A range of widely copied Arabic works on asceticism and spiritual poverty attributed to prominent Muslim scholars, Najm al-Dīn al-Kubrā, ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī, Yaḥyā al-Suhrawardī, Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī, and Aḥmad Zarrūq, are either identical, or contain significant overlaps. This paper analyses the content and reception of this work, and the 36 manuscripts of it available, in order to clarify the issues around its authenticity, authorship, and genre. It makes four key arguments. First, it argues that Minhāj al-sālikīn widely attributed to al-Kubrā (...) is not an authentic work. It is a recent ascription that invents this title and changes the creedal content of an originally longer work. Second, a shorter version of this work can be ascribed to ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī in a particular sense of pre-modern authorship. He compiled a selection from the longer work that was penned by someone else––in the same way his Irshād al-murīdīn is mostly selections from al-Qushayrī’s Risāla. Third, different versions of the treatise are mistakenly attributed to Zarrūq, Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī, and Yaḥyā al-Suhrawardī in various publications and manuscripts. Finally, the original version was penned by one of the less-known teachers of Ibn al-ʿArabī, Abū ʿAmr ʿUthmān al-Abharī, and soon attributed to more celebrated figures. Through these later agents and their attributions, reproductions, redactions, and publications, the text came to be situated within a Sufi framework and genre. Thus, the epistle on poverty exemplifies not only the construction of ‘Sufism’ as a genre beyond the authorial intention, but also the dispersal of the author-function typical for this genre. (shrink)

In this article we study the different recensions of the Ṣiffīn Arbitration Agreement and classify them into six different versions. Despite the differences in length and language among them, we note that these can be traced to a source document. We then highlight the key features and terminology found in the different versions of the Ṣiffīn Arbitration Agreement and observe the striking parallels that they share with the covenants attributed to the Prophet Muḥammad. We argue that the key political actors (...) who composed the Ṣiffīn Arbitration Agreement were in all likelihood part of the same governing and administrative body that had a hand in drafting the Covenants. The startling similarities between the Ṣiffīn Arbitration Agreement and the Covenants therefore set the foundations for a comparative method that will help us better understand statecraft in the study of early Islam’s political documents. (shrink)

This paper attempts to deconstruct and undercut the so-called problem of evil from a multitude of perspective. It patches works of scholars from both Christian and Muslim traditions to give the response anyone needs. It also highlights the vagueness of atheism.