Louise Gallorini, The Functions of Angels in Sufi Literature
Louise Gallorini, The Functions of Angels in Sufi Literature, Leiden, Brill, 2025, 360 pp.
Texte intégral
1The Brill series Islamic History and Civilization: Studies and Texts, one of the longest-running scholarly series devoted to Islamic studies, “emphasizes rigorous philology and engagement with primary sources.” Louise Gallorini’s The Functions of Angels in Sufi Literature fits the brief: a meticulous, sources-based literary study of angelic roles in Sufi texts (7th-12th century CE).
2Solidly grounding her “Introduction” in a broad comparative literature on angels across religious traditions, Gallorini presents them as highly flexible entities, a poly-compatible ingredient that can be imported redefined, amalgamated, and mixed, which helps explain their productivity across folk religion and formal theology and their usefulness for probing human nature in light of angelic nature and vice-versa (p. 1n).
- 1 Stephen R. Burge, Angels in Islam: Jalal al-din al-suyūtī’s al-habāʾik fī akhbār al-malāʾik, Routle (...)
3Islam is no exception: Gallorini notes that angels are ubiquitous in ritual and creed, yet Arabic literature produced no sustained treatise on them until al-Suyūṭī’s (d. 911/1505) al-Ḥabāʾik fī aḫbār al-malāʾik, the subject of Stephen Burge’s study, the most relevant monograph on Islamic angels predating Gallorini’s.1 Thus, their earlier textual presence is scattered and elusive—“everywhere, but only on the periphery, slightly out of focus” (p. 2), as the author puts it. This paradox underlies the book’s project: to ask what roles and functions angels play in Sufi literature specifically, how these compare with Qurʾānic precedents, and whether such beings, at the intersection of theology and imagination, can open a window onto broader cosmological constructions of pre-Mongol Islam.
4The “Preliminary Remarks” (pp. 2-7) orient the inquiry through seven heterogeneous observations. First, Islamic angelology is plural: “there are at least as many angelologies as there are authors” (p. 2, citing Burge), though recurrent functions appear, with Sufi writings adding distinctive inflections (pp. 2-3). Second, angels act as intermediaries, “God’s presence on earth”, particularly significant in a religion without a hierarchical clergy (p. 4, citing Henry Corbin). Third, Gallorini situates Qurʾānic angels within the late antique frame of a deus otiosus vs. a deus actuosus, mediating between transcendence and governance. Fourth, Islamic angels primarily embody ongoing divine communication, God’s continuing interaction with humanity (p. 5). Fifth, she traces their relation to Ptolemaic/Neoplatonic and Judeo-Christian traditions: strong in the Qurʾānic period, weaker in early Islam, reappearing later (p. 5). Sixth, she engages Burge’s thesis of “mono-functional” angels in ḥadīth and prepares to contrast it with the more fluid uses in Sufi texts (pp. 5-6). Seventh, she turns to Sufism, pragmatically defined as “Sunni mysticism” (p. 6) and part of broader Islamic esotericism, while acknowledging the contested nature of these categories. This framework enables her to examine angels as “characters illustrating and participating in the Sufi imaginal textual and extra-textual processes” (p. 7).
- 2 Angelika Neuwirth, “The Qurʾān Enchantment of the World,” in Majid Daneshgar & Walid A. Saleh (eds) (...)
- 3 Todd Lawson, “The Qur’an and Epic,” Journal of Qur’ānic Studies 16, 1 (2014), pp. 58-92.
5In the next section, “Angels in the Qurʾān” (pp. 7-16), Gallorini lays out her methodological commitments. She positions herself between Angelika Neuwirth’s call to read the Qurʾān as literature2 and Todd Lawson’s proposal to read it as epic,3 approaches centered respectively on “mythopoeic process” and “mythography”—forms of literary world-making in dialogue with neighboring traditions. She frames this as a two-stage engine of narrative creation: first, Qurʾānic myth-making, which reframes late antique motifs for a new audience; second, extra-textual myth-making in Sufi tafsīr, where exegetes expand these sketches into a fuller Islamic imaginary. Yet the value of these categories is tempered by the difficulty of determining whether—and to what extent—such processes were consciously intended, inherited and reshaped, or retroactively projected by modern scholarship.
6A concise review of Qurʾānic angelology follows. Gallorini underscores that angels “take the messenger role away from the jinn completely,” act only by God’s will, and as a collective “represent a single creedal function” (p. 9). Particularly incisive is her identification of what she terms the “‘invisibility’ of angels”: their frequent hypothetical mentions make them “really and narratively part of the Unseen,” (p. 10) doubling their ontological and literary hiddenness while at the same time drawing God nearer as an active agent rather than a remote high deity. Angels thus emerge as “strictly faithful messengers” and guardians. Old mediating channels become “safer and more predictable” (p. 10); angels lose autonomy but gain coherence, serving as archetypal spiritual entities and embodying a distinctively Islamic cosmology—a shift toward a new mythopoesis of the Unseen.
7To place Qurʾānic angelology in dialogue with Sufi literature, Gallorini distinguishes between three types of verses. First are “angel verses,” which explicitly mention malak, malāʾika, Ǧibrīl, Mīkāl, and related “angelic” terms. Second are “alluding verses,” where angelic presence is implied. A third, unexpected category emerged during her reading: “non-angelic verses,” which contain no reference to angels “by any stretch of the imagination” (p. 23n) yet are populated with them by exegetes, often as frequently as in passages where angels appear explicitly. This adaptive lens proves fruitful. It compels a systematic search for angelic presence across the Qurʾān despite their “invisibility” and becomes the basis for the layered typology of angelic roles developed in later chapters.
- 4 Abū l-Qāsim ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Qušayrī, Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt: Subtle Allusions. Sūrahs 1-4, Kristin Zah (...)
8Gallorini then defines her working corpus under the heuristic label “Sufi commentarial literature.” On the one hand, this comprises six major Sufi tafsīrs: Sahl al-Tustarī’s (d. 283/896) Tafsīr, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī’s (d. 412/1021) Ḥaqāʾiq al-tafsīr, Abū l-Qāsim al-Qušayrī’s (d. 465/1072) Laṭāʾif al-išārāt, Ibn Barraǧān’s (d. 536/1141) short and long commentaries, and Rūzbihān al-Baqlī’s (d. 606/1209) ʿArāʾis al-bayān. She carefully highlights the diversity of exegetical practice across these texts while also underlining both the value and the difficulty of treating “Sufi commentary” as a discrete category. Precisely because of this diversity—and because the Andalusī exegete Ibn Barraǧān situates himself within the broader muʿtabirūn tradition—her occasional use of an East/West polarity (pp. 21-22, 98, 150) has limited analytical value. As the author herself observes, the more accurate distinction lies between Sufi commentarial exegesis and Andalusī scriptural mysticism, two porous and interconnected fields. A minor bibliographic addition in her survey of Western-language translations could be noted here: an English partial translation of al-Qušayrī’s Laṭāʾif al-išārāt (the first four sūras, by Kristin Zahra Sands).4
9On the other hand, Gallorini expands the scope of “Sufi commentarial literature” to include a wider set of Sufi writings that, though not formal tafsīr, nonetheless elaborate on Qurʾānic verses and ḥadīth. These she treats as “case studies”—narratives or explanations explicitly “pegged” to scripture. Within this rubric she places two accounts of the miʿrāǧ by Abū Yazīd al-Bisṭāmī (d. ca. 234/848) and Ibn ʿArabī (d. 638/1240), as well as the latter’s al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya. Such works allow her to trace how angelic functions are retained, lost, or newly forged as interpretation reshapes revelation. She is genre-aware throughout, attending to how literary form conditions exegetical imagination. In this way she shows how Sufi authors “complete” scripture through a process of “exegetical increase,” (p. 11, 124) generating new angelic names, roles, and meanings for later audiences.
10Other works could plausibly fall within this rubric—such as the proto-Sufi al-Muḥāsibī’s (d. 243/857) Kitāb al-Tawahhum, a vivid angel-populated journey that is more a didactic exercise in moral imagination than a miʿrāǧ proper, or the influential mystic al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmiḏī’s (d. ca. 295-300/907-912) scriptural reflections on angels, especially in his Riyāḍat al-nafs. Yet Gallorini is explicit about the limits and necessary arbitrariness of her selection. Her constructed corpus is already wide-ranging, and its strength lies less in exhaustive inclusion than in the clarity and coherence of her choices.
11The first three chapters are organized not by commentator but by angelic functions, derived by comparison with their Qurʾānic roles. Gallorini prefers to group material thematically rather than chronologically, avoiding a proliferation of subsections and underscoring instead the pervasiveness of angels across Sufi exegetical works. This choice allows her to show how commentators enrich ambiguous loci and participate in a mythopoeic dialogue with the Qurʾān.
12Chapter 1 considers how early Sufi exegetes inherited, mostly reiterated, and slightly reshaped three “basic” (i.e. foundational) Qurʾānic functions: (1) narrative—angels as secondary characters advancing plots (e.g. supporting prophets and believers, punishing deniers, guarding Hell); (2) theological—angels as creedal markers (e.g. defining orthodoxy and affirming tawḥīd); and (3) praxis—angels as models and witnesses of correct worship (e.g. examples of obedience). In these readings angels become omnipresent yet quiet companions of the believer, while the first hints of metaphorical use already anticipate the fuller “symbolic” function treated later. Particularly striking are Gallorini’s discussions of the physicality of angels, suspended between corporeal imagery—wings, voices, acts—and immaterial “light-like” substance (pp. 42-43); of their possible mortality at the final annihilation (p. 48); and of the lesser-known “angels of the wombs” (malāʾikat al-arḥām), whose presence stretches angelic activity from prenatal life to death, thus inscribing them into the entire cycle of human embodiment (p. 53).
13Chapter 2 shifts to what she terms the “general” Qurʾānic functions, larger mythopoeic roles with a broader cosmological reach. First is the cosmological: angels help “establish a new worldview,” (p. 59) functioning rhetorically in debates with disbelievers and recasting inherited narratives within an Islamic cosmology (e.g. angels bowing to Adam, or appearing in the Moses-Pharaoh cycle, p. 59). Second is the “traditional” messenger function, both intra-textual and extratextual, with Gabriel’s role in revelation at the center. Third is the overlooked testing function: angels as unexpected agents of trial, as in the stories of Hārūt and Mārūt, the angelic questioning to God about Adam, or Iblīs as archetypal tester. One of Gallorini’s most valuable observations is the tendency of later exegetes to “Gabrielize” indeterminate Qurʾānic agents such as rūḥ al-amīn (“Trustworthy Spirit”), rasūl karīm (“noble messenger”), or šadīd al-quwā (“one of awesome power”), thereby stabilizing mediation by consolidating all uncertain references into a single reliable channel of revelation (pp. 90-92). What begins as polyvalence in the Qurʾān thus narrows into exegetical uniformity, unifying intermediaries under God’s command.
14The conceptual division between “basic” and “general” functions, however, is thin. “General,” particularly in its cosmological dimension, already presupposes a macro frame, so the contrast often reduces to scale rather than substance. The same passages can sustain both micro (narrative, creed, praxis) and macro (world-building) readings simultaneously, and Sufi exegetes themselves move fluidly between levels without marking a transition. Terminology compounds the problem: “basic” implies elementary, “general” implies comprehensive, but many loci are both. Yet even if the categories blur, the taxonomy still serves to order a scattered corpus, foregrounding continuities that prepare for later symbolic readings. Whether intentional or not, the scheme illustrates the book’s central claim: angels resist stable classification, migrate across registers, and continually elude capture.
15Chapter 3 turns to two specifically Sufi functions, shifting from the Qurʾānic roles angels play within the text to the exegetical strategies by which Sufi commentators deploy them. The first is “cosmological enrichment,” the multiplication of angelic figures such as the zabāniya or Riḍwān and the integration of angels, jinn, and Iblīs into a densely populated unseen world. The second is the symbolic function: recurrent moves that turn angels into allegories for faculties, states, or moral dispositions. Especially suggestive is the paradox that “non-angelic verses” often become the preferred sites for angelic insertion. Here Gallorini argues that angels thrive not at the text’s margins but in its silences, where categories blur between angel, jinn, and Spirit.
16One weakness lies in terminology. By calling both Qurʾānic roles (messenger, tester) and exegetical strategies (cosmological enrichment, symbolic deployment) “functions,” Gallorini risks conflating levels of analysis. Distinguishing between “roles” at the scriptural level and “hermeneutical modes” at the commentarial level might have drawn the contrast more sharply. Yet the flexible use of “function” does serve her purpose: to highlight how angels are simultaneously actors within scripture and instruments of Sufi hermeneutics.
17Taken together, these three chapters deliver a wealth of insights grounded in largely unedited and untranslated sources. Gallorini excels at drawing unexpected questions from them, and at tracing novel exegetical moves. The architecture of the book, however, somewhat blunts the force of her analysis. By distributing Qurʾānic material across “functions,” the scriptural baseline is never presented in one sustained treatment but spread over several chapters. The introduction offers only a compact overview, too thin to support the comparative weight of the study. This absence is felt particularly by readers who have not consulted her doctoral dissertation (American University of Beirut, 2021), where the structure is different: there, a lengthy opening chapter lays out a full Qurʾānic angelology (retained in the book only as Appendix 1) before moving to Sufi commentary. In that version the comparative logic is immediate and the reader is better equipped to gauge Sufi enrichment against a clearly defined scriptural backdrop. The book, by contrast, sacrifices some of this clarity—what is gained in narrative economy, shedding the taxonomic density of the thesis, comes with some loss of consistency, leaving the reader to reconstruct the Qurʾānic foundation while navigating shifting categories. This appears less an authorial decision than an editorial streamlining for readability or to avoid redundancy with existing Qurʾānic studies, but the result is a comparative frame that feels less firmly anchored.
18The last two chapters turn to case studies that masterfully display the most elaborate developments of Sufi angelology, from visionary miʿrāǧ accounts to Ibn ʿArabī’s vast metaphysical system.
19Chapter 4 examines how Sufi narratives of the heavenly ascension reshape Qurʾānic and early angelic motifs. After a concise survey of the Islamic miʿrāǧ tradition, Gallorini focuses on two cases: al-Bisṭāmī, who follows Ibn ʿAbbās’ recension, and Ibn ʿArabī, who builds on the canonical prophetic model. In both, angels serve as markers of cosmological thresholds. In Bisṭāmī’s visionary ascent, they test and authenticate his progress, continuing the Qurʾānic function of angels as examiners while extending it into initiatory pedagogy. Ibn ʿArabī’s much more elaborate account also transforms angels into metaphysical hierarchies: each angel corresponds to a level of being, a station of the soul, or a cosmological reality. Gallorini demonstrates how the miʿrāǧ genre expands angelic roles into eschatological futures, ultimately reducing them to their essential attributes—light and wings. Particularly valuable is her treatment of Ibn ʿArabī’s imaginal resolution of the “body versus spirit” debate, one of the chapter’s strongest contributions.
20The final, substantial Chapter 5 (around seventy pages) admirably turns to Ibn ʿArabī’s angelology as systematically elaborated in al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya. His study of angelic numbers, typologies, and hierarchies far exceeds the Qurʾānic framework, producing a densely layered and quantified unseen world—an edifice that could itself sustain a separate thesis. Gallorini demonstrates how Ibn ʿArabī extends “basic” and “general” Qurʾānic functions into a comprehensive metaphysics and a psychology of revelation, expanding angelic roles across the human life cycle, the micro- and macrocosm, and the real and imaginal domains. Here the symbolic function dominates: angels become polyvalent figures—entities, names, breaths, images—through which Ibn ʿArabī articulates the unity of being and envisions a human ascent that can ultimately surpass angelic stations.
- 5 Gisela Webb, “Hierarchy, Angels, and the Human Condition in the Sufism of Ibn ‘Arabî,” The Muslim W (...)
21Gallorini highlights a series of original elements: the flexibility of “angel” as a role rather than an essence, sometimes extending even to prophets and planets; the link between angels and letters, including the Qurʾānic disjointed letters whose utterance “calls” their angelic spirits; the “angelization” of humans through prayer and devotion, contrasted with angels’ fixed stations; and a “silent theology” in which angels embody paradox and simultaneity (“He/not He”), bridging cataphatic and apophatic registers. On hierarchy, she persuasively resists Gisela Webb’s claim that Ibn ʿArabī destabilizes angelic order, showing instead that the Futūḥāt sets out a coherent celestial hierarchy, tripartite in structure like that of Pseudo-Dionysius but free of the ecclesial rigidity of the Christian model.5
22The comparative gestures here are suggestive but deliberately brief. Gallorini signals her readiness to explore parallels with Christian angelology, yet rightly keeps the focus on Sufi material. A fuller comparative unpacking—particularly contrasting ecclesial hierarchy with Ibn ʿArabī’s experiential mapping of the unseen—would be rewarding, but lies beyond the scope of this book.
- 6 James S. Cutsinger, “Angels in Inklings,” Mythlore 19, 2 (1993), p. 59.
23The Conclusion synthesizes the results of the study with welcome clarity. Gallorini restates her typology of angelic functions, situates them within Neuwirth’s schema of re-enactment, fulfillment, and mythopoiesis, and foregrounds the symbolic function as the distinctive Sufi contribution. With James S. Cutsinger’s phrase, “the message be the messenger, and he the message… resist[ing] our efforts to define or explain it,”6 she underlines that angelology is not merely about cataloguing beings but about how their very elusiveness unsettles the reader, disrupting categories and compelling a rethinking of reality. In this light, her central claim is reaffirmed: angels in Sufi literature are elusive yet omnipresent, polyvalent figures whose invisibility and ambiguity sustain their theological power and awaken the soul to God and to the limits of human understanding.
24As anticipated, Appendix 1 (“Angels in Arabia: In and around the Qurʾān”) provides the chronological premise of the study. It offers a clear synthesis of angelic beliefs in Arabia before and around the Qurʾān, situating Qurʾānic angelology within both its Late Antique and Arabian contexts. Gallorini surveys scattered pre-Islamic references, tracing overlaps between angels, jinn, deities, and astral beings, before highlighting the Qurʾān’s decisive reframing of angels as beings subordinated to God—though not without retaining significant ambiguity about their nature and function. This section functions more as a careful mapping of the field than as an original reinterpretation, which may explain its relegation to an appendix. Yet its chronological scope and contextual grounding would have provided a comprehensive baseline against which the later Sufi developments could be measured.
25Appendix 2 (“Verses in muṣḥaf Order”) gathers all Qurʾānic verses mentioning or alluding to angels, in Arabic and English translation, arranged in canonical order. Appendix 3 cross-indexes these verses across the tafsīr corpus, showing which commentators address them. Appendix 4 compresses angelic typologies into a two-page chart drawn from Ibn ʿArabī, Ṣadr al-dīn al-Qūnawī (d. 673/1274), Saʿīd al-dīn al-Farġānī (d. ca. 700/1300), and a reference to Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (late 5th/early 6th century CE).
26On Qurʾānic referencing, Gallorini often seems to wear the mufassira’s mantle herself. Like the classical commentators, she does not spell out the broader Qurʾānic contexts but moves directly into exegesis. Instead of citing verses in full, she paraphrases them and provides the concordance in Appendix 2—enhancing readability and, mercifully sparing the reader the density of the tafsīrs themselves. In this sense, her work becomes a kind of meta-tafsīr: systematic and patient in its unpacking, yet presupposing strong Qurʾānic knowledge. For a specialist readership the choice is consistent and does not compromise clarity, though it may occasionally slow the flow.
27The book’s scholarly orientation is also evident in Gallorini’s decision not to provide appositive descriptors or death dates for figures such as al-Šiblī (d. 334/946, cited p. 234), Abū Saʿīd al-Qurašī (d. 382/992, cited p. 40), or the Muʿtazilī exegete al-Zamaḫšarī (d. 538/1144, cited pp. 111, 118, 150n). Their attributions are simply presupposed. On identifications, however, some corrections are in order: ʿUmar al-Makkī (p. 49) should be identified as ʿAmr al-Makkī (d. 291/904 or 296/909), disciple of al-Ḫarrāz and al-Ǧunayd and master of al-Ḥallāǧ. The author of Ġāyat al-ḥakīm is correctly named as [Abū l-Qāsim] Maslama [b. Qāsim] al-Qurṭubī (cited pp. 213n-214n, 236, 257), but his death date is mistakenly given as that of Maslama al-Maǧrīṭī (d. 398/1007); the correct date is 353/964. The mystic al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmiḏī’s death is noted as ca. 320/938 at p. 89 (he probably died earlier, ca. 295-300/907-912), and wrongly reported as 279/892 at p. 194n and again inverted as 892/278 at p. 199—likely through confusion with the ḥadīth scholar Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā al-Tirmiḏī (d. 279/892).
28A handful of minor transliteration inconsistencies also appear: waḥī (e.g. p. 94) instead of waḥy (e.g. p. 91); ẓabāniyya (p. 217) instead of zabāniyya (e.g. p. 109); masnad (pp. 228n, 343) instead of musnad; and nighma for “tune” (p. 212) instead of naghma. Formatting is generally consistent, though occasionally uneven: Hārūt and Mārūt are only at times italicized (e.g. p. 9, 41). A few factual or typographical slips also remain: the Mongol invasion is misdated as “6th AH/13th AD” instead of 7th AH/13th AD (p. 7); “Gunction” instead of “Function” appears in the header at p. 24; and “consitute” instead of “constitute” at p. 193. These are infrequent but, given the book’s price ($141), they should have been caught at proof stage—an issue more of editorial oversight than of authorial error.
29Translations are consistently excellent: fluid and precise throughout. Two minor points could be noted. At p. 205, ǧamādāt is rendered as “minerals,” whereas the author elsewhere opts for “inanimate beings” (pp. 228n, 245), which seems more accurate. Likewise, the root š-w-q is consistently translated with “desire” and its derivatives; yet in the phrase al-malāʾika al-muštāqīn, “longing” or “yearning” (as at p. 135) would better capture the spiritual tension.
30These minor observations are raised only with a view to future reprints or corrections and do not in any way detract from Gallorini’s remarkable achievement: disclosing a densely populated Unseen. Looking ahead, one hopes the author will return to what she identifies as an earlier interest—the study of the jinn (see the “Acknowledgements”)—and produce a similarly rich and complementary monograph. She herself also points to promising comparative directions: extending her functional analysis across other tafsīr sub-genres to test whether categories such as “cosmological enrichment” appear more broadly, and assessing whether the “symbolic function” is indeed uniquely Sufi or part of a wider exegetical repertoire.
31Two final contextual remarks deserve mention. Given the journal in which this review will appear, the first is institutional: the Ideo merits praise for providing the intellectual environment in which the thesis was revised into book form. The second is aesthetic: the cover illustration—Two, Three, or Four Wings (ink on paper, 2024), from Gallorini’s own private collection—embodies the book’s very project. As the black lines of her analysis trace, explain, and render visible the elusive presence of angels in Sufi literature, so the black lines of her drawing materialize them on paper, allowing the invisible to be seen.
Notes
1 Stephen R. Burge, Angels in Islam: Jalal al-din al-suyūtī’s al-habāʾik fī akhbār al-malāʾik, Routledge, London, 2015.
2 Angelika Neuwirth, “The Qurʾān Enchantment of the World,” in Majid Daneshgar & Walid A. Saleh (eds), Islamic Studies Today: Essays in Honor of Andrew Rippin, Leiden: Brill, 2017, pp. 123-144; see also “From Sacred Mosque to Remote Temple: Sūrat Al-Isrāʾ between Text and Commentary,” in Barry D. Walfish, Joseph W. Goering & Jane Dammen McAuliffe (eds), With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 377-407; and also, Scripture, Poetry, and the Making of a Community: Reading the Qur’an as a Literary Text, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014.
3 Todd Lawson, “The Qur’an and Epic,” Journal of Qur’ānic Studies 16, 1 (2014), pp. 58-92.
4 Abū l-Qāsim ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Qušayrī, Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt: Subtle Allusions. Sūrahs 1-4, Kristin Zahra Sands (ed.), Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 2017.
5 Gisela Webb, “Hierarchy, Angels, and the Human Condition in the Sufism of Ibn ‘Arabî,” The Muslim World 81, 3-4, (1991), pp. 245-253.
6 James S. Cutsinger, “Angels in Inklings,” Mythlore 19, 2 (1993), p. 59.
Haut de pagePour citer cet article
Référence électronique
Riccardo Paredi, « Louise Gallorini, The Functions of Angels in Sufi Literature », MIDÉO [En ligne], 41 | 2026, mis en ligne le 08 janvier 2026, consulté le 12 mars 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/mideo/11591
Haut de pageDroits d’auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.
Haut de page


