In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

So far we have described the understanding of sainthood among the spiritual predecessors of the Wafå’iyya. These may be divided generally into two camps, that of Tirmidh• / Ibn >Arab•, and that of the early Shådhiliyya. In a summary way, we can point to Ibn >Arab•’s concept of ‘General prophecy’ (nubuwwa >åmma) as his pivotal innovation, an innovation that “solved” the problem of sainthood, as it were, by accounting for the continued spiritual authority of saints after the final historical revelation of the Qur’an and the ideal model of the Prophet Mu˙ammad. In Ibn >Arab•’s system, this General prophecy took the form of two kinds of walåya, Mu˙ammadan sainthood and General sainthood . Mu˙ammadan sainthood was sealed by Ibn >Arab• himself, and Jesus will seal General sainthood at the end of time. This model allows two things. First, ultimate sainthood may be claimed by Ibn >Arab• as the khatm al-walåya al-Mu˙ammadiyya, while a lesser sainthood continues, thus accounting for the spiritual authority of subsequent saints. The early Shådhiliyya, as we have noted, presented a somewhat different understanding of walåya. In short, they did not develop the idea of nubuwwa >åmma, and their “solution” to the question of the continued authority of sainthood was not as tidy. The main thrust of their doctrine seems to have been to simply extend the functions of prophecy downward into the realm of sainthood. The saints are thus somehow the extension of the ended prophetic function. Also an essential component of their understanding of walåya was its role as a measure of an individual’s spiritual progress. Important figures have accessed the “greater walåya,” while the rest of humanity seeks to develop its “lesser walåya.” This two-tiered conception is similar to Tirmidh•’s theory, inasmuch as the latter recognized a superior saint and an inferior one. Chapter 5 Sanctity and Mu˙ammad Wafå’ The task at hand for us in this chapter is to explore Mu˙ammad Wafå’s position within this complex of ideas. Regarding his doctrine of walåya, it will be seen that his “solution” was to introduce a cyclical element to the equation. He substitutes Ibn >Arab•’s General prophecy with the idea of tajd•d (renewal). As we shall see, this model allows Mu˙ammad Wafå’—like Ibn >Arab•—to claim for himself the ultimate degree of sainthood, but it makes little room for later manifestations of spiritual authority. This model of walåya is a substantial departure from that presented by the early Shådhiliyya. Before discussing Mu˙ammad Wafå’ on walåya we must first take stock of certain supporting elements of his thought. We begin with his understanding of existence. At the start of the previous chapter we noted Ibn Óajar al- >Asqalån•’s accusation that the Wafå’s presented an extreme doctrine of mystical union. The conservative critic based his comments on poetry he had heard from Mu˙ammad Wafå’. By contrast, our assessment below will take a wider perspective on his writings. Absolute Being and Its Self-disclosure The concept of ‘Absolute Being’ (wuj¥d mu†laq) revolves around the question of the nature of existence in relation to the divine. In the previous chapter, in our description of Kitåb al-azal, we noted the “Oneness of Being” perspective taken up by Mu˙ammad Wafå’. The implications of this viewpoint are significant . Seeing God’s existence as the only existence, while a logically tenable position, was not generally acceptable to the Muslim orthodoxy. The need was felt, even among a majority of mystical thinkers, to preserve some recognizable distinction between the Divine and creation. The relationship between the central Islamic tenet of the Oneness of God (taw˙•d) and the existential nature of creation became the matter of debate. Beyond the extreme position of those who would argue for a God immanent in all creation, the dominant understanding in sufism came to be one that recognized both the Absolute Being of God and a qualified or contingent being for all else. Certainly the most sophisticated exposition of this oneness of God in relation to the plurality of creation came from Ibn >Arab•. His position on this, thanks to his later followers, came to be called “Oneness of Being” (wa˙dat alwuj ¥d).1 This doctrine posited first the absolute Being, “for nothing exists other than God, His attributes and His acts. Everything is Him, is through...

Share