[P. 319], l. 6. The epistle of ‘Alí b. Manṣúr al-Ḥalabí (Ibnu ’l-Qáriḥ), to which the Risálatu ’l-Ghufrán is the reply, has been published in Rasá’ilu ’l-Bulaghá, ed. Muḥammad Kurd ‘Alí (Cairo, 1913).
[P. 332], note 2. For rhymed prose renderings of the 11th and 12th Maqámas, see Translations of Eastern Poetry and Prose, pp. 116-124.
[P. 367], l. 7 from foot. New light has recently been thrown upon the character of the Mu‘tazilite movement by the publication of the Mu‘tazilite al-Khayyáṭ's Kitábu ’l-Intiṣár (ed. H. S. Nyberg, Cairo, 1926), a third (ninth) century polemical work directed against the Shí‘ite freethinker Ibnu ’l-Ráwandí (cf. p. 375 supra). It is now evident that this "heretical" sect played an active part as champions of Islam, not only in the early controversies which arose between Moslems and Christians in Syria but also against the more dangerous attacks which proceeded in the first hundred years of the ‘Abbásid period from the Manichæans and other "zanádiqa" in Persia and especially in ‘Iráq (cf. I. Guidi, La Lotta tra l'Islam e il Manicheismo (Rome, 1927)). In order to meet these adversaries on equal terms, the Mu‘tazilites made themselves acquainted with Greek philosophy and logic, and thus laid the foundations of an Islamic scholasticism. Cf. H. H. Schaeder, Der Orient und die Griechische Erbe in W. Jaeger's Die Antike, vol. iv, p. 261 foll.
[P. 370], I. 3 foll. From what has been said in the preceding note it follows that this view of the relation between the Mu‘tazilites and the Ikhwánu ’l-Ṣafá requires considerable modification. Although, in contrast to their orthodox opponents, the Mu‘tazilites may be described as "rationalists" and "liberal theologians," their principles were entirely opposed to the anti-Islamic eclecticism of the Ikhwán.
[P. 375], note 2. Professor Schaeder thinks that Middle Persian zandík has nothing to do with the Aramaic zaddíq (Z.D.M.G., vol. 82, Heft 3-4, p. lxxx).
[Pp. 383-393]. During the last twenty years our knowledge of early Ṣúfiism has increased, chiefly through the profound researches of Professor Massignon, to such an extent as to render the account given in these pages altogether inadequate. The subject being one of great difficulty and unsuitable for detailed exposition in a book of this kind, I must content myself with a few illustrative remarks and references, which will enable the student to obtain further information.
[P. 383]. Massignon's view is that Ṣúfiism (down to the fourth century a.h.) owed little to foreign influences and was fundamentally Islamic, a product of intensive study of the Koran and of inward meditation on its meaning and essential nature. There is great force in his argument, though I cannot help believing that the development of mysticism, like that of other contemporary branches of Moslem thought, must have been vitally affected by contact with the ancient Hellenistic culture of the Sásánian and Byzantine empires on its native soil. Cf. A. J. Wensinck, The Book of the Dove (Leyden, 1919) and Mystic Treatises by Isaac of Niniveh (Amsterdam, 1923).
[P. 384], l. 1. The identity of third-century Ṣúfiism with the doctrines of the Vedanta is maintained by M. Horten (Indische Strömungen in der Islamischen Mystik, Heidelberg, 1927-8). Few, however, would admit this. The conversion of Ṣúfiism into a monistic philosophy was the work of Ibnu ’l-‘Arabí (1165-1240 a.d.). See p. 402 foll.
[P. 384], l. 5. The so-called "Theology of Aristotle," translated from Syriac into Arabic about 830 a.d., is mainly an abstract of the Enneads of Plotinus. There is an edition with German translation by Dieterici.