¹ See, e.g. Morris, J., “Ibn 'Arabī and his interpreters”, JAOS, CVI/3 (1986), pp. 539–64; CVI/4 (1986), pp. 733–56; CVII/1 (1987), pp. 101–20;Google Scholar Chittick, W., “Mysticism versus philosophy in earlier Islamic history: the al-Tūsī al-Qūnawī correspondence”, Religious Studies (Cambridge), XVII (1981), pp. 87–104.Google Scholar

² On his life and work see Brockelmann, C., Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur (Leiden, 1938-1939), ii, pp. 514–15;Google Scholar idem. Supplement, ii, 520–1;Google Scholar al-Murādī, , Silk al-durar (Baghdad, A.H. 1301), i, pp. 5–6;Google Scholar al-Shawkānī, , Al-Badr alṭāli', i, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

³ Levtzion, N. and Voll, J., “Introduction”, Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam, ed. Levtzion, N. and Voll, J. (Syracuse, 1987), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

⁴ See, e.g. Voll, J., “Muhammad Hayya al-Sindl and Muhammad Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab: an analysis of an intellectual group in eighteenth century Medina”, BSOAS, XXXVIH/i (1975), pp. 32–9;CrossRefGoogle Scholar idem, “Hadīth scholars and ṭarīqahs: an ulama group in the eighteenth century Haramayn and their impact in the Muslim world”, Journal of Asian and African Studies, XV (1980), pp. 264–73;Google Scholar idem, “Linking groups in the networks of eighteenth-century revivalist scholars”, in Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam, pp. 69–92.Google Scholar

⁵ See Knysh, A., “Sufizm”, Islam: Istoriograficheskiye Ocherki (Islam: Essays on Historiography), ed. Prozorov, S. M. (Moscow, 1991), pp. 121, 156 and 176–8.Google Scholar

⁶ See e.g. Voll, , “Linking groups”, passim.Google Scholar Characteristically, the author of this article was apparently unaware of the history of the Mizjājī scholarly family, which he examines, prior to the seventeenth century. That the Mizjājī, played an active role in the religious life of Yemen at least two centuries earlier is evident from my “Ibn 'Arabī in the Yemen: his admirers and detractors”, Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn 'ArabT Society, XI (Oxford, 1992). pp. 38–63.Google Scholar

⁷ Al-Kūrānī was the author of more than 100 books and treatises, see Guillaume, Alfred, “Al-Lum'at al-saniya fi taḥqīq al-ilqā” fi-l-umniya”, BSOAS, VIII (1957), p. 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Though A. H. Johns of the Australian National University promised to publish the text of its manuscript and to translate it (see Johns, A. H., “Al-Kūrānī”, Ei, 2nd. ed., v, pp. 432–3Google Scholar and idem, “Islam in Southeast Asia: problems and perspectives”, Southeast Asian History and Historiography. Essays presented to D. G. E. Hall (Ithaca, 1976), pp. 316–19), this has not yet been accomplished.Google Scholar

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Johns, , “Islam in Southeast Asia”, p. 317.Google Scholar Al-Kūrānī's short treatises were probably written after the completion of the Itḥaf, since he often refers his reader to the text of this longer work, see e.g. Maslak al-ta'rīf bi-taḥqīq al-taklīf, in Majmū'a, Yahuda Collection, #3869, 65a.

¹¹ See note 7.

¹² This scandalous idea became emblematic of the school of Ibn 'Arabī, and was shared by the majority of its representatives and sympathizers. It was, for the first time, stated in Ibn 'Arabī's FuṢūṢ al-ḥikam, see Austin, R. W. J., Ibn al-ArabT: The Bezels of Wisdom (New York, Ramsey and Toronto, 1980), pp. 249–50 and 265–6, and has been reiterated by his opponents ever since. For the debate it aroused in Muslim scholarly circles see my forthcoming book, Ibn 'Arabī in the Later Islamic Tradition: History of a Polemic.Google Scholar

¹³ See Homerin, Th. Emil, “Ibn Arabi in the People's Assembly: religion, press, and politics in Sadat's Egypt”, The Middle East Journal, XL/3 (summer 1986), pp. 462–77.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The main stages and figures of anti-Ibn 'Arabī polemic are discussed in my forthcoming book, Ibn 'Arabī in the Later Islamic Tradition: History of a Polemic.

¹⁵ Cf. Johns, , “Islam in Southeast Asia”, p. 317.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Interestingly, this idea is uncritically adopted by some Western writers who claim that “for Ibn al-'Arabī differences between the external forms of religion were of minor significance, as was the distinction between Islam and infidelity”, see Levtzion, and Voll, , “Introduction”, p. 9.Google Scholar

¹⁷ It should be noted that this distinction constitutes one of the hallmarks of Avicennan philosophy, which al-Kūrānī, following al-Qūnawī and his disciples, adopts as a starting point for his speculations. As in the case of Ibn 'Arabī, al-Kūrānī unequivocally recognises his indebtedness to the great Muslim thinker by quoting the titles of his writings, namely al-Shifā and al-Ishārāt, Johns, “Islam in Southeast Asia”, p. 317.

¹⁸ Al-Kūrānī Maslak al-ta'rīf 62b.

¹⁹ See Knysh, A., “Ibn 'Arabī in the later Islamic tradition”, in Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabī(A.D. 1165–1240): Volume of Translations and Studies Commemorating the 750th Anniversary of His Life and Work, ed. by Hirtenstein, S. and Tiernan, M. (Brisbane, 1993), pp. 307–27.Google Scholar

²⁰ See, e.g. Chittick, W., “The Five Divine Presences: from al-Qūnawī to al-QayṢarī”, The Muslim World, LXXII (1982), pp. 107–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ al-Qushāshī, Ahmad, Al-Simṭ al-majīd (Haidarabad, A.H. 1327), p. 183.Google Scholar

²² See Chittick, W., “Notes on Ibn al-'Arabī's influence in the subcontinent”, The Muslim World, LXXXII (1992), pp. 218–41;Google Scholar for al-Sinkilī's indebtedness to the Medinan proponents of Ibn 'Arabī's thought see Voorhoeve, P., “Bajān Tadjallī”, Tijdschrift voor Indische taal-, land-, en volkenkunde, LXXXV/i (Batavia, 1952), pp. 87–117.Google Scholar

²³ See al-Maqbalī, Ṣālih b. al-Mahdī, Al-'Alam al-shāmikh (Cairo, nd), passim. A detailed treatment of his attack on Ibn 'Arabī's outlook can be found in my forthcoming book.Google Scholar

²⁴ Quoted in Cook, Michael. “On the origins of Wahhabism”, JRAS, Third Series, II (1992), pp. 191–202.Google Scholar