ALTHOUGH the full development of that system of pantheistic, idealistic, and theosophic mysticism known amongst Muham-madans as taṣawwuf, and in Europe as Ṣúfíism belongs to a rather later period than that which we are now considering, it was already when the Fihrist was composed (A.D. 987) a recognised school of thought, and may therefore conveniently be considered in this place, more particularly as some know­ledge of its nature and teachings is essential for the under­standing of a certain proportion of even the older Persian poets who lived before the time of Saná'í (circ. A.D. 1131), 'Aṭṭár († A.D. 1230) and Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí († A.D. 1273). Shaykh Abú Sa'íd b. Abi'l-Khayr († A.D. 1049), whose mys­tical quatrains form the subject of one of Dr. Ethé's excellent monographs,* and for whose biography we possess, thanks to Professor Zhukovski, unusually copious materials,* was perhaps the first purely mystical Persian poet whose works have sur­vived to our time, but Ṣúfí influences may be traced in the writings of some of his contemporaries if not of his prede­cessors.

A number of derivations have been proposed at different times for the term Ṣúfí, but it is now quite certain that it is Meaning and derivation of the term Ṣúfí. derived from the word ṣúf, “wool,” which view is confirmed by the equivalent pashmína-púsh, “wool-wearer,” applied to these mystics in Persian. From the earliest times woollen raiment was regarded as typical of that simplicity of life and avoidance of ostentation and luxury enjoined by the Prophet and his immediate successors, as clearly appears from Mas'údí's account of the “Orthodox Caliphs” in the Murúju'dh-Dhahab.* The term Ṣúfí was therefore in later times applied to those ascetic and pious devotees who, like the early Quakers in England, made the simplicity of their apparel a silent protest against the growing luxury of the worldly. It does not appear to have come into use till about the middle of the second century of the Flight (end of the eighth century of our era), for Jámí expressly states in his Nafaḥátu'l-Uns (ed. Nassau-Lees, p. 34) that it was first applied to Abú Háshim the Syrian, a contemporary of Sufyán ath-Thawrí, who died in A.D. 777. This derivation may be regarded as quite certain, and it is sufficient merely to mention the attempts made to connect the word with the Greek <text in Greek script omitted>, the Arabic ṣafá, “purity” (a fanciful etymology favoured by Jámí in his Baháristán), or the mendicant ahlu'ṣ-Ṣuffá (“People of the Bench”) of early Muhammadan times.* Al-Qushayrí,* indeed, is quite explicit as to the period when this term first came into use, viz., a little before A.H. 200 (A.D. 816); and the earliest Ṣúfí writer known to the author of the Fihrist seems to have been Yaḥyá b. Mu'ádh of Ray (probably, there­fore, a Persian), whose death he places in A.H. 206 (A.D. 821-2).* Still earlier mystics (who, whether so entitled or not, were essentially Ṣúfís, and are claimed as such by their successors) were Ibráhím Adham († circ. A.D. 777), Dá'úd at-Tá'í († A.D. 781-2), Fuḍayl 'Iyáḍ († A.D. 803), and the woman Rábi'a al-'Adawiyya, who was a contemporary of the above-mentioned Sufyán ath-Thawrí. The beginnings of Ṣúfíism may, in short, be pretty certainly placed at the end of the eighth and beginning of the ninth centuries of our era.

The views which have been advanced as to the nature, Theories as to the origin of Ṣúfíism. origin, and source of the Ṣúfí doctrine are as divergent as the etymologies by which it is proposed to explain its name. Briefly they may be described as follows:—

(1) The theory that it really represents the Esoteric Doctrine of the Prophet. This is the prevalent view of the Ṣúfís themselves, 1. The “Esoteric Islám” theory. and of those Muhammadans who are more or less in sympathy with them; and though it can hardly com­mend itself to European scholars, it is by no means so absurd or untenable a hypothesis as is often assumed in Europe. Without insisting too much on the (probably spurious) traditions constantly cited by the Ṣúfís as the basis of their doctrine, such as God's alleged declaration, “I was a Hidden Treasure and I desired to be known, therefore I created Creation that I might be known;” or, “God was, and there was naught beside Him;” or, “Whosoever knoweth himself knoweth his Lord;” there are in the Qur'án itself a few texts which lend themselves to a mystical interpretation, as, for instance, the words addressed to the Prophet concerning his victory over the heathen at the battle of Badr (Qur'án, viii, 17): “Thou didst not shoot when thou didst shoot, but God shot.” This on the face of it means no more than that God strengthened the arms of the Muslims against their foes; but it involves no great straining of the words to deduce therefrom that God is the Absolute Agent (Fa“ál-i-Muṭlaq ) and man but “as the pen between the fingers of the scribe, who turns it as he will.” However little a critical examination of the oldest and most authentic records of the Prophet's life and teachings would warrant us in regarding him as a mystic or ascribing to him an esoteric doctrine, it must be avowed without reserve that such is the view taken by the more moderate Ṣúfís, and even of such philosophically minded theologians as al-Ghazzálí († A.D. 1111-2).

(2) The theory that it must be regarded as the reaction of the Aryan mind against a Semitic religion imposed upon it by force. 2. The “Aryan Reaction” theory. This theory has two forms, which may be briefly described as the Indian and the Persian. The former, taking note of certain obvious resemblances which exist between the Ṣúfí doctrines in their more advanced forms and some of the Indian systems, notably the Vedanta Sara, assumes that this similarity (which has, in my opinion, been exag­gerated, and is rather superficial than fundamental) shows that these systems have a common origin, which must be sought in India. The strongest objection to this view is the historical fact that though in Sásánian times, notably in the sixth century of our era, during the reign of Núshírwán, a certain exchange of ideas took place between Persia and India, no influence can be shown to have been exerted by the latter country on the former (still less on other of the lands of Islám) during Muhammadan times till after the full development of the Ṣúfí system, which was practically completed when al-Bírúní, one of the first Musulmáns who studied the Sanskrit language and the geography, history, literature, and thoughts of India, wrote his famous Memoir on these subjects. In much later times it is likely enough, as shown by von Kremer,* that considerable influence was exerted by Indian ideas on the development of Ṣúfíism. The other, or Persian, form of the “Aryan Reaction theory” would regard Ṣúfíism as an essentially Persian product. Our comparative ignorance of the undercurrents of thought in Sásánian times makes it very difficult to test this theory by the only safe method, the historical; but, as we have already seen, by no means all the early Ṣúfís were of Persian nationality, and some of the most notable and influential mystics of later times, such as Shaykh Muḥyiyyu'd-Dín ibnu'l 'Arabí († A.D. 1240-1), and Ibnu'l Fáriḍ († A.D. 1234-5), were men of Arabic speech in whose veins there was not a drop of Persian blood. Yet the first of these exerted an enormous influence over many of the most typical Persian Ṣúfís, such as 'Iráqí († A.D. 1287), whose Lama'át was wholly inspired by his writings, Awḥadu'd-Dín Kirmání († A.D. 1297-8), and indirectly on the much later Jámí († A.D. 1492-3), while even at the present day his works (especially the Fuṣúṣu'l-ḥikam) are widely read and diligently studied by Persian mystics.

(3) The theory of Neo-Platonist influence. So far as Ṣúfíism was not an independent manifestation of that mysticism which, because 3. Theory of Neo-Platonist origin. it meets the requirements and satisfies the cravings of a certain class of minds existing in all ages and in most civilised communities, must be regarded as a spontaneous phenomenon, recurring in many similar but unconnected forms wherever the human mind continues to concern itself with the problems of the Wherefore, the Whence, and the Whither of the Spirit, it is probable that it has been more indebted to Neo-Platonism than to any other system. This view, which I have long held, has been very admirably worked out by my friend and pupil Mr. R. A. Nicholson in his Selected Poems from the Díván-i-Shams-i-Tabríz (Cambridge, 1898), pp. xxx-xxxvi; but he is mistaken in stating (p. xxx) that “the name of Plotinus was unknown in the East,” for this philosopher is explicitly mentioned by name in the Fihrist (p. 255), though he is more generally referred to (e.g., by Shahristání, in his Kitábu'l-Milal) as “the Greek Teacher” (ash-Shaykhu'l-Yúnání).* Porphyry, however, was much better known to the Muslims, and seven or eight of his writings are enumerated in the Fihrist (p. 253). But even admitting the connec­tion between Neo-Platonism and Ṣúfíism, there remain several subsidiary questions to which it is not possible, in the present state of our knowledge, to give a definite answer: such as—(1) “What elements of their philosophy did the Neo-Platonists originally borrow from the East, and especially from Persia,* which country Plotinus visited, as we learn from his biographer Porphyry, expressly to study the systems of philosophy there taught?”* (2) “To what extent did the seven Neo-Platonist philosophers who, driven from their homes by the intolerance of Justinian, took refuge at the Persian court in the reign of Núshírwán (about A.D. 532) found a school or propagate their ideas in that country?”* In the ninth century of our era, in the Golden Age of Islám, the Neo-Platonist philosophy was certainly pretty well known to thinking Muslims, but till the two questions posed above have received a definite answer we cannot exclude the possibility that its main doctrines were familiar to, if not derived from, the East at a very much earlier date.