You are on page 1of 24

“Al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus”: Ibn Barrajān, Mahdism, and the

Emergence of Learned Sufism on the Iberian Peninsula
José Bellver
University of Barcelona

Although Ibn Barrajān (d. 536/1141) was one of the foremost Sufi masters in al-
Andalus, he remains a controversial figure. He is mainly known for an accurate
prediction of the Muslim capture of Jerusalem on 583/1187, for his close rela-
tionship with the other leading Andalusian Sufi master of his time, Ibn al-ʿArīf
(d. 536/1141), and for his obscure death. Ibn Barrajān is not mentioned in Ibn
Bashkuwāl’s Ṣila—the main source for study of the Andalusian ulema of this
time—and as a result has been taken to be an outsider among the Andalusian
ulema, one who threatened the theological and political establishment. However,
this image is distorted by the socio-political context of the time and by the pau-
city of our references. The aim of this article is to shed light on the figure of Ibn
Barrajān from a historical point of view so as to improve our understanding of the
role played by Sufism in Mahdist movements and in the political changes in the
Islamic West during the sixth/twelfth century.

While preparing the introduction to a paper on Ibn Barrajān’s prediction of the Muslim
capture of Jerusalem in which I intended to summarize the biography of this Andalusian Sufi
master from the Almoravid period, I could not help feeling that our historical view of him—
as a rebellious Mahdist leader who challenged the political authority of the Almoravids—was
at odds with the quietist and pious Sufi that resonates in his works. The aim of this article is
thus to reconsider the historical data we have about Ibn Barrajān (d. 536/1141), one of the
foremost Sufis on the Iberian peninsula, whose volume and range of works ensured that he
was known in an day already as “al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus.” Today, however, he remains a
little-known, controversial figure whose writings have yet to be studied in depth.
Ibn Barrajān’s life ran parallel to the Almoravid dominion over al-Andalus (1091–1145).
He is mainly known for an accurate prediction of the Muslim capture of Jerusalem in
583/1187, for his close relationship with the other prominent Andalusian Sufi master of
his time, Ibn al-ʿArīf (d. 536/1141), and for his obscure death after being summoned, along
with Ibn al-ʿArīf, by the Almoravid sultan ʿAlī b. Yūsuf b. Tāshufīn (d. 537/1143), shortly
before the revolt of the Murīdūn in the Algarve (539/1144) led by Ibn Qasī (d. 546/1151)
and the ascent to power of the Almohads. Ibn Barrajān is referred to in a few sources as
imām and it has been alleged that in some 130 villages the Friday sermons were read in

Author’s note: I am most thankful to Maribel Fierro and James W. Morris for reading a first draft of this paper
and making extremely valuable suggestions; the comments by the anonymous reviewers and the editor, to whom I
express my gratitude, were equally very helpful. I am also indebted to the Department of Theology at Boston Col-
lege where I wrote most of this paper during my Beatriu de Pinós postdoctoral stay. This article has been prepared
as part of the research program “La evolución de la ciencia en la sociedad de al-Andalus desde la Alta Edad Media
al pre-Renacimiento y su repercusión en las culturas europeas y árabes (siglos X–XV),” sponsored by the Spanish
Ministry of Education and Science (FFI2008–00234/FILO) and FEDER.

Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.4 (2013) 659

660 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.4 (2013)

his name rather than in that of the sultan. These textual references within the context of the
revolt of the Murīdūn shortly after his death, along with his having been summoned by the
sultan, his trial, imprisonment, and death, have sketched a picture of a political activist, a
self-­proclaimed imām, and a rebellious Mahdī who challenged the political and religious
authority of his time and was eventually executed for this insubordination. 1
Ibn Barrajān’s summons and death took place against a background of political, eco-
nomic, and military crisis in al-Andalus caused by the Christian advance onto the peninsula
and accentuating the decline of the Almoravids during the first half of the sixth/twelfth
century. Due to Almoravid passivity in the face of the Christian threat, the Andalusian popu-
lation sought the leadership of members of the judiciary, the fuqahāʾ.
Since the fall of the Umayyads in 422/1031 and the political instability of the mulūk
al-ṭawāʾif that followed, local power in Andalusian cities tended to concentrate around lin-
eages of important families whose members in many cases inherited posts in the judiciary.
These elites were mostly supported by the local population. At different times, and partic-
ularly during the crisis following the fall of the Almoravids (shortly after Ibn Barrajān’s
death), judges stepped into the power vacuum and ruled over local populations. Hence in
order to understand the events that surrounded Ibn Barrajān’s summons and imprisonment,
we should bear in mind that the power structure in al-Andalus was not only linked to the
Almoravid elite of governors and the military, but also to the power of the judiciary concen-
trated around local lineages with the endorsement of religious authority.
The aim of this article is to reconsider the historical data that we have about Ibn Barrajān
in order to debunk the currently accepted view of him as a scholar on the margins and a
rebellious political contender, since a careful reading of the sources shows this not to be
the case. I propose that the events surrounding Ibn Barrajān were a result of religious—
not political—tensions brought about by the emergence of a class of learned Sufis whose
increasing numbers of disciples were seen as a threat by the judiciary. With the spiritual and
religious authority he had acquired, Ibn Barrajān came to personify in the Islamic West of
his day an equivalent role to that of al-Ghazālī in the Islamic East. These tensions resulted in
Ibn Barrajān’s being tried for and found guilty of bidʿa; as a mubtadiʿ he was omitted from
the most important biographical work of his day, Ibn Bashkuwāl’s al-Ṣila, which erroneously
fostered the impression that he was a minor scholar, leading to a mistaken reputation to this
very day.

ibn barrajān in historiographical sources
The treatment of Ibn Barrajān in historiographical sources has changed over time, which
has caused considerable confusion regarding his role in history. The source that is chron-
ologically closest to his lifetime—the biographical dictionary al-Ṣila (the main source for
our knowledge of the Andalusian ulema of this period)—is silent about him. Its author, Ibn
Bashkuwāl (d. 578/1183), was in his late thirties at the time of Ibn Barrajān’s death and
although he wrote his biographical dictionary under both the Almoravids and the Almohads,

1.  There are other cases of important Sufis being summoned for questioning by the political authority or accused
of seeking power. Abū Madyan (d. 594/1198), for instance, was summoned and died on his way to answer a number
of accusations, and Abū l-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī (d. 656/1258) was accused of being a Fāṭimid pretender. Nevertheless,
their reputations have not suffered in the same way as that of Ibn Barrajān. For Abū Madyan, see Vincent J. Cornell,
The Way of Abū Madyan: Doctrinal and Poetic Works of Abū Madyan Shuʿayb al-Ḥusayn al-Anṣārī (Cambridge,
1996), 15. For Abū l-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī, see Vincent J. Cornell, Realm of the Saint: Power and Authority in Moroc-
can Sufism (Austin, 1998), 149.

.h. Entry no. 708/1308) 5 and Ibn ʿAbd al-Malik al-Marrākushī (d. although mention is made that he was summoned. ʿA. among many other indications of his (generally speaking) favorable attitude.. F. he included an entry on Ibn al-ʿArīf praising his piety. Abī Rijāl Muḥammad b. F. 51). 168–170 (no. none describes him as an imām in a political sense or as a contender for political authority. Toufic (Rabat. Ibn Bashkuwāl’s silence regarding Ibn Barrajān has led some scholars to suggest that Ibn Barrajān was such a minor scholar in al-Andalus that he did not deserve mention in the most complete biographi- cal dictionary of his time. E. and the sources of this period are generally sympathetic toward Ibn Barrajān and Sufism. Bellver: “Al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus” 661 he makes no reference to Ibn Barrajān. 1797). A. 2 some eighty years after Ibn Barrajān’s death and some fifty years after Ibn Bashkuwāl completed al-Ṣila in 564/1169. judged. Abū Ghudda (Aleppo. F. the picture of Ibn Barrajān in historiographical sources begins to change. However. Al-Tādilī does not include an entry on Ibn Barrajān himself. and Ibn ʿAbd al-Malik al-Marrākushī. and imprisoned on allegedly religious grounds.  Ibn al-Abbār. although the latter is only extant through Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī’s Lisān al-mīzān. 3 This is a classic biography in the Islamic tradition. Ibn al-Abbār’s biography of Ibn al-ʿArīf—in his dictionary of Abū ʿAlī al-Ṣadafī’s students 4—provides some explanation regarding the summoning of Ibn Barrajān and Ibn al-ʿArīf to Marrakesh. Ibn al-Abbār. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muʿjam fī aṣḥāb al-qāḍī al-imām Abī ʿAlī al-Ṣadafī. and is thus sympathetic to Sufism. 4761). students. a work begun in 631/1233. 2002). 1588). Codera (Madrid. Ibn al-Zubayr. During this period Ibn Barrajān’s reputation and those of others who suffered under the Almoravids were restored by the Almohads. 41). Codera (Madrid. Later biographical dictionaries quote from this biog- raphy extensively. The first biographical notice completely devoted to Ibn Barrajān is found in Ibn al-Abbār’s (d. 6 Ibn al-Zubayr is extremely sympathetic to Ibn Barrajān. There is no reference to the events surrounding Ibn Barrajān’s death or to any political interest of his. 1886). The reason given for his having been summoned was the fuqahāʾ’s growing envy of Ibn al-ʿArīf. who tended to support Sufis even though they did not entirely trust them.. This second period is completed with biographies by Ibn al-Zubayr (d. 645 (no. 14). Ibn ʿAbd al-Malik al-Marrākushī provides an account 2.  Ed.h. and works. Ibn al-Abbār supplies additional information about Ibn Barrajān in the biographies of some of his students and disciples. 4. 5: 173–74 (no. once the prediction of the Muslim capture of Jerusalem was fulfilled. 2: 559 (no. Even though these historiographical sources are among those closest to Ibn Barrajān’s time.  Ed. The first mention of Ibn Barrajān in a biographical dictionary in this period was by Yūsuf al-Tādilī (d. 31–33 (no. 6. 1797 was taken from MS Alger. In the seventh century a.  Ibn al-Zubayr. 559/1164). 5. 1588 was taken from MS Escorial. Lévi-Provençal (Rabat. ed. 617/1220. his biography is mostly drawn from reading Ibn Barrajān’s works and provides little additional information. 1984). There is no evidence that Ibn Bashkuwāl had a negative view of Sufism as such. one century after Ibn Barrajān’s death. 703/1303). 627 or 628/1229 or 1230) in al-Tashawwuf ilā rijāl al-taṣawwuf writ- ten ca. but most rely on Ibn al-Abbār.  Ed. 156 (no. These sources include biographical dictionaries by al-Tādilī. with plain references to teachers. while no. 19 (no. In particular. 1887). There are notices of Ibn Barrajān in other biographical diction- aries of this period. 3. who played an important role in the events subsequent to Ibn Barrajān’s death. Al-Tashawwuf is a biographical dictionary devoted to Maghribi Sufi masters of the fifth and sixth centuries a. and none indicates a violent death or execution. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. 45). The work appeared under his father’s name. 658/1260) Takmila li-kitāb al-Ṣila. ed. but he mentions Ibn Barrajān’s burial in the biographical notice of the Moroccan Sufi master Ibn Ḥirzihim (d. Ṣilat al-ṣila. 1938).

To address the first of these questions. 9 Later. 386/996) and the alleged Sālimiyya. trial. 8 This statement is the basis of the later scholarly view of Ibn Barrajān. 44). Even though Ibn Taymiyya’s opinion of Ibn Barrajān was not entirely negative. . Tāshufīn feared that.  Denis Gril. such as Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī (d. The last period begins in the tenth century a. yet his closest disciple who addressed him as imāmī is respectful of established authority. In this regard it is important to ascertain whether Ibn Barrajān was indeed a minor scholar and whether he sought political power and was executed as a result.” Hespéris 43 (1956): 217–21.” Boletín de la Universidad de Madrid 3 [1931]: 441–58). 728/1328) polemics against the waḥdat al-wujūd strand of Sufism. 10. 748/1348) also belongs to this period: he states that Ibn Barrajān and Ibn al-ʿArīf were summoned and imprisoned because ʿAlī b. appearing some four centuries after his death. 7 To my knowledge this is the first statement to the effect that Ibn Barrajān was imprisoned—not only summoned—for political rather than religious reasons. Al-Dhahabī. the narrative we have of Ibn Barrajān is rather puzzling. Aiming to extol the Sufis in opposition to the jurists. like Ibn Tūmart of the Almohads (d.h. 10 This view has now been qualified by scholars such as Denis Gril. Mahdī al-Maqbalī (d. al-Shaʿrānī states that Ibn Barrajān was con- sidered an imām by the people. the Jesuit scholar Paul Nwyia (d. 9. but no reference is made to his being a contender for political authority. A clarification of Ibn Barrajān’s place in history is much needed in order to understand the role of Sufism in Mahdist movements at the end of the Almoravid period.662 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.” al-Abḥāth 27 (Beirut. 1108/1696). with Ibn Taymiyya’s (d. “Rasāʾil Ibn al-ʿArīf ilā aṣḥāb thawrat al-murīdīn fī l-Andalus. they were rebelling against him. esp.h. Ibn Tay­ miyya raised some concerns about Ibn Barrajān by linking him to supporters of the doctrine in which God is both transcendent and immanent. The Spanish scholar Miguel Asín Palacios (d. he interpreted the expression “my imām” addressed by Ibn al-ʿArīf to Ibn Barrajān in the light of Asín Palacios’s reading of al-Shaʿrānī.  Miguel Asín Palacios. 11 Thus. I will examine the information in biographical dictionaries in order to obtain a clearer image of him. and burial.” Arabica 47 (2000): 510–22. Ibn Taymiyya’s student al-Dhahabī (d. yet during his lifetime he was known as “al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus”. these concerns were later voiced by other scholars. 1984–1988). 524/1130).  This is to my knowledge the first acknowledgment that Ibn Barrajān was executed. 1995): 222 (originally published as “El místico Abū-l-ʿAbbās ibn al-ʿArīf de Almería y su Maḥāsin al-Maŷālis.  Paul Nwyia. as well as to widen our knowledge of the development of intellectual Sufism in al- Andalus up to Ibn al-ʿArabī. 1979): 43–56. The perception of Ibn Barrajān begins to change in the seventh century a. 11. and for the second I will try to estab- lish a less contradictory narrative about his trial and death than the one we have at present. “Note sur quelques fragments inédits de la correspondance d’Ibn al-ʿArīf avec Ibn Barrajān.4 (2013) of Ibn Barrajān’s summons. arousing envy as a result. 1985) reinforced this view of Ibn Barrajān as an imām seeking political power—in his edition of the correspondence between Ibn al-ʿArīf and Ibn Barrajān. with al-Shaʿrānī (d. and underlie the current negative view of Ibn Barrajān. 7. Yūsuf b. he is seen as a rebellious Mahdist imām. who believes that Ibn Barrajān’s imamate should be understood only in a spiritual sense. “La lecture supérieure du Coran. Tres estudios sobre pensamiento y mística hispanomusulmanes (Madrid. such as al-ʿAllāma Ṣāliḥ b. He is regarded as a minor scholar. 973/1565). 1944) understood al-Shaʿrānī as saying that Ibn Barrajān was imām in 130 villages. death. Ibn Barrajān was brought before the sultan and killed. Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ (Beirut. 511. 8. idem. 20: 72–74 (no..

 14 with whom he studied Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. al-Shaʿrānī. Purificación de la Torre. such as Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn. Kashf al-ẓunūn (Leipzig. ed.  Born 447/1055. 1: 257. 2000). Mirʿāt al-janān (Hyderabad. 12 known as Ibn Barrajān and considered during his lifetime to be “al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus. 1954–1956). 18: 260 (no. al-Baghdādī. 4: 6. al-Ṣila. He was also one of Ibn Bashkuwāl’s teachers.  Ḥassān al-Qārī (“Ibn Barrajān al-Andalusī wa-juhūdihi fī tafsīr al-ṣūfī wa-ʿilm al-kalām. 12. Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. 1315). 1989). 14. Abū l-Ḥasan Shurayḥ al-Ruʿaynī (d. Ibn al-Muwaqqit. Ibn Ḥazm gave him an ijāza to transmit his works on Ẓāhirī fiqh. 1079–80. al-Abyārī (Beirut. 1289). al-Dhahabī. 1951). Bellver: “Al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus” 663 ibn barrajān’s biography Abū l-Ḥakam ʿAbd al-Salām b. For al-ʿĀmirī. Bilge and M. see Ibn Bashkuwāl. Kaḥḥāla. Born 446/1054. 627/1230) who excelled as a scholar of the Arabic language. Ibn Taghrībirdī. 17 Abū l-Ḥasan Yūnus b. 4: 22. Abū Bakr b. 18: 389–90 (no. Fawāt al-wafayāt (Būlāq. al-Ṣila. n. 3: 846 (no. 2: 444 (no. He was a contemporary of Ibn Manẓūr’s youngest students. Bughyat al-multamis. “Ibn Barradjān. 1: col. 1: 106. ʿAbbās (Beirut. Manẓūr. Ḥajjī Khalīfa. GAL. died in Shawwāl 469/May 1077. 1: 366–67 (no. ed. 1972). 6994). 15. “Ibn Barrağān. al-Abyārī (Beirut. al-ʿArabī (d. I. and celebrated preacher of the great mosque of Seville. 2002). 1929–1956). 1918). that is. al-ʿArabī (d. the youngest disciple of Ibn Manẓūr of whom we know—Abū l-Ḥasan Shurayḥ al-Ruʿaynī—was born in 451/1059. I. 5: 38. five years later. At ten years of age Ibn Barrajān would probably have been studying the Qurʾan and qirāʾa before progressing to ḥadīth. 20. Kemal (Istanbul. al-Ṣila. . al-Saʿāda al-abadiyya (Fes. 4: 230. Siyar. 7: 340. Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn (Beirut. 184.d.” Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 68 (1914): 544–46. “Ibn Barraŷān. Ibn Bashkuwāl. al-Yāfiʿī.). He was also one of Ibn Bashkuwāl’s teachers.  Ibn Bashkuwāl. 456/1064) were masters of ʿAbd Allāh b. Takmila. 492/1099). 541). R. 18. father of the famous Mālikī scholar Abū Bakr b. ʿU. Yarbūʿ (d. See Ibn al-Abbār. 5: 226. 24. al-ʿArabī co-taught some of Ibn Barrajān’s disciples. Goldziher. 1798). which I think is late. al-Ziriklī. Carl Brockelmann. 5: 270.  Born 444/1052-3. 1530). 8: 71. R. if we assume that his time of study with Ibn Manẓūr was long enough to be recalled by later biographers and there was a short period of inactivity before Ibn Manẓūr’s death. This would mean that Ibn Barrajān would have begun studying Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī around the age of ten. ed. 1: 15. 522/1128). 190). 19 Indeed. 650). Wafayāt al-aʿyān.  A leading traditionist. 205). Muʿjam. 4: 113. I. 543/1148). Ibn Manẓūr and Ibn Ḥazm (d. 20 (no. 1918). Al-Ruʿaynī was one of Ibn Bashkuwāl’s teachers. 13. I. al-Dhahabī. al-Wāfī bi-l-wafayāt (Beirut. In addition. 2: 68–69. al-Nāṣirī. 570. 15 In addition. he lived most of his life in Seville. who was a preacher in Silves and famous for his knowledge. 1: 434 (559). 1: 300 (no. 1: 274.” Dicciona- rio de autores y obras andalusies (DAOA). 1: 75 (no. ed. 280). Ibn Bashkuwāl. 1208). ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. In fact.” 13 was one of the foremost Sufis of al-Andalus. A. According to his nisba. 539/1144). 1989). Mughīth (d.  Additional notices on Ibn Barrajān can be found in Ibn Khallikān. This Ibn Barrajān should not be confused with his grandson of the same name (d. Ibn al-ʿImād. al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā (Cairo. Fauré. 2: 646 (no. Ibn Barrajān’s age is an important factor for understanding the events that surrounded his death. 1839). al-Aʿlām (Beirut. 309). 1882). 3: 754–55. Ibn Shākir al-Kutubī. 7: 767. 1986). 3: 985–86 (no. 1835–1858). 16 Abū Bakr Muḥammad al-ʿĀmirī (d. 28). al-Dāwūdī. The biographical dictionaries provide no date of birth. Siyar. 2: 344. 532/1138). al-Ḍabbī. al-Ṣila. 16. 58). The presumed date of birth is based on the fact that the only teacher of his of whom we have records. faqīh of the Mālikī school. 1993). I. al-Nujūm al-zāhira (Cairo. al-Istiqṣā li-akhbār duwal al-maghrib al-aqṣā (Casa- blanca. 19. Ibn Bashkuwāl. al-Suyūṭī. 26. 532/1138).” Majallat Jāmiʿat Dimashq li-l-ʿulūm al-iqtiṣādiyyat wa-l-qānūniyya 23 [2007]: 363–424) believes Ibn Barrajān to have been born before or around 455/1063. Shadharāt al-dhahab (Beirut. 3: 803–4 (no. 18 and the very youngest. the biographical dictionar- ies do not mention his longevity. 1: 578–81 (no. Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn (Cairo. 236–37. Supp. 346. but we can assume that he was born shortly before or around 450/1058 and therefore lived until his mid-eighties. Abī Rijāl Muḥammad b. Kitāb Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn (Leiden.  Ibn al-Abbār. 17. 3: 267–68.” EI2. al-Ṣila. which usually means that the person in question did not reach ninety years of age. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Lakhmī al-Ishbīlī. al-Ṣafadī. 775. 22: 334 (no.

22. 25. n. 33 (no. 128–29 (no. 1331).” 366. Ṣilat al-ṣila. His grandfather. while others like Ibn al-Kharrāṭ sought refuge in Niebla when civil strife broke out between the Murīdūn and the fuqahāʾ in 540/1145. which devas- tated the region’s agriculture and culminated with the destruction of Kairouan in 449/1057. knower (ʿārif) of the Qurʾanic esoteric commentary (taʾwīl) as well as the exo- teric (tafsīr). Al-Yāqūt (Muʿjam al-buldān [Beirut. Ibn Bashkuwāl. Ibn Barrajān himself is described as belonging to the people of Seville although his origins were in Ifrīqiya (wa-aṣluhu min Ifrīqiya). 147–61.  A village midway between Seville and Niebla. and striving in worship. practicing (maʿa) asceticism. A number of Ibn Barrajān’s disciples were from Niebla. 15) . “L’interprétation par transposition symbolique (iʿtibār). 1984). Ḥassān al-Qārī. 433–461/1042–1069). In response. this can mean that either he was born in Ifrīqiya or that his family moved from there shortly before his birth. al-Ṣila.  Ibn al-Abbār. imām in whatever he men- tioned without peer. He also had knowledge of arithmetic and geometry. he chose a selection and freely applied it to Sufism and esoteric science (ʿilm al-bāṭin).  Takmila. 21. Ibn Barrajān preferred to live apart from people and fame. imām in the science of theology (kalām). which is known and usually catalogued as Kitāb al-Irshād or al-Irshād fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān. an excellent. in the Arabic language and literature. Ṣilat al-ṣila. From any science. 2007). 302). 2: 559 (no. gave up the alliance with the Fāṭimids and recognized the ʿAbbāsids. Elsewhere. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. although mainly to the Almeria area. 1977]. “he was one of the most excellent men of the Maghrib. 121). Ibn al-Abbār describes Ibn Barrajān as “knowing the Qurʾanic readings and ḥadīth. 27 Ibn Barrajān’s famous prediction of the capture of Jerusalem 20. B.  Similar emigrations are reported during this period. Ibn Barrajān’s family may have emigrated to al-Andalus during a time of hardship in Ifrīqiya known as fitnat al-ʿarab.  A critical edition of this tafsīr is currently being prepared by Yousef Casewit. 1332). 3: 871 (no. Aladdin (Damascus. “Ibn Barrajān al-Andalusī.” According to Ibn al-Zubayr. the Fāṭimids supported the invasion of Ifrīqiya by Arab tribes four years later. see Jacinto Bosch Vilá. Ṣifat jazīrat al-Andalus (Beirut. 22 and chose to reside out- side Seville. and so forth. 45). 21 In 440/1048. See also Ibn Bashkuwāl. which seems mistaken. 27. 31–33 (no. 333–39. al-Muʿizz Ibn Bādīs.  Ibn al-Zubayr. Ḥassān al-Qārī (supra. Gril. 2: 589 (no. 1: 214 (no. According to Ibn al-Abbār’s entry on Ibn Barrajān’s student Ibn al-Mālaqī (d. La Sevilla islámica 712–1248 (Seville.  24 to the west of Seville in the direction of Ṭilyāṭa 25 (present-day Tejada) in the district of al-Baṣal.664 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133. 11) presents a general account of Ibn Barrajān and his works and analyzes Ibn Barrajān’s spiritual hermeneutics as revealed in his commentary to al-Fātiḥa and to the first verses of al-Baqara. n. 1988). Denis Gril’s study of this com- mentary (supra. 876) and 3: 871 (no.  For the location of the district of Aljarafe. Abū Rijāl Muḥammad b. Gril com- pares the hermeneutics of Ibn al-ʿArabī and Ibn Barrajān within the tradition of Sahl al-Tustarī and Ibn Masarra. See D. because of the fitnat al-ʿarab. Takmila. Tafsīr Ibn Barrajān. 45). and penetrating grammarian. 23. ed.4 (2013) According to Ibn al-Abbār. 20 Ibn Barrajān’s family was from Ifrīqiya. 26. twenty miles from both.” 26 Ibn Barrajān has three extant works: 1. Al-Ḥimyarī. al-Ṣila. thus establishing Sunni Islam as the official variant in the region. 4: 39) identifies it as a district of Écija in Cordoba.” in Symbolisme et herméneutique dans la pensée d’Ibn ʿArabī. 24. selon Ibn Barrajān et Ibn ʿArabī. 2: 486 (no. thor- oughly versed in the science of theology (kalām) and Sufism. 23 Ibn Barrajān lived—at least during the last part of his life when Ibn al-Mālaqī visited him—in a village (qarya) in the district (iqlīm) of al-Sharaf (Aljarafe). west of Seville.  Ibn al-Zubayr. 574/1178-9). This description corresponds to the modern-day village of Albaida de Aljarafe or Olivares. 1588). the Zīrid ruler and vassal to the Fāṭimids. moved to Seville during the reign of the second ʿAbbādid king ʿAbbād al-Muʿtaḍid (r. 1394). skilled.

ed. among others. 3. Sharḥ asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā. which is frequently confused with the previous tafsīr. see Amina González-Costa. 36. 536/1141) de Sevilla. Finally. 32. as otherwise Ibn al-ʿArabī would not have mistaken it. As noted above. in addition to these works there is a reference to a work entitled ʿAyn al-yaqīn. Sharḥ Asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā. 38.  Ibn al-ʿArabī. This may mean that Ibn Barrajān’s first and major commentary catalogued as al-Irshād was known under the name of Īḍāḥ al-ḥikma. 2000). 34. followed by the Tafsīr. on at least one occasion he refers to Īḍāḥ al-ḥikma when in fact he means Tafsīr Ibn Barrajān. ed. with whom he studied Ibn Barrajān’s tafsīr. Ibn Barrajān states that he has treated their content previously. 28 Because of this prediction. Ibn al-ʿArabī wrote Mawāqiʿ al-nujūm in 595/1199. The copy is MS Carullah 51 M. 38 who reprints a fatwa by Ibn Khaldūn (d. González-Costa is currently preparing an edition. This is corroborated by a marginal annotation in a copy of the Tafsīr noting the order of composition of his works: Kitāb al-Irshād is first. forthcoming. in which Ibn Barrajān cites his Kitāb al-Irshād at least three times. He aims to correct the gen- eral view of Ibn Barrajān as a bāṭinī Sufi and to place him inside the boundaries of the mainstream Islamic tradition. 37 Īḍāḥ al-ḥikma may thus be his last work. as a follow-up to his first tafsīr. ed. which may mean that Īḍāḥ al-ḥikma was written after the aforementioned tafsīr. 35. is condemned to fire. 1328h. Muḥammad al-ʿAdlūnī (Casablanca.  Ibn Barrajān. 31 so he may be confusing the two. 36 Kitāb al-Irshād and the Tafsīr seem indeed to be differ- ent works. 2004). Only the second volume of a two-volume set is extant. 28. his tafsīr came to be considered as being based mainly upon the science of letters (ʿilm al-ḥurūf) or astrology (tanjīm) and he himself therefore as a hermetic bāṭinī. Ibid. González-Costa and G. 30. 35 This latter work as described does not appear to have survived. 31. López-Anguita (Cordoba. 29 In the commentary of the initial verses of al-Rūm. 30 however. Bellver: “Al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus” 665 by Muslims in 583/1187 is found in the commentary to the beginning of al-Rūm.  For a preliminary description of this tafsīr.. 513–14. A. 83. This describes the Tafsīr’s methodology as based on a close reading of the Qurʾan and ḥadīth.  Gril made this point in his study (supra. “Ibn Barraǧān and Ibn ʿArabī on the Prediction of the Capture of Jerusalem in 583/1187 by Saladin. where he traces the prediction of the conquest of Jeru- salem to Īḍāḥ al-ḥikma. followed by Sharḥ Asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā. 55–56. 11). “Un ejemplo de hermenéutica sufí del Corán en al-Andalus: El comentario coránico Īḍāḥ al-ḥikma de Ibn Barraŷān (m. The reference is found in al-ʿAlam al-shāmikh fī īthār al-ḥaqq ʿalā l-ābāʾ wa-l-mashāʾikh by the Yemeni scholar Ṣāliḥ b. This may help explain why Īḍāḥ al-ḥikma seems more widespread than the number of extant mss.. 41–65. 500. 512. 132. 32 There are references to other works ascribed to Ibn Barrajān. would suggest.  MS Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek BSB-Hss Cod. . al-ʿArabī refers to this commentary.” in ­Historia del Sufismo en al-Andalus. Muḥyī l-Dīn b.  Ed. 33. Cairo. Since he states in his introduction to Tafsīr Ibn Barrajān that it was composed after his commentary on the names of God. 33 which is another version of Tafsīr Ibn Barrajān. 29. Arab. Īḍāḥ al-ḥikma.  Ibid. Purificación de la Torre (Madrid. 2011). 34 and Ibn al-Zubayr mentions a Kitāb al-Irshād in which Ibn Barrajān tries to demonstrate the concurrence between Qurʾanic verses and Prophetic traditions drawn from Muslim. 2. Carl Brockelmann reports a Tanbīh al-afhām ilā tadabbur al-kitāb wa-l-taʿarruf ʿalā l-āyāt wa-l-nabaʾ al-ʿaẓīm. 37. A second Qurʾanic commentary.” Arabica 61 (2013). n. now published. Ibid. 808/1406) in which this work by Ibn Barrajān.  Ibid. five years after his first sojourn with ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Mahdawī. 2009). Mahdī al-Maqbalī. Ibn Barrajān cites a Kitāb al-Irshād in his Sharḥ asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā. Mawāqiʿ al-nujūm (Sidon.  See José Bellver.

2007). ʿA. Ghālib (d. Zanón (Madrid. 44. an outsider? The fact that Ibn Bashkuwāl did not include Ibn Barrajān in his biographical dictionary— or even mention him—has fostered the impression among scholars and researchers that Ibn Barrajān did not belong among the religious scholars of his time.  Viz. 55. see D. 44 On a riḥla to the East he studied with the Mālikī Ashʿarī scholar Abū Dharr al-Harawī (d. 568/1173). Khalaf b. . 187. Fierro. M. but does this quiet lifestyle equate with not taking part in the system of transmission of religious knowledge of his time? Ibn Bashkuwāl’s biographical dictionary. 121.  A disciple of both Ibn Barrajān and Ibn al-ʿArīf. if not a misattribution.  Ibid. Le monde des ulémas andalous du V/XIe au VII/XIIIe siècle (Geneva. however. ed.  Jonathan Brown. Ibn Barrajān did choose to live a discreet life. and Ibn Qasī’s Khalʿ al-naʿlayn. P. Urvoy. 42. 1965). thus we know this period mainly through Ibn Bashkuwāl’s eyes.4 (2013) same fatwa without mention of Ibn Barrajān’s ʿAyn al-yaqīn. de la Torre’s introduction to her edition of Sharḥ Asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā. 34 (supra. This background is unusual for a religious scholar of that time in al-Andalus. The Canonization of al-Bukhārī and Muslim (Leiden. or even that he was a par- venu in the Andalusian tradition of religious scholars because of his North African origins. wrote a Kitāb al-yaqīn. 885/1480). see María Luisa Ávila. 41 to one of the most important works by Ibn Barrajān. “Los Banū Manẓūr al-Qaysī. Urvoy.. the editor supplies it by citing al-Maqbalī. “Opposition to Sufism in al-Andalus. The fact that he omits Ibn Barrajān can be seen either as the consequence of the latter’s outsider status or as a deliberate attempt to ignore him. ʿAlī b. probably in different Andalusian cities. is also found in earlier authors such as Burhān al-Dīn Ibrāhīm al-Biqāʿī (d. al-Wakīl (Cairo. 55. ed. 430/1038). M. is the main source for our knowledge of the ulema of his time and was extensively quoted by later biographical dictionaries.666 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133. I. al-Ṣila. Le monde des ulémas andalous.” Islamic Mysticism Contested: Thirteen Centuries of Controversies and Polemics. 42 in short. 167. ed. mentioned above. Let us consider the possibility that he was an isolated and minor figure. Ibn Barrajān may have known of views based on the science of uṣūl al-dīn. 46 Through Ibn Manẓūr. ibn barrajān. 47 39. 143. R. 32). al-Dhayl wa-l-takmila li-kitābay al-Mawṣūl wa-l-Ṣila.  Ibn Barrajān was proficient in kalām and had knowledge of arithmetic and geometry.  For the Banū Manẓūr family. keeping his distance from the pageantry of the class of religious scholars of his time and shunning celebrity and fame. Maṣraʿ al-taṣawwuf wa-huwa kitābān: Tanbīh al-ghabī ilā takfīr Ibn ʿArabī wa-taḥdhīr al-ʿibād min ahli l-ʿinād bi-bidʿati l-ittiḥād. Although al-Biqāʿī makes no reference to ʿAyn al-yaqīn by Ibn Barrajān. n. 5: 23–37. 43 Only one of his teachers is known to us. which were innovative in the very conservative milieu of Andalusian fuqahāʾ. ed. Al-Marrākushī.  Cf. Al-Biqāʿī. Ibn al-ʿArabī’s al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyya. to which Ibn Barrajān added a hermeneutic approach. Ibn Sabʿīn’s Budd al-ʿārif. Radtke (Leiden. 1992). 1953). D. but we can posit from the wide range of sciences in which he was skilled that he must have studied with a considerable num- ber of teachers. 45. this reference may be a later addition by al-Maqbalī himself or by a copyist after Ibn Khaldūn. F. For the dif- ferent fields of study that could be pursued at that time in Seville. 40 ʿAyn al-yaqīn may refer. 1999).” in Familias andalusíes: Estudios onomástico-biográficos de al-Andalus. since the other works mentioned in the fatwa are among the most important written by their authors. de Jong and B. 45 Being an Ashʿarī. 39 Hence. 40. 47. 43. We have very little information on Ibn Barrajān’s life. however: Ibn Manẓūr. 41. who belonged to the important Banū Manẓūr family of scholars and qāḍīs initially based in Seville. Marín and J. that he was an isolated and minor figure. 5: 210. Be that as it may. ʿAbbās (Beirut.  Cf. Abū Dharr al-Harawī probably supported what may have appeared to religious scholars in al-Andalus as rationalist positions. 46. 1978)..

see Denis Gril. Sirāj (d. and ʿAbd Allāh b. Ibn Barrajān was probably too young to attend his classes in Cordoba. “El ‘Tratado de las letras (Risālat al-ḥurūf)’ del sufí Sahl al-Tustarī. al-ʿArabī.  For the iʿtibārī tradition in al-Andalus ranging from Ibn Masarra to Ibn Barrajān and Ibn al-ʿArabī. E. 478/1086) 51 from Seville. 2: 60. and Shurayḥ al-Ruʿaynī—shared a similar pattern in terms of their teachers. 311–44. “Ibn Masarra and the Beginnings of Mystical Thought in al-Andalus. 104. the main authority of this period was Abū Bakr b. 2006). Le monde des ulémas andalous. which plays a key role in their hermeneutics 54—so his influence can be presumed. al-Dhahabī. Pilar Gar- rido. Ibn Masarra y su escuela: Orígenes de la filosofía hispano­ musulmana (Madrid. 20: 133–34 (no. Manẓūr through his father. 1: 233– 35 (no.” al-Andalus-Magreb: Estudios árabes e islámicos 14 (2007): 51–89. which was first used by Ibn Barrajān and which. those he had were the most important scholars and religious authorities of his time in Seville and Cordoba. 77). Al-Ghassānī and Ibn Sirāj were the teachers of Yūnus b. but no more coincidences are reported. 97–112. Mughīth and ʿAbd Allāh b. 172–77. Kenny. see Muḥammad Kamāl Ibrāhīm Jaʿfar.  For Ibn Masarra. 489/1096). Ibn al-ʿArabī usually cites Ibn Masarra together with Sahl al-Tustarī (d. 53. “Andalusī Mysticism and the Rise of Ibn ʿArabī. 498/1105) 49 and ʿAbd al-Malik b. 18: 336–67 (no. al-Dhahabī. Yarbūʿ. 83.” al-Qanṭara 14 (1993): 47–64. Emilio Tornero. 469/1077) 52 from Cordoba was. Three of Ibn Manẓūr’s youngest students—Yūnus b. 1996). al-Dhahabī. history. S. H. Siyar. 277–93. 2: 433 (no. 1: 366–75. jawāṣṣ al-ḥurūf’ de Ibn Masarra. Ibn Barrajān’s possible teachers were the renowned traditionists Abū ʿAlī al-Ghassānī al-Jayyānī (d. “Ibn-Masarra: His Risāla al-iʿtibār. 52. Ibn Bashkuwāl. Min al-turāth al-ṣūfī li-Sahl b. 913–19. mirrors Sahl al-Tustarī’s concept of ʿadl (‘justice’). “Ibn Masarrah. Claude Addas. but since he died in the same year as Ibn Manẓūr. 358). See al-Qurṭubī. al-Ṣila. ed. 56.” in Mystical Approaches to God. Goodman. K. ʿAbd Allāh al-Tustarī (Cairo. 56 48. Min qaḍāyā al-fikr al-islāmī. 55. 48 In addition. Muḥammad (d. Khazraj al-Lakhmī (d. ed. Sarah Stroumsa. L. al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyya (Cairo.” Orita: Ibadan Journal of Religious Studies 34 (2002): 1–26. 70). ʿAbd Allāh b.  The teacher of Ibn Mughīth and Ibn Yarbūʿ. 631).” in The Legacy of ­Muslim Spain.” Anuario de estudios filológicos 29 (2006): 87–100. In Kitāb Khawāṣṣ al-ḥurūf Ibn Masarra cites Sahl al-Tustarī’s Risālat al-ḥurūf.  Ibn al-ʿArabī. Yarbūʿ.  D. 319/931) 53—for instance. al-Ṣila. we find similarities with Ibn Masarra (d. Obviously Ibn Barrajān’s three co-students had many more teachers. 2: 530–32 (no. P. and Mālikī fiqh. 18: 488–89 (no. 20: 148–51 (no. 3: 77. 50. J. Bellver: “Al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus” 667 Even though Ibn Manẓūr had few students. Siyar. he was important enough to attract students from Cordoba in a period in which Seville was not yet an impor- tant scholarly center. Gril shows the continuity between Ibn Masarra’s and Ibn Barrajān’s hermeneutics. They also gave written permission (ijāzāt) to Shurayḥ al-Ruʿaynī to transmit their works. al-Dhahabī. Urvoy. see Miguel Asín Palacios. see Muḥammad Kamāl Ibrāhīm Jaʿfar. For the former work. . according to Ibn al-ʿArabī. As for those who influenced him on the Sufi path. Mughīth. “Edición crítica del ‘K. Siyar. al-Ṣila. see Muḥammad Kamāl Ibrāhīm Jaʿfar. For Ibn Masarra’s Risālat al-iʿtibār.  He is described as the imām of Arabic language—mainly lexicography—and literature in al-Andalus. 251). 89. Ibn Bashkuwāl. Nasr and O. 50 both from Cordoba. 2008). Ibn Bashkuwāl. Min qaḍāyā l-fikr al-islāmī: Dirāsa wa-nuṣūṣ (Cairo. 1329/1911). al-Ṣila. 333). Jayyusi (Leiden. “Noticia sobre la publicación de obras inéditas de Ibn Masarra. S. since he was proficient in the disciplines they taught. who was a disciple of Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. 54. al-Asnā fī sharḥ Asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā (Beirut. For Sahl al-Tustarī’s Risālat al-ḥurūf. Pilar Garrido Clemente. Ibn Bashkuwāl. Later Muslim authors also acknowledged the relationship between the two. 780). 51.” 147–61. In addition to Abū l-Ḥasan Shurayḥ and Abū l-Ḥasan Ibn Mughīth. hav- ing no rival. 1992). 1978). 1974). 1: 253–55 (no. 283/896) 55 when discuss- ing the concept of al-ḥaqq al-makhlūq bihi al-khalq. esp. ed. where she posits that Ibn Masarra was inspired by Sahl al-Tustarī. and excelled in the knowledge of ḥadīth. 157).” in History of Islamic Phi- losophy. On the basis of this pattern. It is less likely that the traditionist Abū l-Qāsim Ḥātim b. Yarbūʿ.  He was the teacher of Shurayḥ al-Ruʿaynī and ʿAbd Allāh b. the equivalent concept of symbolic transposition (iʿtibār). 49. 1914). “L’interprétation par transposition symbolique. Leaman (London. Siyar. Schäfer (Oldenburg. where the two works on ḥurūf are quoted together. 346–60. Ibn Bashkuwāl describes him as the principal transmitter of ḥadīth of his time in Cordoba (raʾīs al-muḥaddithīn fī Qurṭuba) and as being well versed in Arabic language and poetry.

of whom we know mainly from the reports of the events surrounding his death and from Ibn al-ʿArīf’s correspondence. 1997). El Fasi and A. if we disregard the category of traditionists. Siyar. For Ibn al-Kharrāṭ. 99). 40: 150 (no. For his relationship with Abū Madyan. al-Jazzār (al-Manṣūra. see al-Ghubrīnī. 1: 216 (no. 330). al-Dhahabī. the wealthy faqīh and preacher ʿAbd Allāh b. 61. 4: 123. Siyar. al-Dhahabī. Sahl al-Tustarī is one of only two later authorities who are quoted by name in Ibn Barrajān’s Sharḥ Asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā—the other being Rābiʿa al-ʿAdawiyya (d. and particularly Ibn al-Abbār’s Takmila. Uns al-faqīr wa-ʿizz al-ḥaqīr. al-Ziriklī.  Ibn al-Kharrāṭ was one of the youngest of Ibn Barrajān’s students.. 5). According to Ibn al-Zubayr. al-Dhahabī. al-Dhahabī. 2: 182. 57 In addition. probably at least ninety). al-ʿArabī and Ibn Bashkuwāl alongside Ibn Barrajān. ed. 58 Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī was a disciple of the Sufi traditionist Abū Saʿīd b. Ibn Barrajān was both a Sufi master and a teacher of religious sciences. M. 341/952-3). 267. 1970). Khalīl al-Qaysī (d. in spite of the paucity of references. ʿUnwān al-dirāya (Algiers. See Ibn al-Abbār. al-Bāz and ʿĀ. qāḍī Abū Bakr b. Ibn al-Kharrāṭ was one of Muḥyī l-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachers. 2: 486 (no. his students were among the most exalted and noble people of his time. al-Aʿrābī (d. 514/1120). A.  See Manuela Marín. 63. Hence Ibn Bashkuwāl ought to have known Ibn Barrajān. 142. 58. 2: 647–48 (no. Hence he became an important link between Ibn Barrajān and both Abū Madyan and Ibn al-ʿArabī. 5: 81. although this may only be based on his personal impression obtained by reading their works. 185/801). Siyar. 1: 136) in Tunis by Ibn Qasī’s son. 1805). 291). 570/1174) from Niebla. Ibn Khalīl lived in Fes and died in Marrakesh. under whose guidance Ibn Qasī obtained his unveilings (kashf). it is likely that this is the Ibn Khalīl from Niebla whom Ibn al-ʿArabī refers to as one of the greatest masters in the Maghrib and the master of Ibn Qasī. 119).  Ibn Khalīl had important teachers. During Ibn Qasī’s rebellion.4 (2013) In fact. mention some of his students.668 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133. Ibn Qunfudh al-Qusanṭīnī. Although bio- graphical dictionaries. 734). 1987). Ṣilat al-ṣila.  This information was reported to Ibn al-ʿArabī (al-Futūḥāt al-makiyya. 64. for instance. 45). 764). Ibn Khalīl al-Qaysī is described as long-lived (muʿammar. 65. Takmila.e. see Ibn al-Abbār. “Abū Saʿīd ibn al-Aʿrābī et le développement du ṣūfisme dans al-Andalus. 1: 233 (no. 59. see Ibn al-Abbār.  Ibn Taymiyya. ed. al-Mālaqī (d. 65 57. such as Abū ʿAlī al-Ghassānī (d. 1394). the renowned traditionist and Sufi of the sixth/twelfth century ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Azdī al-Ishbīlī. known as Ibn al-Kharrāṭ (d. the Ḥanbalī Ibn Taymiyya emphasizes Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī’s (d.  For whom. 60 Some of his students were particularly important as. Faure (Rabat. he moved to Niebla and to Bejaya where he had a close relationship with the Sufi master Abū Madyan. 574/1178-9) from Malaga is also known to us as Ibn Barrajān’s student.  He was also a student of al-ʿĀmirī and Ibn Mughīth. 63 testifies to Ibn Barrajān’s being among the main teachers of his time. He wrote compendiums on ḥadīth and ascetic literature. and while in Seville a student of the qāḍī Abū Bakr b. the later authors seem to have considered Ibn Barrajān as being indirectly related in different ways to Sahl al-Tustarī and his followers. 581/1185). 520/1126). 73 (no.  Ibn al-Zubayr. 33 (no. Taʾrīkh al-islām (Beirut. 386/996) influence upon Ibn Barrajān. . 20: 455 (no. and Abū ʿAlī al-Ṣadafī (d. Since he was Ibn Barrajān’s stu- dent and transmitted his works. it cannot be determined whether they were also his disciples. 1965).  Ibn Barrajān. 62. who played an important role in the development of Sufism in al-Andalus. although prob- ably only through correspondence. al-ʿArabī. 20: 517 (no. such as the traditionist and historian Abū l-Qāsim al-Qanṭarī (d. 289. al-Aʿlām. 498/1105). i.” Revue du monde musulman et la Méditerranée 63–64 (1992): 28–38. 60. 561/1166) from Silves 62 and the Mālikī faqīh Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. 59 In short. Takmila. 61 The prominence of teachers of other students. Sharḥ Asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā. Majmūʿat al-fatāwā. For Ibn Khalīl. see Ibn al-Abbār. 64 In addition to these stu- dents. 21: 198 (no. Takmila. Takmila. Ibn Rushd al-Jadd (d. 34–35.

515/1121). 67. “Ibn al-ʿArīf. Khalaf b. This important position shows the wide acceptance of al-Ghazālī’s writings and of Sufism in general in Almeria at that time. 14). and ending with people with whom he has no particular spiritual ties. After his riḥla. Ibrāhīm. his other disciples or co-disciples. Moreover. Muʾmin (d. he wore the khirqa and entered the Sufi path with Abū Bakr b. his disciple. also belonged. Siyar. M. 1: 469–76 (no. 1: 5–24. ed. “Opposition to Sufism. ʿI. the last disciple of al-Ṭalamankī (d. Takmila.  Ed. 568/1173). 5: 208–12. Tashawwuf. 14). al-Tādilī.” Revue des études islamiques 39 (1971): 321–35. disciple. 18). al-Tādilī. 74. Ibn Bashkuwāl. 18–22 (no. The Sufi and Qurʾan reciter Abū l-Qāsim ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Balawī (d. 176). Paul Nwyia inverted this relationship in his edition of letters from Ibn al-ʿArīf to Ibn Barrajān since Ibn al-ʿArīf addressed Ibn Barrajān with shaykhī (‘my master’) and imāmī (‘my imam’). 19 (no. beginning with his letters to Ibn Barrajān—the only one he addresses as his shaykh and imām—followed by his close friend. In fact. Muʿjam. but this is not so. See also J. 68. 71.  In addition to the Sevillian Abū Bakr b. See Ibn al- Zubayr. Tashawwuf. Miftāḥ al-saʿādat wa-taḥqīq ṭarīq al-saʿāda.  Ibn al-Abbār. whose relation- ship is also clear from Ibn al-Abbār’s Muʿjam. 548/1156) in similar terms. Dandash (Beirut. al-Dhahabī. 502/1108). see Ibn al-ʿArīf. 33 (no. Bellver: “Al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus” 669 Ibn Barrajān was the Sufi master of probably the two foremost mystics of their time in al-Andalus: 66 Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. 2: 672 (no. such as Ibn Qasī and Ibn Mundhir.  See Bruno Halff. born near Guadix. 118–23 (no. Ibn al-Abbār. Both students of al-Ghazālī must have been in . ʿAbbās b. 3: 231ff. which underlines Ibn Barrajān’s preeminence (shufūf) over Ibn al-ʿArīf. who was born in Ceuta though his family moved to Almeria where he lived most of his life. 429/1037). The pattern evinces the spiritual link between Ibn al-ʿArīf and Ibn Barrajān. as a sign of humility from the editor it diverges from the aforementioned pattern. Ibn Muʾmin has arranged Ibn al-ʿArīf’s cor- respondence according to a clear pattern of closeness and importance. is well known for his Maḥāsin al-majālis 69 in which he described the stations on the spiritual path. Lirola. L. he settled in Almeria and was appointed leader of the prayer and preacher at the great mosque. 1933). the way in which Ibn al-ʿArīf addresses Ibn Barrajān is exceptional. al-Iʿlām bi-man ḥalla marrākush wa-aghmāt min al-aʿlām (Rabat. 1993).  Paul Nwyia. Ibn Barrajān. 72 Ibn al-ʿArīf belonged to a class of learned Sufis 73 who were proficient traditionists. and he takes great care with the terms he uses as signs of respect in every situation. 228 (no. al-Dhayl wa-l-takmila. 20: 111–14 (no. 69. among whom his master. 73. 70 Although Asín Palacios considered Ibn al-ʿArīf to be Ibn Barrajān’s Sufi mas- ter. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad al-Khulānī of Almeria. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb b. Fierro.  Ibn al-Abbār. 245). Ghālib (d. Muʿjam. 1983). recasting and expanding al-Anṣārī’s Manāzil al-sayrīn. 545/1150-1). 1870). 71 It can be argued that the use of such terms is merely a sign of respect and does not imply a master–disciple relationship. 1: 136–37 (no. al-Marrākushī. inter alia. after 540/1145) from Niebla. 72. 45) and 37–38 (no.  According to al-Dhahabī. 74 Ibn al-ʿArīf studied with al-Ṣadafī and. known as al-Balaghī (d. also undertook a riḥla and studied with al-Ghazālī. 415. 536/1141). The last set of letters is addressed to Ibn Muʾmin. no.” 190. 1974). the two other Andalusian students of al-Ghazālī either came from or settled in Almeria. ʿA. studied with al-Ghazālī and received permission from him to transmit his works. in which case Ibn al-ʿArīf might be expected to address other people in the correspondence collected by his disciple Abū Bakr ʿAtīq b. Ghālib.  He was also the master of. Ṣilat al-ṣila. 70.” 43–56. or even co-disciple Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Asín Palacios (Paris. al-ʿArabī and his father ʿAbd Allāh b. 68). according to 66. 68 Ibn al-ʿArīf (d. Manṣūr. Ṣila.” Diccionario de autores y obras andalusies. For the collection of Ibn al-ʿArīf’s correspondence by his disciple Ibn Muʾmin. Khalaf b. He was raised in a context that was fully acquainted with al-Ghazālī’s views. Aʿlām al-maghrib (Rabat. ʿAbd al-Ghafūr al-Sakūnī (d. al-ʿArīf 67 and Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. “Le Maḥāsin al-mağalis d’Ibn al-ʿArīf et l’oeuvre du soufi ḥanbalite al-Anṣārī. In turn. al-ʿArabī. “Rasāʾil Ibn al-ʿArīf. Buryāl (d. compiled from MS Rabat Hassania 1562. 52). 81).

96. Yūsuf b.  These were the malāmatī Sufis Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Daqqāq (fl. . See al-Marrākushī. Tāshufīn in Marrakesh. He was a Sufi and a traditionist who spent some time with Ibn Barrajān before moving to northern Morocco. Ṣila. his disciple ʿAbd al-Jalīl b. Cornell. the high esteem in which his only known teacher was held. who in turn is well known for being the first qāḍī in al-Andalus to oppose the burning of al-Ghazālī’s writings ordered in 503/1109 by Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. 75. Uns al-faqīr. For these episodes. 79. 156 (no. along with Ibn al-ʿArīf. Tashawwuf.” Revue de l’Occident musulman et de la Méditerranée 35 (1983): 157–70. Cornell.670 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133. he was said to have been imām in 130 villages and it was because of this that he was summoned by the sultan in Marrakesh and executed for his rebellious activities. Abū l-Ḥasan al-Barjī (d. in northern Morocco. al-Barjī was one of Ibn al-ʿArīf’s teachers. especially in light of his being considered “al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus. awtād. As noted above. a political activist? Some authors have regarded Ibn Barrajān as a “political activist. Realm of the Saint. For al-Balawī. Fierro. he was by no means a minor figure in the scholarly circles of his time. tent peg) had disappeared. to which group Abū Bakr b. For al-Barjī. Gril. see Ibn al-Abbār. 81 As for the evidence in favor of his being a political activist. to whom he transmitted the Sunan of al-Tirmidhī. al-Dhayl wa-l-takmila.  Vincent Lagardère. Ibn Barrajān. Ibn Bashkuwāl spoke highly of his piety and asceticism and indicated that they had exchanged written per- missions to transmit their works. with a group of his own teachers.” 186. for instance. In addition.  See. along with Ibn close touch with the qāḍī of Almeria. 51). al-ʿArabī may be added. Realm of the Saint. It is said that Ibn Ghālib reached the degree of watad in the spiritual Sufi hierarchy. lit. 80 However. 75 he finally settled in Ketama. enjoying high respect and esteem. 77 In short. had a wide spiri- tual authority over the Sufi circles of northern Morocco. “La tarīqa et la révolte des Murīdūn en 539 H/1144 en Andalus. Khalaf b. “Opposition to Sufism. 26. which probably includes some or all of Ibn Manẓūr’s students. who was a student of both Ibn Ghālib and Ibn Barrajān. who were among the most learned men in Cordoba and Seville. Mūsā saw written in the sky that a “support” (watad. see al-Tādilī. and his students and disciples.  Ibn Qunfudh al-Qusanṭīnī.  On the night of Ibn Ghālib’s death. 14. Ibn Ghālib probably played an important role in the transmission of Ibn Barrajān’s works to Abū Madyan and his school in addition to Ibn al-Kharrāṭ. qāḍī of Cordoba (d. 41) and 168–70 (no. 25–26 and n. “La lecture supérieure du Coran. pl. who were among the most famous ḥadīth scholars and Sufis of their time. 77. first half of sixth century/twelfth century) and Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī Ibn Ḥirzihim. The Way of Abū Madyan. Ibn al-ʿArīf became famous and was an influential figure who attracted a large number of dis- ciples in the Sufi path from all over al-Andalus. Abū l-Ḥasan b. Even though his absence in Ibn Bashkuwāl’s biographical dictionary may suggest that he was not well known. Ibn Barrajān’s other disciple. 78. 3: 834–35 (no. which included his Ṣila.  Cf. Cornell. 5: 211. see M.” 78 a valuable member of the revolt of the Murīdūn 79 and Mahdist rebellious movements. 76. Ḥamdīn. Takmila. 1597). Ghālib from Silves. 76 In addition to his direct disciples. This is shown in episodes reported in the biographies of two of Abū Madyan’s masters. the present-day Ksar el Kebir.” 511. some scholars have doubted any involvement in politics on his part. 509/1115). 20. In Fez he was the teacher of Abū Madyan. 2: 562–63 (no. there is his summons in 536/1141 from the Almoravid sultan ʿAlī b. his companions. although they were almost the same age. 508/1114). Ibn Barrajān was an important figure for a number of reasons: the depth and thorough scholarship of his works.” ibn barrajān. For al-Balaghī. 5–6. was also one of Ibn al-ʿArīf’s most beloved disciples in the Sufi path. on Ibn al-ʿArīf’s initiative. 80. 81.4 (2013) Ibn Bashkuwāl. see Ibn Bashkuwāl. 1270).

2006). 82 Was it likely that he was involved in Mahdist movements or had any doctrine regarding the coming of the Mahdī? The correspondence between Ibn al-ʿArīf and Ibn Qasī makes clear that Ibn Qasī was not a disciple of Ibn al-ʿArīf. f. Columbia Univ. 159–76. and it has been shown that Ibn Qasī’s views were already established before the beginning of their correspondence. which some authors have interpreted as an indication of political authority. Realm of the Saint. “Andalusī Mysticism. The coming of the Mahdī must thus fulfill certain cyclical conditions that were to be met in 583/1187. Beagles (Leiden. For the Mahdist movements in the Maghrib.” 923. bearing in mind that he knew in depth their works. As for whether Ibn Barrajān had any doctrine regarding the coming of the Mahdī. found in Tafsīr Ibn Barrajān. then. and can therefore be linked. at least as it appears in this text. 86. “Andalusī Mysticism. 84. such as al-Shaʿrānī. Goodrich.. the style of their correspondence does not resemble that between a master and a disciple. tr. See David R. 1978). to Ibn Barrajān. 321b. 1999). raising the possibility that he was executed. and is most unlikely to have inspired or participated in the revolt of the Murīdūn. 86 there is an illuminating allusion to the Mahdī in his famous prediction of the capture of Jerusalem by Muslims. Bellver: “Al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus” 671 al-ʿArīf and Abū Bakr al-Mayūrqī. which victory will be led by the Mahdī. Moreover. Ibn Qasī considered himself a Sufi and met Ibn al-ʿArīf. “Doctrinas y movimientos de tipo mesiánico en al- Andalus. 87 Ibn Barrajān devises a process of alternate victories of Muslims and Christians (rūm) over the centuries in order to gain control of the region of Jerusalem.  David Goodrich also does not find any influence of Ibn al-ʿArīf’s Maḥāsin al-majālis on Ibn Qasī’s Khalʿ al-naʿlayn. indirectly at least. MS Šehid Ali Paša 73. J. In addition.” in Milenarismos y milenaristas en la Europa medieval: IX Semana de Estudios Medievales. Second. Thus. This process will come to an end with the final victory of the Muslims over the Christians.. some later sources. 96b. Messianism and Puritanical Reform: Mahdis of the Muslim West. see Garcia-Arenal. indeed. but he considered it to be perfectly probable. Nájera. Ignacio de la Iglesia Duarte (Logroño. see Maribel Fierro. Finally. f. “Rasāʾil Ibn al-ʿArīf. ed. so no mastery of Ibn al-ʿArīf over Ibn Qasī can be presumed. Ibn Barrajān’s imprisonment and death took place in a context of social turmoil. he expected the Mahdī not in his own time but some sixty years later. Paul Nwyia. Ibn Qasī’s revolt against the Almoravid ruling power broke out in the Algarve shortly after Ibn Barrajān’s death. Cornell. This allows for the possibility that Ibn Barrajān was a Sufi activist and an inspirer of the revolts that broke out after his death. In view of his spiritual links with Ibn al-ʿArīf. Ibn al-ʿArīf addresses Ibn Barrajān as his imām. He also underlines that Ibn al-ʿArabī does not refer to Ibn Qasī being influenced by Ibn Barrajān or Ibn al-ʿArīf. eadem. For an account of Messianic movements in al-Andalus. 83 In addition. 85 In general. 83. 1998. 87. 17. M. and his death shortly afterwards. his Mahdism.D. “La conjonction”.  I do not aim to explore this topic exhaustively since two of his major works remain unedited. 84 There is also a letter from Ibn al-ʿArīf to Ibn Mundhir—Ibn Qasī’s disciple and lieutenant in the revolt of the Murīdūn—in which Ibn al-ʿArīf strongly discourages any attempt at rebellion against the established rul- ing power while awaiting the advent of a Mahdī. to whom he also refers as the Just Imam (al-imām al-ʿadl). diss. Ibn al-ʿArīf seems to have exerted little if any influence over Ibn Qasī. sixty-one years after Ibn Barrajān wrote his prediction in 522/1128. though Ibn Barrajān had Mahdist doctrines. 20.  Addas. “A ‘Sufi’ Revolt in Portugal: Ibn Qasī and His ‘Kitāb Khalʿ al-Naʿlayn’ (Arabic Text)” (Ph. Ibn Barrajān’s position regarding the revolt of the Murīdūn was probably the same as that of his disciple.” 43–56. This does not mean that Ibn Barrajān openly stated that the Mahdī will appear in 583/1187. 85. .  Addas. was focused on the Christian advance on Jerusalem and might have been motivated by the ongoing pressure 82.” 923.  MS Reisulkuttab 31. present him as an imām with considerable authority.

“La con- jonction. such as those of Ibn Qasī and the Almohads.. Be that as it may. and hence is clearly linked with Ibn Barrajān’s prediction of the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem and the possible appearance of the Mahdī in that year. “Al-Ghazālī’s Contested Revival: Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn and Its Critics in Khorasan and the Maghrib” (Ph. Kingsley (Cam- bridge.. 2005). This term is extensively used in contemporary texts. See Garcia-Arenal. 93.  This quotation erroneously ascribed to Ibn al-ʿArīf has shaped the perception later scholars have of Ibn Barrajān. to refer to the most learned person in a particular science.672 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133.  A translation is appended to this article. the expressions that have given rise to a political interpretation are peripheral to the gist of the letter and are placed in the complimentary sections. Let us consider both. Ken Garden. diss. it is worth pointing out that the famous discussion between Ibn al-ʿArabī and his master Abū l-ʿAbbās al-ʿUryabī about the identity of the person whose appearance was foretold by the Prophet (i.  Nwyia. 89 This confirms the concerns that arose shortly before the year 583/1187. a worldly political interpretation of the ways in which Ibn alʿArīf addresses Ibn Barrajān in the complimentary sections seems to clash with the otherworldly spiritual topic of the letter. 88 Ibn al-ʿArabī was around twenty years old when he met Abū l-ʿAbbās—that is.D. 62–64.  Al-Futūḥāt al-makiyya. of Chicago.” 237. as idle. in the context of Sufism this is more likely to be an 88.” There is room for different interpretations of the expression mutaqaddimī taslīman.  There was a major eruption of Mahdism in the Islamic West after 583/1187. 580/1185—and he states that this discus- sion took place at the beginning of their relationship. ca. this address is Nwyia’s inter- pretation and should not be quoted as Ibn al-ʿArīf’s words. 89. Realm of the Saint. Nwyia’s understanding of Ibn Barrajān as “supreme guide” in a political sense is mainly based on the word imām and the expression mutaqaddimī taslīman appearing in the com- plimentary sections of this letter. 90. but Nwyia’s seems to me unlikely. 92.4 (2013) from Christians on the Iberian peninsula rather than on reform of the Islamic community. 20. such as Ibn Bashkuwāl’s al-Ṣila. the man whom others should follow. Univ. if—following Nwyia—this expression means that Ibn al-ʿArīf asserts his surrender to Ibn Barrajān. Nevertheless. “Note sur quelques fragments inédits. Therefore. 219–20.g. and with hardened hearts blind to the contemplation of the hereafter. 90 A second point is the description of Ibn Barrajān as an imām. Ibn al-ʿArīf addressed Ibn Barrajān by letter as the “Supreme Guide of those who lead souls to the ways of salvation [and] the imām who possesses the benediction of Muḥammad as his legitimate representative. since there may be differences between the manuscripts) as “le Guide à qui je témoigne soumission de foi. 1993).  For this event.” 91 However. see Claude Addas. 93 The gist and intention of this letter is fully spiritual.” while I translate it as “the one preceding me in surrender. . Quest for the Red Sulphur: The Life of Ibn ʿArabī. 92 Nwyia based his interpretation on one of Ibn al-ʿArīf’s letters to Ibn Barrajān that he found in a manuscript belonging to Si Ben Souda. This same letter is included in Ibn al-ʿArīf’s Miftāḥ al-saʿāda. e.” 220.e. As to this latter expression. overcome by passions. According to some. which led to Ibn al-ʿArabī’s first encounter with Khiḍr must have taken place shortly before 583/1187. He would have dismissed contemporary Mahdist movements. 1: 186. P. See. the Mahdī). since it deals with the perplexity caused in Ibn al-ʿArīf by souls inebriated by the love of the world.. Cornell. 91. In the textual sources in which Ibn Barrajān is addressed as imām there are two contexts that allow for a political meaning: when Ibn al-ʿArīf addresses him with this term in a personal letter and when al-Shaʿrānī notes that he was followed as imām. Nwyia renders it (or a similar one. tr.

95. his position towards the ruling authority. 97 In his interpretation of the final part of Q 3:79—“Be ye faithful servants of the Lord by virtue of your constant teaching (tuʿallimūna) of the Scripture and of your constant study thereof” (Pickthall)—he notes that tuʿallimūna can also be read as form I (taʿlamūna) ‘you know’. 134–35. 96 Since what defines an imām is his competence to rely on his own judgment. and this time it may involve a political sense. Miftāḥ al-saʿāda. I believe the idea that Ibn al-ʿArīf understood imām in a political sense can be dismissed. as this would contradict his general approach to political authority.  See n. supra. He then equates teaching to the imamate and contrasts the duo of sage (ʿālim) and imām—i. he is still deeply influenced by Asín’s interpretation of al-Shaʿrānī’s reference. . Although Nwyia reverses Asín Palacios’s vision of the relationship between Ibn Barrajān and Ibn al-ʿArīf. Al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā is a late source with a distinct hagio- graphical and apologetic purpose. the imām is thus one who has attained sufficient competence to be able to rely on his own judgment. since he is the Proof (ḥujja) of God [on earth] [and the] second [worst] censure is of those in a lower rank criticizing those above them in knowledge or [spiritual] state (ḥāl).. where Dandash lists the few instances of Ibn al-ʿArīf’s attitude toward political authority. 95 If we rule out a political interpretation for Ibn al-ʿArīf’s use of the term imām when he addresses Ibn Barrajān. Bellver: “Al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus” 673 expression of Ibn al-ʿArīf’s fully spiritual allegiance (bayʿa) to Ibn Barrajān without any need to look for political connotations. 33–35. which he understands as “reliance on oneself before attaining the degree of imamate (darajat al-imāma) in knowledge (ʿilm) or practice (ʿamal)”. al-Shaʿrānī’s work is barely reliable. From a historical point of view. The text is as follows: 94. is one of respect. e. 170. In support of this.] censure of the sultan. Ibn Barrajān is also addressed as imām in al-Shaʿrānī’s al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā..  Ibid. “The worst kinds of censure (inkār) are two: [First. Nwyia’s interpretation of this letter is deeply rooted in his preconception of what the term imām meant to Ibn al-ʿArīf. he links Ibn Barrajān with Ibn Qasī and states that both were recognized as imāms. when Ibn al-ʿArīf refers to a political contender. In another letter Ibn al-ʿArīf equates the imamate (imāma) to teaching (taʿlīm). 9. as studying comes after teaching (and knowing) in this verse. nothing prevents the existence of multiple imāms at any particular time and place. of one who has attained sufficient competence in matters dealing with knowledge or reli- gious and spiritual practice so as to be able to teach and interpret the sources of the tradition based on his sound judgment and knowledge. One of these causes is arbi- trariness (istibdād). 97. 92. In fact. and points out that both teaching and knowing have precedence over studying from books alone. 96. 94 Thus the key point is to ascertain how Ibn al-ʿArīf understood the term imām. as evidenced in Miftāḥ al-saʿāda. for the same concept..  Ibid. the one who teaches—to those who learn only from books. there is to my knowledge no reference in Ibn al-ʿArīf’s works to the use of the term imām in a political sense or even as a spiritual guide in the sense understood in Shiʿism.” Ibid. how then does he use it? In one of his letters he lists the causes for committing reproachable errors regarding the law and sciences. 90. he uses the term mahdī. which he considers appointed by God... as in his letter to Ibn Mundhir.g. a defense of the great figures in Sufism against the ulema. The reference to Ibn Barrajān as Ibn al-ʿArīf’s imām might therefore be understood in this sense.e. When al-Shaʿrānī enu- merates jurists’ attacks on Sufis in his introduction. In addition to his explicit disapproval of rebellion against the established ruling power.  Ibn al-ʿArīf. See also p.

4 (2013) They [who deny the exalted spiritual rank of the saints (awliyāʾ)] killed Imām Abū l-Qāsim b. and his entire group was killed. and Abū Bakr 98. . he exerted an important spiritual authority over a number of people. However. who remained in a more closed inner circle. as we have seen from the anecdotes of Abū Madyan’s masters. Ibn al-Athīr. although they did not kill them. The final reason for concluding that Ibn Barrajān was not a political activist is his age. 699/1299). even in the spiritual sense. Instead they acted against them with a stratagem (ḥīla) by telling the sultan that in some 130 villages (bilād) the sermons of the Friday prayers were performed in Ibn Barrajān’s name. who had a great many com- panions. In any case. Ibn Qasī was not executed by the ruling power but by his followers. See Ibn al-Abbār. Nevertheless. Tāshufīn summoned Ibn Barrajān from Seville. 118. Muʿjam. Overall. as was Ibn al-ʿArīf. 545/1150-1). ibn barrajān’s death At the end of 535 or the beginning of 536/1141. Ibn al-ʿArīf from Almeria. Ibn Barrajān. 100 The Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā does not actually suggest that Ibn Barrajān was recognized as imām in 130 villages. Ibn Bashkuwāl. al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā. unlike Ibn al-ʿArīf. 2003). al-Tādilī. this would have been considered a revolt. 99. So they bore witness that they were infidels. al-Kāmil fī l-taʾrīkh (Beirut. 1964). Al-Shaʿrānī. the Almoravid sultan ʿAlī b. Taʾrīkh al-islām. 1: 172. which makes him an unlikely active rebel or contender for any kind of political authority. and it would have been recorded in detail in later sources. Moreover. none of the textual sources alludes to Ibn Barrajān having a large or growing number of ­followers. Tashawwuf. 101 although the relationship between the two is well established. Yūsuf b. there is not enough textual basis to assert that Ibn Barrajān was widely regarded and followed as an imām. Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā (Cairo. Qasī. al-Khawlī. Ṣila. So he was sent [to the sultan] to be killed. the general impres- sion is that al-Shaʿrānī is confusing the summons of Ibn Barrajān to Marrakesh with the revolt of the Murīdūn led by Ibn Qasī in an account of the events aimed to extol the Sufis. which would square with Ibn al-Zubayr’s reference to Ibn Barrajān’s reserved character. 17: 320 (no. the assertion that the Friday sermons were performed in his name in some 130 villages was a machination or a trick (ḥīla) of the jurists. al-Wāfī bi-l-wafayāt. who in turn exerted spiritual authority over an increasing number of followers. such as Ibn al-ʿArīf. 6465). 9: 368. or that he led a wide socio-political movement despite his fame in Sufi circles. 6: 159–60 (no. 1: 137. This may suggest that Ibn al-ʿArīf played a more public role as spiritual master and counselor than Ibn Barrajān.  Ibn al-ʿArīf’s growing following is well attested in contemporary sources such as Ibn Bashkuwāl’s al-Ṣila. 100. al-Ṣafadī.674 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133. 98 and al-Marjānī 99 for being considered imāms by the people and being imitated to the point that envy of them grew. other than al-Shaʿrānī. 1: 15. 101. He was in his mid-eighties when he was summoned to the sultan. for whom see al-Shaʿrānī. 674). al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā. In addition. it is difficult to believe that the sultan would have been unaware of the fact that so many villages were not performing the Friday prayers in his name. al-Shaʿrānī’s text does not provide grounds for the claim that Ibn Barrajān was recognized as an imām in 130 villages. 760). Ibn Barrajān was indeed held in high esteem in Sufi circles. al-Dhahabī. 19 (no. 14). and should not be taken as a representation of the truth. See al-Subkī.  Probably the Shāfiʿī jurist and Sufi Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Khawlī (d. The renowned Tunisian Sufi master Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Marjānī (d. In short. there are some striking historical inaccuracies: for instance. 52: 465–66 (no.

123) and Takmila. The text in Lisān al-mīzān reads as follows: 102. al-Ṣila. the sultan—going to live for long after my death. 452. 5: 173–74 (no. 108 Only parts of al-Dhayl wa-l-takmila have survived. As for Ibn Barrajān. Al-Tādilī. 126 (no. Ibn Aswad died the same year. while others—according to al-Tādilī. Muʿjam. One of the teachers with whom he studied the longest was Abū Bakr al-Ṭurṭūshī. Ibn al-Khaṭīb. where the sultan honored him and allowed him to go back to Almeria.” Ibn Ḥirzihim said: “Go and claim throughout the markets and streets of Marrakesh. 6: 169–70. went to Ibn Ḥirzihim’s house and reported to Abū l-Ḥasan [b. al-Ikhāṭa fī akhbār Gharnāṭa (Cairo.  Ibn al-Abbār. There are also two different versions regarding al-Mayūrqī. 116). see Ibn al-Abbār. nor is the one who has summoned me—that is. ‘Ibn Ḥirzihim says to you: Attend the funeral prayers for the excellent shaykh. 118–22 (no. 51). Ibn Bashkuwāl. a pious Ẓāhirī scholar with ascetic tendencies. imitating in this what the jurists (fuqahāʾ) had said. al-Dhayl wa-l-takmila. I am not going to live. 18). Bellver: “Al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus” 675 al-Mayūrqī from Granada 102 to his presence in Marrakesh.” Abū l-Ḥakam died and the sultan ordered [his corpse] to be thrown onto the dump without funeral prayers. when he was about to be summoned to Marrakesh. According to al-Tādilī. 104. One is found in al-Tādilī’s biographical entry on Ibn Ḥirzihim. Barrajān. Muʿjam. 4761). al-Marrākushī. the ascetic jurist.  For Ibn Aswad. 3: 190.  For Abū Bakr Muḥammad al-Mayūrqī. According to Ibn al-Abbār.” 107 The second significant account of his death. may the curse of God fall upon him.  Ibn al-Khaṭīb. he was questioned about some matters for which he had been rebuked (ʿībat ʿalayhi).  104 Al-Tādilī notes that Ibn Aswad ordered Ibn al-ʿArīf to be placed in fetters during the sea crossing to Ceuta. Al-Tādilī. who was in Ibn Ḥirzihim’s service and who attended his meetings. do what I tell you. There a messenger from the sultan gave him a safe-conduct. 108. 1: 173 (no. Barrajān]. Lisān al-mīzān. The one who is able to attend and does not. but dismissed by Ibn al-Abbār—say he was poisoned by Ibn Aswad. 106 He died shortly afterwards. he first went back to al-Andalus and then to Alge- ria. he escaped to Bejaya. 139 (no. al-Tādilī states that when the sultan heard that Ibn al-ʿArīf had been poisoned by Ibn Aswad. Ḥirzihim] what the sultan had ordered regard- ing Abū l-Ḥakam [b. Abū l-Ḥakam said: “By God. he ordered that Ibn Aswad be poisoned in return. Tashawwuf. he said: “The one who knows his excellence and does not attend his funeral. When the news reached the sultan’s ears. 123).” He answered: “Order me and I will do what you want me to do. 139 (no. Abū l-Ḥakam b. Abū l-Ḥasan told him: “If you want to sell your soul to God. there are two detailed accounts of these events. which is the closest source to the events: When Abū l-Ḥakam b.’” [The servant] did as he was ordered. and Ibn Barrajān’s entry is not among them. and escorted him to Marrakesh. 536/1142) 103 in Almeria discredited Ibn al-ʿArīf before the sultan and made him so fearful of Ibn al-ʿArīf that he summoned him with Ibn Barrajān and al-Mayūrqī. He died on his way home.   A black man. may the curse of God fall upon him. 608). 106. 170 (no. some say from illness. . see Ibn al-Abbār. Barrajān was summoned from Cordoba to His Excellency [the sultan] in Marrakesh. the qāḍī Ibn Aswad (d. he was summoned to Marrakesh where he was questioned and condemned to be whipped and imprisoned. no. 1973). is found in Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī’s Lisān al-mīzān. freed him. which quotes al-Marrākushī’s al-Dhayl wa-l-takmila li-kitābay al-Mawṣūl wa-l-Ṣila. in 537/1143. Muʿjam. upon his release. 1294). He answered based on what was supported by interpretation of the sacred sources (taʾwīl) and thus distanced himself from the criticism he was forced to answer. In addition. al-Ikhāṭa. although it has attracted little attention. 107. 105. Tashawwuf. 105 according to Ibn al-Khaṭīb. 3: 849 (no. Al-ʿAsqalānī. 3: 190. Whatever the case. 103.

[Ibn Barrajān] fell ill some days later and died in the month of Muḥarram. “El castigo de los herejes y su relación con formas de poder político y religioso en al-Andalus (ss. Ibn al-ʿArīf. See Garden. ss. al-ʿArabī. García-Fitz (Madrid. as the import of his works shows. in accordance with what he had determined fol- lowing the calumnies of the jurists against [Ibn Barrajān]. Indeed. ed. we know of no political pressure that Ibn Bashkuwāl was under to withhold an entry on Ibn Barrajān— whose fellow prisoner. 2008). M. and he who summoned me will outlive me only for a short time as well. . and al-Dhahabī. Since Ibn Barrajān was a major scholar of his time. was included—and Ibn Bashkuwāl included other ulema who had been imprisoned and had had political difficulties. Tāshufīn. 110 Hence the reference to taʾwīl has a legal significance as well. 109 Instead. links the arrest of Ibn Barrajān and Ibn al-ʿArīf to ʿAlī b. while ʿAlī b. and buried him.” in El cuerpo derrotado: Cómo trataban musulmanes y cristianos a los enemigos vencidos. Fierro and F. long after the Almoravids had disappeared. He defended himself by using arguments relying (iḥtimāl) on interpretation of the sacred sources (taʾwīl). just as he was a student of all of Ibn Manẓūr’s other students in Cordoba and Seville.”al-Qanṭara 22 (2001): 482. [Ibn Barrajān] said: “I am only going to live for a short time.676 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133. exclusion from biographical dictionar- ies was a common practice in such cases. 283–316. 20: 72–74 (no. Tāshufīn’s fear of a revolt by Sufi groups like that of Ibn Tūmart. Since he had been told [by Ibn Barrajān] that he was going to die. II/VIII-VII/XIII). sent a black servant to publicly proclaim in the markets: “Attend the funeral of this man. They affirmed in the sultan’s presence that [Ibn Barrajān] was introducing innovations [in religious matters]. such as his teacher Abū Bakr b.” An examining committee (majlis munāẓara) was convened and they laid before him the different matters they condemned.  Ken Garden. It would seem therefore that the most plausible reason for Ibn Barrajān’s absence in al-Ṣila is his condemnation for religious matters and probably for bidʿa. it would not usually lead to a sentence of zandaqa ‘heresy’ but to bidʿa. The fact that Ibn Bashkuwāl excluded Ibn Barrajān from al-Ṣila strongly supports the argument that Ibn Barrajān was condemned for bidʿa. They performed the ritual washing of his body. But someone from among the people of excellence. VIII-XIII. the date of the last death recorded. 69. but they were not satisfied with [his answers] since they did not understand the meaning of what he said. “Al-Ghazālī’s Contested Revival. 110. 44). Perhaps he was omitted for political reasons or because of his imprisonment.” So the squares were filled with people. Siyar. 111. Neither of these two texts references a Sufi uprising or fear of one like that of the Almo- hads. His omission is also not for reasons of al-Ṣila being completed before or very shortly after Ibn Barrajān’s death: it was completed during or shortly after 564/1169.4 (2013) Ibn ʿAbd al-Malik [al-Marrākushī] in his Dhayl al-Ṣila li-Ibn Bashkuwāl said: [Ibn Barrajān] was falsely accused before [the sultan] ʿAlī b. it makes sense to believe that Ibn Bashkuwāl would have known him or even been his student. Yūsuf b. Península Ibérica. In the context of bidʿa. Ibn Barrajān was condemned for committing bidʿa. So [the sultan] summoned Ibn Barrajān to Marrakesh. “Religious Dissension in al-Andalus: Ways of Exclusion and Inclusion. upon hearing of [Ibn Barrajān’s] death.  See Maribel Fierro. [the sultan] ordered that his corpse be thrown onto the dump without [funeral] prayers and without burial. Yūsuf died after him in Rajab of the year [5]37. 312 n. If an opinion was obtained through taʾwīl and was seen as being heterodox. although we do not have any account of his books being burned.” 208–20.  Maribel Fierro. However. the term taʾwīl is a technical one. following al-Dhahabī. offered the funeral prayers. innovation in religious matters. esp. in normal circumstances he would have been included in a biographical dictionary. Yūsuf b. There were many links between Ibn Barrajān and Ibn Bashkuwāl. and although Ibn Bashkuwāl does not name Ibn Barrajān as his teacher. 111 109. On his arrival. [Ibn Barrajān] answered based on accepted interpretations (makhārij muḥtamala). They had some students in common.

proph- ecy can be obtained through effort by purifying one’s own soul. ed. possibly in chains. would have caused his death. according to whom al-Ghazālī supported the notion that knowledge is only to be achieved through purifica- tion. arguably in very tough conditions.” Der Islam 83 (2006): 137–56. God does not freely bestow knowledge. First. Al-Tādilī. we would be aware of it. as his corpse. It is unlikely that any signs of violence inflicted on him would have passed unnoticed during the washing of his corpse. therefore. although during the time of the Almoravids it could have meant quite the opposite. at least according to Ibn al-Khaṭīb. who was fully acquainted with Abū Madyan’s disciples and willing to extol the Sufis against the jurists. see. 112 According to Andalusian and Maghribi custom. In addition. whose doctrines were condemned in the Islamic West. those judging him would have known that a prison sentence would most probably have meant that death would be imminent. e. In the later tradition. 15. in fact it is more plau- sible that at that age the hardship of his journey to Marrakesh. His advanced age makes it unlikely. as in his report of Ibn al-ʿArīf’s death. Ibn Barrajān was considered “al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus” and Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ issued his fatwa to burn al-Ghazālī’s Iḥyāʾ shortly after Ibn Barrajān was summoned to Marrakesh. The fact that we do not have any account of a violent death after such a popular burial suggests that he was not executed. See Frank Griffel.. and his ensuing imprisonment. 114 Second. they believed that al-Ghazālī held the opinion that the purification of the soul through deeds grants knowledge of God and. 113 The Mālikī fuqahāʾ in the Islamic West criticized different points of what they took to be al-Ghazālī’s position in his Iḥyāʾ. We know that al-Mayūrqī was lashed. had Ibn Barrajān been executed for a religious matter. Bellver: “Al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus” 677 Even though we cannot be absolutely certain of the cause of Ibn Barrajān’s death. For a discussion of the various refutations of al-Ghazālī in the Islamic West. it would have been by crucifixion.  Ibn Barrajān and al-Ghazālī shared some common features. was ritually washed by the population of Marrakesh. ibn barrajān’s doctrines motivating his conviction It is difficult to ascertain which doctrines based on his taʾwīl might have motivated his conviction as they were not reported in the account. thrown onto the dump. in other words. 23–24. Ṭālibī (Cairo. 2009). “Why Did the Scholars of al-Andalus Distrust al-Ghazālī? Ibn Rushd al-Jadd’s Fatwā on Awliyāʾ Allāh. The Way of Abū Madyan. 113.g. They were roughly the same age (al-Ghazālī was born in 447 h) and both were learned Sufis who wrote commentaries on the names of God.  For this criticism. who later performed the funeral prayers and buried him. al-ʿAwāṣim min al-qawāṣim. Had Ibn Barrajān died from beheading. only death by illness. 1997). Al-Ghazālī’s Philosophical Theology (New York. 67–70. this comparison can be seen as complimentary to Ibn Barrajān. see Delfina Serrano. would have pointed it out. prophets are 112. One possibility is the link with al-Ghazālī. Thus an execution seems unlikely. at the height of summer. We recall the case of Abū Madyan. the earliest sources do not mention any reports or any suspicion of a violent death. . However. who died of old age and illness on his way to Marrakesh after being summoned by the Almohad sultan to answer a number of suspicions and accusations. Abū Bakr b. Indeed. it is doubtful that he was executed. Cornell. after all. although the actual legal punishment was beheading. al-Marrākushī’s text in Lisān al-mīzān suggests that after a few days of imprisonment Ibn Barrajān fell ill and died. crucifixion. Later biographical texts claim that he was falsely accused and that the examining committee did not understand what he intended to say. or lashing. also in his mid-eighties. this may mean little since in view of his advanced age and the hardship of imprisonment. as a consequence of the previous statement. ʿA. 114. al-ʿArabī.

And you do not know when the fulfillment of your petition will take place. the mission of messengers (risāla). . Majmūʿat al-fatāwā. .e. 19: 494–96 (no. . he holds nonetheless that God provides the means necessary for the servant to overcome with his effort every particular spiritual situation by asking for God’s mercy. For al-Ghazālī’s theory of prophecy.  Ibn Barrajān..].  Ibn Taymiyya. which posed a particular threat to traditional religious authority and to political authority as well.  Ibid. 5: 485/289. Ibn Taymiyya links him with the Sālimiyya—the alleged followers of Sahl al-Tustarī in Baṣra—and accuses him of belonging to those who understand God as both transcendent and immanent and thus defending a doctrine that Ibn Taymiyya says is close to incarnation (ḥulūl). since al-Ghazālī placed the awliyāʾ second to the Prophet in the rank of knowledge and al-Qushayrī identified the awliyāʾ with the Sufis—i. “Al-Ġazālī’s Concept of Prophecy: The Introduction of Avicennan Psychology into Ašʿarite Theology. see Serrano. . which is to some extent close to al-Ghazālī’s position—at least as it was understood in the Islamic West—according to which effort grants knowledge of God.4 (2013) not appointed by God and are like any other person. See al-Dhahabī. Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā.]. resignation. 119 He also mentions Ibn Barrajān on the occasion of his criticism of al-Ghazālī’s concept of takhalluq. the One without associate—since it is at the root of the manufacture and the composition of [the different elements of ] the constitution [of human beings]. For a summary of al-Māzarī and al-Ṭurṭūshī’s criticisms of al-Ghazālī and al-Subkī’s answer. and the utmost love. . 118. See also p. and then [it reaches] the highest rank of intercession and the most exalted degree. As to the position Ibn Barrajān grants to the awliyāʾ.  For an analysis of the fatwa issued by the Mālikī jurist Ibn Rushd al-Jadd on this point. see Frank Griffel. while the servant cannot change the constitution. 495 for his linking of al-Ghazālī with those who were accused of believing that prophecy could be acquired (ikta- saba) through purification. 6: 240–58. 218 for a similar statement on knowledge understood through purification (taṭahhur) in the measure of one’s effort. 488.” 118 Some other criticisms raised by later authors may help us figure out additional motiva- tions for his conviction. he states: Know that purification (taṭyīb) of bad qualities of character (khubth khalqī) cannot be acquired. . which Ibn Barrajān renames taʿabbud in his commen- 115. This only applies to God—exalted may He be. 2: 299/182. see al-Subkī.678 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133. those who gain knowledge through purification—this would give the Sufis a position of preeminence over the scholars. Only God can improve it [. the detachment from [one’s] strength and power. 115 And third. 117. Sharḥ Asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā. 117 Even though Ibn Barrajān asserts God’s preeminence in freely bestowing His mercy upon His servant. Siyar. 116 Ibn Barrajān explicitly denied the most important theological point criticized in al-Ghazālī’s Iḥyāʾ in the Islamic West—that knowledge of God could be gained through effort in the purification of one’s heart.] and the key for this lock is supplication [in addition to] imploration. and waiting for the opening and release from God [. However. In his commentary on God’s name al-Ṭayyib. . the most intimate friendship (khilla).  This is one of al-Ṭurṭūshī’s main criticisms. 116. 119. which could be interpreted as suggesting that proph- ecy can be gained through effort. The most elevated people among the close intimates (awliyāʾ) are the link (waṣl) between the prophets and the believers.” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 14 (2004): 101–44. “Why Did the Scholars of al-Andalus Distrust al-Ghazali?” 137–56. he sees those in the highest ranks as intermediaries between the prophets and the believers: “Nearness to God (wilāya) originates (tanshaʾu) among the generations of the chosen (muṣṭafīn) to the point that it reaches prophecy (nubuwwa). 285) and particularly p. although bestowed by God’s mercy.. He—glorified and exalted may He be—does not create an illness without providing a medicine and does not shut a door without finding a key for it [. 142–43.

he says that this time remains unknown since the period (mudda) related to the word “better” (khayr) in the verse is unknown. With Ibn Barrajān and Ibn al-ʿArīf.  Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī al-Ḥaṣṣār (d. 121 The Mālikī faqīh al-Ḥaṣṣār criticized Abū Bakr b. 611/1224). ʿUyūn al-rawḍatayn fī akhbār al-dawlatayn al-nūriyya wa-l-ṣalāḥiyya. 122 According to al-Ḥaṣṣār. Moreover. 2: 686 (no. criticized Ibn Barrajān’s doctrine of temporal cycles on which he based his prediction of the conquest of Jerusalem. such as Abū Shāma al-Muqaddasī. 9: 394–95.  Abū Shāma al-Muqaddasī. al-ʿArabī for introducing names of God that were not obtained either from the Qurʾan or the Sunna in his commentary on the names of God. who himself quotes Ibn Barrajān in many instances in his al-Asnā fī sharḥ Asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā. al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥkām al-Qurʾān (Beirut. This is evidenced by Ibn Ḥirzihim being the teacher of the Almoravid sultan ʿAlī b. However. al-Amad al-aqṣā. along with others such as Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Abū Bakr b. 123. his practical advice regarding the path. Ibn Barrajān and Ibn al-ʿArīf embody the emergence of Sufism among the learned and the emergence of learned Sufism in al-Andalus. 120 This doc- trine was confused with astrology. it appears that Sufism must already have been present for a relatively long time in al-Andalus. Sufism was no longer a movement supported only by low-profile groups. show that he was firmly established in a long-standing but at the same time innovative tradition in al-Andalus. Except for the fact that there were no great Sufi authors in al-Andalus prior to him (if one accepts that Ibn Masarra was not a Sufi author).000 months” (Q 97:3) found in his Tafsīr. al-ʿArabī followed Ibn Barrajān’s Sharḥ Asmāʾ Allāh al-ḥusnā. in the development of the doctrine of the creative Truth (al-ḥaqq al-makhlūq bihi al-khalq). defended both scholars by giv- ing some examples of names found in the Sunna or names not literally found in the Qurʾan and Sunna but easily derived from them. Ibn Barrajān’s works suggest that Sufism had reached a substantial degree of maturity during his lifetime in al-Andalus. 121. Sufism was gaining respect among the Almoravid ruling powers and the popu- lation. the time of its ascent would also be known. Khalīl. The importance of his works. Bellver: “Al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus” 679 tary to the names of God—that is. Baysūmī (Damascus. 122. the books quoted. although in the Sufi view attributes only applicable to God are excluded. although Ibn Barrajān took it from the Qurʾan and it bore no relationship to astrology of any kind. nothing in his works suggests that Sufism was in its early stages in his homeland at that time. Tāshufīn and by the events that surrounded Ibn al-ʿArīf 120. See Ibn al-Abbār. A. ed. Yūsuf b. 229b. Ibn Barrajān does not say this. .  Al-Qurṭubī cites “Ibn al-Ḥaṣṣār. the adoption of God’s attributes by the believer. 83. 1918). the depth of his doctrines. and his spiritual creativity through the aid of his symbolic transposition (iʿtibār). Abū Shāma attributes to Ibn Barrajān the idea that if the time of the descent of the Qurʾan were known. at least in the Maghrib. 2006). for instance. 1991). who threatened the existing balance in religious authority in al-Andalus. it was now fol- lowed by members of the class of the ulema. f. All in all. as. 123 These are thus potentially controversial topics that could have left Ibn Barrajān open to accusations of bidʿa. Al-Qurṭubī. This presence came to a head in Andalusian society with Ibn Barrajān and particularly with Ibn al-ʿArīf. Takmila.” Al-Qurṭubī. conclusion The story of Ibn Barrajān’s trial and death reflects the complex situation of Sufism in ­al-Andalus during the final years of Almoravid rule. Arab. Abū Shāma particularly criticizes Ibn Barrajān’s commentary to the verse “the Night of Might is better (khayr) than 1.  MS Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek BSB-Hss Cod. Other authors. 2: 107–8.

e. make him a guide (zimām) of those who are signs in the paths leading to the purification of souls and an imām of those principals who are banners (aʿlām) in the guidance to salvation.. My translation is based on Dandash’s edition (supra. on my soul] from its Lord (mawlā).  Ibn al-ʿArīf. ʿUmar reproaching his attitude toward the qāḍī Abū Bakr b. and Ibn Ḥirzihim’s appeal to the population concerning Ibn Barrajān’s burial. Yūsuf b. Yūsuf b.  If we read muʿtabir instead of muʿtabar. ʿAlī b. 124 which shaped the Andalusian power structure around local lineages. ʿAlī b. [my master’s] supplication. the one preceding me in surrender (mutaqaddimī taslīman) and in being held in high estimation (wa-muʿtabaran) 126—since the bearer of arguments to be listened to from me is moving him to interpose a separation between (ḥāla bayna) [my] soul and its desire and to bring shame on it [i. I was concerned with receiving a letter from the master—my only one in consideration (wāḥidī naẓaran). 126. translation of ibn al-ʿarīf’s letter to ibn barrajān 125 God be the intimate friend and protector of the faqīh. my God! Unite the essential reality (ḥaqīqa) of the existence (wujūd) of the master (shaykh)—my imām and my senior (kabīr)—with the existence of the essential reality of the knowledge (maʿrifa) of You and the acquaintance (taʿarruf) with You. my master (shaykh) and my senior (kabīr) [in age. it can be translated as “the one preceding me [. See M. the one eager of knowing what is with him. the one who precedes me in exerting the symbolic transposition (iʿtibār).. writing. In the Name of God.  Viz. So I was expecting one of His allusions regarding knowledge or practice.” Revista del Instituto egipcio de estudios islámicos 2 (1954): 55–84. and information were received bringing love and affection to me. Tāshufīn had shown weakness toward the Andalusian class of the fuqahāʾ and the judiciary. Muʾnis. May peace. and blessings be upon you. Bearing in mind this weakness and also Ibn Barrajān’s profile and old age. Differences of translation from Nwyia’s version may partially arise from differences in the base manuscripts. Ibn Tāshufīn’s letter to his governor al-Zubayr b. . on the basis of his own spiritual authority. n. Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad [ibn al-ʿArīf ]. All the same. 109–10. letter. Aswad and warning him against the power of the judiciary in al-Andalus. 125. the imām Abū l-Ḥakam [ibn Barrajān]. may God’s bless- ings be upon him. his being summoned and imprisoned were probably the result of the growing tensions pro- duced by the shifting of religious authority from transmitted knowledge to purity of heart and intimacy with God rather than the result of his leading or inspiring a Sufi uprising against the Almoravids. esp. . For this reason. All this is part of the signs (āthār) I asked [God]—exalted be His name—and it was not His very Essence (ʿayn) [that I asked]. as spiritual figure?] and may the mercy and the benediction of God be upon him. O.] as interpreter. 124. God’s mercy. and bless him and through him with the benediction which begins and ends in Muḥammad. From the one learning from him.4 (2013) and Ibn Barrajān’s summons and deaths: the sultan’s warmth towards Ibn al-ʿArīf. His Messenger. the All-Merciful. Miftāḥ al-saʿāda. the ongoing editing of Ibn Barrajān’s works will help to clarify the role of this important figure in Andalusian Sufism. “Sabʿ wathāʾiq jadīda ʿan dawlat al-murābiṭīn. The qāḍī Ibn Aswad was the one who accused Ibn al-ʿArīf before the sultan. and the benediction and peace of God upon Muḥammad.680 Journal of the American Oriental Society 133. as was the case with Ibn Qasī.” that is. 71). the weak servant of God. Nonetheless. 71. . the Most-Merciful.

my God! Such is the perplexity caused by a weak one with no excuse. O. when his friend is inattentive and his claimer is awakened. God’s mercy. so that the One you have loved for me loves you. O. and blessings be upon you. the vile aspects of his being draw him from You. And [this perplexity is such] except for a misled and weak one. the one whose inner reality is dead with regard to the contemplation of the visions of the Hereafter. . Bellver: “Al-Ghazālī of al-Andalus” 681 And the explanation in a detailed and general manner of one point is obscure to me: [this point is] how to treat a drunk or how to treat him when his inebriety overcomes him. He has no Lord taking over him except You. remember me when you lie down to rest with Whom you lie down. so that we can look at You and be ashamed before You. And may the eternal ever-recurring peace. my God! Cover with Your veil the one with overflowing inebriety caused by the love of the world. And when Your generosity draws him to You. an existence upon which no power is exerted through regulations. so have mercy and pay no attention to what You know [of us] and open a hardened heart with the keys of solicitude. while every wild beast he finds stays with him for a long time and his passions overcome him. And you—my imām—imbued with the veneration deserved by your white hair.