Spirituality Studies 107 Nina Bilokopytova The corpus analyzed in this study includes 48 coded passages drawn from the primary texts: • al-Qushayrī (al-Risāla): 12 passages; • al-Ghazālī (Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn): 14 passages; • Ibn ʿArabī (al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya): 10 passages; • Rūmī (Mathnawī): 12 passages. Each passage was coded independently for RQ1 (temporal structure) and RQ2 (function of repetition). Coding was conducted through close reading of the original texts in Arabic, supported by critical editions and established scholarly translations. The goal of this procedure is not statistical generalization, but analytical transparency, allowing us to see how interpretive conclusions emerge from a systematically structured reading of texts. 3.6 Methodological Limits Finally, it must be emphasized that this methodological framework is intentionally non-exhaustive. The openness and reflexivity emphasized by the metamodern perspective imply a trade-off: while the approach is well-suited to capturing non-linear, recursive, and ethically mediated forms of spirituality, it does not aim at typological closure or universal classification. The value of the proposed methodology lies not in definitive conclusions about Sufism, but in its capacity to articulate a coherent analytic space in which spiritual process, subjectivity, and ethics can be examined together without collapsing into either theological normativity or secular reductionism Despite its analytical productivity, the metamodern framework has limitations when applied to the Sufi tradition. There is a risk of theoretical anachronism, insofar as a contemporary Western metatheory may be superimposed onto medieval Islamic texts, partially displacing their own theological and epistemological logic. Moreover, an emphasis on oscillation between structure and event may insufficiently account for the doctrinal, juridical, and soteriological specificity of Sufism. Finally, interpreting Sufi concepts as models of “processual subjectivity” carries the risk of over-universalization, potentially attenuating their distinct religious semantics. For these reasons, the metamodern perspective should be employed as a limited and regulative heuristic rather than as an explanatory metatheory claiming exhaustive interpretive authority over Sufi spirituality. The metamodern methodology also entails a departure from rigid oppositions between the inner and outer dimensions of spirituality. Practices such as dhikr or “spiritual companionship and guidance” (Ar. ṣuḥba) are approached not merely as techniques for inducing particular states of consciousness, but as practices that cultivate a specific form of subjectivity one that integrates religious discipline with existential openness. Accordingly, the spiritual process encompasses not only the domain of experience but also modes of thought, ethical orientation, and forms of presence within the social sphere.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==