ABŪ YAZĪD AL-BISṬĀMĪ’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUFĪSM

— Muḥammad Abdur Rabb

Ṣufīsm, as we know it today, has passed through various stages of development. It started with ascetical practices, such as continuous fasting and withdrawal from public life, and finally developed into theosophico-philosophical systems, each with its own special terms, images and metaphors for explaining Ṣūfī ideas, on the one hand, and well-organized ṭarīqāt (sing. tarīqah, Ṣūfi order) with hierarchical structures and elaborate ceremonies, on the other. In this paper, we shall try to assess how Abu Yazīd al-Bisṭāmī (also Bostāmī and Basṭāmī), an early mystic of Irān, helped the development of the Ṣūfī tradition.[1]

Grandson of a Magian who was later converted to Islām, Abū Yazīd Ṭayfūr b. ‘Īsā  b.Sharūshān al-Bisṭāmī was born about the year 161 A.H. (777 A.D.)[2] in the town of Bisṭām on the highway to Naysābūr three miles and a half north-east of Shāhrūd. At about the age of ten,[3] he left Bisṭām and wandered from place to place for thirty years, disciplining himself with ascetical practices. We are told that during this period he served three hundred Sufī masters.[4] About the year 201/816, when he was forty, he came back to Bistām and, after that, spent most of the time there, devoting himself to mystical practices and to the teaching of disciples. He died in 234/848 at the age of seventy-three.[5]

In our attempt to assess Abū Yazīd’s role in the development of Sufīsm, we are faced with several problems. It is difficult to trace the history of Sūfi ideas with reference to the terms which have been employed to express them; for, sometimes different terms have been used by different Ṣūfīs, and sometimes a particular Safī has used more than one term to express a specific idea. Abū Yazīd, for example, sometimes used the terms ‘Um (exoteric knowledge) to mean ma’rifah (esoteric knowledge).[6] Our problem becomes the more complicated in view of the fact that most Ṣūfī terms, e.g., mi’rāj (spiritual ascension) and tawḥīd (unification), may also be used as they are in general and common usage. Moreover, a specific Sūfi term does not always convey an identical meaning for every Sūfī. This is especially true of the early history of Ṣufism, when the use of technical terms had not yet been stabilized. The chapters on ma’rifah in Kalābādhī’s Ta’arruf,[7] for example, show that early Ṣufīs used the term ma’rifah with various meanings in mind. We also recognize that similarity of the ideas of two Ṣufīs does not necessarily prove the historical influence of one on the other. Human minds may act in similar ways in similar circumstances. Hence, similarity of ideas may very well be the result of analogous causes affecting the minds. Last of all, our knowledge of Ṣūfīsm, especially in its early stages of development, is extremely limited. “Too many gaps remain in our knowledge; too many Ṣūfī writings are unexplored, and too many mystics of enormous influence are all but unknown.”[8] In the present state of our knowledge, therefore, it is difficult to draw comparisons between the ideas of one Ṣūfī and those of another. In view of all this, we cannot arrive at definite conclusions about Abū Yazīd’s contribution to the development of Ṣūfīsm. The conclusions which we present here, should, therefore, be regarded only as tentative.

The teachings of Abut Yazīd have two distinct features. The first of these is his mystical extremism; he had a tendency to go to extremes. For example, he had an unusually sharp sense of what is and what is not permissible. Once when, on inquiry, his mother informed him that during his childhood she had taken a little oil and kohl (kuḥl) from neighbours without their permission and used these on his head and eyes respectively, he located the neighbours, sought forgiveness from them and thus freed himself and his mother from the burden.[9] He had an extreme sense of devotion to his mother. One cold night she asked him to bring her a drink of water. On his return with a mug of water he found the mother asleep and waited with the mug in his hand until she awoke, although due to the excessively low temperature, a piece skin from one of his fingers was frozen to the edge of the mug.[10] Abu Yazīd was extraordinarily humble before God and in his relations with His creatures. In spite of performing a great deal of worship, he said, “If one utterance by me of the formula ‘There is no god but God’ were pure, I would not have cared for anything after that.”[11] According to Abu Yazīd, a true worshipper considers himself the worst of all creatures. As long as a man thinks that there is anyone in this world more evil than himself, he is boastful (mutakabbir).[12] The tendency in the direction of extremism also manifested itself in his mystical teachings. He carried, by what we may call the Bisṭāmī manner of exaggeration,[13] some of the Ṣūfī concepts to their logical conclusions. Along these lines Abū Yazīd was certainly influential in contributing to the development of the Ṣūfī tradition.

The second distinct feature of Abu Yazīd’s teachings is that he introduced into Ṣūfīsm some conceptual forms, images and metaphors, which proved meaningful in the expression of mystical experience. His contributions to the expression of mystical experience served and continue to serve those within the tradition of Ṣūfīsm.

We shall now discuss some of Abū Yazīd’s teachingsl in the light of the two features mentioned above.[14]

Asceticism (zuhd), the elements of which were present in the teachings of the Qur’ān and in the lives of Muḥammad and his immediate companions_; was adopted as part and parcel of the Sūfī movement. Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110/728), Ibrāhīm b. Adham (d. 160/776) and Rābi’ah al-’Adawiyyah (d. 185/801) all practised and insisted on the renunciation of the world. Some of these Ṣūfīs even spoke of the necessity of renouncing the hereafter, i.e., the fear of Hell-fire and the hope for Paradise as motivating factors of the worship of God. According to Ibrāhīm b. Adham, the true saint of God covets nothing of this world, nor of the hereafter; he devotes himself completely to God.[15] Ibrāhīm once said that he had left the world and the hereafter and had chosen for himself the remembrance of God in this world and the vision of God in the hereafter.[16] Abū Yazīd expressed a similar idea when he said, “I looked and saw the people enjoying food, drink and marriage in this world. (I saw them doing) the same in the next world. Then I made God’s remembrance (dhikr) my enjoyment of the next world.”[17] Rābi’ah was once found running with water in one hand and fire in the other. When asked why she was doing so, she replied that she was going to extinguish the fire of Hell with the water and burn Paradise with the fire so that thereafter no one would be able to worship God either for fear of Hell-fire or for hope of Paradise.[18]

Abū Yazīd also practiced and preached the necessity of a rigorous asceticism concerning this world and the next. We can say that, upto this point, he was walking on the trodden path except that, perhaps, no Ṣūfī before him had used strong terms to describe his or her renunciation as he did in such utterances as these: “I uttered the triple formula of divorce, never to return to it (the world),”[19] “I pronounced over them (the creatures) the formula of funeral prayer”[20] and “I was a blacksmith of my Self for twelve years.”[21] What is new in Abū Yazīd’s teachings is that he carried the idea of renunciation to its farthest limit. He renounced, in addition to the world and the hereafter, dhikr (remembrance of God), maḥabbah (love), ma’rifah and the gifts of God such as the Protected Tablet and the Throne.[22] While speaking of renunciation of all other than God, he also insisted on abstinence from abstinence itself.[23] It would seem that this last idea, i.e., the idea of abstinence from abstinence, was taken up by later Ṣufīs as the highest stage of asceticism[24] and the resultant psychological state, fanā’ an al-fanā’, as the highest state of fanā’ (annilitation).

Although Sufīs before Abū Yazīd had emphasised the necessity of and also practised asceticism, no one, as far as we know, had expressed the psychological state resulting from asceticism in the conceptual form of fanā’, and its corresponding positive state in the conceptual form of baqā’ (permanence). Probably, it was Abu Yazīd who introduced these two concepts into Sufīsm.

According to Jāmī (d. 898/1492), it was Abu Sa’īd al-Kharrāj who first spoke of the theory of fanā’ and baqā’[25] . We cannot accept JāMī’s view as correct. Al-Kharrāj died in 277/890-91 and thus belonged to a generation which followed Aba Yazīd (d. 234/848). The view that Aba Yazīd introduced the concept of fanā’ into Sufīsm has additional support if it is true that his master Abū ‘Alī al-Sindī, who taught his disciple fanā’ fī al-tawḥīd,[26] was a non-Muslim.[27] One may argue, however, that probably Jāmī had the correlation of the concepts of fanā’ and baqā’ in mind when he said that al-Kharrāj was the first to speak of the two concepts. Our answer is that the idea of this correlation also existed in Abū Yazīd’s teachings. According to him, the Ṣufī, having been completely self-annihilated and creatureless, subsists (bāqī) on the carpet of God; the self-annihilated becomes self-subsistent, the dead alive,and the veiled unveiled.[28]

On the basis of the available information, then, we conclude that Abū Yazīd was the first Ṣufī to speak of the concepts of fanā’ and baqā’ and of their correlation. From this time on, fanā’ and baqā’ became two pivotal concepts in Ṣūfī thought and literature. Soon afterwards, Abū al-Qāsim al-Junayd (d. ca. 298/910) wrote a treatise on fanā’ (Kitāb al-Fanā’)[29] and developed the doctrine of fang’ into a well co-ordinated Sūfī theosophy.[30] He understood Abū Yazīd’s subḥānī (Glory be to me!)[31] to represent Abū Yazīd’s experience of the state of fanā’. Referring to this famous shath (mystical paradox) of Abū Yazīd, al-Junayd said, “The one who is annihilated in the vision of (God’s) Glory expresses himself according to what annihilates him. When he is withdrawn from the perception of himself so that he sees nothing other than God, he describes Him.”[32] Al-Junayd’s idea of fanā’, which has been well expressed in the following prayer for one of his friends, is particularly reminiscent of Abrū Yazīd’s idea of fanā’:

Then may He (God) perpetuate for you the life which is extracted from the eternity of life as He is everlasting, and may He isolate you from what is yours on His behalf and from what is His on your behalf, so that you are alone through Him for all eternity. Then there shall remain neither you nor yours, nor your knowledge of Him, but God will be alone.[33]

Al-Shiblī, al-Junayd’s disciple, expressed the state of fang’ in the following words:

I am lost to myself and unconscious,

And my attributes are annihilated.

Today I am lost to all things:

Naught remains but a forced expression.[34]

One can add numerous examples to show how the concepts of fang’ and baqā’ were understood, developed, and made key concepts of Sūfism by Ṣūfīs after Abū. Yazīd. Even a casual glance at the standard handbooks of Sūfism such as Risālah, Ta’aaruf and Kashf shows that considerable space is devoted to the doctrine of fanā’ and baqā’. But, as we have said, probably the credit for introducing these concepts into Sūfīsm goes to Abū Yazīd.

Another pivotal concept of Sūfism is that of tawḥīd. The earliest definitions of this term are associated with Abū Yazīd and with Dhū al-Nūn al-Miṣrī (d. 245/860).

According to Abū Yazīd, tawḥīd consists in the realization that all “movement and rest of creatures are the work of God, may He be exalted and glorified, and that there is no partner in His actions. When you have known your Lord (in this way) and He has settled in you, you have found Him.”[35] Dhū al-Nūn has defined tawhīd in a similar way.[36] Abū Yazīd and Dhū al-Nūn were contemporaries and friends. Hence, if we assume that one of them learned the definition from the other, it is difficult to say who learned it from whom. However, most of the traditions which refer to their relationship indicate that Dhū al-Nan was indebted to Abū Yazīd. Dhū al-Nūn would send a disciple from Egypt to Abū Yazīd in Bisṭām to ask a question and not vice versa. On one occasion, having heard Abū Yazīd’s answer to one of his questions, Dhū al-Nūn remarked about Abū Yazīd, “May he be blessed! This is a speech which our states (ahwāl) have not reached.”[37] On the basis of this evidence, it is possible for us to speculate that the Wī conception of tawhīd originated in Bistām and not in Egypt.

Whether or not Abū Yazīd was the first to define the Ṣūfī conception of tawhīd, he clarified and elaborated it, and the Baghdād school of Sufīsm, which deserves the credit for the fullest development of this doctrine, may have received inspiration from him. His ideas that in the state of tawḥīd man loses all volition and choice, that the experience of tawḥīd is something to be tasted and not described, that this experience is the result of God’s grace and that there are different groups of worshippers,[38] are found in a much more developed form in al-Junayd,[39] the most prominent representative of the Baghdād school. We know it for certain that at-Junayd, as well as other important members of his school, knew Abū Yazīd’s teachings.[40] Hence we can perhaps say more or less definitely that the Baghdād school of Ṣufīsm was influenced by Abu Yazīd’s doctrine of tawhīd.

Still another pivotal concept of Ṣūfīsm is that of ma’rifah. Dhū al Nūn is generally credited with the introduction of the idea of ma’rifah into Ṣūfīsm. But this view does not seem to be correct. It is true that ma’rifah does not carry the same meaning for all early Ṣūfīs; hut there were Ṣūfīs before Dhū al-Nūn — Abū Sulaymān al-Dārānī (d. 215/830-831), for example — who spoke of ma’rifah.[41] Dhu al-Nūn’s contribution seems to consist in his development of the idea of ma’rifah and his clear presentation of it. But in Abū Yazīd too we find a developed idea of ma’rifah very clearly presented. In fact, many of Abū Yazīd’s teachings on ma’rifah resemble very closely those of Dhū Dhū al-Nūndistinguished three kinds of knowledge: knowledge of the common man, of the elite and of the Ṣūfīs.[42] We find a similar distinction in Abū Yazid’s teachings.[43] Dhū al-Nūn’s ideas that when ma’rifah comes God becomes the disposer of the ārif[44] and that one reaches ma’ rifah through God[45] are also present in Abū Yazīd’s teachings.[46] In fact, perhaps Abū Yazīd has further clarified the concept of ma’rifah through his distinction between exoteric knowledge (`ilm al-zāhir) and esoteric knowledge (‘ilm al-bātin), his explication of the existence of knowledge in prophets and others, and his idea of the sources of these two kinds of knowledge.[47] Here again, if one of the two Sūfīs influenced the other, it is difficult to say who influenced whom. But what we have said of their relationship in respect of the concept of tawhīd can also be applied in respect of the concept of ma’rifah.

Many ideas of Abū, Yazīd and Dhū al-Nūn with regard to ma’rifah were developed by the Baghdad school of Sufīsm .[48]

Abū Yazīd introduced into Ṣūfīsm the imagery of mi’rāj[49] as a means of expressing the mystical experience. The audacity in this lies not only in his re-enacting the process of the Prophet’s journey to the court of God, step by step, in his own experience, but also in his claiming to have gone beyond all limits reached by anyone else before and to have become one with God.[50]

The mi’rāj experience of Abū Yazīd played an important role in the history of Ṣūf ī thought and literature. Many Ṣūf īs and Sūfī authors, al-Junayd, al-Shiblī,al-Sarrāj (d. 378/988), al‑Hujwīrī (d. ca. 469/1076), ‘Aṭṭār (d.606/1209) and Rūmī (d. 672/1273) to name only a few, have discussed and interpreted Abū Yazīd’s mi’rāj. In fact, mi’rāj became a persistent theme in many later Ṣūfī works. Najm al-Dīn al-Kubra’s Fawā’ih[51] and Lāhijī’s commentary on Shabistarī’s Gulshan-i Rāz,[52] for example, are full of expressioi of the mi’rāj experience.

As for the influence of Abū Yazīd’s use of the mi’rāj imagery on later Ṣūfi thought, many Ṣūfīs took Abū. Yazīd as their ideal and tried to express their mystical experiences in the pattern of hi mi’rāj. Al-Junayd’s experience of tawḥīd as a return of the soul to the primordial State in which it was before it entered the human body[53] was a kind of mi’rāj experience. Al^-Kharaqānī’s 0.425/1033

description of his mystical experience is particularly reminiscent o, Abū Yazīd’s mi’rāj. He said,

I ascended at noon to the Throne, to circle it, and I encircled it a thousand times; I saw round about it people who were still and serene, and they marvelled at the speed of my circling. Their circling had little value in my eyes. I said: “Who are you, and what is this laggardliness in your circling?” They said: “We are angels created of light and this is our nature beyond which we cannot pass.” Then they said: “Who are you and what is this speed in your circling?” I said: “I am a man compact of light and fire and this speed comes from the light of longing.”[54]

A woman Sūfī[55] also expressed her experience of mi’rāj through different stages in a fascinating way. She said,

I was recalling Abū Yazīd’s signs of grace, and I asked the Lord that He would show me him in the hidden world; and while I asked Him, in the same night I was taken up into heaven, in an ascent of perception, until I passed beyond the seventh sphere and came to the Throne. I was summoned, “Draw near ... draw near!” I came finally to the Throne, and penetrated the veils; there I was called: “Approach me!” Then I rent the veils; came to a place where my sight left me, and I saw God purely through His own deed, regarding His creation, and I said to him who was with me, “Where is Abū Yazīd?” He said, Abū Yazīd is before you”; and he gave me wings with which I might fly. My state of annihilation, accompanying me, was replaced by the emergence of godhead, until He took me through Him, that is to say not Him through me, until He achieved a Union which is, without a hint of aught else, that Union which gives no sign of any created work when such oblivion is met with. Afterwards [I walked] on the carpet of the Essence of the Truth, hence I was asked: “At what are you aiming, while this is Abū Yazīd?”  I was then taken to a green garden ... I said, “0! that is Abū Yazīd!” He said, “This place is Abū Yazīd’s; but Abū Yazīd is searching for his self but will not find it.”[56]

Since both al-Kharaqānī and the woman Sūfī belonged to Abū Yazīd’s tradition of Ṣūfīsm, we are certain of his influence on them.

 Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Jabbār al-Niffarī (d. ca. 365/976) and Ibn al-’Arabī (d. 638/1240) wrote books on their experience of mi’rāj.[57]

Aside from the mi’rāj imagery, Abū Yazīd introduced into Sūfīsm the symbolism of the ‘mirror’ of ‘drink’ and of the ‘cup’, the metaphor of the ‘Magian girdle’,[58] etc. These were used extensively by later Sūfīs and Ṣūfi authors, especially by the Ṣūfī poets.

The most important aspect of Abū Yazīd’s thought is that of shataḥāt³ (sing. shatḥ).[59] The phenomenon of shatḥ existed before Abū Yazīd. Ibrāhīm b. Adham, for example, had said, “O God! You know that Paradise does not weigh with me so much as the wing of a gnat. If You bring me near Your recollection, sustain me with Your love and make it easy for me to obey You; then give Paradise to whomsoever You will.”[60] Rābi’ah, Ibrāhīm’s contemporary, once addressed God, saying, “O Lord! Do You not have any kind of punishment and discipline (adab) except Hell-fire?”[61] Another time, having heard someone reciting the Qur’ānic verse, “Verily the companions of Paradise on that Day shall enjoy everything that they do,”[62] she said, “Poor people of Paradise! They are busy with their wives.”[63] Referring to the Ka’bah, she said, “This is an idol worshipped on earth; God does not enter it, nor is it independent of Him.”[64]

We notice that these shataḥāt relate either to the interiorization of religious rites or to the hereafter. From our point of view, they fall into the lowest two categories of Abū Yazīd’s shatahat^.[65] But even in this respect, Abū Yazīd carried the shatanāt to their extreme limits in the Bistāmī manner of exaggeration. His claim that his banner was greater than Muḥammad’s[66] and his excusing the Jews,[67]

for example, are much more paradoxical than the statements of Ibrāhīm and Rābi’ah.

One aspect of Abū Yazīd’s shataḥāt concerning the hereafter is his emphasis on intercession.[68] This is unique to Abū Yazīd. We do not know of any Ṣūfi before Abū Yazīd who claimed to have the power of interceding for men on the Day of Judgment. Later Sūfīs, al-Junayd, for example, spoke of a shāfi’ as one who helps people to achieve the mystical aim in this world.[69] Abū Yazīd also believed in intercession in this sense. We know that he received guidance from several Sūfī masters, and he insisted that others do likewise. But Abū Yazīd was the first Ṣūfī to have applied the term shāfi’ to a Ṣūfī in the sense of an intercessor on the Day of Judgment.

In his typical fashion, Abū Yazīd made extreme claims for himself. Whereas Muhammad’s intercessory powers would be of assistance to Muhammad’s community alone, Abū Yazīd claimed for himself the ability to intercede for all mankind.[70] There are, however, statements which suggest that the function was considered beneath him.[71] Intercession for all mankind would be easier than interceding for a piece of clay,[72] and he would not want to approach God for such a small favour. Besides, intercession is more in keeping with the appropriate functions of the prophets — men of Shari’ah^.[73] Abū Yazīd belonged to the men of ḥaqīqah.

The shataḥāt which have attracted the most attention are those statements which have been uttered in the moment of intense ecstasy, when the Sūfī experiences being one with God. In such moments the intoxicated Sūfi breaks forth in statements such as -Glory be to me!” The Ṣūfī no longer speaks as though God were other than he; he experiences that he is none other than God and that God is speaking through him. Abū Yazīd is particularly famous for shataḥāt of this extreme kind. Of special historical significance is the fact that Abū Yazīd was the first to express the experience of the overpowering presence of God in this manner. Subsequently shatḥ has come to mean especially an utterance of this kind. It took a Khurāsanī rebel[74] to break all the limitations set by orthodox Islām and to cry out, “Glory be to me! How great is my majesty”,[75] “There is no god but 1. So worship me!”[76]

The formulation of shataḥāt in which the Sūfī speaks as though he were God was a most radical innovation. It shocked “orthodox” minds and the response was tremendous. The immediate consequence was Abū Yazīd’s exile from Bistām. What is more important is the fact that shataḥāt became a subject of heated discussion among both the orthodox Muslims[77] and Sūfīs. After Abū Yazīd’s death, we find al-Junayd writing treatises on Abū Yazīd’s shataḥāt and al-Shiblī and al-Hallāj criticizing Abū Yazīd for having uttered the shataḥāt. Ibn Sālim (d. 360/970) discussed them in a debate with al-Sarrāj, and al-Sarr^āj devoted chapters of his Limo to explain and defend the shatahāt of Abū Yazīd as well as of others. In fact, there is hardly any Sūfī author after Abū Yazīd who has not discussed Abū Yazīd’s shataḥât.[78]

Not only did ‘Ṣūfīs and sūfī authors discuss the shataḥāt of Abū Yazīd, but they were also influenced, either positively or negatively, by them. Let us take a few cases of positive influence first.

The most immediate and positive influence of Abū Yazīd’s shataḥāt was on al-Hallāj and al-Shiblī. It is true that both of them cricitized Abū Yazīd; but they made their own shatahāt, which closely resemble some of the utterances of Abū Yazīd. One can see a very close similarity between Abū. Yazid’s “There is no Truth (ḥaw) except that I am He”[79] and “I am the Truth” (anā al-haqq) attributed to al-Hallāj. Some of al-Shiblī’s shataḥāt are very similar to those of Abū Yazīd. Among al-Shiblī’s shataḥāt, we would call attention to these: “If the thought of Gabriel and Michael has occured to you, you have committed shirk”[80]; “By God! Muhammad will not be happy if there will be a single man from his community in Hell. If Muhammad intercedes for his community, I shall intercede after his intercession until none will remain in Hell.”[81] In fact, it would be no exaggeration to say that there would have been no shatahāt of al-Hallāj and of al-Shiblī if there had been no shataḥāt of Abū Yazīd. They were not to enjoy the freedom to express themselves that Abū Yazīd enjoyed. This fact can be explained, partially at least, by the kind of political and religious atmosphere which prevailed in their day.[82]

Later, the phenomenon of shataḥāt became a very important aspect of Ṣūfīsm. Many important Ṣūfīs pronounced shataḥāt in the form in which Abū Yazīd first introduced them. The famous

Ṣūfī-poet of Egypt, ‘Umar Ibn (d. 632/1235), for example

said,

... but for me, no existence would have come

into being, nor would there have been a

contemplation (of God), nor would any secure

covenants have been known.

None lives but his life is from mine, and every

willing soul is obedient to my will;

And there is no speaker but tells his tale with my

words, nor any seer but sees with the sight of mine eye;

And no silent (listener) but hears with my hearing,

nor any one that grasps [batish] but with my

strength and might (shiddah);

And in the whole creation there is none save me

that speaks or sees or hears.[83]

Ibn al-Fārid’s contemporary Ibn al-’Arabī, said,

He (God) praises me and I praise Him;

He worships me and I worship Him.[84]

Elsewhere, he said,

Whenever I say, “Oh Master!”,

He (God) says, “You are My owner (mālik)

 By God! The existence

of My servant has blocked all My ways.

Nothing prevents Us from

serving him in any way.

I do not share his essence,

nor his action with him.

….

And I am the Servant who

looks after the kingdoms.”[85]

Baqlī devoted a whole monograph (Shatḥīyāt) to the elucidation and interpretation of shataḥāt. According to a statement of Rūmī, each of the verses composed by Ṣūfī masters in his day contained one thousand anā al-ḥaqqs and subḥānīs.[86]

There are two points here that should be mentioned. First, in the early period, shatahāt were criticized and the Ṣūfīs who pronounced them were persecuted and were killed in some cases; but in the late medieval period Ṣufīsm became a very important force in the Muslim societies, and few uttered a word against them. Rūmī expressed his satisfaction over the fact that no one had the audacity to say a word against the shataḥāt of the Sufīs of his time.[87] The second point we wish to make is that Abū Yazīd’s shataḥāt were extreme to the degree that, as far as we know, no one after him could utter a more radical statement. Most of the shataḥāt of later Ṣūfīs are moderate in comparison with those of Abū Yazīd.

On the negative side, most of the so-called sober Ṣūfis and Ṣūfī authors learnt a lesson from Abū Yazīd’s shatahāt. Al-Junayd was perhaps the first man to have fully realized the evil consequences of the unbridled expressions of the mystical

experience in the form of shatahāt. Therefore, he placed an emphasis on controlling the mystical expression and used obscure language to express the mystical experience.[88] He favoured sobriety and was joined by a number of apologetic writers who were directly or indirectly associated with the Junaydian school—al‑Sarrāj, al-Qushayrī (d.465/1072), al-Hujwīrī and al-Kalābādhī (d. 385/995). Some might contend that their attitudes were more significantly influenced by the experience of al-Ḥallāj’s than by the reactions to Abū Yazīd’s statements. We would say that the unfavourable consequences of shataḥat were already in evidence at the time of Abū Yazid. He was the first to utter extreme statements which exceeded all limits. Al-Ḥallāj’s shataḥāt were only more of the same kind although somewhat milder. For a number of reasons,[89] the treatment he received was more severe than that of Abū Yazid. In short, then, we can say that the relatively more sober Sūfīsm that came into being with the Junaydian school was in a sense the result of Abū Yazīd’s provocative utterences.[90]

Abū Yazīd’s teachings also contained, in an embryonic form, some concepts which, in the later history of Sūfīsm, were developed into important Sūfī doctrines. Al-Junayd, for example, developed the doctrine of sobriety (saḥw). According to this doctrine, the Sūfī, after having reached the experience of tawhīd, must come back to the world for the guidance of his fellow-men.[91] Later, many Sūfīs and Ṣūfī authors, e.g., al-Sarrāj, al-Qushayrī, al-Hujwīrī, ‘Attā’r and al-Ghazzālī (d. 505/1111), adopted and elaborated on this doctrine. But the idea of a return to the world existed, in a latent form, in Abū Yazīd’s thought. He said,

When he (the Ṣūfī) is united (with God) through his separation (fag), he is given knowledge (ilm) of the unseen of His eternity. When he is perfectly established, separation returns to separation without the removal of union and megatiom of separation.[92]

Al-Junayd also developed the doctrine of covenant (mīthāq). On the basis of the Qur’ānic verse, “When your Lord took from the children of Adam — from their loins — their posterity and made them testify as to themselves: ‘Am I not your Lord?’ they replied, ‘Yes’’’[93], al-Junayd concluded that the soul of man, before its entrance into the human body, existed in a state of unification with God, and that, in the experience of unification in this world, it (the soul) returns to the state in which it was originally. [94]

It seems that the idea of the pre-existence of the soul, on which al-Junayd’s doctrine of mīll* is based, was also present in Abū Yazīol’s thought in a latent form. Some sayings of Abu Yazīd, especially, God’s address to him, “I was yours when you were not”,[95] are suggestive of the same idea.

One very important concept developed by later mystics, e.g., Abū Saīd Abī al-Khayr (d. 441/1049), ‘Abd al-Karīm al-Jīlī (d. 832/1428) and Ibn al-’Arabī is that of “the Perfect Man” (al-insān al-kāmil). According to this conception, God chooses man, endows him with His own mysteries and makes him His vicegerent on earth. Hence “the Perfect Man” alone manifests God’s Essence together with His “names” and “attributes”. He is the pole (qutb) of the universe and the medium through which the universe is preserved; he is the final cause of everything and the connecting link between God and His creation.[96]

Many traditions indicate the existence of the idea of “the Perfect Man” in a rudimentary form in the teachings of Abū Yazīd. According to him, the real 3 nfī does not travel from the East to the West, but the East and the West come to him.[97] Abū Yazīd was omnipotent and omnipresent; he had neither beginning nor end;[98] angels came to ask him questions concerning ^,ilm;[99] “present in the unseen (ghayb) and existent in the seen”,[100] he informed other people of their presence with God;[101] if the people had seen his hidden attributes, they would die of wonder.[102] These are characteristics of “the Perfect Man”. What is even more important is that Abū Yazīd used the expression al-kamāl al-tāmm (the perfect and complete man) to describe the perfect Sūfī.[103] Our evidence strongly suggests that the history of the developed concept of “the Perfect Man” goes back to a significant aspect of Abu Yazīd’s teachings.

We turn now to the question of Abū Yazid’s influence on the development of the social structure of Sūfīsm. One important aspect of medieval Muslim societies in general and of Sūfism in particular was the Sūfī tarīqah. In the fifth/eleventh century, the tarīqāt began to take the form of definite organized orders with hierarchical structures and elaborate functions and ceremonies, In the later medieval period, these orders played a dominant role in Muslim societies. Even today, the influence of Sūfī orders on Muslim minds is very strong in many parts of the Islāmic world. An example is the belief of most East Pakistani Muslims that salvation is dependent on the acceptance of the guidance of a pīr. (spiritual master).

Abū Yazīd may be credited with having made a significant contribution to the formation of the tarīqah. Earlier we referred to a female mystic who claimed to have the mi’rāj experience in the pattern of Abū Yazīd’s mi’rāj[104]. Al-Sahlagī (d. ca. 486/1093) says that she belonged to Abū Yazīd’s tarīqah[105]. We do not wish to leave the impression that Abū Yazīd had an order in the sense of the well-organized tarīqāt of later times. Nevertheless, the fact remains that many aspects of the later tarīqāt were in one form or another present in Abū Yazīd’s teachings.

We know that, before and during Abū Yazīd’s time, there was the tradition of receiving instructions from Sūfī masters. For example, Ibrāhīm b. Adham is said to have received instructions from a Christian monk;[106] Ibrāhīm also associated with Sufiyān al-Thawrī (d. 161/778) and Fudayl b. ‘Iyad (d. 187/803); Shaqīq

al-Balkhī (d. 194/810) was taught by Ibrāhīm b. Adham. But no one before Abū Yazīd ever expressed the necessity of the guidance of a spiritual teacher so clearly and strongly. His statement, “If a man has no master (ustād), then Satan is his guide (imām)”[107] almost became a maxim of the Sūfī orders of medieval times.

To our knowledge, Abū Yazīd was also the first Sūfī who declared that it is necessary for the disciple to be in absolute submission to his master. He said:

If the master orders the disciple to do something worldly and sends him for his (own) good (fī iṣlāḥihi), and on his way the mu’adhdhin of a mosque recites the call toprayer and he says (to himself):      shall first go to the mosque to perform prayer and then go what the master has sent me for’, then he has fallen into a well the bottom of which he will never discover...[108]

We know that a sizable group gathered around Abū Yazīd and that he used to live a community life, as is shown by the fact that one hundred or more people ate at his place everyday,[109] and that he used to sit in the majlis (assembly) to discuss with and advise disciples in mystical matters.[110] On the basis of this evidence, we can say that Abū Yazīd deserves the credit for introducing a more or less definite Ṣūfī tarīqah, which in later history developed into a powerful and cohesive force in Islāmic societies.

The above discussion shows that Abu Yazīd introduced into Ṣūf ism some important concepts, images and metaphors, elaborated and made clear some of the existing Ṣūfī ideas, began the practice of expressing the mystical experience in shataḥāt of the most extreme kind, anticipated some important doctrines developed by later Ṣūfīs and, as far as we know, was the first to have established

the rudimentary structure of a Ṣūfī order. All this greatly contributed to the development of the Ṣūfī tradition. The Baghdād school of Ṣūfīsm in particular was influenced by Abu Yazīd. But it would not be an exaggeration to say that nearly every Ṣūfī after Abu Yazīd was influenced either positively or negatively by his life and teachings. For lack of evidence, we cannot accept many of Zaehner’s arguments in favour of his theory that Abū Yazīd was directly influenced by Indian thought,[111] but we agree with Zaehner’s conclusion that Abu Yazīd constituted a turning point in the history of Ṣuf ism.[112] Al-Junayd remarked, “Abū Yazīd among us is like Gabriel among the angels”,[113] and as a tribute to his greatness, he received the title sultān al-’ārifīn, “the king of ‘knowers’.[114] We have not found these estimates inappropriate. Abū Yazīd was one of the most important Sūfīs of the early period; and, in view of his influence on future developments in the Sūfī tradition, he was probably the greatest Sūfī upto his time.

ABBREVIATIONS

Abū Yazīd: Muhammad ‘Abd al-Rabb [Muhammad ‘Abdur Rabb]. Abu Yazīd al-Bistāmī: His Life and Doctrine. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Montreal: The Institute of Islāmic Studies, McGill University, 1970.

Hilyah: Abū Nu’aym AhmadTilyat al-Awliya wa Tabaqāt al-Asfiyā’. 10 vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-Khānajī wa Matba’at al-Sa’ādah, 1932-1938.

Al-Junayd (‘Abd al-Rabb): Muhammad ‘Abd al-Rabb [Muhammad ‘Abdur Rabb]. Al-Junayd’s Doctrine of Tawḥīd.. An Analysis of Hīs Understanding of Islāmic Monotheism. Unpublished Master’s dissertation. Montreal: The Institute of Islāmic Studies, McGill University, 1967.

Al-Junayd (‘Abd al-Qādir): A.H. al-Qādir. The Life,Personality and Writings of al-Junayd. London: Luzac Co. Ltd., 1962.

Kashf: Abū al-Ḥasan al-Jullābī al-Hujwīrī. Kashf al-Maḥjāb. Edited by V. Zuhkofski. Tehran: Mu’assasat-i Matbūlt-i Amīr Kabīr, 1957.

Kawākib: ‘Abd al-Ra’ūf al-Munāwī. Al-Kawākib al-Durriyyah fī Tarājim al-^Sūfiyyah. Cairo: Dawrsat Tajlīd al-Anwār, 1938.

Luma’: Abū Naṣr ‘Abd Allāh al-Sarrāj. Kitāb al-Luma’ fal-Tasawwuf. Edited by R.A. Nicholson. Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1914.

Manaqib: Shams al-Dīn Muhammad al-Aflakī. Mamaqib  al‑‘Arifīn. 2 vols. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimavi, 1959.

Mir’āt:Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī. Mira’āt al-Zamān. In ‘Abd al-Rahmān Badawī’s Shataḥāt al-Sūfiyyah (see below under Nūr).

Nafaḥāt: ‘Abd al-Rahmān jāmī. Nafahāt al-Uns min Haḍar &al-Quds. Edited by Mahdī ‘Tawhīdī Pūr. Tehrān: Ketāb Furūshī Sa’dī, 1958.

Nūr: Abū al-Fadl Muhammad al-Sahlagī. Kitāb al-Nūr min Kalimāt Abī Tayfūr. Edited by ‘Abd al-Rahmān Badawī in Shataḥāt al-Sūfiyyah. Cairo: Maktabat al-Nandat al‑ Miṣriyyah, 1949.

Risālah: Abū al-Qāsim al-Qushayri. Al-Risālat al-Qushayriyyah. Cairo: Matba’ Muṣṭafa al-Bābī, 1959.

Shatḥīyāt: Ruzbehān Baqlī. Sharh Shatḥīyāt. Edited by H.Corbin. Paris: L’ Institut d’ Etudes Iraniennes de l’ Universite de Paris, 1966.

Ta’arruf: Abū Bakr Muhammad al-Kalabādhī. Kitāb al‑ Ta’arruf li-Madhhab Ahl al-Tasawwuf. Cairo: Dar Ihya’ Kutub al-’Arabiyyah, 1960.

Tabaqāt (Anṣarī): Abū ‘Abd Allāh al-Anṣārī al-Harawī. Tabaqāt al-Sūfiyyah. Kabul: The Historical Society of Afghanistan, 1962.

Tabaqāt (Sulamī): Abū ‘Abd al-Rahmān Muhammad al‑ Sulamī. Kitāb Tabaqāt al-Sfiyyahū. Edited by J. Pedersen. Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1960.

Tabaqāt al-Kubra: ‘Abd al-Wahhāb Tabaqāt al‑Kubra., Cairo: Maṭba’at al-’Āmirat al-Uthmaniyyah, 1898.

Tadhkirah: Farīd al-Dīn ‘Aṭṭar: Tadhkirat al-Awliyā’. Edited by R.A. Nicholson. 2 vols. Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1911.

Notes and References