Ali b. Sahl Eṣfahānī

Ali b. Sahl Eṣfahānī, a Sufi and hadith transmitter of the 3^rd/9^th and 4^th/10^th centuries. He was born into a wealthy family in Isfahan sometime between 835 and 840/220–225 and grew up in relative affluence.¹

On his life little is known. His teknonym was Abū al-Hasan,² and his father, Abū Ṭāher Sahl b. Muhammad b. Azhar (d. 899/286), was a scholar and jurist of Isfahan.³ Ali studied the rudiments of religious sciences with his father, and later pursued jurisprudence and hadith under Yūnus b. Ḥabīb Madīnī (d. 880/267), Aḥmad b. Furāt Rāzī (d. 871/258), and Aḥmad b. Mahdi Madīnī (d. 885/272).⁴ He apparently turned to Sufism in the mid-9th century/3rd century, and began a life of seclusion, devoting himself so intensely to spiritual struggle and ascetic discipline that he would sometimes live twenty days without food or sleep, entirely absorbed in worship and supplication.⁵

Ali b. Sahl’s initiation into the path of Sufism and ascetic practice took place around the same time that Abū Turāb Nakhshabī—a chivalrous master of Khorasan⁶—arrived in Isfahan,⁷ and it is possible that a meeting between the two led Ali into the Sufi path.⁸ What is certain is that he pledged spiritual allegiance (bayʿa) in Sufism to Muhammad b. Yūsuf Bannāʾ* (d. 899/286), the maternal grandfather of Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī*’s father. Muhammad, in turn, showed him great affection and care,⁹ and it is possible that Yūsuf Bannāʾ had facilitated Ali’s encounter with Nakhshabī, since he himself had long been a companion and fellow traveler of Nakhshabī.¹⁰

Ali b. Sahl maintained good relations and companionship with several prominent Sufi masters from Mecca, Baghdad, Fars, and Khorasan. ‛Amr b. ‛Uthmān Makkī (d. 903/291), who was already acquainted with Ali, is reported to have visited Isfahan at least once and sought his help to repay a significant debt he had incurred in Mecca. Ali, without informing ‛Amr, is said to have repaid the debt himself.¹¹ If this account is accurate, it suggests that Ali was emulating the chivalry  )javānmardī( of Abū Turāb Nakhshabī in this act, and this may explain why in the chains of Sufi transmission, Ali b. Sahl is described as the successor (khalīfa) of Nakhshabī.¹² Kh^wāje ‛Abdullāh Anṣārī interpreted Ali’s act as stemming from a chivalrous ethic and his effort to spare ‛Amr any embarrassment.¹³ Reports of Ali’s generosity, including his well-known reputation as generous, compassionate, and man of gallantry (‛ayyār), further confirm that, at least in social matters, he was deeply influenced by Nakhshabī.¹⁴

Ali b. Sahl maintained a close relationship with Junayd, the foremost Sufi of 3rd/9th-century Baghdad, and held a status high enough to be counted among Junayd’s inner circle. He was corresponding with Junayd even before the death of Bannāʾ.¹⁵ In one of his letters, he addressed Junayd as “brother” and spoke with the utmost respect.¹⁶ Junayd likewise referred to him as “brother,” describing Ali’s mystical utterances as angelic in nature.¹⁷ Notably, their relationship was not that of a disciple and master, but rather one of mutual recognition as spiritual authorities. In one of his letters, Ali reminded Junayd that sleep is a form of heedlessness and that a true lover remains awake day and night, for wakefulness is superior to sleep. Junayd, in reply, emphasized that wakeful action is based on choice, whereas sleep is a divine gift—and therefore superior to wakefulness.¹⁸

Ali b. Sahl’s high standing in Junayd’s eyes may have motivated Hussein b. Manṣūr Ḥallāj (d. 921/309) to travel to Isfahan to meet him. During their encounter, Ḥallāj reacted sharply to a statement made by Ali concerning gnosis/experience (ma‛refa). In response, Ali said, “In a city where Muslims reside, someone like you should not be present,”¹⁹ and compelled Ḥallāj to leave Isfahan.²⁰ Based on this episode, some of Ḥallāj’s followers and later Sufi writers such as Hujwīrī came to believe that Ali b. Sahl regarded Ḥallāj as a heretic (zendīq) and rejected (mardūd).²¹ However, three centuries later, Rūzbahān Baqlī offered an allegorical reading of the event: he interpreted Ḥallāj’s words as arising from sukr (spiritual intoxication), and Ali’s response as stemming from ṣaḥw (sobriety following divine ecstasy), subtly suggesting the superiority of ṣaḥw over sukr.²²

Ali b. Sahl also maintained ties with Sufi masters in Fars. Muʾammel b. Muḥammad Jaṣṣāṣ (d. 934/322), an unlettered Sheikh in Shiraz, was so eloquent in articulating the science of tawḥīd and mystical knowledge that Ali b. Sahl corresponded with him, asking him questions on Sufi matters.²³ Abū ‛Abdullāh b. Khafīf, the most prominent Sufi Sheikh of 4th/10th-century Shiraz, also maintained a relationship with Ali despite his young age, and likely traveled to Isfahan to visit him and occasionally exchanged letters with him.²⁴ It appears that the treatise masāʾel Ali b. Sahl, which Deylamī attributed to Ebn Khafīf, consisted of written questions from Ebn Khafīf and answers from Ali;²⁵ for this reason, one may consider him a student of Ali b. Sahl. Abū Ṭāleb Khazraj, an eminent disciple of Junayd and a key promoter of Sufism in Hamadan, intended to travel through Isfahan to Hamadan in 915/303, and Ali was expected—at Ebn Khafīf’s request—to receive him in Isfahan. However, for unknown reasons, Ali declined to meet him.²⁶

Ali b. Sahl died in Isfahan in 919/307.²⁷ ‛Aṭṭār’s claim that Abū al-Hasan Muzayyan was present at his deathbed and prompted him with the phrase lā elāha ellā Allāh²⁸ is unfounded and results from confusion between Ali b. Sahl and Abū Ya‛qūb Nahrjūrī.²⁹ Ali was buried in his khāneqāh in the village of Yavān*,³⁰ which later became part of the Darye quarter (maḥalle-ye Darye or bāb Darye), now known as the Ṭuqchī* district. His tomb lies in the midst of the ruins of the old cemetery of Ṭuqchī, near the shrine of Ebrāhīm and the tomb of Ṣāḥeb b. ‛Abbād*.³¹ In earlier times, Ali’s tomb was accompanied by a shrine, school, and khāneqāh, which gradually fell into ruin. In the 14th century/8th century, Ibn Baṭṭūṭa* visited the shrine and described the vitality of the khaneqah and its resident sheikh. At that time, the khaneqah was headed by Quṭb al-Dīn Hussein b. Muhammad, known as Rajāʾ, whose spiritual lineage traced back, through several links, to Sheikh Shahāb al-Dīn Suhrawardī. Ebn Baṭṭūṭa also recounted the sheikh’s kindness, generosity, and small miracles (karamat), as well as receiving the kherqa from him.³² In the 16th century/10th century, a seminary school stood beside the shrine, serving as a place of study and residence for clergies.³³ Sheikh Bahāʾī* is reported to have regarded the shrine of Ali b. Sahl as comparable in sanctity to that of Imam Reza and to have expressed his devotion to it.³⁴ The shrine’s significance was such that several prominent figures of Sufism—including Mīrzā Muhammad Esḥāq Shawkat Bukhārāʾī (d. 1695/1107), Sheikh Khalīlullāh Ṭāleqānī (d. 1702/1114), the teacher of Muhammad Ali Ḥazīn Lāhījī, and Mullā Abul-Qāsem Dhahabī Khurāsānī (d. 1886/1303)—were buried there. Some sheikhs of the Khāksārī order even adopted the site as their khāneqāh and engaged in spiritual instruction.³⁵ Nevertheless, from the late Safavid period onward, the shrine fell into decline, and scholars such as Muhammad Ali Kermānshāhī—known as Ṣūfī-kush—and Sayyed Muhammad-Bāqer Kh^wānsārī* criticized Ali b. Sahl and denied his mystical status.³⁶

Ali b. Sahl trained numerous disciples in hadith and Sufism, most of whom were from Isfahan. Sullamī reported Ali’s Sufi sayings through Muhammad b. ‛Abdullāh Ṭabarī, Muhammad b. Hasan Eṣfahānī, and Abū Ja‛far Ḥaddād Kabīr.³⁷ Abū Nu‛aym, who had access to many of the transmission lines related to Ali’s companions and students in Isfahan, included Abū Ḥāmed Aḥmad b. Rusta*, Aḥmad b. Esḥāq Sha‛‛ār, Suleymān b. Aḥmad Ṭabarānī, ‛Abdul-‛Azīz b. Muhammad Khaffāf Vā‛eẓ, ‛Abdullāh b. Ebrāhīm (known as Ebn Abrevayh), and his brother ‛Umar b. Ebrāhīm among his disciples.³⁸ Taymī Eṣfahānī (d. 1140/535) also added Abū ‛Abdullāh Ṣāleḥānī, Abū al-Hasan Lunbānī, Abū Bakr b. Khārej, Abū ‛Abdullāh b. Mamaje, and Abul-Hussein Baqlī to this list.³⁹ Some authors further considered Mamshād Dīnavarī (d. 911/299) and Abul-Qāsem Qushayrī among Ali’s disciples,⁴⁰ while figures such as Ebn Baṭṭūṭa⁴¹ even portrayed him as Junayd’s successor. However, the latter two claims appear to be the result of historical inaccuracy and later fabrication.

Ali b. Sahl regarded strict adherence to Islamic law and avoidance of prohibitions as the foundation of Sufism, and he was uncompromising in upholding this principle. He believed that if a disciple were to become heedless of God even for the blink of an eye during their entire life, God would turn away from them: if this heedlessness were unintentional, the seeker would be considered a disbeliever; and if deliberate, it would constitute rebellion against God.⁴² In his view, adherence to the Sharī‛a leads the disciple to a deeper acquaintance with divine mysteries. If the disciple combines reason and spirit in maintaining the Sharī‛a and concealing the divine secrets—without attributing them to themselves—they attain spiritual wakefulness. However, if they become enamored with their own deeds and unveil these mysteries, they fall into self-conceit, arrogance, and an ill-fated end.⁴³ For Ali, Sufism meant turning towards God and turning away from everything else. This conception is reminiscent of Abū Sa‛īd Abū al-Kheyr’s definition of Sufism as “paying attention to one direction and living in one manner.”⁴⁴ Contrary to the view of sheikhs such as Junayd—who equated the terms faqīr and sufi, and considered poverty (faqr) superior to wealth (ghenāʾ)—⁴⁵ Ali warned against bestowing the title faqīr on his companions, and in agreement with figures such as Ebn ‛Aṭāʾ, Ruwaym, and Abū Sa‛īd,⁴⁶ he favored wealth over poverty. Although he acknowledged the hadith attributed to the Prophet—“poverty is my pride”/ al-faqr fakhrī—⁴⁷ he regarded his disciples as the most spiritually enriched of God’s creatures.⁴⁸ This definition of Sufism is closely linked to his conception of divine unity (tawḥīd). According to Ali, the disciple, after renouncing all that is other than God (mā sewā Allāh), may mistakenly assume they have attained divine union, but this is only an illusion. The path to tawḥīd is long, for true unity is like a sun whose light is near, but whose essence is inaccessible.⁴⁹ In his view, continuous remembrance (dhekr) is the gateway into tawḥīd. Hence, when he asked ‛Amr b. ‛Uthmān about the true rule of dhekr, ‛Amr replied: “the realization of His oneness together with the knowledge of His attributes.”⁵⁰ Ultimately, the goal of the Sufi path is gnosis/experience (‛erfān). In other words, the journey begins with knowing the divine attributes and ends with the effacement of human attributes and union with the Divine (that is, the realization of His oneness; efrād). This is the same state Ḥallāj referred to on the last day of his life with the statement: ḥasabu al-wājed efrādu al-wāḥed lahū (“What suffices the one who finds is the singling out of the One for Him”),⁵¹ and which Aḥmad Ghazzālī later termed “the reality of union/ḥaqīqat al-weṣāl”.⁵² In this state, the human identity of the disciple is annihilated, all duality between them and God disappears, and what remains is solely the Divine. Remarkably, such a theologically delicate discussion—bearing clear implications of etteḥād (mystical union)— was advanced in Isfahan, a city dominated by Ḥanbalīs at the time.⁵³ This suggests that Ḥallāj’s own concept of efrād al-wāḥed may have been influenced by ‛Amr b. ‛Uthmān.⁵⁴

In an original classification, Ali b. Sahl divided disciples into five categories: the heedless (ghāfelān), those who remember God (dhākerān), the gnostics (ārefān), the truthful (ṣādeqān), and the lovers (muḥebbān), assigning to each their spiritual rank before God.⁵⁵ In his view, the lovers occupy the highest rank, as they have attained intimacy and longing towards the Divine—even though, based on the verse “they are the truthful” (Q 57:19), the truthful (ṣādeqān) are also granted nearness to God. Indeed, later Sufi masters from Isfahan, such as Abū Manṣūr Eṣfahānī*, regarded the absolute truthfulness as the very essence of Sufism.⁵⁶ Ali’s emphasis on love  and intimacy as the supreme stations of the spiritual path aligned him with the people of sukr (spiritual intoxication) and those who beheld divine beauty, yet this did not compromise the foundational elements of his path, which was firmly grounded in sobriety (ṣaḥw) and presence (ḥuḍūr). In his view, presence resides in the heart and heedlessness of it is never acceptable. Unlike some sheikhs who defined ḥuḍūr as the opposite of absence (ghayba) from all that is not God⁵⁷, Ali saw it instead as the opposite of certainty, which comes and goes. Accordingly, he distinguished between the station of those present and that of the people of certainty: the former, having effaced their human attributes, stand in the Divine Presence, in “a seat of truthfulness in the presence of a sovereign, omnipotent King” (Q 54:55), while the latter remain merely at the threshold.⁵⁸

Reflection on the Day of alast, referenced in the Covenant verse (Q 7:172), and the meaning of God’s pact with the progeny of Adam, was a central theological and mystical concern among 3rd/9th-century Sufi masters—especially Junayd of Baghdad and Sahl Tustarī. Ali b. Sahl, influenced by the Baghdad school, also engaged deeply with this foundational concept, treating it as a living spiritual experience—as if the event had occurred only yesterday.⁵⁹ However, Kh^wāja ‛Abdullāh Anṣārī criticized this view, asserting that the Sufi is ibn al-waqt (“child of the moment”); he is governed by the pre-eternity (azal), and detached from both past and future.⁶⁰

No independent written work by Ali b. Sahl is known to exist. Apart from fragments of his correspondence with Junayd and scattered sayings preserved in major Sufi sources, nothing appears to have survived.⁶¹ A work tittled, [the life of] zendegānī-ye Ali b. Sahl Eṣfahānī in al-Dharī‛a is in fact a short chapter entitled ketāb-e zendegānī-ye ‛āref mawlānā Ali b. Sahl Eṣabāhānī, found within the book ḥujjat-e bālegha, authored by ‛Abdul-Ḥujjat Balāghī, which discusses his spiritual state, sayings, and miracles.⁶² Jalāl al-Dīn Humāyī*, too, in his tārīkh-e Isfahan, discussed the life and sayings of Ali b. Sahl and described his shrine and tomb.⁶³

/Saeid Karimi/

Bibliography

‛Arūsī, Muṣṭafā, ḥāshīyat al-‛Allāma Muṣṭafā al-ʿArūsī al-musammā: natāʾej al-afkār al-qudsīyya fī bayān ma‛ānī: sharḥ al-resāla al-Qushayrīyya, ed. ‛Abd al-Wāreth Muhammad Ali, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‛Elmīyya, 2007/1428.

‛Aṭṭār, Muhammad b. Ebrāhīm, tadhkerat al-awlīyāʾ, ed. Reynold A. Nicholson; Persian edition, revised and translated with introductions and indexes by ‛A. Rūḥbakhshān, Tehran: Asāṭīr, 2004/1383.

‛Ezz al-Dīn Kāshānī, Maḥmūd b. Ali, meṣbāḥ al-hedāya wa meftāḥ al-kefāya, ed. Jalāl al-Dīn Humāyī, Tehran: Humā, 2002/1381.

Abū Manṣūr Eṣfahānī, ketāb al-menhāj wa al-masāʾel wa al-waṣīyya, ed. Nasrollah Pourjavady, in Ma‛āref, vol. 6, no. 3 (Azar–Esfand 1368/1989).

Abū Naṣr Sarrāj, ketāb al-luma‛ fī al-Taṣawwuf, ed. Reynold A. Nicholson, Leiden: Brill, 1914.

Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī, ḥelyat ‛l-awlīyāʾ wa ṭabaqāt al-aṣfīyāʾ, ed. Muhammad Amīn Khānajī, Beirut: Dār al-Ketāb al-‛Arabī, 1967/1387.

Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī, ketāb dhekr akhbār Eṣbahān, ed. Sven Dedering, Leiden: Brill, 1931–1934; offset repr., Tehran: [n.d.].

Anṣārī, ‛Abdullāh b. Muhammad ṭabaqāt al-ṣūfīyya, ed. Muhammad Sarwar Mawlāʾī, Tehran: Ṭūs, 1983/1362.

Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, Muhammad-Muḥsen, al-dharī‛a ilā taṣānīf al-Shī‛a, ed. Ali-Naqī Munzavī and Aḥmad Munzavī, Beirut: Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, 1983/1403.

Bābākūhī, Muhammad b. ‛Abdullāh, ḥekāyāt al-ṣūfīyya, ed. Akbar Rāshedī-Nīyā, Tehran: Muʾassesa-ye Pazhūheshī-ye Ḥekmat wa Falsafa-ye Iran, 2022/140.

Bākharzī, Yaḥyā b. Aḥmad, awrād al-aḥbāb wa fuṣūṣ al-ādāb, ed. Īraj Afshār, Tehran: University of Tehran, 2004/1383.

Balāghī, ‛Abd al-Ḥujjat, ḥujjat-e bālegha, Tehran: Chāpkhāne-ye Kh^wāje, 1963/1342.

Behbahānī, Āqā Muhammad-Ali, kheyrātīyye dar ebṭāl-e ṭarīqe-ye ṣūfīyye, ed. Mahdī Rajāʾī, Qum: Anṣārīyān, 1991/1412.

Deylamī, ‛Alī b. Muhammad, sīrat-e sheikh-e kabīr Abū ‛Abdullāh Muhammad b. Khafīf Shīrāzī, trans. Tāj al-Dīn Kurbālī, ed. Mujtabā Mujarrrad, Tehran: Sukhan, 2021/1400.

Dhahabī, Muhammad b. Aḥmad, tārīkh al-eslām wa wafayāt al-mashāhīr wa al-a‛lām, ed. Bashshār ‛Awwād Ma‛rūf, Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Eslāmī, 2003/1424.

Ebn al-Jawzī, ṣefat al-ṣafwa, ed. Aḥmad b. Ali, Cairo: Dār al-Ḥadīth, 2000/1421.

Ebn Baṭṭūṭa, raḥlat Ebn Baṭṭūṭa: tuḥfat al-nuẓẓār fī gharāʾeb al-amṣār wa ‛ajāʾeb al-asfār, ed. Muhammad ‛Abdul-Mun‛em ‛Uryān, Beirut: Dār Eḥyāʾ al-‛Ulūm, 1987/1407.

Ebn Khamīs, manāqeb al-abrār wa maḥāsen al-akhyār fī ṭabaqāt al-ṣūfīyya, ed. Sa‛īd ‛Abdul-Fattāḥ, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‛Elmīyya, 2006/1427.

Ebn Mulaqqen, ṭabaqāt al-awlīyāʾ, ed. Nūr al-Dīn Sharība, Beirut: Dār al-Ma‛refa, 1986/1406.

Ebn Taghrī Berdī, al-nujūm al-zāhera fī mulūk Meṣr wa al-Qāhera, Cairo: al-Muʾassesa al-Meṣrīyya al-‛Āmma le-al-Taʾlīf wa al-Tarjama wa al-Ṭebā‛a wa al-Nashr, [1963?]–1972/[1383?]–1392.

Ebn Yazdānyār Hamadānī, rawḍat al-murīdīn, ed. Muhammad Sūrī and Nasrollah Pourjavady, Tehran: Farhang-e Muʿāṣer, 2023/1402.

Ebrāhīm b. Rūzbahān Thānī, tuḥfat al-‛erfān fī dhekr Sayyed al-aqṭāb Rūzbahān, in rūzbahān-nāme, ed. Muhammad-Taqī Dāneshpazhūh, Tehran: Anjuman-e Āthār-e Mellī, 1968/1347.

Gazī Barkh^wārī, ‛Abd al-Karīm b. Mahdī, tadhkerat al-qubūr, with appended poems and mathnavīs, ed. Nāṣer Bāqerī Bīdehendī, Qum: Ketābkhāne-ye ‛Umūmī-ye Āyatullāh Mar‛ashī Najafī, 1992/1371.

Ghazālī, Aḥmad b. Muhammad, sawāneḥ, ed. Nasrollah Pourjavady, Tehran: Bunyād-e Farhang-e Iran, 1980/1359.

Ḥamdullāh Mustawafī, Ḥamdullāh b. Abī Bakr, tārīkh-e guzīde, ed. ‛Abd al-Ḥussein Navāʾī, Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1983/1362.

Ḥazīn Lāhījī, Muhammad-Ali b. Abī Ṭāleb, tadhkerat al-mu‛āṣerīn, ed. Ma‛ṣūme Sālek, Tehran: Nashr-e Sāye, 1996/1375.

Hujwīrī, Ali b. ‛Uthmān, kashf al-maḥjūb, ed. Maḥmūd ‛Ābedī, Tehran: Surūsh, 2008/1387.

Humāyī, Jalāl al-Dīn, tārīkh-e Isfahan: rejāl wa dāneshmandān, ed. Māhdukht-Bānū Humāyī, Tehran: Pazhūheshgāh-e ‛Ulūm-e Ensānī wa Muṭāla‛āt-e Farhangī, 2017/1396.

Jāmī, ‛Abdul-Raḥmān b. Aḥmad, nafaḥāt al-uns, ed. Maḥmūd ‛Ābedī, Tehran: Ettelā‛āt, 1991/1370.

Junayd Shīrāzī, Junayd b. Maḥmūd, shadd al-ezār fī ḥaṭṭ-e al-awzār ‛an zuwwār al-mazār, ed. Muhammad Qazvīnī and ‛Abbās Eqbāl Āshtīyānī, Tehran: Chāpkhāne-ye Majles, 1949/1328.

Ketāb Akhbār al-Ḥallāj, or munājāt al-Ḥallāj, ed. Louis Massignon and Paul Kraus, Paris: Maktabat Laroze, 1936.

Khaṭīb Baḡdādī, Aḥmad b. Ali, tārīkh madīnat al-salām, ed. Bashshār ‛Awwād Ma‛rūf, Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Eslāmī, 2001/1422.

Kh^wānsārī, Muhammad-Bāqer b. Zaynul-‛Ābedīn, rawḍāt al-jannāt fī aḥwāl al-‛ulamāʾ wa al-sādāt, Qum: Esmā‛īlīyān, 2011–2013/1390–1392.

Mahdavī, Muṣleḥ al-Dīn, a‛lām-e Isfahan, ed. and supplemented by Ghulām-Reza Naṣrullāhī, Isfahan: Sāzmān-e Farhangī-Tafrīḥī-ye Shahrdārī, 2007/1386.

Mahdavī, Muṣleḥ al-Dīn, dāneshmandān wa buzurgān-e Isfahan, ed. Raḥīm Qāsemī and Muhammad-Reza Nīlfurūshān, Isfahan: Guldaste, 2004–2005/1383–1384.

Muhammad b. Munawwar, asrār al-tawḥīd fī maqāmāt-e sheikh Abū Sa‛īd, ed. Muhammad-Reza Shafī‛ī Kadkanī, Tehran: Āgāh, 1987/1366.

Munāwī, Muhammad ‛Abdul-Raʾūf b. Tāj al-‛Ārefīn, al-kawākab al-durrīyya fī tarājem al-sādat al-ṣūfīyya, ed. Muhammad Adīb Jādar, Beirut: Dār Ṣāder, 1999.

Mustamlī Bukhārī, Esmā‛īl b. Muhammad, sharḥ al-ta‛arrof le-madhhab al-taṣawwuf, ed. Muhammad Rushan, Tehran: Asāṭīr, 1984–1987/1363–1366.

Muvaḥḥed-Abṭaḥī, Ḥujjat, rīshe-hā wa jelveh-hā-ye tashayyu‛ wa ḥawze-ye ‛elmīyye Isfahan dar ṭūl-e tārīkh, Isfahan: Daftar-e Tablīghāt al-Mahdī, 1998/1418.

Pourjavady, Nasrollah, keresheme-ye ‛eshq: maqālātī dar ‛erfān-e nu-Ḥallājī-ye Iran, Tehran: Farhang-e Nashr-e Nu, 2014/1393.

Qushayrī, ‛Abd al-Karīm b. Hawāzen, al-resāla al-qushayrīyya, ed. ‛Abd al-Ḥalīm Maḥmūd and Maḥmūd b. Sharīf, Cairo: Muʾassesat Dār al-Sha‛b, 1989/1409.

Rūzbahān Baqlī, Rūzbahān b. Abī Naṣr, sharḥ-e shaṭḥīyāt, ed. Henry Corbin, Tehran: Ketābkhāne-ye Ṭahūrī, 1995/1374.

Sam‛ānī, ‛Abd al-Karīm b. Muhammad, al-ansāb, ed. Muhammad ‛Abd al-Qāder ‛Aṭā, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‛Elmīyya, 1998/1419.

Sha‛rānī, ‛Abdul-Wahhāb b. Aḥmad, al-ṭabaqāt al-kubrā al-musammā: lawaqeḥ al-anwār al-qudsīyya fī manāqeb al-‛ulamāʾ wa al-ṣūfiyya, ed. Aḥmad ‛Abdul-Raḥīm Sāyeḥ and Tawfīq Ali Wahba, Cairo: Maktabat al-Theqāfa al-Dīnīyya, 2005/1426.

Sheikh Bahāʾī, Muhammad b. Hussein, al-kashkūl, Beirut: Muʾassesat al-A‛lamī le-al-Maṭbūʿāt, 1983/1403.

Shīrvānī, Zayn al-ʿĀbedīn b. Eskandar, rīyāḍ al-sīyāḥa, ed. Aṣḡar Ḥāmed Rabānī, Tehran: Sa‛dī, [1982?/1361].

Sīrjānī, Ali b. Hasan, al-bayāḍ wa al-sawād men khaṣāʾeṣ ḥekam al-‛ebād fī na‛t al-murīd wa al-murād, ed. Muḥsen Pūrmukhtār, Tehran: Muʾassesa-ye Pazhūheshī-ye Ḥekmat wa Falsafa-ye Iran, 2011/1390.

Sullamī, Muhammad b. Hussein, majmū‛e-ye āthār-e Abū ‛Abdul-Raḥmān Sullamī, vol. 3, comp. Nasrollah Pourjavady and Muhammad Sūrī, Tehran: Muʾassesa-ye Pazhūheshī-ye Ḥekmat wa Falsafa-ye Irab, 2009/1388.

Sullamī, Muhammad b. Hussein, ṭabaqāt al-ṣūfīyya, ed. Nūr al-Dīn Sharība, Cairo: Maktabat al-Khānjī, 1986/1406.

Taymī Eṣfahānī, Esmā‛īl b. Muhammad, sīyar al-salaf al-ṣāleḥīn, ed. Muhammad-Hasan Muhammad-Hasan Esmā‛īl and Ṭāreq Fatḥī Sayyed, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‛Elmīyya, 2004/1425.

1. Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī, Ḥelyat al-awlīyāʾ, 2000/1387, vol. 10, p. 404.  [↩]
2. Cf. Ḥamdullāh Mustawfī, p. 645, who incorrectly records his teknonym as Abū al-Hussein.[↩]
3. Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī, 1931–1934, vol. 1, p. 339.[↩]
4. Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī, 1931–1934, vol. 2, p. 14; ibid, 2000/1387, vol. 10, p. 405; also see: Humāyī, vol. 2, p. 214.[↩]
5. Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī, 2000/1387, vol. 10, p. 404; Taymī Eṣfahānī, p. 569; Ebn Khamīs, vol. 1, p. 442; Ebn al-Jawzī, vol. 2, p. 288; ‛Ezz al-Dīn Kāshānī, p. 306.[↩]
6. Sullamī, 1986/1406, p. 146.[↩]
7. Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī, 2000/1387, vol. 10, p. 45.[↩]
8. Sullamī, 1986/1406, p. 233; Anṣārī, p. 283; Ebn Khamīs, vol. 1, p. 440; Humāyī, vol. 2, p. 1215.[↩]
9. Sullamī, 1986/1406, p. 233; Anṣārī, pp. 130, 283; Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī, 1931–1934, vol. 2, p. 14.[↩]
10. Abū Naṣr Sarrāj, p. 325; Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī, 2000/1387, vol. 10, p. 45.[↩]
11. Qushayrī, p. 99; Sīrjānī, p. 18; Jāmī, pp. 103–104; Ebn Mulaqqen, p. 158.[↩]
12. Shīrwānī, p. 41.  [↩]
13. Anṣārī, pp. 233–234.[↩]
14. Ebn Yazdānyār Hamadānī, p. 187; Sīrjānī, p. 216; Rūzbahān Baqlī, p. 39; Sha‛rānī, vol. 1, p. 171.[↩]
15. Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī, 1931–1934, vol. 2, p. 14; Taymī Eṣfahānī, p. 583; Jāmī, p. 105; Sheikh Bahāʾī, vol. 1, p. 88.[↩]
16. Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī, 2000/1387, vol. 10, p. 404; Ebn Khamīs, vol. 1, p. 442.[↩]
17. Abū Naṣr Sarrāj, p. 238; Ebn al-Jawzī, vol. 2, p. 289; Munāwī, vol. 2, p. 117.[↩]
18. Hujwīrī, pp. 517–518; ʿAṭṭār, p. 460.[↩]
19. Deylamī, p. 106.  [↩]
20. Bābākūhī, pp. 94–95; Ebrāhīm b. Rūzbahān Thānī, p. 122.[↩]
21. Ketāb Akhbār al-Ḥallāj, p. 42; Hujwīrī, p. 229.[↩]
22. Rūzbahān Baqlī, pp. 424–425.[↩]
23. Junayd Shīrāzī, pp. 133–134; Jāmī, p. 248.[↩]
24. Deylamī, p. 142.[↩]
25. Ibid, p. 197.[↩]
26. Ibid, p. 154; Khaṭīb Baḡdādī, vol. 9, p. 350; Jāmī, p. 255; cf. Anṣārī, p. 548, who writes: “Abū Ṭāleb Kharraj was well regarded in Isfahan, and ʿAlī b. Sahl became jealous of him; Kharzaj was offended and left Isfahan.”[↩]
27. Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī, 1931–1934, vol. 2, pp. 14, 339; Ebn Taghrī Berdī, vol. 3, pp. 197–198; cf. Sīrjānī, p. 217, who incorrectly gives the date of Ali b. Sahl’s death as 303/915; and Ḥamdullāh Mustawfī, p. 645, who records it as 280/893.[↩]
28. ‛Aṭṭār, p. 579. [↩]
29. For the original version of this story and its attribution to Nahrjūrī, see: Qushayrī, p. 507; ‛Arūsī, vol. 4, p. 103. [↩]
30. Sam‛ānī, vol. 5, p. 625.[↩]
31. Humāyī, vol. 2, pp. 1220–1223.[↩]
32. Ebn Baṭṭūṭa, vol. 1, pp. 210–212.[↩]
33. Muvaḥḥed-Abṭaḥī, vol. 2, p. 92.[↩]
34. Sheikh Bahāʾī, vol. 1, p. 241.[↩]
35. Ḥazīn Lāhījī, pp. 246–247, 295–296; Mahdavī, 2007/1386, vol. 4, p. 520; idem, 2004–2005/1383–1384, vol. 1, p. 176; Humāyī, vol. 2, pp. 1224–1225.[↩]
36. Behbahānī, vol. 2, p. 499; Kh^wānsārī, vol. 5, pp. 233–234; cf. Gazī Barkhwārī, vol. 1, p. 78; Balāghī, p. 99; Humāyī, vol. 2, pp. 1210–1211, all of whom reject Khwānsārī’s claim.[↩]
37. Sullamī, 1986/1406, p. 234; see also: Qushayrī, p. 99.[↩]
38. Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī, 2000/1387, vol. 10, pp. 404–405, 408; idem, 1931–1934, vol. 2, p. 14; see also: Ebn al-Jawzī, vol. 2, p. 288; Dhahabī, vol. 7, p. 120; Ebn Mulaqqen, p. 256.[↩]
39. Taymī Eṣfahānī, pp. 647–648; for more on these disciples, see: Humāyī, vol. 2, pp. 1218–1219. Rūzbahān Baqlī (p. 228) refers to someone named Ali Uswārī as a disciple of Ali b. Sahl, who may be Abū al-Hasan Ali b. Muhammad b. Marzbān Uswārī (d. 333/944), a renowned reciter and ascetic of Isfahan, and disciple of Abū ‛Abdullāh Khushū‛ī, mentioned by Abū Nu‛aym Eṣfahānī (1931–1934, vol. 2, p. 15) and Taymī Eṣfahānī (p. 643) among the ascetics of Isfahan.[↩]
40. Mahdavī, 2007/1386, vol. 4, p. 519; Humāyī, vol. 2, p. 1220.[↩]
41. See: Ebn Baṭṭūṭa, vol. 1, p. 212; Balāghī, p. 96.[↩]
42. Mustamlī Bukhārī, vol. 1, p. 217.[↩]
43. Sullamī, 1986/1406, pp. 234–235; Sīrjānī, p. 73; Qushayrī, p. 99; ‛Arūsī, vol. 1, pp. 264–265.[↩]
44. Sullamī, 1986/1406, p. 235; Sīrjānī, p. 37; Bākharzī, vol. 1, p. 17[↩]
45. Muhammad b. Munawwar, part 1, p. 296.[↩]
46. Hujwīrī, pp. 517–518; Qushayrī, p. 454.[↩]
47. Hujwīrī, p. 32.[↩]
48. Sullamī, 1986/1406, p. 236; Rūzbahān Baqlī, pp. 227–228; ‛Aṭṭār, p. 579.[↩]
49. Ebn Yazdānyār Hamadānī, p. 93; Anṣārī, p. 283; Sīrjānī, p. 118; cf. Abū Naṣr Sarrāj, p. 160, who reports that Ali b. Sahl discouraged people from giving to his companions merely because they were poor, and regarded them as the richest of God’s creatures.[↩]
50. Sullamī, 1986/1406, pp. 235–236; Anṣārī, p. 283; Ebn Mulaqqen, p. 158; Shīrwānī, p. 626.[↩]
51. Jāmī, p. 84; Anṣārī, p. 234: “Yāfte yegāne dāshtan-e ū pas-e shenākht-e setāyesh-e ū, yegāne dāsht-e ū beyāvī pas-e ānke ṣefāt-e ū beshenāsī.” [To possess his unique realization after knowing his praise, and to regard him as One with oneself after recognizing his attributes.][↩]
52. “Be yāft reside rā yegānegī bā vāḥed basande ast,” ]For the one who has attained realization, union with the One (wāḥed) suffices[ ketāb akhbār al-Ḥallāj, p. 36, no. 17; see also: Pourjavady, pp. 37–50.[↩]
53. Ghazālī, pp. 32, 49.[↩]
54. Anṣārī (p. 234), writing a century later, rejected ‛Amr b. ‛Uthmān al-Makkī’s statement: Ādamī efrād-e mawlā nayābad. Ū ke efrād-e mawlā yābad, nah ādamī ast. Īnch mī-khurad va mī-khuspad chīzī dīgar ast. [A human being cannot attain the effacement in the One (efrād-e mawlā); whoever does is no longer human. That which eats and sleeps is something else.][↩]
55. Sullamī, 1986/1406, p. 234; Ebn Khamīs, vol. 1, p. 441; ‛Aṭṭār, p. 578.[↩]
56. Abū Manṣūr Eṣfahānī, p. 38.[↩]
57. Hujwīrī, pp. 368–372.[↩]
58. Sullamī, 1986/1406, p. 234; idem, 2009/1388, vol. 3, p. 162; Hujwīrī, p. 220; ‛Aṭṭār, p. 578.[↩]
59. Anṣārī, p. 284; cf. Taymī Eṣfahānī, p. 584, who attributes this statement to Abū Manṣūr Muhammad b. Fāzḍa, a student of Muhammad b. Yūsuf Bannā and a fellow townsman and classmate of Ali b. Sahl; also see: Jāmī, p. 104.[↩]
60. Anṣārī, p. 284.[↩]
61. Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, vol. 12, p. 55.[↩]
62. Balāghī, pp. 93–108.[↩]
63. Humāyī, vol. 2, pp. 1204–1234.[↩]