslim lands in order to warn them of Sufis and to accuse the latter of heresy (kataba ilāal-bilad yuḥ adhdhiru minhum al-ʿibad). Among the Baghdadi Sufis who were targets of his accusations were al-Junayd, Abūal-Ḥ usayn al-Nurı̄(d. /), Sumnun Ibn Ḥ amza (d. / -), Dhūal-Nun al-Miṣ rı̄(d. /), and Jaʿfar al-Khuldı̄(d. /). 16 AbūʿAbd al-Raḥ man al-Sulamı̄provides us with a separate biographical account of Ibn Yazdanyar while referring to the latter's controversy with Sufi contemporaries and his attempts to slander them for publicly speaking about Sufi doctrines. Al-Sulamı̄states that this person had a special Sufi method which included criticising the sayings of certain Sufis of Iraq (kana yunkiru ʿalābaʿḍ i mashaȳikhi al-ʿIraq aqawı̄lahum). 17 Another Sufi author of the late fourth/tenth century, ʿAbd al-Malik al-Khargushı̄relies heavily on AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar's detailed discussion of the concept of ḥ ayaʾ (modesty) and its various categories in his Tahdhı̄b al-asrar. 18 Like other Sufi authors, al-Khargushı̄refers to AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar on many occasions in his work.
AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar was not the author of Rawḍ at al-murı̄dı̄n. Shams al-Dın al-Dhahabı̄indicates that AbūJaʿfar al-Saʿıdı̄Ibn Yazdanyar al-Hamadhanı, who is the author of this work, was born in /, a long time after AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar's death. In his life, AbūJaʿfar was known as al-Qaḍ ı. According to al-Dhahabı, he was deaf and very poor, ultimately dying in  of hijra. 19 The text of Rawḍ a includes sayings attributed to the early figure of AbūBakr, and these sayings should be added to others preserved by other Sufi sources in order to reconstruct his unique Sufi teachings.
On one occasion in the Rawḍ at al-murı̄dı̄n's manuscript, the author quotes the early Ibn Yazdanyar saying that 'the one who abandons good manners (adab) with God will be deprived of Sunna as a punishment, and the one who abandons Sunna will be deprived of religious duties, and the one who abandons religious duties will be deprived of Sufi knowledge (ḥ irman al-maʿrifa)'. 20 One basic element of the early Ibn Yazdanyar's doctrinal system relates to his insistence on the Sufi's need to conceal his inner states of revelation and avoid publicly expressing those states in full. This idea is also emphasised in his biography of al-Sulamı̄'s Ṭ abaqat al-ṣ ufiyya. There is insufficient data in the available Arabic and Persian sources that can provide an answer to the question: Why did AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar criticise the Sufis of Baghdad? Meanwhile, it is noteworthy that instead of ignoring Ibn Yazdanyar in their writings, the Sufis of Baghdad likely chose to make him part of their circle even to the point of defending him and clarifying his good intentions behind his slandering of contemporary Sufis, as al-Sulamı̄did in his Ṭ abaqat. 21 It seems most probable that AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar was not able to agree with the doctrine of union (tawḥ ı̄d), which revolves around the supreme mystical moment of union with the divine in the Sufi teachings of al-Junayd, al-Shiblıā nd al-Nurı. Based on al-Sulamı's and later on al-Qushayrı's notion that AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar developed a unique method of practising Sufism (ṭ arı̄qa yakhtaṣ ṣ u biha), one can assume that, at a particular point of time, AbūBakr left Baghdad for his hometown Urmiya 'where he founded his own school, and carried on his polemics'. 22 There also does not seem to be evidence of any kinship between the early Ibn Yazdanyar and the later author of Rawḍ a. In light of the rarity of the name, Williams indicates that kinship was potentially possible. 'But if this is the case', he goes on to assert, 'it shows how complete was the victory of the Iraqi school' since the author of Rawḍ at al-murı̄dı̄n quotes very frequently and enthusiastically from the great masters of Iraq. 23 This notion needs to be examined through a close reading of Rawḍ a, and the question of how the Sufi mode of piety of the author of Rawḍ a differs from both his early ancestors and the Iraqi school.
Rawḍ at al-murıdın: The text and the context Rawḍ at al-murı̄dı̄n comprises forty-four sections 24 and centres around Sufi rules of ethics (adab) and the different codes of behaviour it argues should be preserved in the framework of Sufi communal lives. These sections can be divided into the following categories: . General Sufi ethics that distinguish Sufis from other Muslims. In this category, the following items are addressed: the importance of the Sufi rules of ethics embedded in a renunciatory mode of piety; the need to conceal one's pious life from people's eyes; the superiority of one's association with Sufi brethren; and the custom of wearing wool. . Particular provisions that regulate Sufis' communal life and interrelationships. In this category, the following topics are included: the relationship dynamics and rules of conduct between the Sufi master and his novice as well as ṣ uḥ ba and the merits of companionship. . Sections that treat samaʿ, the Sufi sessions of listening to music. These need to be treated separately because they form one of the pillars of Ibn Yazdanyar's unique system of thought. The author of Rawḍ a devotes seven sections to this topic. . Sections devoted to certain Sufi ranks such as love (maḥ abba), knowledge (maʿrifa), trust in God (tawakkul), silence (ṣ amt) and contentment (riḍ a).

22
Williams, Rawḍ at al-murı̄dı̄n, Introduction, p. iv. 23 Ibid., Introduction, pp. iv-v. 24 Unlike the Princeton manuscript, the Istanbul manuscript does not provide numbering of the sections. The five manuscripts of the work consulted by Williams differ slightly in the order in which the sections appear. For a comparison between the order of the sections in these manuscripts, see Ibid., Introduction, pp. xliii-xliv.
One of the key notions that frequently appears in the sections dedicated to general Sufi ethics that distinguishes Sufis from other Muslims is the crucial need to fulfil sincerely all rules of ethics in the path towards God; it is a constant assertion that abandoning these rules is explicitly prohibited. Remarkably, the general tone of the work celebrates a renunciatory mode of piety, which draws upon austerity, seclusion and a life of constant roving (siyaḥ a). The author calls on his fellow Sufis to avoid association with non-Sufis and warns against revealing secret doctrines to non-Sufis as well as accepting any presents and alms from them. True Sufis, according to Ibn Yazdanyar, need to conceal their piety from people's eyes and to be perfectly committed to the pragmatic practice of taqiyya, the prudent concealment of beliefs from others. In one passage, the author quotes from al-Junayd and is translated by Williams as follows: Beware of selling your conscience for pity and praise, and of mixing with other than your own sort, and drawing near to those who assume the guise of knowledge, for I fear lest you corrupt your consciences and drive the Truth away. I charge you with this. 25 In the original text, the first sentence in this quotation reads: 'iyyakum an tabı̄ʿūsirrakum bi-rifq wa-madḥ '. The word rifq, in my view, indicates alms and presents, so that Willliams's translation does not reflect the early Sufi tradition in which this term originated. Rifq and its plural form arfaq appear very frequently in early Sufi works of the fourth/tenth century in contexts that treat the controversial custom of accepting alms from wealthy people, especially women, who, by virtue of their support, sought to secure Sufi blessings (baraka). According to one famous piece of counsel asserted by the early Sufi masters, a true Sufi would not accept presents from women since 'accepting women's support is sign of humiliation and weakness' ( fı̄qubuli arfaqi al-niswani madhallatun wa-nuqṣ an). 26 Ibn Yazdanyar's usage of the figure of al-Junayd here is very logical. If we scan the huge body of statements and anecdotes relating to early Sufi figures, we can conclude that al-Junayd was the most prominent figure who asserted the pragmatic strategy of concealing one's pious state and abandoning the association with non-Sufis in order to protect this piety. Al-Junayd's letters provide strong evidence that this assertion lies at the very basis of his Sufi agenda. 27 In order to emphasise the Sufis' need to follow the principle of taqiyya, the author of Rawḍ a cites one tradition according to which the Prophet Muḥ ammad is said to have predicted the appearance of a group of Muslims who would practise taqiyya, provide each other with counsel, and isolate themselves from people's eyes. 28 The most celebrated theme throughout the text of Rawḍ a relates to the helpfulness of one's association with one's Sufi brothers. This is not a mere catchword that the author 25 R.P., b; Williams' edition (hereafter R.W.), p. .

26
This statement is attributed to the early mystic of Egypt, Dhūal-Nun al-Miṣ rı, who is said to have refused to accept a present that Faṭ ima of Nishapur sent to him. See AbūʿAbd al-Raḥ man al-Sulamı, Early Sufi Women: Dhikr an-niswa al-mutaʿabbidat aṣ -ṣ ufiyyat, edited and translated by Rkia Elaroui-Cornell (Louisville, ), p. . introduces, but rather an impassioned driving force that appears to push the completed text of Rawḍ a forward. In one passage, for instance, Ibn Yazdanyar refers again to al-Junayd in order to emphasise the idea that mingling solely with other Sufis is preferable over supererogatory prayer. 29 In the first category, Ibn Yazdanyar has a fascinating discussion concerning the custom of wearing wool, the qualifications for wearing it, as well as its different provisions and conditions. From the fifth/eleventh century, al-Qushayrı̄is the most outspoken on this topic when advising Sufi novices of his day (al-waṣ iyya li-l-murı̄dı̄n). 30 The topic under discussion in the text of Ibn Yazdanyar provides extra layers of data that are not embedded in al-Qushayrı's text. Sufis are called 'the people of the wool' (ahl al-ṣ uf) and that is why they are required to rigorously commit to the five conditions for donning the habit (al-muraqqaʿa) that revolve naturally around poverty, sincerity and modesty. The habit is an armour of tribulation ( jawshan al-balaʾ) since its very existence on the mystic's body implies that his sincerity is subordinated to a constant trial. Interestingly, Ibn Yazdanyar severely criticises those who becomes haughty after wearing the habit. He quotes the following statement of al-Aṣ maʿı̄(d. /): 'An honourable man turned to devotion becomes humble; a base man doing the same thing becomes haughty'. The detailed discussion of wearing wool in Rawḍ a implies a reality fraught with controversies among the Sufis themselves in relation to how they perceive the true mystic, and to what extent external garb is an indicator for potential initiation into the Sufi community. Critical voices against those who become Sufis solely in name and appearance are documented in early Sufi tradition. Al-Qushayrı̄in the introduction to his Risala condemns very severely some of his contemporary Sufis who disrespect Muslim law and neglect the very foundations of Sufi elders belonging to the first generation. 31 Prior to al-Qushayrı, Ibn Yazdanyar is the one most likely to warn against the existence of such false adherents while attempting to suggest his own solution to this essential problem: not to indulge all those who seek to wear the Sufi habit and ensuring this by spreading the difficult regulations related to its wearing.
In one of the first sections in Rawḍ at al-murı̄dı̄n, Ibn Yazdanyar discusses the true nature (dhatiyya) of Sufism. This section appears before another one dedicated to the etymological origins of the term taṣ awwuf. The author of Rawḍ a quotes many early Sufi figures here, such as al-Shiblı, Sarı̄al-Saqaṭ ı̄(d. /), the latter's nephew al-Junayd, and the great master of Shıraz AbūʿAbd Allah Ibn Khafıf (d. /). Notably, Ibn Yazdanyar quotes two of al-Ḥ allaj's statements that relate to the true essence of Sufism. One of these two quotations is embedded in the following famous anecdote narrated about al-Ḥ allaj during his incarceration before being executed in Baghdad: When al-Ḥ allaj was asked about Sufism, he answered: "[It is] calcinations of humanity and eliminations [that are the concern] of divinity (ṭ awamı̄s wa-dawamı̄s lahutiyya)". The questioner said, then: "I said to him: 'Explain this statement". He [that is al-Ḥ allaj] said: "No explanation is possible". I said: "Why did you reveal it to me?". He replied: "The one who knows it [that is the 29 R.P., a; R.I., a. meaning] will understand, and the one who does not know it will not understand". I said: "I beg you to explain it to me". He, then, recited [the verse]: "Do not defame us in public; here is our finger tinged by lovers ' blood". 32 More interesting than quoting directly from al-Ḥ allaj here are the references made by Ibn Yazdanyar to other statements not made by al-Ḥ allaj that, however, include well-known Ḥ allajian terminology. Such is the following statement that Ibn Yazdanyar attributes to Ruwaym Ibn Aḥ mad (d. /), the famous Sufi of Baghdad. The reference here is as follows: Muḥ ammad Ibn Khafıf al-Shırazı̄is quoted to have said: "I asked Ruwaym Ibn Muḥ ammad 33 about taṣ awwuf, and he said to me: "Oh my son! taṣ awwuf is the destruction of human nature ( fanaʾ al-nasutiyya) and the emersion of the divine essence (ẓ uhur al-lahutiyya)". 34 Both nasutiyya and lahutiyya are very well known Ḥ allajian terms even though they appear in statements attributed to others in early Sufis sources. 35 Another example appears in the following statement attributed to AbūYazıd al-Basṭ amı̄in Rawḍ a: 'God has filled the Sufis with His bright light (al-Ḥ aqq anara lahum nuran shaʿshaʿaniyyan)'. 36 This statement appears in Abūal-Faḍ l Muḥ ammad Ibn ʿAlı̄al-Sahlajı's hagiographical work on the virtues of al-Basṭ amı, al-Nur min kalimat AbıṬ ayfur. 37 These references leave a strong impression that Ibn Yazdanyar had al-Ḥ allaj in mind even when he quoted other Sufis who embedded Ḥ allajian ideas. As I will show in the following discussion, Ibn Yazdanyar, most likely, was predominantly influenced by al-Ḥ allaj and his unique mode of piety.
The second category referred to above discusses particular Sufi provisions that regulate communal life and interrelationships among Sufis during Ibn Yazdanyar's time. The major topic in this category is the relationship between Sufi masters and their novices. The crucial need for a guide is much celebrated by Ibn Yazdanyar: 'If a man reaches to the highest spiritual ranks and he is granted revelations from the invisible world while he has no master, then this man is regarded as a bastard (walad zina)'. 38 The sub-section devoted to the rules of ethics that need to be committed during the period of discipleship is impressively long in the Princeton manuscript while it is missing in the other manuscripts upon which Williams's edition relies. A close reading of the Princeton's manuscript folios, which extend from folio a to the beginning of folio b, raises suspicions regarding their authenticity even without prior knowledge of the absence of the ethics section in 32 R.P., b. The English translation is mine. The translation of al-Ḥ allaj's definition of Sufism is based on Massignon (The Passion of al-Ḥ allaj, Vol. , p. ). The word dawamı̄s is replaced in some versions of the story by rawamı̄s. Williams's translation is fraught with mistakes and inaccuracy. Al-Ḥ allaj's verse, for instance, is translated by Williams as follows: 'These fingertips in joyous henna dipped do not uncover! They are dyed in the blood of a faithful lover'!!. Massignon indicates that ṭ awamı̄s and rawamı̄s are two technical terms marking the degree of the 'mystical death' which is referred to many times in early Sufi works (see, for instance, Sarraj, Kitab al-lumaʿ, pp. -).  the other manuscripts. The references to Sufi figures who lived long after Ibn Yazdanyar's time, such as Qaḍ ıb al-Ban al-Mawṣ ilı̄(d. /) and AbūMadyan Shuʿayb Ibn al-Ḥ usayn al-Anṣ arı̄(d. /), as well as the general tone, emphasise that these folios were taken from another Sufi work. It is still important, however, to ask why the copyist felt that these sections were relevant and ought to be added to the text of Rawḍ a. What were the affinities that he found between Ibn Yazdanyar's tone and the other late work that also dealt with the master-disciple relationship?
We look to al-Qushayrı's waṣ iyya at the end of his renowned epistle on Sufism as one of the earliest theoretical teaching sources on the master-disciple relationship. We also attribute to the later Sufi master of Baghdad, AbūḤ afṣ al-Suhrawardı̄(d. /) a fundamental role in establishing the doctrinal basis of this topic; four detailed chapters of his ʿAwarif al-maʿarif are dedicated to sheik-status and to the sheikh-disciple relationship. 39 I would argue, then, that Ibn Yazdanyar's detailed discussion of the topic in his Rawḍ a provides us with the early origins for both the al-Qushayrı̄and al-Suhrawardı's sources.
On one occasion, in the other work that was copied with Rawḍ a in the Princeton manuscript, the author asserts that disputing with one's sheikhs is absolutely forbidden: 'al-iʿtiraḍ ʿalāal-shuyukhi ḥ aram'. 40 Furthermore, he indicates that the novice is required to obey his master completely, even if the religious knowledge of his master is inferior to his own. 41 Moreover, the novice needs to surrender to his master and to give up his own will in favour of his master's. This novice is called murı̄d (lit. the one who aspires) although he is, in fact, deprived of all traces of his own will; at this level, he aspires to attain a state of perfection that implies the imitation of God Himself (al-tashabbuh bi-l-ilah). To imitate God, the guidance of the Sufi master is crucial. The idea of imitating God resonates with the notion al-takhalluq bi-akhlaq Allah whose origins are documented in earlier Sufi sources. 42 The term takhaluq refers to the mystics' attempt to adopt some of the divine attributes and morals in a way that harmonises with the mystics' human abilities and attributes. As many Sufi authors assert, this is the very purpose of Man's creation; this is Man's ultimate function as the successor to God Himself. Al-Qushayrı̄refers in much detail to the idea of takhalluq in his work al-Taḥ bı̄r fı̄al-tadhkı̄r and presents a survey of the divine attributes that men can adopt. 43 All these notions have nothing to do with the original Rawḍ a although they do correspond to some passages in it. It is clear that during Ibn Yazdanyar's days, the doctrinal system that related to sheikh-hood and discipleship had not yet developed to include the extreme ideas that grant the Sufi sheikh sublime qualities and undisputed authority over his novices. Meanwhile, the authentic sections on the topic in the manuscripts of Rawḍ a still provide an early kernel of the later fully-established system of thought concerning sheikh-hood and discipleship. According to Rawḍ a, the Sufi novice is not required to commit himself to only   one sheikh. While later a full commitment to one sheikh came to be a building block of the Sufi institutionalised system of discipleship, venerating one's master is presented here as one among many rules of conduct that the novice is urged to follow, but not as the most central one. Even so, Ibn Yazdanyar cautioned all Sufi sheiks to be aware of their potential to damage their novices; he calls on them to behave cautiously in samaʿ ceremonies and to avoid any ecstatic movements that might be misunderstood by their novices and cause them to go astray and behave illegally. 44 This notion contradicts the later text that was added to Rawḍ a.
This author, whose work was added to Rawḍ a, goes on to relate that it is likely that one Sufi master, by drinking wine in the presence of his disciples, acted illegally or in a forbidden manner. Qaḍ ıb al-Ban al-Mawṣ ilı̄who died about one hundred years after Ibn Yazdanyar is presented here as the example and his antinomian behaviour is reputed to have shocked the people of his time. The text reads: It is likely to happen that a Sufi master carries a glass of wine and brings it close to his mouth, and, at that moment, God turns the wine in his mouth into honey while the one who observes thinks that this Sufi master drinks wine. Other situations that resemble this example are very common. 45 The reference made after this passage follows the description of the spiritual state of Qaḍ ıb al-Ban al-Mawṣ ilı̄as it appears in some later Sufi sources. According to this description, a friend of God might be graced with the capacity of appearing in different visual shapes simultaneously. This controversial doctrine arose during the course of the seventh/thirteenth century and onward, and relied very often on the early Islamic story of the angel Gabriel who manifested himself in the shape of Diḥ ya al-Kalbı, one of the Prophet's contemporaries known for his beauty. 46 The authentic part of the text incorporates the following ideas, all of which can be included under the aforementioned second category, that is the category which concerns itself with the regulation of Sufi communal life: . A Sufi master is required to return to the roots of his spiritual career once he begins to train a new novice in order to protect the novice from any improper behaviour that would not be fitting for him in his preliminary condition. This idea is echoed in one of al-Junayd's sayings when he was asked about the ultimate rank of the Sufi path (nihaȳa): 'it means returning back to the beginnings'. 47 . A Sufi master is required to treat new novices leniently and to exempt them from the strict prescriptions of zuhd, the renunciatory mode of life; it is appropriate to give new novices indulgences and exemptions in practising Sufi rituals and austerities as befits 44 R.P., a. their weak spiritual condition. 48 Leniency with new Sufi novices was, in fact, a pragmatic strategy prominently celebrated by al-Junayd, and later on, by Aḥ mad al-Ghazalı̄(d. /  or /) as documented by one of his close disciples, Abūal-Najıb al-Suhrawardı̄(d. /). 49 . A novice is required to reflexively obey his master. The anecdote about one novice who threw himself into a fire when his master, as a test, asked him to do so might help explain why the additional text whose focus was on the master-disciple relationship was integrated with the Rawḍ a manuscript. . Ṣ uḥ ba, companionship, is an additional topic referenced in detail by Ibn Yazdanyar, as one of the most prominent aspects of the communal life in early Sufism. On one occasion in Rawḍ a, the author asserts that religious brotherhood is preferable over the brotherhood of family members. 50 On another occasion, the following interesting anecdote appears: In R.P., the text reads: 'Aḥ mad Ibn ʿAbd Allah al-Sharwını̄narrated that AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar al-Urmawıs aw him in the dream and asked him…' (R.P., b). R.I. reads differentially: 'Aḥ mad Ibn ʿAbd Allah al-Sharwının arrated that AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar al-Urmawı̄was seen in a dream, he was asked…' (R.I., b). Williams translated the passage as follows, 'It is told that AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar saw Aḥ mad Ibn ʿAbdullah al-Sharwını̄in a dream, and said to him: "What works have you found most beneficial in life?" (Williams's edition, p. ), while in the edited text of Rawḍ a itself, he comments that this later version is not convincing and that it seems more probable that Ibn Yazdanyar was the one who was seen in the dream and was asked about the most beneficial act and the most harmful act (Williams, the edited text, p. ). This version corresponds also with the manuscript of Rawḍ a in the Preussiche Staatsbibliothek of Berlin (microfilm of Orient. Hdschr, Oct. -) which was moved to the West-Deutsche Bibliothek at Marburg, and is, in fact, preferable over the first for two additional reasons. The first concerns the figure of al-Sharwını̄who was the narrator of the anecdote. Unfortunately, I did not succeed in finding his biography from amongst early biographies and this strengthens the assumption that he was an unknown associate of AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar. The second reason refers to the structural framework of such an anecdote that is very common in early Sufi writings. When someone is quoted recounting a dream that combines two figures who have a short conversation about a particular topic, the narrator himself usually acts as the one who sees the other figure in his dream. Very often, this occurs after the latter's death, and the narrator asks the deceased a question or two such as: 'What did God do with you?', 'what is the most beneficial act in your eyes?', or 'what is the best piece of counsel that you would address to the Sufis?'.Sufi and non-Sufi sources dating from early medieval Islam are fraught with anecdotes of this type. See, for instance, ʿAbd Allah Ibn Muḥ ammad al-Iṣ fahanı, Ṭ abaqat al-muḥ addithı̄n bi-Iṣ bahan wa-l-waridı̄n ʿalayha, (ed.) ʿAbd al-Ghafur al-Balushı̄(Beirut, ), Vol. , p. ; Abuā l-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzı, Dhamm al-hawa, (ed.) Muṣ ṭ afāʿAbd al-Waḥ id (Cairo, ), p. ; Qushayrı, Risala, p. . It seems likely that the original anecdote was phrased in accordance with the above-mentioned translation and that the later copyist of the manuscript, who probably knew about the problematic relationship between Ibn Yazdanyar and the Sufis of Baghdad, thought to introduce some changes to the anecdote to show Ibn Yazdanyar as the one who asks, instead of being the one who answers. For the copyist, condemning the act of slandering the Sufis may not have seemed relevant to Ibn Yazdanyar and that is why the copyist might have ascribed it to the narrator al-Sharwını.
At the beginning of the discussion in this paper, I referred to AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar and his problematic relationship with the Sufis of Baghdad. Paradoxically, while this figure was usually known for his harsh words towards Sufis (al-wuquʿ/al-waqı̄ʿa fı̄al-ṣ ufiyya), both al-Sulamı̄and the author of Rawḍ at al-murı̄dı̄n ascribe to him a statement where he himself warns against such spitefulness. It seems that the later Ibn Yazdanyar sought to extol his ancestor and assert that the earlier Ibn Yazdanyar poured scorn on any slander of Sufis and that he enjoyed being in their company and receiving their blessings.
Included in his reference to ṣ uḥ ba, the author of Rawḍ a warns his contemporaries against association with the men of religious science (ahl al-ʿilm) whose greediness for leadership and desire for public praise continued to corrupt the pure devotional atmosphere and to demoralise the Sufis as well. Ibn Yazdanyar goes on to assert that a small amount of religious science with a great deal of practice is preferable to a great amount of religious science accompanied by a worldly inclination and greediness of leadership. 53 Moving on to the third category, it is worth noting that the author of Rawḍ a dedicates eight separate sections of his work to samaʿ ceremonies. This is a considerable number compared with the overall number of sections in the work. Ibn Yazdanyar's discussions of samaʿ are influenced by the detailed discussions in al-Sarraj's Lumaʿ although they differ in several aspects. AbūJaʿfar Ibn Yazdanyar opens these sections with the announcement that Sufi samaʿ is permitted (mubaḥ ) according to Muslim law. The Qurʾanic verse on which he bases his discussion is the same verse that al-Qushayrı̄later uses at the very beginning of his chapter on samaʿ. 54 Al-Sarraj, interestingly, begins his long section dedicated to samaʿ with another Qurʾanic verse. 55 Some of the anecdotes that appear in Rawḍ a in long versions are shortened and slightly shifted by al-Qushayrı. One interesting example is the anecdote regarding al-Shafʿı̄(d. /) who is said to have passed 'near someone who sings something' according to Qushayrı, while, in the text of Rawḍ a, al-Shafʿı, is said to have passed near a female slave who was singing a verse of poetry among a group of people. 56 If singing in wedding parties is permitted, then it is also permitted for the one whose heart experiences a spiritual wedding party. 57 Rawḍ a, furthermore, provides us with exclusive stories that do not appear in any other work. Someone other than the copyist of the Princeton manuscript makes the following comment on the margins of the places where the author introduced such anecdotes: 'a strange story' (ḥ ikaȳa gharı̄ba). 58 One of these anecdotes reads: Ibrahım Ibn Shayban was quoted to have said: "I heard my master AbūʿAbd Allah al-Maghribıt elling: 'The people of heaven were created from God's light of majesty. Seventy thousands of the intimate angels (al-malaʾika al-muqarrabı̄n) were seated between the divine throne (ʿarsh) and the divine seat (kursı̄) in the yard of intimacy. Their dress is green wool and their faces are like the moon in a night of full moon. Their hairs are like women's hairs (ʿalāruʾusihim shaʿr ka-shaʿri al-niswan). They became immersed in ecstasy from the day of creation and they will remain as 53 R.P., fols. b-a; R.I., b. such till the Day of Resurrection. Their cries and moaning are heard by the people of the seven heavens, and they are Sufis of the people of heaven. They jog from the God's throne to God's seat while being almost intoxicated (shibh al-sukara) out of the intensive passion that comes upon them. Angel Israfıl is their leader and their mouthpiece. Considering their familial lineage, these are our brothers (ikhwanunāfıāl-nasab), and considering their spiritual path, they are our companions '. 59 This interesting anecdote gives Sufi samaʿ cosmological-metaphysical origins by establishing the idea that angels, the people of heaven, are depicted as both listening to music as well as experiencing passionate states of ecstasy. Angel Israfıl is portrayed here as the leader of these intoxicated angels. His traditional function as the angel who blows the trumpet to announce the Day of Resurrection establishes his image as the singer in heavenly samaʿ ceremonies. Meanwhile, the reference to the people of heaven as the Sufis' ancestors allows Ibn Yazdanyar to assert the luminous nature of Sufis, which explains their ontological need to listen to music. By itself, this is an extreme notion. However, if compared with the next anecdote offered by the author of Rawḍ a, this assertion would definitely be considered as moderate. This anecdote is attributed to the Prophet Muḥ ammad who cites the story of Adam crying for three hundred years after God had exiled him from paradise. When God asks him about the reason for his crying, Adam answers that he cried because he would no longer be able to watch the angels who used to circumambulate God's throne in seventy thousand lines. Adam, according to the anecdote, describes these angels as: hairless and beardless ( jurd murd), their eyes are darkened with kohl (mukaḥ ḥ alun), and they dance passionately and each one of them holds the hands of his fellow while screaming in loud voices: "who strives to equal us when You are our lord? Who strives to equal us when You are our beloved?" When God heard that from Adam, He asked him to look towards heaven so that he could see that these angels were still dancing around the throne and, that is why Adam succeeded to calm down. 60 In these two aforementioned anecdotes, the author of Rawḍ a makes use of anthropomorphic traditions that ascribe human attributes to angels. In the early tradition of Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, angels are usually presented in anthropomorphic forms. The Qurʾan itself includes many verses in which angels take supernatural and human forms. In verse  of Sura  (Faṭ ir), for instance, angels are described as having wings: '[All] praise is [due] to Allah, Creator of the heavens and the earth, [who] made the angels messengers having wings, two or three or four'. In other verses, God appears to have conversations with the angels. 61 S. R. Burge, whose Angels in Islam focuses on Jalal al-Dın al-Suyuṭ ı's al-Ḥ abaʾik fı̄akhbar al-malaʾik, indicates that this source includes 'numerous references to angels being in human form or, at the very least, having a number of human characteristics', and that such anthropomorphic images are balanced with images of supernatural or heavenly forms of nature (wings, zoomorphic forms, huge sizes, etc.). This balance explains why angels in Islamic tradition remain more heavenly creatures than human. The 59 R.P., a-b; R.I., b. human aspect of their anthropomorphism is not dominant. Out of al-Suyuṭ ı's collection,  ḥ adıth traditions refer to angels being in human form or having human body parts. 62 Turning back to our text, it appears that Ibn Yazdanyar introduces many components that were known in early angelic traditions. The green colour of the angels' robes, for instance, contributes to differentiate Islamic angelic traditions from their Judaic and Christian equivalents that celebrate white instead. 63 The human characteristics of angels in Rawḍ a are very dominant. In the first tradition, angels have long hair like women, while in the second one they appear as hairless and beardless, with eyes darkened with kohl and possessing human hands which they use to hold each other in what appears like a nonstop samaʿ ceremony around the divine throne. This angelic imagery, especially the one embedded in the second tradition, is very daring in comparison with the anthropomorphic forms known in earlier Muslim traditions. 64 However, one might argue that referring to angels as beautiful, beardless youths seems less extreme than referring to God Himself as such in the writings of the later controversial Sufi figure, ʿAyn al-Quḍ at al-Hamadhanı̄(d. /). 65 Attempts to describe samaʿ as one of the pleasures that await faithful people in paradise are very common. 66 What the text of Rawḍ a does, however, is to identify samaʿ as the continuous act of the people of heaven from the day of creation until the Day of Resurrection, as well as to portray the earthly samaʿ of the Sufis as integrated with the heavenly samaʿ.
A third short tradition asserts the deep impact pleasant voices have on listeners. Engrossed by such voices, people are expected to lose their consciousness and thereby become unable to practise their religious duties: Yaḥ yāIbn Abı̄Kathır was quoted to have said that God did not create any heavenly creature whose voice is superior than the voice of Israfıl. When he [that is Israfıl!] starts reciting in the heaven, all people of heaven stop their invocation and glorification of God and starts listening to him. 67 Following these three stories, the author of Rawḍ a differentiates between two categories of Sufis taking part in samaʿ ceremonies: 'the Sufis of the spirit' ( fuqaraʾ ruḥ aniyyun) and 'the Sufis of the lower soul' ( fuqaraʾ nafsiyyun). This type of classification was provided neither by al-Sarraj nor by al-Qushayrı. According to Ibn Yazdanyar, Sufis of the first category should be committed to samaʿ while Sufis of the second are not allowed to practise samaʿ at all. Similarly, the custom of naẓ ar (gazing at the singer during samaʿ) is permitted for 62 S. R. Burge, Angels in Islam: Jalal al-Dı̄n al-Suyuṭ ı̄'s al-Ḥ abaʾik fı̄akhbar al-malaʾik (London and New York, ), pp. -. 63 On the importance of the colour green in Islamic culture, see Ibid., pp. - and the footnotes. 64 the first category and prohibited for the second. Sufis of the lower soul are very often attracted to beautiful earthly images, and are unable to experience any ecstatic states without contemplating such images (mushahadat al-ṣ uwar al-muftinat) during samaʿ. This notion calls to mind the doctrine of shahid whose theoretical foundations originated in the early fourth/ tenth century work of Abūal-Ḥ asan al-Daylamı, ʿAṭ f al-alif al-maʾluf ʿalāal-lam al-maʿṭ uf. 68 The frequent references to al-Junayd throughout the sections on samaʿ allow Ibn Yazdanyar to celebrate the supreme state of those who remain tranquil during the intense states of ecstasy, 'the straight' (al-mustaqı̄m), as he calls them. Paradoxically, Ibn Yazdanyar quotes from al-Ḥ allaj on the same occasion. 69 Though he alludes to the superiority of 'the straight', the intense ecstatic states of those who are unable to stay tranquil are described by him in detail. These folios contain one of the most detailed discussions of the state of ecstasy (wajd) in early Sufi literature. As part of this, the author provides an explanation for the extreme situations in which the attendant of samaʿ dies. 70 The reference to the malamatiyya group and their avoidance of samaʿ gatherings enables him to assert that all Sufi sectors agree on the provenance of samaʿ; malamatiyya did not reject samaʿ but they were afraid to reveal their inner spiritual states publicly.
In the short section devoted to the rules of conduct during samaʿ, Ibn Yazdanyar urges the Sufi to avoid slandering someone who, under the ecstatic state of wajd, acts antinomically, except if the action violates Muslim law. On the same occasion, the author indicates that it is likely that the attendant of samaʿ successfully comprehends the truthful spiritual secrets behind what he hears, even if the singer, or the content of what the singer sings, does not conform to Muslim law: 'wa-rubbamāyastamiʿu al-mustamiʿu min baṭ ilin ḥ aqqan'. 71 The Rawḍ a text indicates that good fragrances are among the significant conditions for holding a samaʿ ceremony. The existence of scent (ṭ ı̄b) is one of the characteristics of the samaʿ of the people of spirit. One is allowed to share samaʿ with one's companions as well with all these who love Sufis (al-muḥ ibbun lahum). 72 This latter notion corresponds with later references to the category of those who like Sufis but who are not spiritually 'mature' or 'strong' enough to totally adopt Sufi discipline. The influential master of Baghdad, Abūal-Najıb al-Suhrawardı, refers to those who like Sufis and even attempt to imitate them and attend their ceremonies without being able to be formally initiated into Sufism as muḥ ibbun and mutashabbihun (lit. imitators [of Sufis]). 73 Hand clapping, dancing and screaming amidst samaʿ are all allowed in the Sufi system reflected in Rawḍ a. The controversial custom of tearing off one's clothing while under an extreme state of ecstasy is given considerable space. Indeed, the author points to the existence of three types of 'tearing off the garments' (takhrı̄q al-thiyab); the first is delight (ṭ arab), the second is fear (khawf), while the third and the highest is that of ecstasy (wajd). Ibn Yazdanyar explains how the symptoms (ʿalamat) of these three situations offer different ways of cutting off one's garment. In wajd, the Sufi might tear off his garment's pockets, and attack everything that comes into his hands (al-tahajjum ʿalāmaȳ aqaʿu bi-yadihi) while avoiding uncovering his breast (ṣ iyanat mawaḍ iʿi al-ṣ udur). Ibn Yazdanyar's reference to the necessity of protecting one's breast alludes to controversial customs such as the act of stripping off the garments of one's companions during samaʿ, or even uncovering their breasts under an intense state of intoxication. This behaviour can be seen later on in the case of Awḥ ad al-Dın Kirmanı̄(d. /-). 74 The last section devoted to samaʿ in Rawḍ a refers to particular figures who had reservations concerning samaʿ. One of these figures, interestingly, is the early AbūBakr Ibn Yazdanyar. According to Rawḍ a, AbūBakr states that one day he joined his companions in a samaʿ ceremony. When his companions started to dance under the ecstatic influence of music, he decided to imitate them (without being touched by the same ecstatic condition). He then heard an anonymous voice slandering his behaviour and that is why he became frightened and ran away from the ceremony while recognising that he was still too immature to practise samaʿ like his companions. 75 By combining this occurrence with the aforementioned references made to the early mystic of Urmiya, we notice a twofold approach towards his character in the text of Rawḍ a: He is not reputed to have slandered Sufis (he was blessed by the Sufis' company according to the above mentioned reference), but he should not be counted among the great Sufis of the early period (as the current reference implies in fact).
In the fourth and last category of our thematic classification lay all the sections devoted to certain Sufi ranks. Ibn Yazdanyar opens this category with what are generally regarded as the highest states of grace (aḥ wal), the first of which is divine love, and only later he refers to maqamat (stations). This division of the Sufi path differs essentially from that provided in other Sufi manuals where the discussions usually begin with the maqamat. 76 The following are remarks that might be raised in reference to Ibn Yazdanyar's discussions under this category.
Firstly, with respect to divine love, and different to al-Qushayrı's detailed treatment of love, Ibn Yazdanyar does not refrain from referring to early female mystics. This can be seen is his quoting the following statement of the famous female mystic of Ubulla, Shaʿwana: 'Since I knew God, I have not thought about anything else including paradise and hell'. 77 Secondly, Al-Ḥ allaj's famous verses in which he celebrates the state of unity with God ('anāman ahwā…' etc.) are introduced here and attributed to AbūYazıd al-Basṭ amı̄in all the manuscripts of Rawḍ a. These verses imply, according to Ibn Yazdanyar, the situation 74