Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism and Their Significance Today

The Present Day Significance of Theoretical Gnosis

Today the Islamic world suffers greatly from the neglect of its own intellectual tradition and yet there are some contemporary modernized Muslim philosophers, especially in the Arab world and to some extent Turkey, who dismiss later Islamic philosophy precisely because of its association with ‘irfān which they criticize pejoratively as mere mysticism. At the other end of the spectrum there are those so-called fundamentalists who are opposed to both reason and gnosis and turn their backs on and moreover criticize the Islamic intellectual tradition, at whose heart stands gnosis, on the pretext of wanting to save Islam. They are blind to the fact that it is precisely this intellectual tradition of which Islam is in the direst need today, faced as it is with the challenges of the modern world that are primarily intellectual.

Some of the greatest problems facing Islam on an intellectual level today are the invasion of a secularist worldview and secular philosophies; the spread of a science and technology based on a secular view of nature and of knowledge of nature; the environmental crisis which is closely related to the spread of modern technology; religious pluralism and the need to comprehend in depth other religions; the need to defend religion itself against all the secularist or exclusivist Christian attacks against it emanating primarily from the West; the need to understand the principles of Islamic art and architecture and to apply these principles to creating authentic Islamic art and architecture today; to provide an authentic Islamic answer to the relation between religion and science; to formulate an Islamic science of the soul or psychology; and to establish a firm foundation for the harmony between faith and reason. The role of ‘irfān is central to the solution of all of these problems. It is only in gnosis that the unifying principle of faith and reason can be found. If one were only to understand ‘irfān, one would realize its supreme significance for Muslims today. Furthermore, ‘irfān is not enmeshed in the syllogistic form of reasoning to be found in Islamic philosophy, a form of reasoning that is alien to many people today. Paradoxically, therefore, it is in a sense more accessible to those possessing intellectual intuition than traditional schools of Islamic philosophy which can also play and in fact must play an important role in the contemporary intellectual life of the Islamic world.

As already mentioned, in the traditional Islamic world theoretical gnosis was not only opposed by certain, but certainly not all, jurists, theologians and philosophers; it was also opposed by certain Sufis who claimed that gnosis is the result of what is attained through spiritual states and not through reading books on gnosis.

Titus Burckhardt once told us that when he first went to Fez as a young man, one day he took the Fusūs with him to a great teacher to study this basic text of ma‘rifah or ‘irfān with him. The teacher asked him what book he was carrying under his arm. He said it was the Fusūs. The teacher smiled and said, “Those who are intelligent enough to understand the Fusūs do not need to study it, and those who are not intelligent enough are not competent to study it anyway.”

The master nevertheless went on to teach the young S. Ibrāhīm (Titus Burckhardt) the Fusūs but he was alluding to the significance of realized gnosis and not only its theoretical understanding, a knowledge that once realized delivers man from the bondage of ignorance, being by definition salvific knowledge. Burckhardt went on to translate a summary of the Fusūs into French, a translation which played a seminal role in the introduction of the School of theoretical gnosis and Ibn ‘Arabī to the West. In fact, although the magisterial exposition of gnosis and metaphysics by traditional masters such as René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon, Burckhardt himself and others were directly related to inner inspiration and intellection as well as teachings of non-Islamic origin, they were also inextricably linked with the tradition of ‘irfān discussed in this essay.

Of course, one does not become a saint simply by reading texts of ‘irfān or even understanding them mentally. One has to realize their truths and “be” what one knows. Nevertheless, the body of knowledge contained in works of theoretical gnosis and doctrinal Sufism are a most precious science which Muslims must cherish as a gift from Heaven. This vast body of writings from Ibn ‘Arabī and Qūnawī to Āqā Muhammad Ridā Qumsha’ī and Amīr ‘Abd al-Qādir and in the contemporary period from Mawlānā Thanwī, Muhammad ‘Alī Shāhābādī and Ayatollah Khomeini to Sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn Āshtiyānī and Hasan-zādah Āmulī contain a body of knowledge of vast richness, a knowledge which alone can provide the deepest answers to the most acute contemporary intellectual, spiritual and even practical questions. But above all this tradition alone can provide for those Muslims capable of understanding it the Supreme Science of the Real, the science whose realization is the highest goal of human existence.68

Endnotes

1 We use this Latin term to distinguish it from “sacred science” which possesses a more general meaning and includes also traditional cosmological sciences.

2 As far as opposition to Ibn ‘Arabī’s doctrines are concerned, see for example, Alexander Knysh, Ibn ‘Arabī in the Later Islamic Tradition—The Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999).

3 On the traditional understanding of the perennial philosophy see Nasr, Knowledge and the Sacred (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989), pp. 68ff. See also Frithjof Schuon, “Tracing the Notion of Philosophy,” in his Sufism—Veil and Quintessence, trans. William Stoddart (Bloomington (IN): World Wisdom Books, 1981), Chap. 5, pp. 115-[^128]:

4 The relation between Shi‘ite gnosis and Sufism is a fascinating and at the same time crucially important subject with which we cannot deal here. A number of Western scholars, chief among them Henry Corbin, have treated this issue metaphysically and historically. See for example his En Islam iranien, Vol. III, Les Fidèles d’amour—Shi‘ism et soufisme (Paris: Gallimard, 1972), especially pp. 149ff. See also Mohammad Ali Amir Mo‘ezzi and David Streight, The Divine Guide in Early Shi‘ism: The Sources of Esotericism in Islam (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994); and S. H. Nasr, Sufi Essays (Chicago: ABC International Group, 1999), pp. 104-[^120]:

5 Unfortunately there is no complete or even nearly complete history of either Sufism itself nor doctrinal Sufism. Even the details of the School of Ibn ‘Arabī are far from being known. At the present stage of scholarship we know but a few major peaks of this majestic range and much remains to be discussed and brought to light in the arena of international scholarship.

6 As an example of the relation between Ibn ‘Arabī and earlier gnostics one can compare his treatment of walāyah/wilāyah discussed by many scholars such as Michel Chodkiewicz and William Chittick (see for example works cited below) and the writings of Hakīm Tirmidhī. For the views of the latter see Tirmidhī, Kitāb khatm al-awliyā’, ed. Osman Yahya (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1965); also Bernd Radtke, Drei Schriften des Theosophen Tirmid (Beirut: In Kommissein bei Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart, 1992).

There is now a substantial body of works in European languages on Ibn ‘Arabī as well as translations of many of his writings especially in French. On Ibn ‘Arabī’s life and works see Claude Addas, Quest for the Red Sulphur: The Life of Ibn ‘Arabī, trans. Peter Kingsley (Cambridge (UK): Islamic Texts Society, 1993); and Stephen Hirtenstein, The Unlimited Mercifier: The Spiritual Life and Thought of Ibn ‘Arabī (Ashland, OR: White Cloud Press, 1999). For an introduction to his teachings see William Chittick, Ibn ‘Arabī: Heir to the Prophets (Oxford: Oneworld, 2005). For his works see Osman Yahya, Histoire et classification de l’oeuvre d’Ibn ‘Arabī (Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1964). For Ibn ‘Arabī’s gnostic teachings see W. Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989); his The Self-Disclosure of God (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998; Michel Chodkiewicz, An Ocean without Shore: Ibn ‘Arabī, the Book and the Law, trans. David Streight, (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993); idem. Seal of the Saints—Prophethood and Sainthood in the Doctrine of Ibn ‘Arabī, trans. Liadain Sherrard (Cambridge, UK: The Islamic Texts Society, 1993); Henry Corbin, Alone with the Alone: Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn ‘Arabī (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997); and Toshihiko Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), Part I, pp. 7-[^283]:

7 See The Wisdom of the Prophets of Ibn ‘Arabī, trans. from the Arabic to French with notes by Titus Burchkhardt, trans. from French to English by Angela Culme-Seymour (Aldsworth (UK): Beshara Publications, 1975). This work has penetrating comments on the metaphysics of Ibn ‘Arabī by Burckhardt. The latest and the most successful translation of the Fusūs in English is by Caner Dagli, The Ringstones of Wisdom (Fusūs al-hikam) (Chicago: Kazi Publications, Great Books of the Islamic World, 2004). See also Charles-André Gilis, Le Livre des chatons des sagesse (Beirut: Al-Bouraq Éditions, 1997).

8 See Ibn ‘Arabī, Les Illuminations de la Mecque—The Meccan Illuminations, trans. under the direction of Michel Chodkiewicz (Paris: Sindbad, 1988).

9 On the history of the School of Ibn ‘Arabī and theoretical gnosis see W. Chittick, “The School of Ibn ‘Arabī,” in Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Oliver Leaman (eds.), History of Islamic Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 510-523; S. H. Nasr, “Seventh Century Sufism and the School of Ibn ‘Arabī,” in his Sufi Essays (Chicago: ABC International Group, 1999), pp. 97-103; and Annemarie Schimmel, “Theosophical Sufism” in her Mystical Dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1978), pp. 259-[^286]: There are also important references to this School in several introductions of Sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn Āshtiyānī to various philosophical and Sufi works edited by himself such as his edition of Sharh fusūs al-hikam of Qaysarī (Tehran: Shirkat-i Intishārāt-i ‘Ilmī wa Farhangī, 1375 [A.H. solar]). See also A. Knysh, op. cit.

10 See W. Chittick, Faith and Practice of Islam (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992); Chittick, “The Five Divine Presences: From al-Qūnawī to al- Qaysarī,” Muslim World, vol. 72, 1982, pp. 107-128; and Chittick, “The Last Will and Testament of Ibn ‘Arabī’s Foremost Disciple and Some Notes on its Author,” Sophia perennis, vol. 4, no. 1, 1978, pp. 43-[^58]: See also Muhammad Khwājawī, Daw Sadr al-Dīn (Tehran, Intishārāt-i Mawlā, 1378 [A.H. solar]), pp. 17-114, containing one of the best summaries of the life, works and thought of Qūnawī.

11 See Kitāb al-fukūk, ed. by M. Khwājawī (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Mawlā, 1371 [A.H.solar]).

12 See the edition of M. Khwājawī (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Mawlā, 1374 [A.H. solar]). This large volume includes, besides the texts of Qūnawī and Fanārī, glosses by later members of the School of theoretical gnosis in Persia from Āqā Muhammad Ridā Qumsha’ī, Mīrzā Hāshim Ashkiwarī, and Sayyid Muhammad Qummī to Ayatollah Rūh Allāh Khumaynī (Khomeini) and Hasanzādah Āmulī. There are also numerous commentaries on this text by Turkish authors.

13 This work was studied and translated by Arthur J. Arberry along with other poems of Ibn al-Fārid in The Mystical Poems of Ibn al- Fārid (London: E. Walker, 1952 and Dublin: E. Walker, 1956). See also Emil Homerin, The Wine of Love and Life (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005).

14 See S. J. Āshtiyānī’s edition with commentary and introduction upon Mashāriq al-darārī (Mashhad: Chāpkhāna-yi Dānishgāh-i Firdawsī, 1398 [A.H. solar]).

15 See his Sharh fusūs al-hikam (Qom: Būstān-i kitāb, 2002).

16 See Kashānī, Sharh fus ūs al-hikam, (Cairo: Mustafā al-Bābī al-Halabī, 1966); also his Majmū‘at al-rasā’il wa’l-musannafāt, ed. Majīd Hādī-zādah (Tehran: Mīrāth-i maktūb, 2000); and his Traité sur la prédestination et le libre arbitre, trans. Omar Guyard (Beirut: Al-Bouraq, 2005).

17 On Maghribī Sufism see Vincent Cornell, The Realm of the Saint—Power and Authority in Moroccan Sufism (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1998).

18 When Titus Burckhardt was in Morocco in the 1930’s, he experienced directly the presence of these teachings. We shall turn to this matter later in this essay.

19 See Michel Chodkiewicz, Spiritual Writings of Amir ‘Abd al-Kader, trans. by team under James Chrestensen and Tom Manning (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995); and Le Livre des haltes, edited and trans. by Michel Lagande (Leiden: Brill, 2000).

20 See Michael Winter, Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt: Studies in the Writings of ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Sha‘rānī (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1982).

21 See A. Knysh, op.cit., pp. 225ff.

22 See al-Jīlī, Universal Man, extracts translated with commentary by Titus Burckhardt, English. English translation from the French by Angela Culme-Seymour (Sherborne, Glos.: Beshara Press, 1983); and Reynold A. Nicholson, Studies in Islamic Mysticism (Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 1978), Chapter II, pp. 77ff. 23 See Nābulusī, Sharh dīwān ibn al-Fārid (Beirut: Dār al-Turāth, 196?); and Elizabeth Sirriyeh, Sufi Visionary of Ottoman Damascus: ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī, 1641-1731 (London: Routledge Curzon, 2005).

24 See Leslie Cadavid (ed. and trans.), Two Who Attained (Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, in press).

25 In light of our discussion of the significance of theoretical gnosis it is important to note that this master of ‘irfān was the first rector of a university, to use a contemporary

term, in the Ottoman Empire. On Qaysarī see the introduction of S. J. Āshtiyānī to Rasā’il-i Qaysarī (Tehran: Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy, 1357 [A.H. solar]); Mehmet Bayraktar (ed.), Dāwūd Qaysarī—Rasā’il (Kayseri: Metroplitan Municipality, 1997); and also Emil Homerin, op. cit.

Many glosses have been written to this day on Qaysarī’s commentary including that of Ayatollah Khomeini. See Āyat Allāh al-‘uzmā al-Imām al-Khumaynī, Ta‘līqāt ‘alā sharh fusūs al-hikam wa misbāh al-uns (Qom: Daftar-i tablīghāt-i islāmī. 1410 [A.H. lunar]). There were also numerous Ottoman glosses and commentaries on Qaysarī.

26 See his Commentary upon the Introduction of Qaysarī to the Fusūs al-Hikam of Ibn Arabī, with introductions in French and English by Henry Corbin and Seyyed Hossein Nasr (Mashhad: Meshed University Press, 1966).

27 See ft. nt. [^12]:

28 See Ibrahim Kalin’s entries to these figures in Oliver Leaman (ed.), Dictionary of Islamic Philosophy (forthcoming).

29 See W. Chittick, “The School of Ibn ‘Arabī,” in S. H. Nasr and Oliver Leaman (eds.), History of Islamic Philosophy, p. [^520]:

On the history of this School in India in general see W. Chittick, “Notes on Ibn ‘Arabī’s Influence in the Subcontinent,” in The Muslim World, vol. LXXXII, no. 3-4, July-October, 1992, pp. 218-241; and Sayyid ‘Alī ‘Abbās Rizvi, A History of Sufism in India (2 vols.) (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978), in passim.

30 Chittick discusses many of these figures in his “Notes on Ibn ‘Arabī’s Influence…”

31 See Chittick, “Notes on Ibn ‘Arabī’s Influence …,” pp. 233ff.

32 See for example, Shah Waliullah of Delhi, Sufism and the Islamic Tradition, trans. G. N. Jalbani, ed. D. B. Fry (London: Octagon Press, 1980). This work contains the translation of both the Lamahāt, one of Shāh Walī Allāh’s main philosophical texts, and the Sata‘āt. Both texts, and especially the first, reveal the influence of theoretical gnosis on this major intellectual figure.

On Thanvi see Fuad Nadeem, “A Traditional Islamic Response to the Rise of Modernism,” in Joseph Lumbard (ed.), Islam Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom Books, 2004), pp. 79-[^116]:

33 See Syed Muhaammad Naquib al-Attas, The Mysticism of Hamzah Fansūrī (Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1970).

34 See Zailan Moris, “South-east Asia,” in Nasr and Leaman (eds.), History of Islamic Philosophy, pp. 1134ff.

35 Sachiko Murata, Chinese Gleams of Sufi Light: Wang Tai-Yü’s Great Learning of the Pure and Real and Liu Chih’s Displaying the Concealment of the Real Realm (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2000), pp. 32ff. See also Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, The Dao of Muhammad: A Cultural History of Muslims in Late Imperial China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005).

36 See Balyānī, Épître sur l’Unicité absolue, trans. Michel Chodkiewicz (Paris: Les Deux Océans, 1982).

37 See Henry Corbin and Osman Yahya, La Philosophie shi‘ite (Paris-Tehran: Andrien-Maisonneuve and Departement d’Iranologie, 1969); and (same authors) Le Texte des textes (Paris-Tehran: Andrien-Maisonneuve and Departement d’Iranologie, 1975). This work contains Āmulī’s commentary on the Fusūs. See also Henry Corbin, En Islam iranien, Vol. III, pp. 149ff.

38 Edited by Rajab ‘Alī Mazlūmī (Tehran: McGill University and Tehran University Press, 1980).

39 This long work has been studied and edited by Māyil Hirawī as Sharh fusūs alhikam (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Mawlā, 1368 [A.H. solar]).

40 Edited by Muhsin Bīdādfar (Qom: Intishārāt-i Bīdār, 1378 [A. H. solar]).

41 Edited with introduction and commentary by S. J. Āshtiyānī (Tehran: Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy, 1976). On Ibn Turkah see H. Corbin, En Islam iranien, vol. III, pp. 233ff.; and S. H. Nasr, Islamic Philosophy—From Its Origin to Today—Philosophy in the Land of Prophecy (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, forthcoming), Chapter [^10]:

42 See Āmulī, Tahrīr tamhīd al-qawā‘id (Tehran: Intishārāt-i al-Zahrā’, 1372 [A.H.solar]). This voluminous text is one of the major works on theoretical gnosis to appear in recent times.

43 Edited by W. Chittick (Tehran: The Imperial Academy of Philosophy, 1977). This edition contains a major introduction by Āshtiyānī dealing with some of the most delicate issues of ‘irfān.

44 We were privileged to study the Ashi‘‘at al-lama‘āt over a several year period with Sayyid Muhammad Kāzim Assār who expounded the major themes of gnosis through this beautifully written text.

45 On Shi‘ism in Safavid Persia see, S. H. Nasr, Traditional Islam in the Modern World (London: KPI, 1987), Chapter 4, pp. 59-[^72]:

46 See S. H. Nasr, Sadr al-Dīn Shīrāzī and his Transcendent Theosophy (Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1997), Chapter 4, pp. 69-[^82]:

47 See Yahya Christian Bonaud, L’Imam Khomeyni, un gnostique méconnu du XXe siècle (Beirut: Les Éditions Al-Bouraq, 1997), pp. 80-[^81]: Bonaud mentions in this connection a number of names such as Mullā Hasan Lunbānī (d. 1094/1683) and Muhammad ‘Alī Muzaffar (d. 1198/1783-84) as does S. J. Āshtiyānī, but the history of ‘irfān-i nazarī from the Safavid period to Sayyid Radī is far from clear. As far as ‘irfān is concerned, Sayyid Radī possibly studied with Mullā Muhammad Ja‘far Ābāda’ī.

48 On him see Manūchihr Sadūq Suhā, Tārīkh-i hukamā’ wa ‘urafā-yi muta’akhkhir (Tehran: Intishārāt-i hikmat, 1381 [A.H. solar]), pp. 261-[^262]:

49 On Āqā Muhammad Ridā see Sadūqī Suhā, op.cit., p. 259ff. On him and other major figures of the School of Tehran see also Nasr, Islamic Philosophy from its Origin to Today, Chapter [^13]: See also the introductions of S. J. Āshtiyānī to Sharh al-mashā‘ir of Lāhījī (Mashhad: Mashhad University Press, 1964); and to Mullā Sadrā’s al-Shawāhid al-rubūbiyyah (Mashhad: Mashhad University Press, 1967), concerning Āqā Muhammad Ridā and the whole history of ‘irfān in Persia from the end of the Safavid period onward.

50 See Sadūqī Suhā, op.cit., p. [^267]:

51 These figures are discussed by Suhā. See also our Islamic Philosophy … For Shahābādī see Bonaud, op.cit., pp. 82-[^87]:

52 Bonaud, op.cit., p. [^87]:

53 The major study of Bonaud, cited above, is an exception. Nothing comparable exists in English.

54 One day in the 1960’s when we were discussing the philosophical ideas of Ayatollah Khomeini with our eminent teacher, ‘Allāmah Tabātabā’ī, who was his friend, we asked the ‘Allāmah what philosophical schools most attracted Ayatollah Khomeini. He answered that Ayatollah Khomeini had little patience (hawsilah) for the logical arguments of Peripatetic philosophy but was more interested in Mullā Sadrā and Ibn ‘Arabī. The same view is confirmed by Mīrzā Mahdī Hā’irī who studied with Ayatollah Khomeini and who says, He [Imam Khomeini] did not have much interest in Peripatetic philosophy and logic. His teaching of the Asfār had more of a gnostic attraction. He had studied ‘irfān well with Āqā-yi Shāhābādī and was busy all the time reading the books of Ibn ‘Arabī. Therefore, he also looked at the Asfār from the point of view of Ibn ‘Arabī and not from the perspective of Ibn Sīnā and Fārābī. When he came to the words of Ibn Sīnā and Fārābī, he would become completely uncomfortable and would escape from philosophical constraints through the rich power of ‘irfān. Khirad-nāma-yi hamshahrī, June 1, 2005, p. 17

55 On the different gnostic currents in Shi‘ism see our foreword to Husaynī Tihrānī, Kernel of the Kernel (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2003), xiii-xix.

56 On the gnostic works of Ayatollah Khomeini see Bonaud, op.cit., Chapter 2, 103ff. The institution called Mu’assisa-yi tanzīm wa nashr-i āthār-i al-Imām al-Khumaynī in Tehran has published all of his works including those concerned with gnosis as well as the dīwān of his poetry.

57 This is not only true of Persia but also of Shi‘ite circles in Iraq such as the one in Najaf, at least until a few years ago. During the Qajar and early Pahlavi periods, Tehran was better known for ‘irfān-i nazarī and Najaf for operative ‘irfān, although texts such as the Fusūs were also taught in Najaf by remarkable masters with whom such luminaries as ‘Allāmah Tabātabā’ī studied this seminal text.

58 Tehran, Sāzimān-i chāp wa intishārāt-i Wizārāt-i Farhang wa Irshād-i islāmī, 1378 [A.H. solar].

59 To quote the original French, “La substance de la connaissance est la Connaissance de la Substance.” F. Schuon, Formes et substance dans les religions (Paris: Dervy-Livres, 1975, p. 35).

60 We have dealt with this issue extensively in our Knowledge and the Sacred; see also F. Schuon, Stations of Wisdom (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom Books, 1995), pp. 1-[^42]:

61 We have dealt with the teachings of this Supreme Science in our Knowledge and the Sacred, Chapter 4, pp. 130ff. This Supreme Science is of course also metaphysics as traditionally understood. See René Guénon, “Oriental Metaphysics,” in Jacob Needleman (ed.), The Sword of Gnosis (Boston: Arkana, 1986), pp. 40-[^56]: Schuon has also written many illuminating pages on this subject including his book Survey of Metaphysics and Esoterism, trans. Gustavo Polit (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom Books, 1986). See also S. H. Nasr (ed.), The Essential Frithjof Schuon (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom Books, 2005), especially pp. 309ff.

62 See for example, Martin Lings, A Sufi Saint of the Twentieth Century (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1973), Chapter X, pp. 176ff; and Henry Corbin, Temple and Contemplation, trans. Philip and Liadain Sherrard (London: KPI, 1986), pp. 183ff.

63 Metaphysically speaking, creation must take place in God before the external act of creation takes place. On this important doctrine across many religious boundaries see Leo Schaya, La Création en Dieu (Paris, Dervy-Livres, 1983).

64 See W. Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn al-‘Arabī’s Cosmology (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998).

65 See Toshihiko Tzutsu, Creation and the Timeless Order of Things (Ashland, OR: White Cloud Press, 1984).

66 For outstanding examples of this function of metaphysics and gnosis see René Guénon, Fundamental Symbols: The Universal Language of Sacred Science, trans. Alvin Moore, ed. Martin Lings (Cambridge, UK: Quinta Essentia, 1995); and Martin Lings, Symbol and Archetype: A Study of the Meaning of Existence (Cambridge (UK): Quinta Essentia, 1991).

67 We have dealt with this issue extensively in our Knowledge and the Sacred.

68 See our In the Garden of Truth (San Francisco, CA: Harper, forthcoming).