² Laoust, Henri, Essai sur les doctrines sociales et politiques de Taḳī-d-dīn Aḥmad b. Taimīya, 661/1262–728/1328, Cairo, 1939, 507.Google Scholar

³ Rentz, George S., Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb (1703/04–1792) and the beginnings of unitarian empire in Arabia, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of California, 1948, 27–8.Google Scholar

⁴ Formal biographical entries can be found in al-Murādī, iv, 34, and ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Abdallāh ibn Bishr, Kitāb ‘unwān al-majd fī tārīkh Najd, Baghdād, 1328/1910, I, 28–9. The date of his birth is not given, and for his death al-Murādī gives 1163/1750 while Ibn Bishr gives 1165/1752. See also al-Jabartī, i, 182, 210; III, 108, 255.Google Scholar

⁵ Al-Murādī, iv, 66, and al-Jabartī, 1, 214.

⁶ Biographies of these men are in al-Jabartī, 1, 177 and 208–10, and al-Murādī, iv, 27.

⁷ Al-Jabartī, I, 182.

⁸ Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī was said to have been born in Tehran, al-Jabartī, I,171, and to have been Shahrazūrī by origin, al-Murādī, I, 5–6.

⁹ In all, the two men had five teachers in common: al-Qashāshī, al-Bābilī, ‘Īsā al-Ja‘;farī al-Maghribī, Zayn al-‘Ābidīn al-Ṭabarī, and ‘Alī al-Shubrāmilsī.

¹⁰ In addition to the three direct lines there are at least five chains of authorities through other teachers of his teachers.

¹¹ Ḥanīf al-Dīn al-Marshidī is so described in al-Muḥhabbī, II, 126.

¹² Three of the teachers listed were not identified by madhhab and biographical sketches could not be found.

¹³ Seventeen men listed in al-Murādī are his students and al-Jabartī adds two more names to the list. Neither of these historians mentions Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, whose studies under Muḥammad Ḥayyā are discussed by Ibn Bishr. Ibn Bishr also mentions that ‘Alā al-Dīn al-Sūratī was a student of Muḥammad Ḥayyā, but since I have been unable to find biographical information about this man, he has not been included in the tabulations. It might also be noted that Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karīm al-Sammān is included in the list of students although al-Murādī does not say that he studied under Muḥammad Ḥayyā. The inclusion of al-Sammān among the students of Muḥammad Ḥayyā is based on biographical information in a Sammāniyya book which is cited in al-Ṭāhir Muḥammad ‘Alī al-Bashīr, al-Adab al-Ṣūfī al-Sūdānī, Khartoum, 1390/1970,44.

¹⁴ Two were born in Dāghistān and one in India.

¹⁵ No madhhab was listed for one of the students and two were Hanbalī.

¹⁶ Two become Hanafī Muftīs of Madīna. (Al-Murādī, III, 134–5; IV, 60. See also ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Anṣārī, Tuḥfat al-muḥibbīn wa ‘l-aṣḥāb fī ma‘;rifat mā li ’l-Madaniyyīn min al-ansāb (ed Muhammad al-‘Arūsī al-Maṭwī), Tunis, 1970, 36–7 and 201.) One became Ḥanafī Muftī in Damascus (al-Murādī, III, 219–28). One was Deputy Qāḍī of Madīna for a short term (al-Murādi, III, 230–1, and al-Anṣārī, 300), and another was a servant of the Daftardār in Madīna (al-Murādī, III, 216–17, and al-Anṣārī, 226). The sixth ultimately held an official teaching appointment in Istanbul (al-Murādī, I, 37–9), while the seventh was a recognized political adviser in that capital (al-Jabartī, III, 254–56).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Al-Murāadī, I, 255; in, 201–2, 260–2; iv, 50–1.

¹⁸ Al-Murādī, III, 215.

¹⁹ Al-Murādī, II, 291–2, 328–9; III, 63–4, 65–6; iv, 60–1.

²⁰ Al-Jabartī, II, 249–50.

²¹ Al-Murādī, iv, 31–2, and al-Jabartī, III, 106–10.

²² Al-Murādī, III, 63.

²³ Of the 12 with Ṣūfi connexions, nine were born in the eastern Arab world, two in the lands of Rūm, and one in India. There were eight men for whom no special Ṣūfī connexion is mentioned. Of these, five were born in the eastern Arab world, two in the more eastern regions of the Islamic world, and one in Rūm. Thus it would be very difficult to make any significant correlations of Ṣūfī affiliation with region of origin.

²⁴ In terms of madhhab, seven of the Ḥanafīs had Ṣūfī affiliations mentioned, five had not. Among the Shāfi‘īs, three had them mentioned and two had not. Even the Ḥanbalīs were split, one and one.

²⁵ For a more intensive discussion of the attitudes and positions of these eighteenth-century Ḥanbalis, see Voll, John, ‘The non-Wahhābī Ḥanbalīis of eighteenth century Syria’, Der Islam, xlix, 2, 1972, 277–91.Google Scholar

²⁶ ‘Mubārak, Alī, al-Khuṭṭat al-Tawfīqiyya al-jadīda, Cairo, 1306/1888–9, v, 11–14.Google Scholar

²⁷ Al-Murāadī, I, 255.

²⁸ Al-Murādī, III, 219–28.

²⁹ At-Murādī, III, 260–2.

³⁰ For a general discussion of the Khalwatiyya at this time, as well as comments about al-Sammān, see Martin, B. G., ‘A short history of the Khalwati Order of Dervishes’, in Keddie, N. (ed.), Scholars, saints and Sufis, Berkeley, 1972, 275–305. The two Bakriyya Khalwatis are discussed in al-Jabarti, III, 106–10, and al-Murādī, iv, 60–1. The third was associated with a local branch in Aleppo which does not appear to have had very close ties with Muṣṭafā al-Bakrī. Although Muṣṭafā's shaykh in the Khalwatiyya was born in Aleppo (al-Murādī, III, 123), there is no mention of this student of Muḥammad Ḥayyā studying under either al-Bakrī or his shaykh. Eather, he was the khalīfa of his own father in the local order (al-Murādī, iv, 50–1).Google Scholar

³¹ Al-Jabartī, III, 106.

³² Voll, ‘The non-Wahhābī Ḥanbalīs’, 277–91.

³³ Ahmad, Aziz, ‘Political and religious ideas of Shāh Walī-ullāh of Delhi’, Muslim World, LII, 1, 1962, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ Drewes, G. W. J., ‘Indonesia: mysticism and activism’, in Grunebaum, G. E. von (ed.), Unity and variety in Muslim civilization, Chicago, 1955, 290–1.Google Scholar