I. R. NASYROV. FUNDAMENTALS OF ISLAMIC MYSTICISM (GENESIS AND EVOLUTION), Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures, 2009, 552 p. (Philosophical thought of the Islamic world. Research. Vol. 1).

The central problem of the book under review is the relationship between Zuhd and Sufism and the transition from the former to the latter. The author reproaches the previous tradition for the lack of research on "the ontological and epistemological foundations of Sufism" (p. 14). He criticizes the "universalist approach", which sees Sufism as a form of mysticism, a special kind of religion.

page 190
a phenomenon common to a number of cultures. However, this approach is interpreted rather superficially. Even in Islamic studies, we can distinguish a number of works that consider mysticism as a typological phenomenon for some cultures (Ernst, 1985; Izutzu, 1966-1967; Seppala, 2003). In them, the search for typological parallels is carried out not on the basis of empty theorizing, but on the basis of determining specific realities, categories of each culture through painstaking textual analysis.

The critique of the" universalist approach "is reduced in the reviewed monograph to an implicit critique of Eurocentrism and "reductionism", the reduction of all Eastern mysticism to a single source, and of various cultures to "certain ultimate foundations of one (Western) culture" (pp. 14-15).

In the detailed review of the history of research on Sufism on pages 18-26 and later on, based on the text from old works that have become classics, some monographs that directly relate to the topic of the reviewed research are not mentioned. For example, the fundamental monograph of X. Ritter's book on ' Attar, which is, in fact, one of the key studies on Sufism of the previous period, but in many respects has not lost its relevance [Ritter, 1955], or B. Reinert's special work on tawakkul [Reinert, 1968].

Many key contemporary Western studies on Sufism since the 1980s are not mentioned. Despite the fact that B. Radtke is mentioned several times in the text, whose ideas are given a positive assessment, not a single work of his is mentioned. Nothing is said about the works of R. Gramlich specifically devoted to zuhd [Gramlich, 1995 - 1996, 1997, 1998]. Without them, the analysis of this phenomenon, which is devoted to more than half of the volume of the reviewed monograph, cannot be considered fully relevant today.

The current state of science is postulated by I. R. Nasyrov from the works of R. Nicholson, A. J. Arberry, T. Andre, M. Smith, although their research has long been considered in modern Islamic studies as an already passed stage. This leads the author to a certain archaization of science - to the thesis about looking at Sufism through the prism of Christianity not only in the works of modern researchers, to accuse them of simply searching for similar Christian ideas in Sufism. The increasing number of sources introduced into circulation over the years, in his opinion, does not fit into this "Procrustean bed".

I. R. Nasyrov supports the autochthonous development of the Sufi tradition and does not recognize significant influences on Sufi thought from outside, claiming that its development is connected with the intra-Arab tradition and almost entirely goes back to the Koran. The specifics of the Arab intellectual tradition, according to the author of the book, are fundamentally at odds with the specifics of the ancient and Christian traditions. It is difficult to agree with the position of complete freedom from borrowing within the framework of the doctrine of the Koran, and even more so hadith. With reference to tawhid (Divine Unity), which he cites as an example, it can be noted that the very formula "He is one God" (Cor. 112:1) is probably a tracing of the formula of the Jewish prayer Shema Yisra'el: YHWH "Yahweh is one" (Deut. 6: 46) [Loretz, 1997, S. 102-105]. Postulating the "sterility" of Arab culture subsequently leads the author to conclude that its successors Ibn 'Arabi, Iranians and Turks, as carriers of other cultural worldviews, contaminated Arab thought with Neoplatonism, Gnosticism and Zoroastrianism. The latter conclusion is so global that without references to research on this issue, it does not seem justified.

In the Russian tradition, the reviewed monograph is far from the first attempt at a purely "philosophical" view of Sufism, for example, it is used in a number of well-known works by A. V. Smirnov. I. R. Nasyrov focuses on his method of paradigmatic analysis of the ideas of Ibn 'Arabi. However, a purely philosophical view of zuhd makes this work the first experience of its kind in Islamic studies. Some suggestions for the development of a philosophical apparatus in relation to the study of early Sufism are of interest. For example, the term tanzih (purification of God from created attributes) is proposed to be translated as "apophatic theology", which can be accepted, but with the obligatory amendment "apophatic method". Even terms that are not related to the philosophical problem field are given a philosophical load. Thus, when translating and commenting on the corresponding passage from al-Futuhat al-maqiyyah Ibn 'Arabi, the author introduces the terms "existential word" (harf wujudi), "existential preposition" and "existential verb" (verb kāna) (pp. 375, 377), although the latter is called fi; l wujudi even in the definitions Sibavayhi.

The primacy of the philosophical method over textual research sometimes gives rise to strange statements of the author. For example, that the Zahids "resorted to the means of logical-discursive knowledge, using-

page 191
zuya "logical constructions in the form of syllogisms" (pp. 180-181). Or it is said about the " burdening of the discourse of the early Sufis (Zahids. - P. B.) reasonableness, on which the logic of apophatics is built" (p. 181). The term "reasonableness" implies the dichotomy "reason-reason", which developed in European philosophy, which was not present not only among the Zahids, but also in general in Muslim thought. The mystical approach of the early Sufis, according to I. R. Nasyrov, was conditioned by the recognition of the existence of extra-rational principles, which he calls "axioms of knowledge": "the axiom of the reality of the world", "the axiom of the reasonableness of the world", "the axiom of the conversion of all acts of the spirit to the Absolute" (p. 144). Borrowing this scheme from V. V. Zenkovsky, the author applies it to Zuhd, indirectly attributing to him the Leibnizian problematics.

I. R. Nasyrov sees an attempt to overcome the gap between the Divine and the human among the early Sufis in the following statement by Dhu-n-Nun al-Misri. To the question: "What did God want by creating the Divine Throne ('arsh)?" He said, " He willed that the hearts of those who know Him should be filled with love." not lost." This completely exegetical explanation ad hoc is given a philosophical interpretation: "Therefore, I was looking for something that could ensure the participation of human being in the Divine, but, remaining within the limits of rational (mediated) knowledge in solving the question of the relationship between God and the world, I could not find an unconventional way out of this situation" (p.208).

The specifics of the work include the widespread recognition of the primacy of internal facts over external ones. For example, it is argued that the Zuhd crisis was caused not so much by external pressure and the process of institutionalization of Sufism as by the crisis of its ontological model (p. 191, cf. p. 50). Explanation of the persecution of some Sufis in the early tenth century as a consequence of the uprising, I. R. Nasyrov considers zinjey too simple (p. 200). Meanwhile, it is the political processes in the Caliphate that are associated with the persecution of mystics, especially odious figures, in the IX-X centuries.

According to I. R. Nasyrov, zuhd and Sufism are one from the point of view of the problem field. Zuhd immediately preceded Sufism, so it is called early Sufism in the text, which creates confusion for the reader who is used to traditional schemes. Ma'rifa (mystical knowledge) It is defined as "dialogical communication of a person with God" and is the common thing that unites representatives of Sufism of different trends and periods. I. R. Nasyrov attributes the emergence of the opposition between mystical knowledge and rational ('ilm) to the period of early Zuhd. However, he omits that the concept of ma'rif in zuhd was originally based on the fear of God (hauf, mahafa). Ibrahim b. Adham directly stated that he studied ma'rifa under the Christian monk Father Simeon 1. The development of the concept of ma'rif should be associated with Sufism2.

The monograph consists of three chapters. The first one is devoted to the phenomenon of zuhda in Islam. To translate this concept, I. R. Nasyrov uses the phrase "renunciation of the mundane", "world-renouncing practice". Zuhd is defined by the author as "spiritual and practical activity with elements of a cognitive attitude in an attempt to comprehend God (Truth), which was formed as one of the interpretations of the nature of monotheism (tawhid)" (p.121).

I. R. Nasyrov considers the fear of God (hauf) in zuhda as evidence of the absence of ontological concepts in the early period (up to the middle of the 9th century). Following the method of tanzih, the Zahids came to the opinion that God is beyond intellectual knowledge. Going beyond these limits requires renouncing intellectual knowledge and turning to a world-renouncing practice-zuhdu.

Figures who recognized the primacy of cognitive activity are distinguished within the framework of the zuhda. Spiritual and practical (i.e. psychosomatic) activity was recognized by them as a means of rapprochement with God (Abu-d-Darda', Sufyan as-Thawri). Based on the classification of two types of zuhd by Ahmad b. Abi al-Khawari and indirectly by Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Ziyada b. Bishr in "az-Zuhd wa wasf al-zahidin" I. R. Nasyrov distinguishes two types of zuhd existence: abstinence from worldly goods and reflection, i.e. mental activity.

The author analyzes in detail the interpretation of zuhd by early traditionalists, Mu'tazilites, early Sufis, and Hanbali traditionalists in a later period (Ibn Taymiyyah,

1 1404. 8, s. 29.

2 For more information about ma'rifa in early Sufism in the context of Muslim culture, see [Shah-Kazemi, 2002; Basharin, 2004]; for the article by V. M. Nirsha "On some aspects of the Sufi concept of cognition (ma'rifa)", see references in the monograph by I. R. Nasyrov.

page 192
Ibn al-Jawzi, ' Abd al-Rahman b. Rajab al-Hanbali). Thus, we can trace the transformation of this concept and its gradual transformation into a synonym for the concept of "pious life". The section on the attitude of representatives of "doctrinal" Sufism to Zuhd describes the reaction of al-Bistami, al-Junayd, representatives of 'ilm al-tasawwuf, al-Ghazali, Ibn 'Arabi to Zuhd.

In my opinion, the assessment of the al-Bists, who initially belonged to the Zahids, is one of the central milestones in positioning the open break between Sufism and Zuhd, and deserves an independent section. The pages devoted to this issue should be recognized as one of the most informative and interesting in the monograph, built on a successful selection of citations. It is interesting that the comparison of Zahid with walking (sayyar) and knowing God ('arif) with flying (tayyar), attributed specifically by the al-Bists in 'Attar's Tazkirat al-awliya', is a key passage, the quintessence of Sufi Zuhd's criticism [Shah-Kazemi, 2000, p. 165 - 166], I. R. Nasyrov does not mention it, referring it to the utterances of Yahya b. al-Mu'az (according to al-Sarraj). A number of statements by al-Bists about the benefits of hunger from Tabaqat al-Sulami (one of them about gaining ma'rif through hunger and a naked body is given on p. 87, the other-about the benefits of hunger and thirst and the harm of satiety-on p. 88) did not contain any visible contradictions, contrary to the author's opinion (the first), no new interpretation of zuhd that differs from the traditional one (second). I. R. Nasyrov himself writes that one should be wary of reconstructions based on an uncritical perception of the material of Sufi anthologies, criticizing a number of conclusions of A. M. Schimmel. Quite problematic is the author's claim that the ideas of the al-Bistami formed the basis of the Shari 'at-tariqat-haqiqat scheme without proper argumentation.

I. R. Nasyrov proposes to divide the zuhd into "physical", "ethical" and actually philosophical, containing "onto-epistemological grounds". Representatives of the "physical" zuhd, he calls ascetics (nussak), whose worldview has adopted elements of the teachings of Christian hermits and monks. This phenomenon was expressed in the appearance of the Nussak doctrine of "God's' indwelling ' into the phenomena of the empirical world "(hulul). They could have been Christian proselytes (in the terminology of I. R. Nasyrov - "envelopes"), i.e. the teaching of Nussak is explained by Christian influence. The opinion about the Nussak as the first Khululites is taken from the famous doxographic work of al-Ash'ari "Makalat al-islamiyyin". Science has long recognized the Christian influence on the genesis of this concept in Arabic culture: the terms hulul (originally "universe") and ittihad (unity) were used by Nestorians. However, the term hulul was already very polysemous at an early time.3 Early doxographers who adopted the term, starting with the Mutakallim, initially criticized the Christians, finding the embodiment of one substance in another absurd; they counted completely different trends among the Hululites, often not to mention the most important ones.nussak, and about the extreme Shi'ites, and the appearance of Nasiks in al-Ash'ari is rather arbitrary.

Ethical zuhd, whose ideas have not lost popularity in the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Jawzi, was based solely on"regulating the behavior of believers."

Even L. Massignon noted the importance for early Muslim mysticism of oppositions (mukabila), antithetical pairs, an important part of which goes back to the Koran [Massignon, 1954, p. 46-51]. I. R. Nasyrov asserts that the" onto-epistemological " views of zuhd are based on the correlation of the phenomena dunya (this - worldly world) - ahira (otherworldly world). the world), two sides of the same Divine reality (hakika). God and the world are united in the world order (amr) (p. 140). However, such an interpretation of the Divine Command ('amr) is not found among the Zahids and early Sufis, despite the fact that' amr occupied an important place among a number of Sufi thinkers. On the contrary, the link between the world and God for the early Sufis was man, who combines both aspects: the Divine spirit, the image of God (surat) and the created nature (body, soul). I. R. Nasyrov asserts that zuhd ceases to perceive God through the prism of absolute transcendence, as traditionalist theologians do. The Zahids rejected the rationalistic approach, choosing an irrational, mystical approach. I.e., the Zuhd already contained "onto-epistemological grounds" that led to its transition to Sufism.

I. R. Nasyrov contrasts the traditionalist thesis about the impossibility of knowing God with statements like: "In everything I look at, I see God "(Muhammad b. Wasi'). He also includes the Zahid claims that the crowing of the rooster is also seen as a manifestation of God.

3 For more information about khulul within the framework of Muslim mysticism, see [Basharin, 2008(1), pp. 46-47]. There is also literature on this issue.

page 193
I. R. Nasyrov connects the acquisition of complete knowledge about God by the Zahids with the procedure of correlating human virtues with higher, Divine ones. For example, recognizing God as generous (karim), the Zahids themselves showed maximum generosity, taking it as a divine model. For them, "virtues are primarily phenomena of an ontological and epistemological order" (p. 167). From this it is concluded that the central virtue - candor (ikhlas) - is not so much an ethical category as an epistemological one.

A direct parallel is drawn between the teachings on virtues in Zuhda and stations (maqamat) and states (ahwal) in Sufism. The same relation is established between individual virtues as between individual stations: steps on the path of knowledge of God. One can object to this by postulating "halts" (manazil) already at a number of zahids.

Among the Zahids, the author of the monograph singles out Shakik al-Balkhi. The fear of God (hauf) ceases to play a dominating role for him. This, according to I. R. Nasyrov, is not an ethical category, but an ontological one. The rejection of it in favor of the love of God is proof of a change in the perception of the nature of the relationship between the earthly and the Divine. Despite the innovations in his teaching, Shakik al-Balkhi remained an advocate of an exclusively transcendental view of God. The author's claim that Shakik al-Balkhi laid the foundation for the idea of the simultaneous transcendence and immanence of God in relation to the world seems exaggerated. His boundless trust in God (tawakkul) is not an "ontological" category, but a purely ethical one, central to zuhda4.

A special section of the monograph is devoted to a brief analysis of asceticism in antiquity, Christianity, Buddhism, and pre-Islamic Arabia. Unlike the long-accepted scheme, I. R. Nasyrov analyzes the model of early Christian asceticism not on the basis of monuments and numerous studies on early Syriac Christianity, but on the conclusions of Russian Orthodox philosophers and theologians of the early XX century (S. L. Frank, V. N. Lossky, M. V. Muretov) who are not related to early Christianity. The author deduces early Christian mysticism as an independent complex phenomenon from the influence of Stoics and Neo-Platonists, i.e. chooses a deliberately outdated point of view. Even from the selection of quotations given in the monograph, one can clearly see Zuhd's focus not on philosophical questions of an "onto-epistemological" nature,but on directly practical issues that influenced the form of piety. 5
The second chapter is devoted to the institutionalization of Sufism and the development of "doctrinal Sufism". The criteria for distinguishing Sufism and Zuhd have not yet been identified. I. R. Nasyrov, however, criticizes this point of view (represented by A. D. Knysh). He connects the crisis of zuhda as a movement with a radical reassessment of ontological concepts - not the juxtaposition, but the correlation of the otherworldly, Divine (ahira) and this - worldly (dunya) worlds-and puts forward the statement that even among the early Sufis, the world of this world is a condition for understanding the other world.

The replacement of the old teaching with the doctrine of the direct connection of God and man through love is observed even in ' Abd al-Wahid b. Zayd. Its central idea should be considered recognition of the primacy not of severe asceticism, but of unselfish love for God, not of the principle of personal achievement, but of trust in Divine grace. It is interesting to note by I. R. Nasyrov that the views of ' Abd al-Wahid b. Zayd influenced the concept of holiness (wilaya), since in his writings one can find the doctrine of miracles (karamat) (pp. 205-206).

The author connects the crisis of Zuhd with the names of al-Harith al-Muhasibi, Yahya b. Mu'az, companions of Dhu'nun al-Misri (Abu 'Abdallah b. al-Jallah', Yusuf b. Husayn ar-Razi), ash-Shibli and others. I. R. Nasyrov considers al-Haris al-Muhasibi to be one of the first Sufis who realized the weakness of the old model. The author interprets his phrase "The best in this people are those who are not distracted by the local world from the local (dunya), and the local from the local" as an indication of the absence of an "ontological duality" of the eternal and temporary and the postulation of a single being.

Yahya b. Mu'az, according to I. R. Nasyrov, was the first to undertake a conceptual critique of zuhd. Absolutizing a number of his statements, the author asserts that overcoming the dichotomy of ahira-dunya led the Sufi to believe that "to be a finite being means to be both God and himself" (p. 214). But it is unlikely that the sybaritism of Yahya b. Mu'az, who left the sackcloth and put on silks, should be based on such a metaphysical basis.

4 For a detailed analysis of Shakik al-Balkhi's ideas, see [Gramlich 1996. 2, pp. 26-41].

5 For an alternative understanding of zuhd, see [Basharin, 2008(1)].

page 194
The crisis of the old worldview and old terminology, according to I. R. Nasyrov, caused the emergence of a new language of love. However, the accepted tradition holds that it was Rabi'a al-'Adawiyyah who introduced selfless love for God into the harsh practice much earlier, and it was with her appearance that selfless love for the Creator became the leitmotif of Sufism.

I. R. Nasyrov considers Abu Sa'id al-Kharraz, Sahl al-Tustari, Abu Yazid al-Bistami, al-Hallaj, and al-Ghazali to be transitional figures on the path to rationalization of mystical experience. Unfortunately, the analysis of these figures (with the exception of al-Ghazali) does not involve much research literature, with the exception of A. D. Knysh's monograph [Knysh, 2004], which is mostly cited for other works. This leads to a number of inaccuracies. For example, the role of Abu Sa'id al-Harraz, the developer of the main problems of the Baghdad school, whose main merit is the theory of the existence of the Divine Self as the only real subject, is underestimated. He recognized God as the true and only subject of any act. I. R. Nasyrov, on the contrary, believes that in the question of the nature of the Divine Nature, he took the position of the mutakallim, i.e., the transcendent God (p. 229).

Sahl al-Tustari is considered a Zahid, although he can be considered a Sufi with good reason. From Zuhd, he borrowed only the method. I. R. Nasyrov sees contradictions in Sahl's teaching: in the question of the status of the Divine Word (knowledge of God is equivalent to the co-eternity of things to Him). But it should be borne in mind that Sahl al-Tustari was a well-known exegete, and a number of his arguments of this nature cannot be considered a flaw. For example, the author considers the concept of seeing God in paradise firsthand to be such a disadvantage.

The book explains the al-Bistami doctrine as follows:" Man remains non-identical (ontologically transcendent) to the object of contemplation (God), but in epistemological terms merges with the Absolute " (p.241). This statement does not coincide with the traditional understanding of the Sufi's ideas: in the process of dissolving into God (fana'), the human self is lost, and the mystic gains divine attributes.

Al-Hallaj is understood by I. R. Nasyrov as a monist. He draws this conclusion on the basis of a passage from Akhbar al-Hallaj about a point as the basis of any line, which ends with the maxim: "Whatever I see, I see God in it" (p.247). However, as noted by L. Massignon and P. Kraus, this phrase is not authentic (it is found only in one list " Akhbar al-Hallaj "(list Q (Kazan manuscript)) [Akhbar al-Hallaj, 1957, p. 107]. For al-Hallaj, the God-world connection is thought of only as God-man-(world): The problem is not the world, but the mystic's vision of it at different stages of self-improvement, not things, but their connections with consciousness ('ala' ik). I. R. Nasyrov writes about the dualistic nature of the al-Hallaj doctrine, on the grounds that human nature (nasut) and Divine nature (lahut) are of different nature and have different values. they don't merge. In fact, the famous "merging" and" mixing " affects not human nature, but the spirit (rukh), which has entered into a person, but is part of the Divine nature [Basharin, 2008(2)]. The statement that "the teaching in the eyes of the majority of believers led to a banal version of idolatry, because, according to the literal meaning of his statements, everything - stones, water, animals-represents the 'face of God' "(p.321) is incorrect, because he and other ecstatic Sufis were not accused of" idolatry". They themselves declared that idolatry is a literal personification of God.

I. R. Nasyrov suggests calling the listed Sufis " people of [self -] destruction [in God] "(ahl al-fan'), the direction of "deification of the Self", supporters of the" intoxicated " direction. Their goal is to disappear in God "for confirmation of the uniqueness of the Absolute" and to oppose the Divine being. They, like the Zahids, did not overcome the dualism of the world and God (pp. 27-28).

The author reveals the change of old ideas on the example of studying the development of the concept of mushahada ("contemplation of God"). According to him, instead of the old "epistemological" understanding of mushahad (on the example of al-Khujwiri), the idea of this phenomenon gradually came to be understood as a purely ontological process (in al-Kushayri). This is evidence of a change of ideas, which led to a rethinking of epistemology.

The author criticizes the traditional understanding of the nature of Sufi unity with God, rejecting the term "mystical knowledge "to describe mystical experience in" doctrinal Sufism", suggesting that it should be designated as"intuitive-contemplative".

The author considers al-Junaid to be a key figure in the process of transition from "dualism" to "monoontism". The section devoted to him is the most extensive after the section on Ibn ' Arabi. Al-Junayd is involved as a developer of the "science of monotheism" ('ilm at-tawhid). His theory

page 195
I. R. Nasyrov considers Fan'-baka' and the eternal contract between God and human souls (misak) as the apogee of the ontological search for the era preceding Ibn 'Arabi. He turned the al-Bistami teaching into an alternative to the Zahid teaching. From this thesis, however, it follows that the teaching of al-Bistami himself is written within the framework of Zuhd, and not opposed to it (as can be seen from his quotations given in the monograph). Abiding in God (baqa') in al-Junayd, his famous saying: "Sufism is abiding with God without connection [with the world]" (in al - Kushayri) I. R. Nasyrov interprets as the positing of the world that is not different from God, and compares it with the "third thing" (shai'salis) Ibn ' Arabi.

However, if this Sufi divined Ibn 'Arabi's thoughts, how can the latter's criticism of the Juna'id dokrina be taken for "moderation"? For example, in the Kitab al-tajalliyat on the understanding of Tawhid: "If you, O Abu Qasim, say that in the statement of monotheism you can distinguish between the slave and the Lord, then where are you yourself in this division? You don't become either a slave or a Lord, which means that you are inevitably divided. You should take a closer look and understand these two sites by abstracting from them" (Ibn 1997, 440).

The third chapter of the monograph is devoted to the teachings of Wahdat al-Wujud Ibn ' Arabi. In the course of a thorough review of his philosophy, I. R. Nasyrov examines in detail (starting from the era of hadith) the central problem of tajalli ("manifestations of God") and notes the direct continuity of the doctrine of the "perfect man" (al-insan al-kamil) between Ibn 'Arabi and al-Hujwiri (p.396). However, ideas about it were already formed among the early mystics (this concept is found in the al-Bistami).

According to the book's conclusions, Ibn 'Arabi for the first time in the history of Sufism proposed a scheme in which God is both immanent and transcendent to the world. There is nothing in being but the One, which manifests itself in many ways.

Thus, a number of conclusions of the peer-reviewed monograph raise questions. The main reason for this is that criticism of the" Procrustean bed "of the Islamic tradition sometimes turns into a "Procrustean bed" of research theory. But the large and complex array of texts processed by I. R. Nasyrov contributes to the introduction of a number of new original materials into scientific circulation. This book will become an important milestone in the study of Sufism in the Russian tradition. All this requires mandatory familiarization with it by all specialists in Sufism.

list of literature

Basharin P. V. Zuhd and early Sufism: the problem of continuity and antagonism // Eastern languages and cultures. Proceedings of the II International Scientific Conference. November 20-21, 2008. Moscow, 2008.

Basharin P. V. Kontseptsiya i ego otrazhenie v posledstvuyushchey sufiskoy traditsii [The concept and its reflection in the subsequent Sufi tradition]. 2008. N 1.

Basharin P. V. Problema demarcatsii diskursivnogo i intuitivnogo znaniya v rannem ekstaticheskom sufizme (na primere filosofii) [The problem of demarcation of discursive and intuitive knowledge in early ecstatic Sufism (on the example of philosophy)]. 2004. N 4.

Basharin P. V. Problema temporalnosti v rannem sufizme na primere doktoriny al-Hallaj [The problem of temporality in Early Sufism on the example of the al-Hallaj doctrine]. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii "Mir islama: istoriya, obshchestvo, kul'tura", Moscow, 2009.
Knysh A.D. Moslem mysticism: a brief history / Translated from English by M. G. Romanova, St. Petersburg, 2004.

Akhbar al-Hallaj. Recueil d'oraisons et d 'exhortations du martyr mystique de l'islam / Publ... par L. Massignon et P. Kraus. 3-e éd. P., 1957.

Ernst C.W. Words of Extasy in Sufism. Albany, 1985.

Gramlich R. Alte Vorbilder des Sufismus. Wiesbaden, 1995(1), 1996(2).

Gramlich R. Der eine Gott. Wiesbaden, 1998.

Gramlich R. Weltzicht: Grundlagen und Weisen islamicher Askese. Wiesbaden, 1997.

Bakr . Rasā'il / Introd. by M.M. Beirut, 1997.

1 - 10. Beirut, 1405/1985.

Izutzu T. A Comparative Study of the Key Philosophical Concepts of Sufism and Taosism. 1 - 2. Tokyo, 1966 1967.

Loretz O. Das Gottes Einzigkeit. Ein altorientalischen Argumentationsmodel zum "SchmaJisrael". Darmstatt, 1997.

Massignon L. Essai sur les origines du lexique technique de la mystique musulmane. 2 ed. P., 1954.

Reinert B. Die Lehre vom tawakkul in der klassischen Sufik. Berlin, 1968.

Ritter H. Das Meer der Seele. Gott, Welt und Mensch in der Geschichten Fariduddin Attar. Leid., 1955.

Seppälä S. In Speechless Extasy: Expresson in Classic Syrian and Sufi Literature. Helsinki, 2003.

Shah-Kazemi R. The Notion and Signification of Ma'rifa in Sufism // Journal of Islamic Studies. 2002. N 13/2.

page 196

Permanent link to this publication: