Philosophy in Early Safavid Iran: Najm Al-Dīn Maḥmūd Al-Nayrīzī And His Writings: 82 (Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Science. Texts and Studies) 9004191739, 9789004191730

Citation preview

Philosophy in Early Safavid Iran

Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Science Texts and Studies

Edited by

Hans Daiber Anna Akasoy Emilie Savage-Smith

VOLUME LXXXII

Philosophy in Early Safavid Iran Najm al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī and His Writings

By

Reza Pourjavady

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2011

Cover illustration: “A Learned Discourse in a Garden” by Qāsim ʿAlī under the supervision of Kamāl al-Dīn Bihzād (d. 942/1535–6), taken from a manuscript of Mīr ʿAlī Shīr Nawāyī’s Sadd-i Iskandarī, completed in 901/1495 (MS Elliott 339 (f. 95b) of the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford). This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pourjavady, Reza. Philosophy in early Safavid Iran : Najm al-Din Mahmud al-Nayrizi and his writings / by Reza Pourjavady. p. cm. — (Islamic philosophy, theology and science ; v. 82) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 978-90-04-19173-0 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Nayrizi, Najm al-Din Mahmud, d. ca. 1526. 2. Islamic philosophy—Iran—History. I. Title. II. Series. B753.N394P68 2011 181’.5—dc22 2010037470

ISSN 0169-8729 ISBN 978 90 04 19173 0 Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

CONTENTS Preface ............................................................................................

ix

Introduction: The Philosophers of Shiraz at the Turn of the 10th/16th Century .................................................................... I. Background ...................................................................... II. Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī .................................................... III. Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī .................................................. IV. Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī ........................................... V. Mīr Ḥ usayn al-Maybudī ................................................ VI. Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī .................................................. VII. Kamāl al-Dīn al-Ilāhī al-Ardabīlī .................................

1 1 4 16 24 32 37 41

Chapter One: The Philosopher al-Nayrīzī and General Aspects of His Thought ........................................................... I. Review of Previous Scholarship .................................... II. Notes on Nayrīzī’s Biography ........................................ III. Nayrīzī’s Approach to Philosophy and Theology ........................................................................... IV. The Reception of Nayrīzī in the Later Period ............ Chapter Two: Nayrīzī and the Two Strands of Philosophy in Shiraz ..................................................................................... I. The Two Strands of Philosophy in Shiraz ................... II. The Main Subjects of the Dispute between the Two Strands of Philosophy .................................................... II.i. The Liar Paradox ............................................... II.ii. The Distinction between Wujūd and Mawjūd ................................................................ II.iii. Mental Existence ................................................ II.iv. God’s Knowledge ............................................... II.v. The Human Body and the Soul ....................... Chapter Three: Works of Nayrīzī .............................................. I. Glosses on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād ... II. Commentary on Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma ...........................................................................

45 45 53 61 68

74 74 86 87 88 99 101 103 106 110 111

vi

contents III. Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām wa-nihāyātihā wa-tabyīn maqāṣid al-ḥ arakāt wa-ghāyātihā .......... IV. Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib ................................................. V. Glosses on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq and on Qutḅ al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s Commentary on this Work .............................................................................. VI. Glosses on Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s Commentary on ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī’s al-Mawāqif fī ʿilm al-kalām VII. Commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-manṭiq ....................................................................... VIII. Commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād: Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid ............................. IX. Superglosses on Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s Glosses on Qūṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Commentary on Kātibī’s al-Risāla al-Shamsiyya ................................................. X. Superglosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Commentary on Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār and on Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s Glosses on the same Commentary ................................................................. XI. Commentary on Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām .................................................. XII. Commentary on Ḥ asan b. Yūsuf al-Ḥ illī’sTahdhīb al-aḥ kām ........................................................................ XIII. Glosses on Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī’s Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm .......................................................................... XIV. Glosses on Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī’s Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥ all-i shubha ‘kulli kalāmī kādhib’ ....... XV. Commentary on Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda ............................................. XVI. Commentary on Suhrawardī’s al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya: Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī kashf ḥaqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ ......................................................................... XVII. Glosses on Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī’s Commentary on Suhrawardī’s Hayākil al-nūr ................................

Chapter Four: Nayrīzī and the Suhrawardian Philosophy .... I. Nayrīzī as a Critic of Suhrawardī .............................. I.i. Prime Matter ........................................................ I.ii. The Theory of Vision ..........................................

114 115

118 119 120 121

124

125 125 128 128 129 129

131 136 137 137 137 140

contents

vii

I.iii. The Imaginary World ............................................ I.iv. The Nature of Sound ............................................. I.v. Political Thought .................................................... I.vi. Bodily Resurrection ............................................... II. Nayrīzī and the Commentators of Suhrawardī ............. II.i. Shams al-Din al-Shahrazūrī ................................. II.ii. ʿIzz al-Dawla Ibn Kammūna ................................ II.iii. Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrazī ..........................................

141 141 142 145 145 145 149 151

Appendix I: Inventory of His Writings .................................... Appendix II: Philosophical Writings Copied by Nayrīzī ....... Appendix III: An Ijāza Given to Nayrīzī by Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī ................................................................................. Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources ...........

153 193

Abbreviations and Bibliography ................................................ Index of Manuscripts ................................................................... Index of Names and Places .........................................................

203 217 219

196 198

PREFACE In the last few decades the significance of Post-Avicennan philosophy has received the attention of many scholars of Islamic thought. Yet some crucial historical periods in its development have remained in darkness, particularly late ninth/fifteenth century. It was at this time that a heated debate took place between two philosophers of Shiraz, Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī (d. 908/1502) and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī (d. 903/1498), which contained some innovative thought on both sides and had a significant impact on the later development of philosophy in the Muslim world. For decades afterwards, the discussions between these two figures provided the main challenges that were taken up by students of philosophy. Even centuries later, philosophers have referred to this debate and supported one side against the other. Despite their undisputed significance, our knowledge of these philosophical discussions has remained in a preliminary state, as most of the philosophical works of this period have not been published and in some cases the relevant manuscripts still await identification. It is not only philosophy, but also theology (kalām) and, in particular, the re-emergence of Shīʿī theology in Iran in this period, that has been in need of further study. At the beginning of the tenth/sixteenth century, the Safavids took power in Iran and imposed Shīʿism as the state religion (madhhab). So far, historiography of the early Safavid period has focussed on the role of the scholars who migrated to Iran from Jabal ʿĀmil in Lebanon and especially on ʿAlī al-Karakī (d. 940/1534), a pioneering figure who was associated with the Safavid government. Karakī was a scholar of fiqh and throughout his career never showed any particular interest in kalām and philosophy. Hence the picture of the early Safavids drawn by modern scholarship shows a fiqhcentred period which lasted till the time of the Safavid Shah ʿAbbās I (r. 995/1587–1038/1629). This gives the impression that it was only in the time of Shah ʿAbbās that Shīʿī theological discourse flourished, and that theologians such as Bahāʾ al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī (d. 1030/1621), Mīr Dāmād (1041/1631–2), and Sayyid Aḥ mad al-ʿAlawī al-ʿĀmilī (d. between 1054/1644 and 1060/1650) began to be patronised by the Safavid government. In other words, no investigation has as yet been made into whether or not the early Safavids, and particularly

x

preface

the founder of the dynasty, Shah Ismāʿīl (r. 907/1501–930/1524), who eagerly enforced conversion to Shīʿism, made any direct effort to support Shīʿī dogma. The present study, which is based on my PhD dissertation submitted to Freie Universität Berlin, is an attempt to shed light on both of the above obscurities. It aims to show the vitality of theological and philosophical exchanges in the late ninth/fifteenth century which extended in the early tenth/sixteenth, i.e., the early Safavid era. Najm al-Dīn Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī, the philosopher and theologian whose life and works are the subject of the present study, was one of the outstanding students of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī and was deeply involved in the debates that took place between his master and Dawānī. Moreover, Nayrīzī was evidently among the first scholars associated with the court of the Safavids to have composed theological works supporting Shīʿī dogma. A prolific writer on theology and philosophy, Nayrīzī authored over fifteen works, none of which has so far been edited. For the purpose of this study, I have examined these writings in manuscripts from collections in Tehran, Qum, Mashhad, and Shiraz (Iran), Istanbul (Turkey) and Princeton (USA). Unfortunately I was unable to access the manuscripts held in libraries in Iraq and India. In order to place Nayrīzī’s works in their context, the study also contains a biographical and a bibliographical survey of prominent philosophers of Shiraz of the period. With regard to Nayrīzī’s thought, I have tried to avoid attributing ideas to him which were originally his teacher’s. However, since almost all the philosophical works of Dashtakī are likewise still unedited, it is often difficult to distinguish Nayrīzī’s additions from the arguments of his teacher. Therefore, I have decided to explain some of the issues debated by Dashtakī and Dawānī on the basis of their own works, and have, in addition, provided a survey of the development of their debate, exploring the standpoint of Nayrīzī in this regard. It remains for me to express my gratitude to all of those who, in numerous ways, have helped me during the course of preparing this book. I should first acknowledge the advice given to me by my supervisor, Professor Sabine Schmidtke, who guided me in the writing of the dissertation on which this book is based. What she did was certainly more than may be expected from a supervisor. She went through the text several times and each time supplied numerous precious comments which significantly improved the text.

preface

xi

During the course of writing the dissertation I also benefited from the advice of my father, Nasrollah Pourjavady. After all, he was the one who suggested this subject to me. Dr. Omar Hamdan, Dr. Said Edalatnejad, and Morteza Kariminia each spent time editing the Arabic texts provided in this book. Dr. Annabel Keeler has served as my main English mentor, who patiently and generously spent her time editing and correcting the text. I am also grateful to Stephen Miller for proofreading the whole manuscript at the end. Dr. Sajjad Rizvi, Ahmad Reza Rahimi Riseh, Dr. Hamed Naji Esfahani, Khosro Khosravi, Mohammad Barekat, Dr. Hassan Ansari, Dr. Akbar Irani, Prof. Mahmud Kılıç, and Prof. Osman G. Özgüdenli helped me to obtain manuscript images that I required for this study and I am grateful for all their helps. Prof. Cornelia Schoeck who was the second examiner of my dissertation, read the text carefully and made valuable remarks. In addition to her, others present at my viva, particularly Prof. Axel Havemann, Prof. Renate Wuersch, and Dr. Johann Busow made some delicate insights that I have incorporated here. Prof. Camilla Adang, Prof. Robert Wisnovsky, Prof. Alison Laywine, Prof. Ihsan Fazlioglu, Prof. Rula Abisaab, Prof. Maria Subtelny, Prof. Heidrun Eichner, Dr. Khaled El-Rouayheb, and Dr. Lukas Muehlethaler each spent much of their precious time reading and criticizing earlier versions of this book. Indeed, the thoughtful remarks of Prof. Robert Wisnovsky in particular brought a great improvement to the final draft. I should also thank NaFoeG. (Nachwuchsförderungsgesellschaft) and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for the stipends they granted me between 2006 and 2008. Let me also express my gratitude to Prof. Jamil Ragep, the director of the Institute of Islamic Studies of McGill University, for considering the revision of my dissertation as part of my contribution to the Institute’s research project, ‘Rational Sciences in Islam’. My gratitude also goes to the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, for providing me with the image of the folio 95b of the MS Elliott 339 and granting me the permission to use this image for the cover of the book. Dr. Sayyid Maḥmūd Marʿashī Najafī, the director of Ḥ aḍrat Āyat Allāh al-ʿUẓmā Marʿashī Najafī Library in Qum, generously permitted me to reproduce any visual material of the library’s manuscript collection for the purpose of this study. Last, but definitely not least, I would like to thank my wife Leila Rahimi Bahmany for her constant loving support and encouragement.

INTRODUCTION

THE PHILOSOPHERS OF SHIRAZ AT THE TURN OF THE 10TH/16TH CENTURY I. Background At the turn of the 10th/16th century, Shiraz was one of the most active cultural centres in the entire Islamic world. Particularly in the field of philosophy no other Islamic city could compete with its dynamism and vitality. The schools (madrasas) of Shiraz attracted a large number of students of theology and philosophy from the neighbouring regions and far beyond. This phenomenon did not take place all of a sudden, however. The madrasas of Shiraz appear to have been open to philosophical discussions more than a century before that date. Between 736/1335 and 754/1353, the leading Ashʿarī theologian of the time, ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī (d. 756/1356), was based mainly in Shiraz.1 Ījī’s profound knowledge of philosophy is evident from his theological works, where he often applies philosophical arguments to theological issues. However, no indication has been found that philosophy was acknowledged in Shiraz at this time as a subject of study in its own right. The shift may have happened in 779/1377–8 when the philosopher/theologian ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Jurjānī, known as Mīr Sayyid Sharīf (d. 816/1414), moved to Shiraz and started teaching at the Dār al-Shifāʾ madrasa.2 He taught there till 789/1387, when Tīmūr (r. 771/1369 to 807/1405) ordered him to attend his court at Samarqand. Some years after Tīmūr’s

1 See J. van Ess, “ʿAżod al-Din Iji”, Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 3, pp. 269–71; idem, Die Erkenntnislehre des ʿAḍudaddīn al-Īcī. Übersetzung und Kommentar des ersten Buches seiner Mawāqif, Wiesbaden 1966; idem, “Neue Materialien zur Biographie des ʿAḍudaddīn al-Īǧī,” Welt des Orients, 9 (1978), pp. 270ff. 2 On Jurjānī’s life and his writings, see J. van Ess, “Jorjāni, Zayn al-Din Abu’l-Hasan ʿAli b. Mohammad b. ʿAli al-Hosayni”, Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 15, pp. 21–9; Mahdī Shakībāniyā and Reza Pourjavady, “Kitāb-shināsī-i Mīr Sayyid Sharīf-i Jurjānī”, Maʿārif, 19iii (1381/2003), pp. 134–92; Sadreddin Gümüş, Seyyid Şerîf Cürcânî ve Arap Dilindeki Yeri, Istanbul 1984; idem, “Cürcânî, Seyyid Şerîf ”, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 8, Istanbul 1993, pp. 134–6.

2

introduction

death in 807/1405, Jurjānī went back to Shiraz and stayed there until his death in 816/1413–14.3 Jurjānī is well known mainly for his commentary on ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī’s Mawāqif 4 and for his book of definitions, Kitāb al-Taʿrīfāt.5 In these two works, as well as in numerous other writings, Jurjānī showed a great interest in kalām, philosophy and logic. He wrote glosses on a number of theological, philosophical and logical texts by his older contemporaries, such on Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Mubārakshāh al-Bukhārī’s (fl. 733/1332) commentary on Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma,6 on Shams al-Dīn al-Bukhārī’s commentary on Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī’s (d. 675/1277) Ḥ ikmat al-ʿayn,7 on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s (d. 766/1365) commentary on the section of logic of Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s (d. 682/1283) Maṭāliʿ al-anwār,8 on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī’s al-Shamsiyya,9 on Shams al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī’s commentary on ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar al-Bayḍāwī’s (d. c. 685/1286) Ṭ awāliʿ al-anwār,10 and on Shams al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī’s (d. 749/1348) commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s (d. 672/1274) Tajrīd

3

Jurjānī replied to the questions of Iskandar Mīrzā (r. 811/1408–818/1415) when he was back in Shiraz. See Maḥmūd Yazdī Mutḷ aq, “Iskandariyya taʾlīf-i ʿAllāma Mīr Sayyid Sharīf Gurgānī”, Muḥ aqqiqnāma: maqālāt-i taqdīm shuda bi ustād duktur Mahdī Muḥ aqqiq, eds. Baḥ āʾ al-Dīn Khurramshāhī & Jūyā Jahānbakhsh, Tehran 1380/2001, vol. 2, pp. 1389–447. It is not clear when he left Samarqand. He issued an ijāza for a certain Muḥammad b. Ḥ ājjī b. Shaykh ʿUmar b. Muḥammad in Samarqand in 812/1409, which shows that at that time he was still in Samarqand. See ʿAbd Bāqir b. ʿUmar al-Baghdādī, Khizānat al-adab wa-lubb lubāb lisān al-ʿarab, ed. Muḥammad Hārūn, Cairo 1399/1979, pp. 29–30. 4 This work has been edited several times in Lucknow, Istanbul, Delhi and Cairo. The most popular edition is perhaps Cairo 1325/1907 (reprinted Qum 1370/1991). 5 For the text and its French translation, see Kitāb al-Taʿrīfāt. Definitiones. Accedunt Definitiones [Istilaḥ āt] theosophy Mohji-ed Din Mohammad Ben Ali Vulgo Ibn Arabi dicti. Primum ed. et adnotatione critica instruxit Gustavus Flügel. Lipsiae 1845 [reprinted 1969]. 6 For the extant manuscripts of this work, see Shakībāniyā/Pourjavady, “Kitābshināsī-i Mīr Sayyid Sharīf-i Jurjānī”, p. 153; Gümüş, Seyyid Şerîf Cürcânî ve Arap dilindeki yeri, p. 146. 7 Published on the margin of Ibn Mubārakshāh al-Bukhārī’s Sharḥ Ḥ ikmat al-ʿayn, Lithograph Edition, Kazan: al-Maṭbaʿat al-Mīrīyya, 1321/1903–1322/1904. 8 Published twice as a lithograph edition on the margin of Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Sharḥ Maṭāliʿ al-anwār, Istanbul 1277/1860; Istanbul 1303/1885. 9 See Qut ̣b al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Taḥ rīr qawāʾid al-manṭiqiyya. Sharḥ al-risāla al-Shamsiyya li-Najm al-Dīn ʿUmar b. ʿAlī b. Kātibī al-Qazwīnī, Cairo [n.d.] [repr. Qum 1363/1984]. For the various lithograph editions of this text, see Hans Daiber, Bibliography of Islamic philosophy, Leiden 1999, vol. 1, p. 266, nos. 519–20. 10 For the extant manuscripts of this work, see Shakībāniyā/Pourjavady, “Kitābshināsī-i Mīr Sayyid Sharīf-i Jurjānī”, p. 143.

introduction

3

al-iʿtiqād.11 It is likely that some of these glosses originated in a teaching context. While all the above-mentioned works were written in Arabic, Jurjānī also wrote some works in Persian, including a short treatise, entitled Marātib al-mawjūdāt,12 a response to philosophical-theological questions of the grandson of Tīmūr, Iskandar Mīrzā (r. 811/1408 to 818/1415),13 and several short handbooks on logic, intended for teaching in madrasas, among them al-Kubrā fī l-manṭiq and al-Ṣughrā fī l-manṭiq.14 The clarity and simplicity of his writings may account for their popularity among later scholars as numerous copies of his works were produced throughout the centuries. Moreover, a large number of his students promoted these writings, not only in Shiraz, but elsewhere.15 Three students of Jurjānī are known to have been active in Shiraz during the first half of the 9th/15th century: 1) Qawām al-Dīn al-Kurbālī (or al-Kulbārī),16 2) Sharaf al-Dīn Ḥ asan Shāh Baqqāl,17 and 3) Jurjānī’s

11 Jurjānī’s glosses on the first chapter (maqṣad) of Iṣfahānī’s commentary were edited as an MA dissertation by Ḥ ūriyya Shujāʿī Bāghīnī at the University of Qum, Qum 1379/2000. Glosses on the second and the third chapter were edited as an MA dissertation by Fahīmat al-Sādāt Bihishtī at Tarbiyat Moallim University, Tehran 1379/2000. For the extant manuscripts of this work, see Shakībāniyā/Pourjavady, “Kitāb-shināsī-i Mīr Sayyid Sharīf-i Jurjānī”, p. 140. 12 This work has been edited several times, most recently by Ḥ usayn Muʿallim in Naqd-i niyāzī, Tehran 1373/1994, pp. 133–40). See Shakībāniyā/Pourjavady, “Kitābshināsī-i Mīr Sayyid Sharīf-i Jurjānī”, p. 140. It has also been translated into Turkish and Japanese. See Daiber, Bibliography of Islamic Philosophy, vol. 1, pp. 257, 626. 13 See above, p. 2, fn. 3. 14 See Shakībāniyā/Pourjavady, “Kitāb-shināsī-i Mīr Sayyid Sharīf-i Jurjānī”, pp. 155–61. 15 For Jurjānī’s known students, see Shakībāniyā/Pourjavady, “Kitāb-shināsī-i Mīr Sayyid Sharīf-i Jurjānī”, pp. 183–5 (Appendix). 16 Qawām al-Dīn al-Kurbālī was among the teachers of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī. See below, p. 17. His name appears in the bibliographical works both as “al-Kurbālī” and “al-Kulbārī”. Yet it seems that the correct form is Kurbālī. According to Qāsim Kākāyī, Kurbāl is a village near the town of Zarqān in the north-east of Shiraz. See Qāsim Kākāyī, “Ashnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Mīr Ṣadr al-Dīn Dashtakī (Sayyid-i Sanad)”, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 3 (1375/1996), p. 83. 17 The extant works of Sharaf al-Dīn Ḥ asan Shāh are (i) a Persian treatise on Ādāb al-baḥ th (MSS Ilāhiyyāt 749 D (Cat., p. 378), Dānishgāh 339 (Cat., vol. 3 (1), p. 4)), and (ii) Ḥ āshiyat al-fayyāḍ, containing his remarks on the notion of fayyāḍ (= overflowing) used as an attribute for God in the beginning of Qut ̣b al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār (MS Majlis 3908/1 (Cat., vol. 10 (4), pp. 1934–5)). Ghiyāth al-Dīn attributes to Ḥ asan Shāh a commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq and accuses Dawānī of plagiarizing Ḥ asan Shāh’s introduction to that commentary while writing his own commentary on the same text. Ghiyāth al-Dīn moreover asserts that Ḥ asan Shāh was the teacher of Dawānī. See MS Majlis 3423/2 (Cat., vol. 10 (3), p. 1283).

4

introduction

son, Muḥammad (d. 838/1434).18 While the first two were evidently teaching philosophy in the schools of Shiraz, Muḥammad b. al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī, who wrote a commentary on Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma19 as well as some short treatises on logic, is not known to have actually taught philosophy.20 One generation later, Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī brought the philosophical activity in the city to its height and actively engaged in promoting the interest in philosophy. II. Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī21 Jalāl al-Dīn Muḥ ammad al-Dawānī was born around 830/1426 in Dawān, a village near Kāzirūn in the southwest of the Iranian plateau.22 He was a descendent of a family that traced its genealogy back to the first caliph, Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq,23 and because of that he sometimes

18

The honorific title of Muḥammad b. al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī has been reported as Shams al-Dīn by some sources and Nūr al-Dīn by some others. See J. van Ess, “Jorjāni, Zayn al-Din Abu’l-Hasan ʿAli b. Mohammad b. ʿAli al-Hosayni”, p. 24. Van Ess’s speculative solution that al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī might have had two sons of two marriages with both of them named Muḥammad is doubtful. 19 This commentary is entitled Taḥ rīr al-qawāʿid wa-taqrīr al-fawāʾid (known also as Ḥ all al-Hidāya) and completed in 819/1416 in Herat, the autograph of which is located in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University (MS Yale University L-265). See L. Nemoy, Arabic Manuscripts in the Yale University Library, New Haven 1956, p. 147. 20 See Gümüş, Seyyid Şerîf Cürcânî ve Arap dilindeki yeri, pp. 113–4. 21 On Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, see Reza Pourjavady, “Kitāb-shināsī-i āthār-i Jalāl al-Dīn-i Dawānī”, Maʿārif, 15 i&ii (1377/1998), pp. 81–138; Harun Anay, Celâleddin Devvânî Hayati. Eserleri. Ahlâk ve siyaset, PhD dissertation, Istanbul University, Istanbul 1994; idem, “Devvânî”, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islam ansiklopedisi, vol. 9, Istanbul 1994, pp. 257–62; Andrew J. Newman, “Davāni”, Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 7, pp. 132–3; Stephan Pohl, Zur Theosophie im nachmongolischen Iran. Leben und Werk des Éalāladdīn ad-Dawwānī ( gest. 902/1502), Bochum 1997 [unpublished manuscript]. 22 On the village of Dawān, see Hamid Mahamedi, “Davān”, Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 7, pp. 129–32. Hence, his name is Dawānī (or Davānī) and not Dawwānī as has sometimes been erroneously written. 23 In the colophon of a manuscript of Abū l-ʿAbbās al-Lawkarī’s ʿAwīṣ al-masāʾil, copied by Dawānī (MS Marʿashī 12388/7, f. 168), the latter presents his own genealogy as follows: Muḥammad b. Asʿad b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm b. ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Salām b. Aḥ mad b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad b. ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Salām b. ʿAlī b. Aḥ mad b. Bihrist b. Majd b. Zakariyā b. ʿAṭiyya b. Bakiyya (?) b. Abī l-Faraj b. ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Naṣr b. Abī Zayd b. Jābir b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr (cf. Cat., vol. 31, pp. 308, 840).

introduction

5

added the title “al-Ṣiddīqī” to his name.24 His first teacher was his father, Saʿd al-Dīn Asʿad, who was qāḍī of Kāzirūn and a scholar of ḥ adīth and tafsīr in the Jāmiʿ al-Murshidī of Kāzirūn.25 Another early teacher of his was Maẓhar al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Murshidī al-Kāzirūnī. These two introduced him to ḥ adīth literature, fiqh, tafsīr, and the “rational sciences” (ʿaqliyyāt).26 Through these two intermediaries, who were both students of al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī, Dawānī regarded himself as Jurjānī’s student and linked himself to the latters’ chain of transmission of philosophy, which goes back to Ibn Sīnā: Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī  his father, Saʿd al-Dīn al-Dawānī & Maẓhar al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Murshidī al-Kāzirūnī  al Sharīf Jurjānī  Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī  Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī (d. 710/1311) Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī  Farīd al-Dīn al-Damād al-Nīshābūrī  Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Sarakhsī27  Afḍal a-Dīn al-Ghīlānī28  Abū l-ʿAbbās al-Lawkarī29 Ibn Sīnā.30 24 For instance, in the colophon of Risālat Jawābāt Abī Saʿīd Aḥ mad b. ʿAlī, which he himself copied (MS Marʿashī 12388, f. 185), Dawānī writes his name as Muḥammad b. Asʿad b. Muḥammad al-Ṣiddīqī al-Dawānī. Cf. the image of the colophon in the catalogue of the Marʿashī Library, vol. 31, p. 841. In his Nūr al-hidāya Dawānī writes that his title “Ṣiddiqī” is to affirm the principles and branches of Muḥammad’s religion (taṣdīq bi uṣūl u furūʿ-i dīn-i Muḥ ammadī) and has nothing to do with Abū Bakr. See “Nūr al-hidāya”, Rasāʾil al-mukhtāra, ed. Sayyid Aḥmad Tūysirkānī, Isfahan 1364/1985, p. 109. However, it should be noticed that Nur al-hidāya was most likely written when Shāh Ismāʿīl was approaching Shiraz. More than anything else, the statement above shows how much he was afraid of the Shīʿī qizilbāsh. 25 See Dawānī’s ijāza to Muʾayyadzāde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 44a; Dawānī, Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm, Thalāth rasāʾil, ed. Sayyid Aḥmad Tūysirkānī, Mashhad 1411/1991, pp. 275, 277–8. Dawānī specifies that with his father he studied al-Jāmiʿ al-ṣaḥ īḥ of Muḥammad al-Bukhārī. Al-Jāmiʿ al-Murshidī seems to have been the mosque in which Abū Isḥāq al-Kāzirūnī (d. 426/1035), the famous mystic of the 4th-5th/11th century, was buried. Nowadays it is known as aywān-i Murshidī. See Manūchehr Muẓaffariyān, Kāzirūn dar āyīna-yi farhang-i Īrān, Shiraz 1373/1994, pp. 111–5. 26 See Dawānī’s ijāza to Muʾayyadzāde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 44a; Dawānī, Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm, pp. 275, 277–8. 27 On Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Sarakhsī and his place in this chain of transmission, see Ḥ asan Anṣārī, “Fakhr-i Rāzī u mukātiba-yi ū bā yaki az ḥukamāʾ-i muʿāṣir-i khud”, Maʿārif, 18 iii (2002), pp. 10–26. 28 Afḍal al-Dīn ʿUmar b. ʿAlī al-Ghīlānī is the author of Ḥ udūth al-ʿālam (ed. Mahdī Muḥaqqiq, Tehran 1377/1998). 29 On Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Lawkarī (d. ca. 517/1123), see Roxanne D. Marcotte, “Preliminary Notes on the Life and Work of Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Lawkarī (d. ca. 517/1123)”, Anaquel de Estudios árabes, 17 (2006), pp. 133–57. 30 See Āghā Buzurg al-Ṭ ihrānī, Ṭ abaqāt, vol. 4, pp. 13–4, whose source, as he himself mentions, is Dawānī’s ijāza to ʿAfīf al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ṣafawī (issued in 893/1488). The credibility of this chain is doubtful, particularly when it comes to Lawkarī being a direct student of Ibn Sīnā. Since Lawkarī’s date of death falls almost ninety years after Ibn Sīnā’s. Evidently the part of this chain between Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī and Ibn Sīna has been invented prior to Dawānī. It occurred in a copy of Naṣīr al-Dīn

6

introduction

Moreover, Maẓhar al-Dīn and Dawānī’s father both studied with a certain ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Qirṭāsī,31 through whom Dawānī established another chain of transmission to Ibn Sīnā: Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī  his father, Saʿd al-Dīn al-Dawānī & Maẓhar al-Dīn al-Murshidī  ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Qirṭāsī  his father, Tāj al-Dīn al-Qirṭāsī  Shihāb al-Dīn Abū Bakr  Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī  Farīd al-Dīn al-Dāmād al-Nayshābūrī  al-Sayyid Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Sarakhsī  Afḍal al-Dīn al-Ghīlānī  Abū l-ʿAbbās al-Lawkarī  Ibn Sīnā.32

Dawāni completed his studies with some other scholars after he moved to Shiraz, namely ʿAbd Allāh b. Maymūn al-Jīlī (al-Gīlī) al-Kirmānī,33 Rukn al-Dīn Rūzbahān al-Wāʿiẓ al-ʿAmrī, 34 Ṣ a fī al-Dīn al-Ījī (d. 864/1450) (his teachers in ḥ adīth),35 and Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Kūshkinārī al-Anṣārī (his teacher in ḥ adīth and kalām),36 who are mentioned in one of his ijāzas and also in the introduction to his Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm. In addition to his studies in the madrasa, Dawānī’s interest in Sufism attracted him to the circles of dervishes of the Murshidiyya silsila of Kāzirūn, who were followers of Abū Isḥāq al-Kāzirūnī (d. 426/1035). He received a khirqa from the shaykh of this order, Jamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd Allāh al-Balyānī, known as al-Aṣamm, a pupil of the well-known Sufi

al-Ṭ ūsī’s Ḥ all mushkilāt al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt completed in 761/1360 by Abū l-Qāsim al-Abarqūhī (MS Osler Library of the History of Medicine, McGill University, OL 478, f. 82a). However, there Lawkarī and Ibn Sīnā are connected through Ibn Sīnā’s student, Bahmanyār (d. 458/1066). Generally on the chain of transmission of philosophy from Ibn Sīnā to Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī, see Ahmed H. Rahim, “The Twelver-šīʿī Reception of Avicenna in the Mongol Period”, Before and after Avicenna. Proceeding of the First Conference of the Avicenna study Group, ed. David C. Reisman with the assistance of Ahmed H. Al-Rahim, Leiden 2003, pp. 219–31. Among others, Al-Rahim refers to this version of Dawānī (pp. 221–2, fn. 10). 31 As Dawānī mentions, Qirt ̣āsī was the author of Risālat al-Sīrat al-mustarshidiyya (see Dawānī’s Ijāza to Muʾayyadzāde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 45a). 32 See Dawānī’s ijāza to Muʾayyadzāde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 45a. 33 Dawānī mentions that he received an ijāza for the transmission of ḥ adīth from Jīlī (Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm, p. 277). Jīlī himself was a student of ʿAfīf al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Kāzirūnī (see Dawānī’s Ijāza to Muʾayyadzāde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 44a). 34 Dawānī mentions that he studied al-Arbaʿīn al-nabawiyya with Rukn al-Dīn, who himself had studied the text with Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī (d. 817/1414) and received an ijāza from the latter. See Dawānī’s ijāza to Muʾayyadzāde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 44b; Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm, p. 278. 35 Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm, p. 276. 36 Dawānī mentions in his Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm (p. 278) two texts he had studied with Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Kūshkinārī al-Anṣārī, namely some no further identified glosses on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād (presumably those by al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī) and Sharḥ al-Mukhtaṣar fī l-uṣūl of Jamāl al-Dīn Uthmān b. ʿUmar known as Ibn al-Ḥ ājib (d. 646/1248–9) with al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s glosses on them.

introduction

7

of Shiraz, Amīn al-Dīn al-Balyānī (d. 745/1344–5).37 Dawānī presents his Sufi silsila as follows: Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī  Jamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd Allāh al-Balyānī al-Aṣamm  Amīn al-Dīn al-Balyānī  ʿAlī b. Ismāʿīl al-Būnī  Jamāl al-Dīn Abū Ḥ āmid Maḥ mūd al-Maḥ mūdī al-Ṣābūnī  Ṣadr al-Dīn Abū l-Ḥ asan al-Ḥ īrī (he was also a pupil of Shihāb al-Dīn ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī and Fakhr al-Dīn Abū ʿUbayd Allāh Muḥammad)  his father, Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm al-Ḥ īrī  Abū l-Fatḥ al-Bayḍ āwī  Abū Isḥ āq Ibrāhīm b. Shahriyār al-Kāzirūnī (d. 426/1035).38

In his commentary on a poem of Ḥ āfiẓ (d. 792/1390),39 while quoting from Risālat al-Dāʾira of Awḥad al-Dīn Balyānī (d. 686/1287–8), who was another Shaykh of the Balyānī family,40 Dawānī calls him Sulṭān al-ʿārifīn wa-l-ʿāshiqīn min al-sābiqīn wa-l-lāḥ iqīn.41 The first known work of his is a short commentary on the introduction of Bayḍāwī’s Ṭ awāliʿ al-anwār, completed on 30 Rabīʿ II 853/25 May 1449.42 Another early composition is a Persian commentary on Lā ilāha

37 On Amīn al-Dīn al-Balyānī see the relavant entries in Dānishnāma-yi Jahān-i Islām, vol. 4, pp. 184–5 (by ʿImād al-Dīn Shaykh al-Ḥ ukamāyī), and in Dāʾirat al-maʿārif-i buzurg-i Islāmī, vol. 12, p. 542 (by Muḥammad Jawād Shams Nayrīzī). Amīn al-Dīn is said to have died in 745/1344–5. This seems to contradict Dawānī’s statement that he was a pupil of Amīn al-Dīn through only one intermediary. 38 See Dawānī’s ijāza to Muʾayyadzāde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, ff. 45b–6a. Most of the names mentioned in this silsila are unknown to modern scholarship. Unlike Dawānī, Amīn al-Dīn al-Balyānī’s direct students usually linked the silsila of their master to Abū al-Najīb ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Suhrawardī (d. 563/1168). See Maḥmūd b. ʿUthman, Firdaws al-murshidiyya fī asrār al-ṣamadiyya, ed. Iraj Afshār, Tehran 1333/1954, p. 8; Aḥmad Zarkūb, Shīrāznāma, ed. Ismāʿīl Wāʿiẓ Jawādī, Tehran 1350/1971, p. 86. The shaykhs mentioned in Dawānī’s silsila are exclusively from the region of Kāzirūn and it seems that they were deliberately arranged so. 39 Dawānī was the first commentator of Ḥ āfiẓ. Two ghazals and three lines (bayt) of Ḥ āfiẓ have been commented on by Dawānī in five treatises. See Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, Naqd-i Niyāzī. dar sharḥ -i du bayt u yak ghazal az khwāja Ḥ āfiẓ-i Shīrāzī. He also wrote a preface to the Dīwān of Ḥ āfiẓ (see Pourjavady, “Kitāb-shināsī-i āthār-i Jalāl al-Dīn-i Dawānī”, pp. 90–4; There are some indications that his commentaries were used by some later commentators of Ḥ āfiẓ such as Aḥmad Efendi, known as Sūdī Busnawī (d. 1005/1596–7). See Akbar Thubūt, “Ḥ āfiẓ u pīr-i gul-rang”, Dar ḥ aram-i dūst. Yādwāra-yi ustād Sādāt Nāṣirī, ed. Ibrāhīm Zāriʿī, Tehran 1370/1991, pp. 79–88. 40 Awḥ ad al-Dīn Balyānī’s Risālat al-Aḥ adiyya has been edited, translated and studied by Michel Chodkiewicz (Epître sur l’Unicité Absolue, Paris 1982). On Awḥad al-Dīn Balyānī see also Muḥammad Jawād Shams, “Balyānī, Awḥad al-Dīn”, Dāʾirat al-maʿārif-i buzurg-i Islāmī, vol. 12, pp. 543–4. 41 See Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, “Sharḥ-i ghazalī az Ḥ āfiẓ bi maṭlaʿ-i: Dar hami dayr-i mughān nīst chu man shaydāyī . . .”, Naqd-i Niyāzī, p. 186. 42 This is according to the colophon to be found in one of its manuscripts, MS Raḍawī 799 ḥ ikmat (Cat., vol. 4, p. 177).

8

introduction

illā Allāh, entitled al-Tahlīliyya, composed in 862/1457–58.43 Al-Zawrā, is also a relatively early work of his, was written at the request of the keeper (khādim) of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib’s shrine in Najaf, Sharaf al-Dīn al-Fattāl in 870/1466.44 In it he reveals the significant impact of Sufism and particularly Ibn ʿArabī’s school on his thought. In the autocommentary to this work, entitled al-Ḥ awrāʾ, Dawānī reveals his reason for choosing the title al-Zawrāʾ, namely an extended vision (mubashshira ṭawīla) of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib he had experienced beside the river Tigris (Zawrāʾ) in Baghdad shortly before composing the work.45 Dawānī had already established himself as a religious scholar in his thirties, when he was appointed ṣadr (head of the religious administration)46 by Qaraquyunlu Yūsuf (d. 872/1468), the ruler of Shiraz.47 For reasons that are not clear, he soon resigned from this post.48 However, he retained close contacts with Yūsuf ’s father, Qaraquyunlu Jahān Shāh (r. ca. 841/1438–872/1468). This is indicated by the fact that Dawānī accompanied the Qaraquyunlu army in the battle between Jahān Shāh and Aqquyunlu Uzun Ḥ asan (r. 872/1467–882/1477), which took place in the plain of Mūsh in Diyār Bakr on 12 or 13 Rabiʿ II 872/10 or 11 November 1467. In the course of this battle, Jahān Shāh’s army was defeated and Jahān Shāh himself killed. In the subsequent escape of the Qaraquyunlu army to Tabriz, Dawānī lost some of his books.49 43 The date of authorship of this work is mentioned by Dawānī in his Tafsīr Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ. See Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, al-Rasāʾil al-mukhtāra, ed. Sayyid Aḥ mad Tūysirkānī, Isfahan 1364/1985, p. 52. 44 Dawānī stayed for a while in Najaf and taught Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq to Sharaf al-Dīn Fattāl. The two established a close friendship. Sharaf al-Dīn Fattāl received the original copy of al-Zawrāʾ and its commentary. Fattāl is known to have been one of the teachers of Ibn Abī Jumhūr al-Aḥsāʾī (d. after 906/1501). See Sabine Schmidtke, Theologie, Philosophie und Mystik im zwölferschiitischen Islam des 9./15. Jahrhunderts, p. 17. 45 See Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, “al-Ḥ awrāʾ” [Sharḥ al-Zawrāʾ], Sabʿ Rasāʾil, ed. Sayyid Aḥmad Tūysirkānī, Tehran 1381/2003, pp. 199–225, esp. 202–4. 46 On the position of ṣadr, see W. Floor, “The Ṣadr or Head of the Safavid Religious Administration, Judiciary and Endowments and other Members of the Religious Institution”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 150 (2000), pp. 461–500. 47 Yūsuf was appointed as the ruler of Shiraz in 867/1462–3. See Ghiyāth al-Dīn Khwāndamīr, Tārīkh-i Ḥ abīb al-siyar, ed. Muḥammad Dabīr Siyāqī, Tehran 1362/1983, vol. 4, p. 85. Therefore, the period that Dawānī served as ṣadr must have been between 867/1462 and 872/1468. 48 See Ḥ asan-Bay Rūmlū, Aḥ san al-tawārīkh, Tehran 1357/1978, p. 99. 49 The colophon of a manuscript of al-Zawrāʾ (MS Sipahsālār 4505) contains an indirect quotation from a note by the author about this event. Among the books that he lost was the original copy of al-Zawrāʾ. See Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, “al-Zawrāʾ ”, Sabʿ Rasāʾil, p. 184, fn. 3.

introduction

9

He then spent some time at the Muẓaffariyya madrasa in Tabriz and there completed on 11 Sawwāl 872/4 May 1468 his commentary on Suhrawardī’s Hayākil al-nūr, entitled Shawākil al-ḥ ūr fī sharḥ Hayākil al-nūr.50 The commentary is dedicated to Maḥ mūd Khwāja Jahān (d. 886/1481–2), the Persian vizier of the Bahmanid king, Shams al-Dīn Muḥ ammad Shāh III (r. 867/1463–887/1482).51 In this commentary Dawānī demonstrates his comprehensive knowledge of Suhrawardī’s works, as well as those of Suhrawardī’s earliest commentators, namely Ibn Kammūna (d. 683/1284), Shams al-Dīn al-Shahrazūrī (d. after 687/1288) and Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī. Dawānī was still in Tabriz the following year when the Timurid Abū Saʿīd was defeated by Uzun Ḥ asan and was finally killed on 22 Rajab 873/6 February 1469, an event for which Dawānī hastened to express his sorrow.52 Some years after these civil wars, Dawānī settled in Shiraz and started a long-term teaching post in the Biygum madrasa (known later as Dār al-Aytām).53 Gradually he established relations with the Aqquyunlu rulers. Among them, he seems to have been most closely connected to Uzun Ḥ asan’s son, Khalīl (d. 883/1478), who was at the time the provincial ruler of Shiraz (and later on succeeded his father for the brief period of one year until he died). Dawānī dedicated his ethical work, entitled Lawāmiʿ al-ishrāq fī makārim al-akhlāq (known also as

50 Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, “Shawākil al-ḥūr fī sharḥ Hayākil al-nūr”, Thalāth rasāʾil, ed. Sayyid Aḥmad Tūysirkānī, Mashhad 1411/1991, pp. 100–261. 51 See Dawānī, “Shawākil al-ḥūr fī sharḥ Hayākil al-nūr”, p. 109; for more information on Maḥmūd Khwāja Jahān (known also as Maḥmūd Gāwān) (d. 886/1481–2), see Tāj al-Dīn Nūsh Ābādī, “Maḥmūd Gāwān”, Dānishnāma-yi adab-i Fārsī: Adab-i Fārsī dar shibha qārrah (Hind, Pākistān, Bangilādish), ed. Ḥ asan Anūshah, Tehran 1380/2001, pp. 2306–9. The extent of Dawānī’s contact with Maḥmūd Khwāja Jahān is not clear. Apart from Shawākil al-ḥ ūr, Dawānī’s Risāla Ithbāt al-wājib al-qadīma is also dedicated to Maḥ mūd Khwāja Jahān. See below, p. 11, fn. 65. According to Nūr Allāh al-Shūshtarī, this work once has been dedicated to an Indian authority and another time to an Iranian one (vol. 2, 225–26). The Iranian authority to whom Dawānī dedicated the work seems to have been Timurid Abū Saʿīd (d. 873/1496); cf. the description of MS Riḍawī 866 in Fihrist-i Kitābkhāna-yi Āstān-i Quds-i Riḍawī 4, Mashhad 1325/1947, pp. 197–8. 52 Dawānī wrote a poem in which he presented the date of his Abū Saʿīd’s death according to the abjad system. See Sām Mīrzā Ṣafawī, Tadhkira-yi Tuḥfa-yi Sāmī, ed. Rukn al-Dīn Humāyūn Farrukh, Tehran 1384/2005, p. 77. 53 Muṣliḥ al-Dīn al-Lārī in his Mirʾāt al-adwār mentioned the name of the madrasa in which Dawānī had been teaching. See Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Lārī, “Mirʾāt al-adwār wa-mirqāt al-akhbār. Faṣl-ī dar sharḥ-i ḥāl-i buzurgān-i Khurāsān u Māwarāʾ al-nahr u Fārs”, ed. ʿĀrif Nawshāhī, Maʿārif, 13 iii (1997), pp. 91–113, esp. p. 104; Rūmlū, Aḥ san al-tawārīkh, p. 98.

10

introduction

Akhlāq-i Jalālī), written around 879/1474,54 to Uzun Ḥ asan and his son Khalīl.55 As the title of this work suggests the author sought to apply the Illuminationist (ishrāqī) approach to the realm of ethics. However, more evident in the text are frequent allusions to the Qurʾān and the sunna of the Prophet, as well as the utterances of Muslim shaykhs and philosophers.56 In the month of Mizān (Jumādā II-Rajab) 881/September-October 1476, Dawānī wrote down an eyewitness account of the review of Khalīl’s provincial army of Fars.57 In the introduction to this work, as well as in the introduction to his Lawāmiʿ al-ishrāq, Dawānī refers to the promise in the Qurʾān (30:2–4) of a victory at Rūm in biḍʿ sinīn (literally, “in a few years”), and by taking the word biḍʿ according to the abjad system to represent the year 872[/1467], he interprets this Qurʾānic promise as an allusion to the victory of Uzun Ḥ asan in that year.58 In 882/1477 or early 883/1478, Dawānī dedicated to Khalīl another of his works, namely his first set of glosses on ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Qūshchī’s (d. 879/1474) commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād. By

54 At the end of this work there is a reference to a civil war in Shiraz, which corresponds to the events in this year. See Pourjavady, “Kitāb-shināsī-i āthār-i Jalāl al-Dīn-i Dawānī”, p. 95; John E. Woods, The Aqquyunlu Clan: Clan, Confederation, Empire. Revised and Expanded Edition, Salt Lake City 1999, p. 105. 55 See Jālāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, Akhlāq-i Jalālī, Lithograph Edition, Lucknow 1377/1956, pp. 3–17; Woods, The Aqquyunlu Clan, pp. 37, 101, 115–8. 56 In the introduction to this work Dawānī clarifies his intention by stating: pas miʿmār-i ṭabʿ-i īn naqsh bar lawḥ -i khiyāl kashīd ki tadwīnī rawad ki bā ānki bar uṣūl-i ḥ ikmat-i ʿamalī mushtamil bāshad, dar shawāhid u dalāʾil iqtibāsi az anwār āyāt-i Qurʾānī u mishkāt-i aḥ ādīth ḥ aḍrat khatmīt manqabat wa- maṣābīḥ sukhanān ṣaḥ ābi u tābiʿīn u mashāʾikh u aʾimma-yi dīn u lamaʿāt ishārāt asāṭīn ḥ ukamāʾ-i ilāhiyyīn rawad. See Dawānī, Akhlāq-i Jalālī, p. 17. Despite its popularity, this work has so far not been critically edited. It has, however, been published several times in lithograph form (cf. my “Kitāb-shināsī-i āthār-i Jalāl al-Dīn-i Dawānī”, pp. 95–7). In 1839, W. F. Thompson translated this work into English (Practical Philosophy of the Muhammadan People, London 1839 [repr. London 1890, Karachi 1977]). For studies on this work see E. I. J. Rosenthal, Political Thought in Medieval Islam, Cambridge 1985, pp. 210–24; Majid Fakhry, Ethical Theories in Islam, Leiden 1994, pp. 143–6; Sayyid Jawād Ṭ abāṭabāʾī, Zawāl-i andīsha-yi sīyāsī dar Īrān, Tehran 1373/1994, pp. 231–253; Reza Pourjavady, “Bahth-i Mūsīqī dar kitāb-i Akhlāq-i Jalālī”, Maʿārif, 13 iii (1375/1996–7), pp. 30–43; Harun Anay, Celâleddin Devvânî Hayati. Eserleri. Ahlâk ve siyaset. 57 This work, entitled ʿArḍnāma, has been edited by Iraj Afshār (“ʿArḍ-i sipāh-i Uzūn Ḥ asan”, Majalla-yi Dānishkada-yi Adabiyāt-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, 3 iii (1335/1956), pp. 26–66). Cf. Reza Pourjavady, “Kitāb-shināsī-i āthār-i Jalāl al-Dīn-i Dawānī”, pp. 128–9. 58 See Dawānī, Akhlāq-i Jalālī, pp. 9–10.

introduction

11

that time Khalīl had already succeeded his father as ruler following the latter’s death in 882/1477.59 When, following Khalīl’s premature death in Jumādā I 883/August 1478, Uzun Ḥ asan’s other son, Yaʿqūb, took power (r. 883/1478– 896/1490), Dawānī was appointed as chief judge (aqḍā al-quḍāt) of the province of Fārs.60 He also accepted the sultan’s invitation to his court and travelled together with one of his students, Mīr Ḥ usayn al-Maybudī (d. 909/1503–4), to Tabriz.61 Later on, however, his relations with the sultan deteriorated, as Dawānī opposed the sultan’s centralization policy during the last years of his reign.62 Most of the works that Dawānī wrote during Yaʿqūb’s reign are dedicated to authorities outside Iran.63 A close friend of the young Ottoman Sultan Bāyazīd II (r. 886/1481–918/1512), Muʾayyadzāde ʿAbd al-Raḥ mān Efendi (d. 922/1516), came in 884/1479 to Shiraz, where he studied with Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī until 888/1483.64 With Muʾayyadzāde as a student, Dawānī established a connection with Bāyazīd II. At least three of his writings are therefore dedicated to the Ottoman ruler, namely his Sharḥ al-Rubāʿiyyāt, his Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-qadīma,65 and his second set of glosses (al-Ḥ āshiya al-jadīda)

59 The khuṭba of Dawānī to this work, containing his dedication to Sulṭān Khalīl, is extant in MS Gawharshād 851 (Cat., vol. 3, p. 1155). 60 See Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Muḥ ammad al-Lārī, “Mirʾāt al-adwār wa mirqāt al-akhbār: faṣlī dar . . .”, p. 104; Nur Allāh al-Shushtarī, Majālis al-muʾminīn, Tehran 1334/1955, vol. 2, p. 221. 61 See Nur Allāh al-Shushtarī, Majālis al-muʿminīn, vol. 2, pp. 221–2. 62 Central policies of Sultan Yaʿqūb necessitated the cancellation of fiscal and administrative immunities on specific areas that had been granted to influential civilian dignitaries in the provinces, many of whom were member of the religious intelligensia. See Woods, The Aqquyunlu Clan, p. 145; cf. Newman, “Davānī”, p. 132. 63 To our knowledge none of Dawānī’s significant works are dedicated primarily to Sultan Yaʿqūb. However, it is said that his Ḥ āshiya qadīma ʿalā sharḥ jadīd li-Tajrīd is dedicated also to Sulṭān Yaʿqūb (after being dedicated to Sulṭān Khalīl). The same work is dedicated later to Bāyazīd II. See ʿAlī Ṣadrāyī Khūyī, Kitāb-shināsī-i Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, Qūm1424/2003, p. 65. 64 He received an ijāza from Dawānī on 11 Jumādā I 888/17 June 1483. See Dawānī’s ijāza to Muʾayyadzāde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 47a; Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Muḥ ammad al-Lārī, “Mirʾāt al-adwār wa-mirqāt al-akhbār . . .”, p. 104; Harun Anay, “Devani”, pp. 257, 261. 65 According to the colophon of MS Ragıp 1457 (ff. 176b–90a), f. 190a, this work is dedicated to Bāyazīd II in 894/1489. However, it seems to have been written years earlier as in some manuscripts it is dedicated to Maḥmūd Khwāja Jahān. See Tūysirkānī’s introduction to Sabʿ rasāʾil, pp. 41–3. Tūysirkānī, however, thought that the work apart from Maḥmūd Khwāja Jahān is dedicated to Ṣult ̣ān Muḥammad Fātiḥ (instead of his son Bāyazid II). Surprisingly, in his editing of this work he omitted either of

12

introduction

on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-i’tiqad.66 In acknowledgment for having written Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-qadīma, Dawānī received from Bāyazīd II a letter together with five hundred filori (gold coins).67 As an expression of his appreciation of the Sultan’s generosity, Dawānī composed in turn a Mathnawī in his praise.68 Dawānī also enjoyed the patronage of some authorities in India. Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm and Taḥ qīq-i ʿadālat (or Risāla dar bayān māhiyyat-i ʿadālat u aḥ kām-i ān)69 are dedicated to Sultan Maḥmūd I of Gujarat (r. 863/1458–917/1511), who subsequently awarded him the sum of one thousand dirhams.70 In the opening section of his Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm, Dawānī first praises Sultan Maḥmūd I and then introduces himself by mentioning his teachers. In order to demonstrate his comprehensive knowledge, Dawānī discusses in this work ten issues relating to ten different subjects, namely the methodological principles of ḥ adīth and of fiqh (uṣūl al-ḥ adīth wa-l-fiqh), fiqh, a controversial issue [of fiqh] (baʿḍ al-khilāfiyāt), theology (uṣūl al-dīn), medicine (ṭibb), exegesis these two dedicating notes, because he believed they do not have any scientific and historical relevance. 66 The works of Dawānī were enormously popular in Istanbul, particularly during the late 9th/15th and early 10th/16th century. Apart from his student Muʾayyadzāde ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Efendi, Kamāl Pāshāzāde (d. 940/1533) evidently showed interest in the works of Dawānī. Kamāl Pāshāzāde wrote a commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-qadīma. See Sayyid Ḥ usayn Sayyid Bāghjawānī, Ibn Kamāl Bāshā wa-ārāʾuhu al-iʿtiqādiyya, Phd Dissertation, Umm Al-Qura University, Mecca 1414/1993, p. 194. The popularity of Dawānī’s works is also evident from the numerous copies of his works located in Istanbul and other Turkish libraries. 67 About filori, see the relevant article by H. İnalcik in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 2, pp. 914–5. 68 The letter sent by the Ottoman Sultan Bāyazīd II to Dawānī, together with the Mathnawī that Dawānī wrote, are edited by ʿAbd al-Ḥ usayn Nawāyī in Asnād u mukātabāt-i tārīkhī-yi Īrān az tīmūr tā shāh Ismāʿīl, Tehran 1341/1962, pp. 448–55. 69 Dawānī wrote two Persian treatises on the notion of justice: “Risāla-yi ʿadālat” (ed. Najīb Māyil Hirawī, Majmūʿ-yi rasāʾil-i khaṭtị̄ -yi fārsī, vol. 1, Mashhad 1368/1989–90, p. 60–72) and “Taḥ qīq-i ʿadālat” (ed. Najīb Māyil Hirawī), Mishkāt, vols. 18–19 (1368/1989–90), pp. 35–47. The latter is dedicated to Sultan Maḥmūd I of Gujarat. 70 Nūr Allāh Shūshtarī explains that Dawānī’s Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm was given to Sult ̣ān Maḥmūd I of Gujarat by Dawānī’s student, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Jurjānī. The Sultan sent back to Dawānī one thousand dirham, but nothing of that award reached Dawānī as the ship in which the money was conveyed sank. Dawānī then dedicated his Risāla dar bayān māhiyyat-i ʿadālat u aḥ kām-i ān to the Sultan and in its introduction implied that he did not receive the first award. Again the Sultan sent Dawānī the same amount along with some other presents. See Shūshtarī, Majālis al-muʾminīn, vol. 2, p. 226. Shūshtarī’s narration corresponds with the introduction of Dawānī to his Taḥ qīq-i ʿadālat (ed. Najīb Māyil Hirawī, Mishkāt, vols. 18–19 (1368/1989–90), pp. 35–47), where praising the sultan, the author says kaf-i daryā nawālash iqtiḍāʾ-i āthār-i maʾāthir shaʿār-i ʿilwī farmūda (p. 39).

introduction

13

(tafsīr), geometry (handasa), astronomy (hayʾa), logic and arithmetic. Dawānī’s Nubadh min kalām fī taʿrīf ʿilm al-kalām, which was completed in 893/1488,71 is also dedicated to a certain Indian authority, Mīr Muḥibb Allāh.72 Because of the gifts bestowed upon him by these patrons Dawānī gradually became rich. However, this wealth was short-lived, as Qāsim-Bay Purnāk, the Aqquyunlu ruler of Shiraz in 903/1498–99, confiscated most of his possessions.73 Shortly afterwards, Dawānī left Shiraz and spent the following years in various small cities to the south of Shiraz. According to some biographical sources, Dawānī intended to go to India, as he had received an invitation from Niẓām al-Dīn Shah Sindī (r. 866/1461–914/1508).74 Two of Dawānī’s students, Mīr Shams al-Dīn Muḥ ammad al-Jurjānī, who was the great-grandson of al- Sharīf al-Jurjānī, and a certain Mīr Muʿīn al-Dīn, were present at Niẓām al-Dīn’s court.75 It was perhaps with this intention that he went to Jirūn (an island in the Persian Gulf nowadays known as Hormuz).76 There, he completed his commentary on ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī’s al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyya in the year 905/1499–1500, which he presumably composed for Salghur Shah (r. 880/1475–910/1505), the king of that region.77 In that same year, he wrote his short treatise on Sūrat al-Kāfirūn in Jirūn or an island near to it.78 Dawānī also spent some time in Lār, a city south-east of Shiraz. There he completed his 71 The date of completion is indicated in the colophon of one of its manuscripts. See MS Ragıp 1457, ff. 209–14, esp. f. 214. 72 Nūr Allāh Shūshtarī identifies Mīr Muḥibb Allāh as the grandson of a certain Amīr Naʿīm al-Dīn Niʿmat Allāh al-Māḍī. See Shūshtarī, Majālis al-muʾminīn, vol. 2, pp. 226–7. 73 See Rūmlū, Aḥ san al-tawārikh, p. 99. 74 On Niẓām al-Dīn Shāh see Ḥ usayn Barzigar Kashtlī, “Niẓām al-Dīn Shāh-i Sindī”, Dānishnāma-yi adab-i Fārsī [4]. Adab-i Fārsī dar shibha qārrah (Hind, Pākistān, Banglādish), ed. Ḥ asan Anūshah, Tehran 1380/2001, vol. 3, pp. 2561–3. 75 It is said that his intention was to go to the court of Niẓām al-Dīn Shāh-i Sindī. A possible motivation may have been that the two students named above were present at Niẓām al-Dīn Shāh Sindī’s court, See Barzigar, “Niẓām al-Dīn Shāh-i Sindī”, pp. 2561–3. 76 Jirūn at the time was the capital of the kingdom of Hormuz. On Jirūn and the kingdom of Hormuz, see William Floor, The Persian Gulf. A Political and Economic History of Five Port Cities 1500–1730, Washington 2006, pp. 7–91. 77 Jalāl al-Dīn Muḥāmmad al-Dawānī, Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyya, Lithograph Edition, ed. Ilyās Mīrzā al-Būrāghānī al-Qarīmī, St. Petersburg 1313/1895, pp. 5–6. On Salghur Shāh, see Floor, The Persian Gulf, p. 89. 78 In its introduction, he refers to the location where he authored the work as follows: ʿallaqtuhā fī baʿḍ jazāʾir Jirūn. See Dawānī, “Tafsīr Sūrat al-Kāfirūn”, Thalāth rasāʿil, p. 43.

14

introduction

Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda79 as well as his Diwān-i Maẓālim. The latter work, written in Persian, deals with the temporary courts of the kings, the so-called Diwān-i Maẓālim, and is based on Chapter Seven ( fī wilāyat al-maẓālim) of Abū al-Ḥ asan al-Māwardī’s (d. 448/1058) al-Aḥ kām al-Sulṭāniyya.80 Dawānī is reported to have rejected Safavid Shāh Ismāʿīl’s (r. 907/1501–930/1524) messianic claims.81 Nonetheless, it was presumably when Shah Ismāʿīl was advancing towards Fars that Dawānī wrote his Nūr al-hidāya, in which he diluted his Sunni beliefs, hoping to be tolerated by the Shīʿī qizilbāsh.82 On 9 Rabīʿ II 908/11 October 1502, one year before Fārs was captured by Shah Ismāʿīl in 909/1504, Dawānī died and was buried in his home village, Dawān.83 Dawānī wrote numerous works in various fields, namely logic, philosophy, theology, ethics, exegesis, legal methodology (uṣūl al-fiqh), law, prophetic tradition (ḥ adīth), geometry and astronomy. Altogether, over ninety titles have been recorded. It was particularly his philosophical thought, however, together with his longterm teaching in Shiraz over a period of more than twenty-five years, which had a significant impact on the later intellectual activities in Iran and beyond. Among the texts of earlier authors that he was teaching were (i) the commentaries of Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭ ūsī and Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī on Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt;84 (ii) Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq together with Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary on the text;85 (iii) his own commentary

79

Shūshtarī, Majālis al-muʾminīn, vol. 2, p. 225. Jalāl al-Dīn Dawānī, “Dīwān-i Maẓālim”, ed. Ḥ usayn Mudarrisī Ṭ abātabāʾī, Farhang-i Īrān zamīn, 27 (Tehran 1366), pp. 98–118. 81 Muḥammad Bāqir al-Mūsawī al-Khwānsārī, Rawḍāt al-jannāt, Qum 1390/1970, vol. 7, pp. 194–5, vol. 8, p. 71; Newman, “Davāni”, p. 133. 82 See above, p. 5, fn. 24. For Dawānī’s position in this work concerning the successors of the Prophet, see Pourjavady, “Kitāb-shināsī-i āthār-i Jalāl al-Dīn-i Dawānī”, p. 116. It is noteworthy here that a refutation of Shīʿīsm, entitled al-Ḥ ujaj al-bāhira, is attributed to Dawānī. See Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, al-Ḥ ujaj al-bāhira, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Ḥ ājj ʿAlī Munīb, Dubai 2000/1420. But the authenticity of this attribution is doubtful. Apart from the fact that the theological positions of the author of this work are different from those of Dawānī in his known authentic works, there is no textual evidence supporting this attribution. 83 See Shūshtarī, Majālis al-muʾminīn, vol. 2, p. 225; Rūmlū, Aḥ san al-tawārikh, p. 99. 84 Dawānī taught a large section from the beginning of the Ṭ abiʿiyyāt part of Ishārāt together with the commentaries of Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī and Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī to Muʾayyadzāde. See his ijāza to Muʾayyadzāde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 46b. 85 Dawānī mentioned that he was teaching this commentary in his ijāza to Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥ usayn al-Ilāhī, al-Ardabīlī. This ijāza is quoted by al-Afandī al-Iṣbahānī in Riyāḍ al-ʿulamā, Qum 1401/1981, vol. 2, pp. 103–4. 80

introduction

15

on Hayākil al-nūr, entitled Shawākil al-ḥ ūr fī Sharḥ hayākil al-nūr;86 (iv) al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s commentary on the Mawāqif of ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ijī;87 (v) Qūshchī’s commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād together with his own glosses (Ḥ āshiya qadīma and presumably his Ḥ āshiya jadīda) on it;88 (vi) Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Taḥ rīr Iqlīdis;89 (vii) Qāḍīzāde Rūmī’s (d. c. 844/1440) commentary on Maḥ mūd b. Muḥ ammad Chaghmīnī’s (d. 745/1344) al-Mulakhkhaṣ fī l-hayʾa;90 (viii) Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī’s al-Shamsiyya, together with Sharīf Jurjānī’s glosses on it.91 The following men are known to have been students of Dawānī: Mīr Ḥ usayn al-Maybudī;92 Kamāl al-Dīn al-Lārī (d. after 918/1512);93 Ismāʿīl Shanb Ghāzānī (d. 920/1513–4);94 Muẓaffar al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Shīrāzī (d. 922/1516); 95 Jalāl al-Dīn al-Astarābādī (d. 931/1524–25); 96 86 See Dawānī’s ijāza to Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥ usayn Ilāhī Ardabīlī in Riyāḍ al-ʿulamā, vol. 2, pp. 103–4. 87 Dawānī taught this commentary from the beginning up to the discussion on existence (wujūd) to Muʾayyadzāde. See his ijāza to Muʾayyadzāde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 46b. 88 In his introduction to his Ḥ āshiya al-jadīda, Dawānī implies that he was teaching his previous glosses, see below, pp. 79–80. 89 Dawānī taught the first nine maqālāt of this commentary to Muʾayyadzāde. See his ijāza to Muʾayyadzāde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 46b. He also wrote glosses on the Taḥ rīr Iqlīdus. See ʿAlī Dawānī, Sharḥ -i zindigānī-yi Mawlānā Jalāl al-Dīn Dawānī, Qum 1335/1956, p. 167. 90 Dawānī taught this commentary to Muʾayyadzāde. See Dawānī’s ijāza to Muʾayyadzāde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 46b. Dawānī also wrote glosses on this commentary. See Pourjavady, “Kitāb-shināsī-yi āthār-i Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī”, pp. 123–4. 91 In his introduction to the glosses on Ḥ awāshī Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī ʿalā sharḥ al-Shamsiyya, Dawānī indicates that he was teaching these glosses. See Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, “Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Ḥ awāshī Mīr Sayyid Sharīf al-Jurjānī ʿalā sharḥ al-Shamsiyya”, Shurūḥ al-Shamsiyya, Āstāna 1309/1891–92, (pp. 256–86), p. 256. 92 See below, pp. 32–7. 93 See below, p. 76. 94 See Rūmlū, Aḥ san al-tawārīkh, p. 186. 95 Muẓaffar al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Shīrāzī is said to be a son-in-law of Dawānī. He taught instead of Dawānī during the latter’s lengthy illness. Muẓaffar al-Dīn later went to Istanbul and with the help of Muʾayyadzāde started teaching there. Later in his life he went blind and received sixty dirhams retirement pay from Sultan Salīm. See Tāshkuprūzāde (Tāşköprüzâde), Eš-Šaqâʾiq En-Noʿmânijje, mit Zusaetzen, Verbesserungen und Anmerkungen aus dem Arabischen uebersetzt von O. Rescher, Konstantinopel – Galata 1927, p. 215; Muḥammad Taqī Mīr, Buzurgān-i nāmī-yi pārs, Shiraz 1368/1989, vol. 2, pp. 670–1; Alexandra Whelan Dunietz, Qāḍī Ḥ usayn Maybudī of Yazad: Representative of the Iranian Provincial Elite in the Late Fifteenth Century, PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago 1990, pp. 59–60. 96 After studying with Dawānī, Jalāl al-Dīn al-Astarābādī went to Herat and studied with a certain Shaykh Ḥ usayn. Astarābādī was appointed as ṣadr by Shah Ismāʿīl in 920/1514 and kept this position during the rest the Shah’s reign and even the first year of his successor’s, Shah Ṭ ahmāsb, until he died. See Aḥmad Qummī, Khulāṣat

16

introduction

Muʾayyadzāde ʿAbd al-Raḥ mān Efendi;97 Shams al-Dīn Muḥ ammad al-Khafrī;98 ʿAfīf al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥ mān al-Ṣafawī;99 Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥ usayn al-Ilāhī al-Ardabīlī (d. 950/1543);100 Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Lārī (d. 927/1521);101 Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Shīrāzī (962/1554–55);102 and Ḥ akīm Shāh Muḥammad b. Mubārak al-Qazwīnī (d. 966/1559).103 Dawānī conducted several written and oral disputes with his contemporary, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī. These exchanges stretched over a period of more than two decades and, as will be discussed later,104 significantly influenced his thought. III. Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī105 Sayyid Muḥammad b. Manṣūr al-Ḥ usaynī al-Dashtakī al-Shīrāzī was born on 2 Shaʿbān 828/19 June 1425 in Shiraz.106 He belonged to a

al-tawārīkh, ed. Iḥ sān Ishrāqī, Tehran 1359/1980–1, vol. 1, pp. 156, 160; Rūmlū, Aḥ san al-tawārīkh, p. 248. He authored among other works glosses on Dawānī’s al-Ḥ āshiya al-qadīma ʿalā sharḥ Qūshjī li-l-Tajrīd. See ʿAlī Ṣadrāyī Khūyī, Kitābshināsī-i Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, pp. 75–6. Rūmlū also attributed to him a commentary on Ḥ illī’s Tahdhīb al-uṣūl. See Aḥ san al-tawārīkh, p. 248. 97 See Dawānī’s Ijāza to Muʾayyadzāde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, ff. 41b–7a. 98 See below, pp. 37–40. 99 According to Āghā Buzurg al-Ṭ ihrānī, ʿAfīf al-Dīn al-Ṣafawī received an ijāza from Dawānī in 893/1488. See Ṭ abaqāt, vol. 4, pp. 13–4. 100 See below, pp. 41–4. 101 See Dawānī, Sabʿ rasāʾil, (introduction), p. 27; Qummī, Khulāṣat al-tawārīkh, vol. 1, p. 149. 102 See below, p. 51, fn. 33. 103 Ḥ akīm Shāh was a descendant of a family of doctors and himself excelled in medicine. After studying in Shiraz he went to Mecca and spent some time there. He was then invited to Bāyazīd’s court in Istanbul on Mu’ayyadzāde’s recommendation. He wrote a work on tafsīr, glosses on Dawānī’s Sharḥ ʿAqāʾid al-ʿaḍudiyya, and a commentary on Jamāl al-Dīn Ibn Ḥ ājib’s Kāfiyya (dealing with grammar). Tāshköprüzâde, Eš-Šaqâʾiq En-Noʿmânijje, p. 216. Whelan Dunietz, Qāḍī Ḥ usayn Maybudī of Yazad, p. 60; Dawānī, Sabʿ rasāʾil, (introduction), pp. 27–8. 104 See below, pp. 74–105 (Chapter Two). 105 On Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, see Dashtakī, “Kashf al-ḥaqāʾiq al-Muḥammadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr-i Ḥ usaynī-i Dashtakī-i Shīrāzī, vol. 2, pp. 735–988; ʿAbd Allāh Shakībā, Barrasī-yi āthār u afkār-i falsafī-i Mīr Ṣadr al-Dīn-i Dashtakī, PhD Dissertation, University of Tehran, Tehran 1355/1976; Kākāyī, “Ashnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Mīr Ṣadr al-Dīn Dashtakī”, pp. 82–9; Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr al-Dashtakī, Tuḥ fat al-fatā fī tafsīr sūrat hal aṭā, ed. Parwīn Bahārzāda, Tehran 1381/2002, pp. 34–50 (introduction); Muḥammad Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, Shiraz 1383/2004, pp. 17–32. 106 See Dashtakī, “Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, p. 982.

introduction

17

prominent Zaydī family that had been living in Shiraz since the 5th/11th century.107 Dashtakī learned Arabic and studied Islamic law with his cousin, Majd al-Dīn Ḥ abīb Allāh al-Dashtakī, and he studied ḥ adīth literature with his father Sayyid Manṣūr and with another cousin of his, Sayyid Niẓām al-Dīn Aḥmad al-Dashtakī.108 Ṣadr al-Dīn’s son, Ghīyāth al-Dīn, presents his father’s chain of transmission of ḥ adith as follows: Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī  his father, Ṣadr al-Sharīʿā Manṣūr & his cousin, Niẓām al-Dīn Aḥ mad b. Isḥ āq b. Ibrāhīm b. Muḥ ammad  Ṣadr al-Sharīʿā Manṣūr’s father Muḥ ammad  his father Ibrāhim  his father Muḥ ammad  his father Isḥ āq  his father ʿAlī  his father ʿArabshāh  his father Amīrān  his father Amīrī  his father al-Ḥ asan  his father al-Ḥ usayn al-Shāʿir al-ʿArīrī  his father  his father ʿAlī al-Naṣībī (or Naṣīnīnī) al-Shāʿir  his father Zayd al-Aʿṣam  his father Muḥammad  his father ʿAlī  his father Jaʿfar  his father Aḥmad al-Sakkīn  his father Muḥammad al-Sayyid  his father Zayd al-Shahīd al-ḥ arīq (d. 122/740)  his father al-Imam Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn ʿAlī (d. 94/712–13) his father al-Imam al-Ḥ usayn (d. 61/680) his father ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib  Prophet Muḥammad.109

As for the rational sciences, he studied with Qawām al-Dīn al-Kurbālī,110 who was a student of Sharīf Jurjānī. It was Kurbālī who introduced Dashtakī to contemporary theological and philosophical discussions, and, in particular, to the writings of Jurjānī.111 However, according to his son, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr, his main teacher in logic and philosophy was a certain Sayyid Muslim al-Fārsī, with whom Dashtakī read

107 According to Kākāyī the first member of the family who moved to Shiraz was Abū Saʿīd ʿAlī al-Naṣībī (fl. ca. 400/1010). See Kākāyī, “Ashnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Mīr Ṣadr al-Dīn Dashtakī”, p. 83. 108 See Dashtakī, “Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, pp. 982–3. 109 Khwānsārī quoted this isnād from an unspecified work by Sadr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ghiyāth al-Dīn. See Muḥammad Bāqir al-Mūsawī al-Khwānsārī, Rawḍāt al-jannāt, vol. 7, pp. 241–2. This isnād is also mentioned by Ṣadr al-Dīn’s grandson, known as Ṣadr al-Dīn II, in his ijāza to one of his students. Prior to Khwānsārī this ijāza is quoted by Majlisī in his Biḥ ār al-anwār (Beirut 1412/1992, vol. 105, pp. 80–3). 110 See Dashtakī, “Kashf al-ḥaqāʾiq al-Muḥammadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, p. 983. On Kurbālī, see above, p. 3, fn. 16. 111 Ghiyāth al-Dīn does not consider his father as Kurbālī’s student, but rather as a colleague with whom he had some discussions and debates. See Dashtakī, Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya, MS Majlis-i Sinā 32, ff. 113b–4a In the edition of this text in Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn (vol. 2, p. 983), Kurbālī’s name appears wrongly as Kirmānī. However, Ṣadr al-Dīn was too young at that time to be considered as Kurbālī’s colleague.

18

introduction

al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt of Ibn Sīnā.112 Ghiyāth al-Dīn thus further links his father’s chain of transmission of philosophy through Sayyid Muslim al-Fārsī to Ibn Sīnā: Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī  Sayyid Muslim al-Fārsī  his father [anonymous]  his father [anonymous]  Niẓām al-Dīn al-Nīshābūrī (d. c. 729/1329)  Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī  Nasīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī  Farīd al-Dīn al-Dāmād  Sayyid Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Sarakhsī  Afḍal al-Dīn al-Ghīlānī  Abu l-ʿAbbās al-Lawkarī  Bahmanyār (d. 458/1066) Ibn Sīnā.113

Dashtakī’s main occupation according to his son was farming, building houses and reactivating qanawāt (underground water channels).114 In 883/1478–79, which seems to have been a turning point in his life, he built a madrasa, which he named Manṣūriyya after his then seventeenyear-old son, and in which he was to teach for the rest of his life.115 It seems that his career as an author had started only a few years before that date. Some time around 880/1475, Dashtakī wrote his Gawhar-nāma (or Jawāhir-nāma) on gemmology at the request of Uzun Ḥ asan’s son Khalīl, who was at the time the provincial ruler of Shiraz.116 During the 880s/1475–85, Dashtakī gradually established himself as a philosopher by teaching and writing. He wrote glosses on Qutḅ al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī’s al-Shamsiyya, glosses on Qutḅ al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār, and his first glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, which became known later on as al-Ḥ āshiya al-qadīma. An indication of the fame that Dashtakī had earned as a philosopher was the edict ( farmān) issued on 8 Dhu al-Qaʿda 893/13 October 1488 by Sulṭān Yaʿqūb, in which Ṣadr al-Dīn is referred to as qudwat al-ḥ ukamāʾ al-mutaʾallihīn bi-l-istiḥ qāq. The mandate states that the endowment (waqf ) income of the Manṣūriyya madrasa, which appears to have 112

See Dashtakī, “Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, p. 983. 113 Dashtakī, “Kashf al-ḥaqāʾiq al-Muḥammadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, p. 983. 114 Dashtakī, “Kashf al-ḥaqāʾiq al-Muḥammadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, pp. 984–5. 115 Ibid., f. 113a. Cf. Furṣat al-Dawla Shīrāzī, Āthār al-ʿajam, Tehran 1362/1983, p. 498. The madrasa, which is active in Shiraz till the present time is built on one hectare of land in the centre of Shiraz. See Kākāyī, “Ashnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Mīr Ṣadr al-Dīn Dashtakī”, p. 83. 116 Edited by Manūchihr Sutūdah, Farhang-i Īrān-zamīn, 4 (1335/1956), pp. 185–302.

introduction

19

been considerable, should be exempted from tax and that Ṣadr al-Dīn should be free to use it for whatever purpose he chose.117 Despite the support he received from Sulṭān Yaʿqūb, Dashtakī dedicated his most significant writings to the Ottoman Sultan Bāyazīd II. While still a prince, the latter wrote to Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, recommending his friend Muʾayyadzāde to him as a student.118 However, during his subsequent stay in Shiraz, Muʾayyadzāde studied primarily with Dawānī, though he also had a period of study with Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī. Two years after Bāyazīd II took power in 886/1481, Muʾayyadzāde returned to Istanbul. Dashtakī dedicated his first set of glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād (completed by 888/1483) to Bāyazīd II and asked Muʾayyadzāde to take the work to him.119 Later on, he also dedicated his second set of glosses on the same commentary to this Ottoman ruler.120 Dashtakī dedicated his last work, Risāla fī Ithbāt al-wājib wa-ṣifātihī, which he completed in Muḥarram 903/August-September 1497, to the Aqquyunlu Sultan Aḥmad Göwde b. Ughurlu Muḥammad (d. Rabīʿ II 903/December 1497). The provincial ruler of Shiraz, Qāsim-Bay Purnāk, who revolted against Sultan Aḥmad, abolished the tax exemption originally accorded to the endowment income of the Manṣuriyya madrasa, and this caused Ṣadr al-Dīn a severe financial loss.121 Between Rabīʿ II 903/December 1497 and Ramaḍān 903/ May 1498, Ṣadr al-Dīn led an uprising against Qāsim Bey in Shiraz. The latter did not tolerate this action and on his order a group of Turkemans killed Ṣadr al-Dīn on 17 Ramaḍān 903/9 May 1498.122

117 See Ḥ ājj Mīrzā Ḥ asan Fasāyī, Fārs-nāma-yi Nāṣirī, ed. Manṣūr Rastigār Fasāyī, Tehran 1367/1988, pp. 351–4; Kākāyī, “Ashnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Mīr Ṣadr al-Dīn Dashtakī”, p. 84. 118 Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Muḥ ammad al-Lārī, “Mirʾāt al-adwār wa-mirqāt al-akhbār . . .”, p. 104. 119 See Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Lārī, “Mirʾāt al-adwār wa mirqāt al-akhbār . . .”, p. 104; See ʿAlī Ṣadrāyī Khūyī, Kitāb-shināsī-i Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, p. 85. 120 See Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Fâtih 3025, f. 2a. 121 Rūmlū, Aḥ san al-tawārīkh, p. 28. 122 Dashtakī, “Kashf al-ḥaqāʾiq al-Muḥammadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, p. 985; in MS Majlis-i Sinā 32, which contains this work and was copied by the author’s son, Ṣadr al-Dīn II, the date of death is recorded as 12 Ramaḍān 903 and corrected in the margin as 17 Ramaḍān 903 (f. 115a). The former date is mentioned by other bibliographical sources, such as Fasāyī’s Fārs-nāma-yi Nāṣirī (p. 359) and Rūmlū’s Aḥ san al-tawārīkh (p. 33).

20

introduction

Ṣadr al-Dīn’s son Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr wrote a commentary on his father’s last work, Ithbāt al-wājib, which he entitled Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya (“Revealing the true words of Muḥammad [i.e., his father]”).123 At the end of this work, Ghiyāth al-Dīn explains some of his father’s characteristic theological and philosophical views and gives a brief account of his life. As a record written by his own son, Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s account is the most accurate source of information about Ṣadr al-Dīn’s life.124 Some of the later biographical sources provide additional details about him, most of which seem to have been fabricated. It is said, for example, that all the members of Ṣadr al-Dīn Dashtakī’s family, generation after generation, used to practice taqiyya for their Zaydī beliefs, even to the extent of teaching the ḥ adīth literature produced by Sunnī scholars. Ṣadr al-Dīn was, according to this account, the first member of the family to have been open about his Shīʿite beliefs. The reason for this is said to have been a dream Ṣadr al-Dīn had, in which the Prophet pointed out the falsehood of Sunnī ḥ adith literature.125 There is, however, no corroboration of this story in the account given by Ghiyāth al-Dīn, who remained silent about his father’s religious affiliation. Whilst his ancestors had been Zaydīs, and a possible Shīʿite affiliation on his part cannot be ruled out entirely, there are some indications in his writings that suggest otherwise. One example is his prayer for the Aqquyunlu Uzun Ḥ asan in the introduction to his Gawhar-nāma as “the renewer (mujaddid) of the practices of the Ḥ anafī religion and faith, the reviver (muḥ yī) of the achievements of the ʿAbbasid state, the promised one of the ninth century (mawʿūd al-miʾa tisʿa)”.126 The Sunnī connotations of this statement are too strong to be explained as taqiyya. If he did have some Shīʿī tendencies, he must have concealed them to the extent that even his colleague, Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, was unaware of them. The latter even criticizes Ṣadr al-Dīn for having regarded Abū Bakr more highly than ʿAlī.127 123

This work is completed in Muḥ arram 947/May-June 1540. See below, pp.

28–9. 124 See Dashtakī’s prologue of “Kashf al-ḥaqāʾiq al-Muḥammadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, pp. 980–8. 125 See Shūshtarī, 2/229; Khwānsārī, Rawḍāt al-Jannāt, vol. 5, p. 189; Kākāyī, “Āshnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Mīr Ṣadr al-Dīn Dashtakī”, p. 83. 126 Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Gawhar-nāma (or Jawāhirnāma), ed. Manūchihr Sutūdah, Farhang-i Īrān-zamīn 4 (1335/1956), p. 186; cf. Woods, The Aqquyunlu Clan, p.105. 127 See Dawānī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1999, f. 5b; cf. Shūshtarī, Majālis al-muʾminīn, vol. 2, p. 223.

introduction

21

During his later life, Ṣadr al-Dīn often consulted with his son, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr, on philosophical issues. Evidence for this is given in the introduction to his second set of glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād (al-Ḥ āshiya al-jadīda), where he explicitly mentions that “some achievements” (nubadhan min tawfīqāt) of his son Manṣūr are included in the work.128 Moreover, Ghiyāth al-Dīn explains in his Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya that his father believed that human souls are free from matter, although his discussion of that issue in his al-Ḥ āshiya al-jadīda ʿalā sharḥ al-Tajrīd may be understood to point to the contrary – this, at least, is what “one of the people” (a reference to Dawānī) understood from it. The explanation that Ghiyāth al-Dīn puts forward for the shortcomings of his father’s discussion regarding this issue is the fact that he, Ghiyāth al-Dīn, was in Azerbaijan (presumably Tabriz) and not with his father while the latter was writing this section of the Ḥ āshiya.129 This seems to imply that, with the exception of the time when he was in Azerbaijan, Ghiyāth al-Dīn used to be consulted by his father, whenever the latter composed the glosses (and possibly other writings). According to his son, Ṣadr al-Dīn composed fourteen works, for ten of which Ghiyāth al-Dīn gives the title:130 1) Glosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary and Sharīf Jurjānī’s glosses on the Risāla al-Shamsiyya of Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī;131 2) Glosses on Qut ḅ al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on the Maṭā liʿ al-anwār of Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī. This work in fact consists of two sets of glosses, the second one having been written in reply to Dawānī’s criticism on his first glosses;132

128

Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Fâtih 3025,

f. 1b. 129 Ghīyāth al-Dīn writes: “wa-bi-l-jumla kāna fī tajarrud al-nafs muwāfiqan li-jumhūr al-ḥ ukamāʾ, illā annahū ʿinda ghaybatī ʿan khidmatihī fi al-zamān alladhī kuntu fī bilād ādharbāyjān kataba fī ḥ awāshīhi ʿalā al-tajrīd kalāman fahama minhū baʿḍ al-nās annahū yunkir al-tajarrud wa-l-baqāʾ.” See Dashtakī, “Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥammadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, p. 984. 130 See Dashtakī, “Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, p. 984. 131 For the extant manuscripts of this work, see below, p. 75, fn. 10. 132 For the extant manuscripts of this work, see Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 24–5.

22

introduction

3) Risāla fī taḥ qīq al-ḥ urūf, which, according to Ghiyāth al-Dīn, was lost; 4) Risāla fī l-fayyāḍ, which, according to Nūr Allāh Shūshtarī, discusses the notion of fayyāḍ (“overflowing”) used as an attribute for God at the beginning of Qutḅ al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār;133 5) a treatise on the liar paradox, entitled Risāla fī ḥ all al-mughālaṭa al-mashhūra bi-jadhr al-aṣamm;134 6) Glosses on Sharaf al-Dīn Ibn al-Bārizī al-Ḥ amawī’s (d. 738/1337–38) commentary on Najm al-Dīn al-Qazwīnī’s al-Ḥ āwī (d. 665/1266– 67), entitled Taysīr al-Ḥ āwī fī taḥ rīr al-fatāwī;135 7) Glosses on ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Qūshchī’s commentary on Naṣī r al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, consisting of two sets known as al-Ḥ āshiya al-qadīma and al-Ḥ āshiya al-jadīda;136 8) a treatise on the formation of rainbows entitled Fī qaws quzah (Persian);137 9) a treatise on the natural dispositions of the stones entitled Gawharnāma (or Jawāhirnāma/ Fī l-jawāhir) (Persian);138 10) Risāla fī Ithbāt al-wājib wa-ṣifātihi.139

133 See Shūshtarī, Majālis al-muʾminīn, vol. 2, p. 230. This work has not yet been identified. 134 See below, p. 79, fn. 26. 135 Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī did not specify the author of this work, referring to it as “Taysīr al-fiqh”. Shūshtarī specifies that this work is on Shāfiʿī school of fiqh (referring to it as Taʿlīqāt bar Taysīr fiqh-i Shāfiʿī). See Shūshtarī, Majālis al-muʾminīn, vol. 2, p. 230. Kākāyī describes the work as glosses on Taysīr al-wuṣūl ilā jamʿ al-ʿuṣūl [by Ibn Dībaʿ al-Shaybānī (d. 944/1537)]. See Kākāyī, “Ashnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Mīr Ṣadr al-Dīn Dashtakī”, p. 86. However, this cannot be correct as Taysīr al-wuṣūl is completed in 916/1510–1, thirteen years after Ṣadr al-Dīn’s death. Taysīr al-Ḥ āwī fī taḥ rīr al-fatāwī by Sharaf al-Dīn Ibn al-Bārizī al-Ḥ amawī seems to be the only book on which the glosses could have been written. 136 For the location of some of the extant manuscripts of these two works, see ʿAlī Ṣadrāyī Khuʾī, Kitāb-shināsī-i Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, pp. 85–7, 90–2. 137 For the location of two extant manuscripts of the text, see Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, p. 32. 138 For the bibliographical reference to the edition of this work see above, p. 18, fn. 116. 139 For the location of some of its extant manuscripts, see Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 17–8. To this list should be added MS Şehid Ali Paşa 2761, ff. 89b–106a.

introduction

23

To this list should be added the glosses that Ṣadr al-Dīn wrote on ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ijī’s commentary on Ibn Ḥ ājib’s Mukhtaṣar al-uṣūl.140 The list provided by Ghiyāth al-Dīn shows that Ṣadr al-Dīn wrote much less than his contemporary Dawānī. Ghiyāth al-Dīn evidently felt the need to explain this. He writes: It was his noble habit to mention only his original ideas and to quote from others’ writings only with reference to their respective authors with the intention of commenting upon them. This was the reason he chose to write most of his works in the form of glosses, since in glosses there is no need to benefit others by repeating what has already been said in other texts and the commentaries. Although he wrote fewer and shorter works than other great scholars and noble philosophers, the number and quality of the original points made in his writings exceed those of others.141

Although Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s primary aim in making this remark was to explain why his father wrote less than other scholars of the time, including Dawānī, his remark also implies that on many issues Dashtakī did not have a specific view. Unlike Dawānī, Dashtakī was a mainstream philosopher who held some distinctive views in response to the philosophical challenges raised by contemporary thinkers. In most issues, however, he relied on the works of Ibn Sīnā and Fārābī. Whereas in his Ithbāt al-wājib, he used the Fuṣūṣ al-ḥ ikam attributed to Fārābī,142 he explicitly refers to Ibn Sīnā’s al-Shifāʾ as his main source in his most extensive work, namely his Ḥ āshiya al-jadīda on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād.143 It is evident that Ṣadr al-Dīn owned an exquisite copy of al-Shifāʾ (containing its books of logic, physics and metaphysics), copied by Maḥmūd b. ʿAlī al-Kāshānī in 718/1318–9.144

140 Ghiyāth al-Dīn in his own glosses on this commentary alludes to this work of his father. See Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, p. 133. 141 Dashtakī, “Kashf al-ḥaqāʾiq al-Muḥammadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, p. 984. 142 The attribution of this work to Fārābī is doubted by some modern scholars; see Shlomo Pines, “Ibn Sīnā et l’auteur de la Risālat al-fuṣūṣ fī ’l-ḥikma: Quelques données du problème,” The Collected Works of Shlomo Pines, iii (ed. Sarah Stroumsa), Jerusalem 1996, pp. 297–300. Dashtakī, however, regards the work as Fārābī’s. 143 See Dashtakī’s Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Sharḥ Jadīd Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Fâtih 3025, f. 1b, where he says that apart from his own contribution, his glosses contain mā wujida min kutub al-qawm lā siyyamā Kitāb al-Shifāʾ. 144 The manuscript is preserved nowadays in the Raza library of Rampur (MS Raza ḥ ikmat 112); see Cat., vol. 1, p. 397. After Ṣadr al-Dīn’s death, his son Ghiyāth al-Dīn, followed by his grandson Ṣadr al-Dīn II, and eventually another member of the family, Fatḥ Allāh al-Shīrāzī, owned the manuscript. It was presumably the latter who took it to India. I thank Sajjad H. Rizvi for having drawn my attention to this manuscript.

24

introduction

Najm al-Dīn Maḥ m ūd al-Nayrīzī, who was one of Ṣa dr al-Dīn’s students, also indicated that the latter had been using a particular recension of Ibn Sīnā’s Shifāʾ.145 Ṣadr al-Dīn also owned a precious copy of Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shirāzī’s astronomical work, Faʿalta fa-lā talum, which had been copied in 826/1423 for the Timurid ruler, Ulugh Bey (r. 812/1409–853/1449).146 The following scholars are known to have studied with Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī: his son Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr al-Dashtakī; Najm al-Dīn Maḥ mūd al-Nayrīzī; Shams al-Dīn Muḥ ammad al-Khafrī; Muẓaffar al-Dīn al-Shīrazī;147 and Taqī al-Dīn al-Fārsī (d. after 957/1550).148 IV. Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī149 Abū ʿAlī Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr al-Dashtakī, the son of Ṣadr al-Dīn, was born in 966/1461–62 in Shiraz.150 Ghiyāth al-Dīn was taught by his father who, as was stated above, named the madrasa he had built after him. In his writings, Ghiyāth al-Dīn refers to his father as ustādh. Ṣadr al-Dīn is not known to have been well-versed in medicine, and Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s writings in this field contain indications that he had attended courses given by some other teachers of Shiraz on this subject.151 Moreover, whereas Ṣadr al-Dīn tried to stick to the philosophy of Ibn

145 In one occasion in his commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-Iʿtiqād, Nayrīzī refers to this specific recension of Ibn Sīnā’s Shifāʾ by saying “what is known to us from al-Shifāʾ on the basis of the manuscript of my teacher” (mā ʿulima min al-Shifāʾ wa-nuskhat ustādhinā); see MS Majlis 3968, f. 205a:24. 146 MS Majlis 3944. The ownership statement of Ṣadr al-Dīn can be found in the front page of the manuscript. 147 According to Taşköprüzâde, Muẓaffar al-Dīn studied the Geometry of Euclid with Ṣadr al-Dīn. See his Eš-Šaqâʾiq En-Noʿmânijje, p. 215. 148 See “Taqī al-Dīn Fārsī”, Farīd Qāsimlū, Dānishnāma-yi jahān-i Islām, vol. 6, pp. 880–2, esp. p. 881. 149 On Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr al-Dashtakī, see Harun Anay, “Mir Giyathedden Mansur” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 30, Istanbul 2005, pp. 127–8; Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 113–70; Kākāyī, “Āshināyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Mīr Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr Dashtakī Shīrāzī (1)”, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadra, 5&6 (1997–8), pp. 83–90; Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn. 150 The date of birth is reported from Ṣadr al-Dīn II, the son of Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī. See MS Majlis-i Sinā 32 (front page, f. 3a). 151 Ghiyāth al-Dīn composed at least four works on medicine: 1) Maʿālim al-Shifāʾ; 2) al-Shāfiyya; 3) Ḥ āshiya al-Shāfiyya; 4) Tarjumat al-Shāfiyya. See Barakat, Kitābshināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 137, 152–3, 167.

introduction

25

Sīnā152 while distancing himself from the thought of Suhrawardī and Ibn ʿArabī, Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s writings contain some clear adoptions of Suhrawardī’s and Ibn ʿArabī’s thought and terminology.153 These indicate that his philosophical thought was influenced also by some other scholars of his time. Ghiyāth al-Dīn started his career as an author when he was only eighteen. He wrote a treatise on astronomy, entitled al-Maʿārij, which is said to have been written following the pattern of Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s al-Tuḥ fat al-Shāhiyya.154 Among his early writings is a supercommentary on Dawānī’s commentary on Suhrawardī’s Hayākil al-nūr, entitled Ishrāq hayākil al-nūr li-kashf ẓulumāt Shawākil al-gharūr. This work seems to have been completed before 895/1490–9.155 Another of his early works is Mirʾāt al-ḥ aqāʾiq wa-mujlī al-daqāʾiq, which he dedicated to Aqquyunlu Sultan Aḥmad in 902/1497.156 In this work, Ghiyāth al-Dīn presents thirty of his characteristic positions on logical, physical, and philosophical issues. In the epilogue to this work, he explains that he once underwent an extraordinary inner experience in 895/1490–91, as a result of which solutions to some philosophical problems became clear to him. Thus his explanations in this work are based not on demonstrative proof (burhān) but rather on the evidence of a spritual unveiling

152 As mentioned earlier, apart from the writings of Ibn Sīnā, Fuṣūṣ al-ḥ ikam attributed to Fārābī is also one of the prominent sources of Ṣadr al-Dīn, particularly in his Ithbāt al-wājib. See above, p. 23, fn. 142. 153 The impact of Suhrawardī on Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s thought is evident from the latter’s supercommentary on Dawānī’s commentary on Suhrawardī’s Hayākil al-nūr, entitled Ishrāq Hayākil al-nūr li-kashf ẓulumāt Shawākil al-gharūr. Ghiyāth al-Dīn also adopts some Suhrawardian terminology in his Mirʾāt al-ḥ aqāʾiq wa-mujlī al-daqāʾiq. See Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, “Mirʾāt al-ḥ aqāʾiq wa-mujlī al-daqāʾiq”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, pp. 75–132. The impact of Ibn ʿArabī’s thought on Ghiyāth al-Dīn is evident from his commentary on Dawānī’s al-Zawrāʾ . On this work see below, p. 29, fn. 180. 154 Shūshtarī, Majālis al-muʿminīn, vol. 2, p. 231. Unfortunately this work of Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī seems to be lost. 155 Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Ishrāq hayākil al-nūr li-kashf ẓulumāt Shawākil al-gharūr, ed. ʿAlī Awjabī, Tehran 1382/2003. In his “Mirʾāt al-ḥ aqāʾiq wa-mujlī al-daqāʾiq” Ghiyāth al-Dīn refers to this work. See Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, p. 99. This shows that it had been completed before “Mirʾāt al-ḥaqāʾiq” which was completed in 895/1495–1. 156 In the edition of “Mirʾāt al-ḥaqāʾiq” (Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, p. 76), the name of the patron is mentioned in the introduction as “al-sulṭān b. sulṭān Ghiyāth al-salṭana wa-l-dunyā wa-l-dīn, Abū l-Muẓaffar Bahādur khān”. These are the titles used for Sulṭān Aḥmad at that time. See for instance Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s introduction to his Ithbāt al-wājib, dedicated to the same Sultan (MS Şehid Ali Paşa 2761, f. 89b).

26

introduction

(kashf ).157 Two works on logic, Taʿdīl al-mīzān ʿalā al-manṭiq158 and Miʿyār al-afkār,159 both completed before his father’s death in 903/1498, also belong to the earlier period of his life. Aside from writing, the young Ghiyāth al-Dīn started teaching in the Manṣūriyya madrasa quite early in his life. Kamāl al-Dīn Ilāhī al-Ardabīlī, who was in Shiraz sometime between 890/1485 and 897/1492, is said to have studied with Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, among other scholars.160 Taqī al-Dīn al-Fārsī indicates in his writings that while he was studying philosophy with Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, he also studied astronomy with Ghiyāth al-Dīn.161 Najm al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī also studied with both Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī and his son.162 It is not clear whether Ghiyāth al-Dīn stayed in Shiraz after his father’s death in 903/1498 or whether he left that city because of the deterioration in security, as many other scholars did at the time. Be that as it may, on 20 Shaʿbān 906/10 March 1501, Ghiyāth al-Dīn was in Ṭ āram, a region to the southeast of Shiraz, where he completed a treatise on astronomy, entitled Safīr fī al-ghabrāʾ wa-l-khaḍrāʾ.163 When Shah Ismāʿīl captured Shiraz in 909/1504, an edict ( farmān) was issued by the Shah exempting the endowment income of the Manṣūriyya Madrasa from tax, which then went to Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī.164 The fact that Ghiyāth al-Dīn was the desendent of a Zaydī family, whose genealogy went back to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib, was perhaps the reason that the Shah and his qizilbāsh respected him. However, thus far his writings could not be said to represent Shīʿī beliefs. In his Uṣūl al-ʿaqāʾid, he states that, although it is necessary to recognize (maʿrifa) and help the present imam, if he finds no imam it would be correct

157 According to the author, the work was first written in 895/1490 and five years later he made some additions to it. See “Mirʾāt al-ḥaqāʾiq wa-mujlī al-daqāʾiq”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, p. 97. 158 MS Marʿashī 9698, Cat., vol. 25, p. 62. The way the author refers to his father in this text shows that the work was written while his father was still alive. Cf. Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 125–6. 159 MS Dānishgāh 1147, ff. 35b–62a (Cat., vol. 3 (6), p. 2356). The way the author refers to his father in this text shows that the work was written while the latter was still alive. Cf. Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 168–9. 160 See below, p. 41. 161 See Farīd Qāsimlū, “Taqī al-Dīn Fārsī”, p. 881. 162 See below, pp. 54–6. 163 See Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 150–2. 164 See Fasāyī, Fārs-nāma, p. 370.

introduction

27

to elect (naṣb) a caliph, or an amīr or a malik in order to observe the laws of sharīʿa.165 This clearly contradicts the principles of Twelver Shīʿism. In theory, he would have been obliged to endorse Shīʿism once the Safavids had come to power, like other scholars of the time. However, in so far as theology is concerned, no work of his has yet been found which shows his embrace of Shīʿī theological doctrines. Shah Ismāʿīl seems thus to have been indifferent towards Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s theological positions, since the latter was highly esteemed throughout Shah Ismāʿīl’s reign. At this time Ghiyāth al-Dīn was mainly based in Shiraz where he was occupied with teaching and writing. But he also spent some periods of time in the military camps of the Shah. In 914/1508, Ghiyāth al-Dīn seems to have accompanied the army of the Shah during the latter’s invasion of Baghdad. Shūshtarī mentions that in Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s Qānūn al-Salṭana there is an allusion to his preparation of prayers and talismans (adʿiya u ṭilismāt) designed to bring about the death of the ruler of Baghdad.166 Shūshtarī also indicates that Ghiyāth al-Dīn once was asked by Shah Ismāʿīl to reply to a letter submitted by an unspecified Ottoman emperor.167 In the summer of 927/1521, Ghiyāth al-Dīn was again in the camp of Shah Ismāʿīl at the foot of Mount Sahand (south of Tabrīz), where he was requested by the Shah to advise on the reconstruction of the Marāgha observatory, built by Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī in 658/1259. Ghiyāth al-Dīn is reported to have suggested that carrying out the reconstruction would be more auspicious thirty years later, in the period of Saturn, and hence dissuaded the Shah from pursuing his plans to reconstruct the observatory at that time.168 Ghiyāth al-Dīn dedicated two Persian treatises, his Tarjumat al-shāfiya (in medicine)169 and his Risāla-yi qawāʿid, to Shāh Ismāʿīl.170

See ʿAbd al-Ḥ usayn Ḥ āʾirī, Fihrist-i kitābkhāna-yi Majlis-i shūrā-yi Islāmī, vol. 10 (4), Tehran 1352/1973, pp. 1758–9 (MS Majlis 3774/2). 166 See Shūshtarī, Majālis al-muʾminīn, vol. 2, p. 232. This work seems to be lost. 167 See Shūshtarī, Majālis al-muʾminīn, vol. 2, p. 233. 168 See Qummī, Khulāṣat al-tawārīkh, vol. 1, pp. 149, 296. Rūmlū, Aḥ san al-tawārīkh, p. 392. 169 See Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, p. 152. 170 Part of the introduction to this work is quoted by Nūrānī in the introduction to his collection of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr’s writings. See Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, pp. 143–4. However, Nūrānī provides no information about the location(s) of the manuscript(s) of this work and his quotaion does not even help to know even the subject of the treatise. 165

28

introduction

During the reign of Shah Ṭ ahmāsp (r. 930–84/1524–76), Ghiyāth al-Dīn was first in and later out of favour at court. In 936/1529 he was appointed ṣadr (head of the religious administration), sharing the post with Sayyid Niʿmat Allāh al-Ḥ illī (d. 940/1533). One year later, Niʿmat Allāh al-Ḥ illī was dismissed by the Shah because of his conflict with the jurisconsult of the court, ʿAlī al-Karakī (d. 940/1534).171 Shortly after, Ghiyāth al-Dīn also engaged in a dispute with Karakī on the calculation of the direction of prayer (qibla). Karakī, who had the qibla of the mosques in the region of Iraq and Khurāsān altered, wanted to do the same in other regions of the Safavid territory. Resisting this decision, Ghiyāth al-Dīn argued that designating the qibla fell within the expertise of mathematicians, not jurists, and that its alteration was only justified on the basis of a geometrical diagram displaying all the calculations. To demonstrate his argument, Ghiyāth al-Dīn wrote a treatise entitled Fī maʿrifat al-qibla.172 Eventually, in 939/1532–33, Ghiyāth al-Dīn and Karakī decided to have a debate in the presence of the Shah on the issue in question. But instead of being a sophisticated dispute the debate ended up as an uncivil quarrel on both sides, and as the Shah was on the side of Karakī, Ghiyāth al-Dīn had to leave the court.173 Ghiyāth al-Dīn thereupon returned to Shiraz and continued teaching there at the Manṣūriyya madrasa till his death on 6 Jumādā I 949/18 August 1542.174 His last work, entitled Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya, is a commentary on his father’s Ithbāt al-wājib. This work was completed with the assistance of his son, Ṣadr al-Dīn Muḥammad (d. after 962/1555), in Muḥarram 947/May-June 1540, as

171 See Fasāyī, Fārs-nāma-yi Nāṣirī, pp. 190–1. On Sayyid Niʿmat Allāh al-Ḥ illī and his disputes with ʿAlī al-Karakī (d. 940/1534), see Rula Jurdi Abisaab, Converting Persia. Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire, London 2004, p. 17. 172 On the location of the extant manuscripts of this treatise, see Barakat, Kitābshināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 167–8. 173 On the conflict between Ghiyāth al-Dīn and Karakī, see Fasāyī, Fārs-nāma-yi Nāṣirī, pp. 190–1; see also Andrew Newman, ‘Towards a Reconsideration of the Isfahan School of Philosophy: Shaykh Baha’i and the Role of the Safawid Ulama’, Studia Iranica, 15 ii (1986), pp. 165–99, esp. pp. 181–5; idem, “The Myth of the Clerical Migration to the Safawid Iran. Arab Shīʿī Opposition to ʿAlī al-Karakī and Safawid Shiism”, Die Welt des Islams, 33 (1993), pp. 66–112, esp. pp. 99–101; Abisaab, Converting Persia, pp. 17–9. 174 Fasāyī, Fārs-nāma-yi Nāṣirī, pp. 190–1. The exact date of his death is based on a note written by one of his family members, Niẓām al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, in the front page of MS Majlis Sinā 32 (containing a copy of Dashtakī’s Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya). Niẓām al-Dīn specifies that his source was Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s son Ṣadr al-Dīn Muḥammad.

introduction

29

the by then eighty-year-old Ghiyāth al-Dīn was apparently unable to complete it alone.175 Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s philosophical writings reflect his harsh opposition to Dawānī’s thought. In fact, most of his philosophical career was marked by this opposition. In these refutations, it seems that his sole aim was to reject whatever Dawānī had argued, regardless of its being rationally sound or not. The works of Dawānī that he most heavily criticized are: (i) Dawānī’s Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm (particularly the section on philosophy) for which he wrote two refutations, in the first one, responding to all ten issues discussed by Dawānī in this work,176 and in the second one, he focussed on criticizing Dawānī’s position on the temporal origination of the world (ḥ udūth al-ʿālam);177 (ii) Dawānī’s commentary on Suhrawardī’s Hayākil al-nūr: Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s refutation taking in this case the form of a supercommentary, entitled Ishrāq hayākil al-nūr li-kashf ẓulumāt Shawākil al-gharūr;178 (iii) Dawānī’s commentary on Taftāzānī’s (d. 792/1390) Tahdhīb al-manṭiq;179 and (iv) Dawānī’s Risālat al-Zawrāʾ.180 He also wrote a number of works in which he evaluates the arguments employed by his father, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, and Dawānī in their debates, namely: (i) a comparative evaluation of their respective glosses on Qūchshī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, entitled Tajrīd al-ghawāshī wa-tashyīdāt al-ḥ awāshī;181 (ii) a comparative evaluation 175 At the end of a copy of Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya (MS Majlis Sinā 32, f. 115b), there is a note written by Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s son Ṣadr al-Dīn Muḥammad, which states that his father was dictating (amlaʾa) the commentary to him. 176 Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm , MS Yeni Cami 1188, ff. 234a–41b. 177 Taʿlīqa ʿalā ḥ āshīya ʿalā Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm, MS Yeni Cami 1188, ff. 241b–7b. For the location of other manuscripts of this work, see Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, p. 131. 178 For the edition of this work, see above, p. 25, fn. 155. 179 A manuscript of this work is preserved as MS Majlis 3423 (Cat., vol. 10 (3), p. 1283). 180 A manuscript of this work is preserved in Istanbul (MS Fâtih 5329). See Harun Anay, “Mir Giyatheddin Mansur”, p. 127; Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, p. 144. 181 Part of this commentary, dealing with the liar paradox, has been edited; see Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūghgū, ed. Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī with colaboration of Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā, Tehran 1386/2007, pp. 159–261. For the manuscripts of this work, see Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 122–3. He also wrote an evaluation of the views of his father and Dawānī concerning soul and matter in their respective glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād. This set of glosses has been edited by ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī in Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, pp. 625–731. Without specifying, Nurānī mentions four sets of glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid among

30

introduction

of their respective superglosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ijī’s commentary on Ibn Ḥ ājib’s Mukhtaṣar al-muntahā;182 (iii) a comparative evaluation of their respective glosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār;183 and (iv) a comparative evaluation of their respective glosses on Najm al-Dīn al-Kātībī al-Qazwīnī’s al-Shamsiyya.184 Like his father, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr was particularly interested in Ibn Sīnā’s thought and works. He wrote a commentary on the section on metaphysics of Ibn Sīnā’s Shifāʾ, entitled Shifāʾ al-qulūb,185 a short treatise on logic based on the logic of the Shifāʾ, entitled Taʿdīl al-mīzān,186 a treatise on the intentions of Ibn Sīnā in his Ishārāt with respect to the origins of the theoretical sciences, entitled Maqāṣid al-Ishārāt,187 a treatise on various issues discussed in the Ishārāt and the later commentaries on it, entitled Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt;188 and finally a treatise based on the last two chapters of Ibn Sīnā’s Ishārāt, entitled Maqāmāt al-ʿārifīn.189 Some of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr’s works took the form of a collection of several treatises composed over a period of time: i) Jām-i Jahān-numā, which, according to the author’s introduction, comprises a collection of the writings of Ghiyāth al-Dīn. See his introduction to Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, pp. 104–5. 182 Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Mukhtaṣar al-muntahā, MS Majlis 507, ff. 97a–138b (Cat., vol. 22, pp. 200–1). 183 Harun Anay, “Mir Giyatheddin Mansur”, p. 127. 184 Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā al-Shamsiyya, MS Majlis 507, ff. 82b–3b (Cat., vol. 22, pp. 200–1). 185 Ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī in Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, pp. 375–487. 186 In the introduction to this work, Ghiyāth al-Dīn asserts that apart from al-Shifāʾ, he used the comments of Abu al-ʿAbbās al-Lawkarī. See the introduction to this work in Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, p. 135 (introduction). Taʿdīl al-mīzān is the first part of a collection of treatises by Ghiyāth al-Dīn entitled Riyāḍ al-Riḍwān. See below, pp. 30–1. 187 Edited by Nūrānī in Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr, vol. 2, pp. 489–518. 188 Edited by Nūrānī in Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr, vol. 2, pp. 519–90 (under the title Ḥ āshiyat al-Ishārāt). 189 This work has been edited twice: First by Qāsim Kākāyī (“Maqāmāt al-ʿārifīn”, Andīsha-yi dīnī, 1, 2 (Winter 1995–6), pp. 83–144) and secondly by ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī in Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, pp. 205–38. In the introduction to this work, Ghiyāth al-Dīn states “wa-hiya risāla kammaltu bihā arkān Riyāḍ al-riḍwān”. See Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, p. 208. On the sources used by Ghiyāth al-Dīn in this work, see Nasrollah Pourjavady, “Maʾākhidh-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn-i Dashtakī dar Maqāmāt al-ʿarifīn”, Ishrāq u ʿirfān, Tehran 1380, pp. 248–62. According to N. Pourjavady, the type of mysticism presented in this treatise is “Avicennan mysticism”. Apart from the Ishārāt, Ghiyāth al-Dīn consulted Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Awṣāf al-Ashrāf and Suhrawardī’s Kalimat al-taṣawwuf while writing the Maqāmāt.

introduction

31

treatises on several sciences,190 although the extant parts consist only of a treatise on ethics, entitled Akhlāq-i Manṣūrī,191 a treatise on astronomy (hayʾa),192 and a treatise on prosody and rhyme (ʿarūḍ u qāfiya);193 ii) Ḥ ujjat al-kalām li-īḍāḥ maḥ ajjat al-Islām, a rejection of Ghazzālī’s criticisms of Ibn Sīnā in his Tahāfut al-falāsifa, of which the extant part covers only Chapter Nine (al-juzʾ al-tāsiʿ) on bodily resurrection (indeed it is possible that the work was never completely written down).194 iii) Maṭlaʿ al-ʿirfān li-bayān maʿārif al-tibyān, a work of Qurʾānic exegesis, of which only four sections are extant, viz., iii.a) Tuḥ fat al-fatā fī tafsīr sūrat hal atā (being an interpretation of Sūrat al-Insān), iii.b) a treatise on disconnected letters (al-ḥ urūf al-muʿajjama), iii.c) Fī Tafsīr qawlihī taʿālā afalā yatadabbarūn al-Qurʾān (Q 4:82); iii.d) a treatise on the Prophet’s ascension with an interpretation of the first verse of Surat al-Isrāʾ;195 iv) Riyāḍ al-riḍwān of which the following sections can be identified, viz., iv.a) a treatise on logic entitled Taʿdīl al-mīzān fī ʿilm al-mizān; 196 iv.b) Maqāmāt al-ʿārifīn;197 iv.c) Takmilat al-majisṭī;198 and iv.d) Taḥ rīr Uthūlūjīyā.199

190

See Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 129–30. See M. Taqī Danishpazhūh, Fihrist-i kitābkhāna-yi ihdāyī āqā-yi Sayyid Muḥ ammad Mishkāt, Tehran 2535/1976, vol. iii/i, pp. 218–9. 192 See Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 129–30. 193 Eds. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī & Pidrām Mīrzāyī, “Risāla-yi ʿArūḍ u qāfiyya”, Nāme-yi Farhangestān, supplement no. 1, 1375/1996. In his bibliography of Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Nūrānī mentions three more subjects discussed in this work: logic (manṭiq), arithmetic (ḥ isāb), and geometry (handasa). However, Nūrānī does not provide any further information about the location of the extant manuscripts of these parts. See Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, p. 106. 194 Ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī in Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, pp. 153–204. For the extant manuscripts of this work, see Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 139–41. 195 The four extant parts of Maṭlaʿ al-ʿirfān li-bayān maʿārif al-tibyān have been edited by ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī in Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, pp. 297–374. The chapter on tafsīr Sūrat al-Insān has also been edited by Parwīn Bahārzāda under the title Tuḥ fat al-fatā fī tafsīr Sūra Hal Atā, Tehran 1381/2002. 196 According to Nūrānī, this work is the first part (rukn) of Riyāḍ al-Riḍwān. See his introduction to Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, p. 106. 197 See above, p. 30. 198 See ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī’s introduction to Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, p. 106. Takmilat al-Majisṭī is al-manẓar al-thālith min rukn al-thālith min Riyāḍ al-Riḍwān. This shows that the corpus of this work consists of several parts (arkān) each containing several chapters (manāẓir). 199 See ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī’s introduction to Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, pp. 106, 139–40. Without adducing any evidence, Nūrānī identifies three more treatises of Ghiyāth al-Dīn as part of Riyāḍ al-Riḍwān: 1) Miʿyara l-ʿirfān 191

32

introduction

Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, and Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī are the three best-known scholars who were teaching philosophy and theology in late 9th/15th century Shiraz. Of their numerous students, only few successfully established themselves as scholars and produced scholarly works in the fields of philosophy and theology. Among them mention should be made of Kamāl al-Dīn Mīr Ḥ usayn al-Maybudī, Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī and Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥ usayn Ilāhī al-Ardabīlī. V. Mīr Ḥ usayn al-Maybudī200 Born around 853/1449,201 Mīr Ḥ usayn al-Maybudī was the son of Khwāja Muʿīn al-Dīn, the amīr of Yazd during the reign of Qaraquyunlu Jahān Shāh (r. 841–72/1437–67).202 He was a student of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī.203 By 880/1475 Maybudī’s knowledge was advanced enough to enable him to comment upon Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma.204 Some time between 885/1480 and 890/1485, Qāḍī Ṣafī al-Dīn ʿĪsā al-Sāwajī fī ʿilm al-mīzān, 2) al-Shawāriq, 3) Tahdhīb al-akhlāq. Apart from the philosophical works of Ghiyāth al-Dīn mentioned above, the latter mentions some otherwise unknown philosophical works of his in his ijāza issued to Nayrīzī. See below, pp. 55–6. 200 On Kamāl al-Dīn Mīr Ḥ usayn al-Maybudī, see Whelan Dunietz, Qāḍī Ḥ usayn Maybudī of Yazd; Ḥ asan Raḥmānī & Sayyid Ibrāhīm Ashk Shīrīn’s introduction to their edition of Maybudī’s Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i mansūb bi Amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib, Tehran 1379/2000. 201 In a letter to Sharaf al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Daylamī, he states that he is forty years old. In the same letter he indicates that he has been charged with kufr. In another letter to Ṣafī al-Dīn ʿĪsā, Maybudī indicates that the accusations were made against him after he had been chief judge of Yazd for six years. Therefore, the date he was forty was around 893/1485. See Mīr Ḥ usayn Maybudī, Munshaʿāt-i Maybudī, ed. Nuṣrat Allāh Furūhar, Tehran 1376/1997, pp. 131, 169–70. Dunietz estimates his date of birth sometime between 853/1449 to 858/1454. See Whelan Dunietz, Qāḍī Ḥ usayn Maybudī of Yazd, p. 43. 202 On Muʿīn al-Dīn-i Maybudī, see Whelan Dunietz, Qāḍī Ḥ usayn Maybudī of Yazd, pp. 35–43. 203 In his Sharḥ Dīwān ʿAlī, Maybudī himself refers to Dawānī as ustādhunā al-ʿallāma. In the biographical sources he is invariably associated with Dawānī. See Whelan Dunietz, Qāḍī Ḥ usayn Maybudī of Yazd, p. 44. 204 This date of completion is mentioned in the colophon of MS Ilāhiyyāt 360d (Cat., p. 596). This was Maybudī’s first work. Evidence for this is the commentator’s own statement in the introduction to this work, “This is the first work I have written in the prime of youth (wa-hādhā awwal mā ṣannaftuhū fī ʿunfuwān al-shabāb). See Maybudī, Sharḥ Hidāyt al-ḥ ikma, Lithograph Edition [by Karbalāyi Muḥammad Ḥ asan], Tehran 1297/1879. Later on, Maybudī revised this work. The revised version was completed in 886/1481–2. See Maybudī, Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i mansūb bi Amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib, p. sī-u hasht.

introduction

33

(d. 896/1491), the ṣadr of Sultan Yaʿqūb, appointed Maybudī the chief judge of Yazd and made him responsible for matters relating to endowment (waqf ) in that city.205 Aside from his occupation as qāḍī, Maybudī was during this period teaching various subjects, including logic and geometry. That he was teaching logic is indicated by one of the students of Maybudī who composed a treatise on the subject.206 Among the texts on logic that he may have taught is the Risāla al-Shamsiyya of Kātibī, since he wrote a commentary on this text.207 Moreover, in his Munshaʾāt Maybudī explicitly states that he taught geometry. He mentions that he was teaching most of Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Taḥ rīr uṣūl al-handasa li-Iqlīdis to a certain Muḥammad Nakhjawānī, and that at the request of the latter he wrote glosses on this text.208 Sometime before Shaʿbān 888/September 1483,

205 Dawānī is said to have recommended Maybudī to Qāḍī ʿĪsā for that position. Shūshtarī narrates a story which suggests the accidental nature of this appointment. Maybudī accordingly accompanied Dawānī on his journey from Shiraz to the court of Sultan Yaʿqūb in Tabriz, which took place sometime after 883/1478. There, Maybudī found an opportunity to display his mastery in scientific debate. Once, in a majlis of Sultan Yaʿqūb, a dispute occured between Dawānī and a gifted scholar by the name of Abū Isḥāq al-Nayrīzī. Dawānī was rightly rejecting his arguments but his opponent was a master of rhetoric and by violating the rules of disputation, he nearly defeated Dawānī. Sitting at the lower side of the majlis, Maybudī could not bear to see the humiliation of his master and asked permission to take part in the disputation on behalf of Dawānī. From that moment, whenever Abū Isḥ āq violated any of the rules of disputation, Maybudī drew attention to it and prevented him from changing the subject. Eventually, Maybudī’s arguments convinced everyone in the majlis. The vizier of Sultan Yaʿqūb, Qāḍī Ṣafī al-Dīn ʿĪsā, asked Dawānī about Maybudī. Dawānī introduced him as one of the notables of Yazd (az buzurg-zāda-hā-yi Yazd ast). Subsequently, following Dawānī’s request, Maybudī was appointed judge of Yazd and became responsible for the issues related to endowment (waqf ) in that city. See Shūshtarī, Majālis al-Muʾminīn, vol. 2, pp. 221–2. Dunietz has rightly doubted the correctness of this account. See Whelan Dunietz, Qāḍī Ḥ usayn Maybudī of Yazd, pp. 113–5. 206 The author of Risāla fi Taḥ qīq sālibat al-maḥ mūl preserved in MS Dānishgāh 3430 mentions that he studied logic with Maybudī. See Ḥ asan Raḥmānī & Sayyid Ibrāhīm Ashk Shīrīn’s introduction to their editions of Maybudī’s Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i mansūb bi Amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib, p. 45. 207 See Mīr Ḥ usayn al-Maybudī, Sharḥ al-Shamsiyya, Lithograph Edition, Istanbul Shaʿbān 1289/October 1871. Without referring to her source, Dunietz mentions the date of completion of this commentary as 886/1481–2. See Whelan Dunietz, Qāḍī Ḥ usayn Maybudī of Yazd, p. 55. 208 See Munshaʾāt-i Maybudī, ed. Nuṣrat Allāh Furūhar, Tehran 1376/1997, pp. 72–3. For the extant manuscripts of this work, see Ḥ asan Raḥmānī & Sayyid Ibrāhīm Ashk Shīrīn’s introduction to their edition of Maybudī’s Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i mansūb bi Amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib, pp. 41–2.

34

introduction

Maybudī wrote a treatise dealing with the shadow, entitled Risāla Fī ruʾyat shabaḥ al-shayʾ fī al-māʾ.209 In Ṣafar 890/February-March 1485, Maybudī completed his Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib, a commentary on the poems attributed to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib.210 The long introduction to this work consists of seven chapters ( fawātiḥ ), in which the author treats the following subjects: the true path of the pure (aṣfiyāʾ; God’s essence (dhāt-i Khudā), God’s names and attributes; the greater man or macrocosm (insān-i kabīr); the lesser man or microcosm (insān-i ṣaghīr); prophecy and sainthood (wilāyat); and finally the virtues ( faḍāʾil ) and history of ʿAlī. In the first chapter Maybudī explains that to obtain profound knowledge in practical philosophy, mathematics, and in most issues of physics, one needs compatibility with the philosophers, whereas for metaphysics (ilāhiyyāt) one should follow the Sufis, as “[the intellectual] opening (gushād) that philosophers gained in the field of mathematics, the Sufis attained in matters of divinity”.211 Though he does not specify, it can be safely assumed that by the “Sufis [intellectual] opening in divinity” he meant mainly Ibn ʿArabī’s thought. Maybudī’s Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i ʿAlī contains numerous quotations from Ibn ʿArabī’s writings, particularly from his Futūḥ āt al-makkiyya and his Fuṣūs al-ḥ ikam, as well as from the works of his commentators and followers, such as Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (d. 673/1274), Fakhr al-Dīn-i ʿIrāqī (d. 688/1289), ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Kāshī (al-Kāshānī) (d. 736/1335), Muʾayyid al-Dīn al-Jandī (d. ca. 700/1300), Sharaf al-Dīn Dāwūd al-Qayṣarī (d. 751/1350), Sayyid ʿAlī Hamadānī (d. 786/1384) and Ṣāʾin al-Dīn Ibn Turka Iṣfahānī (d. 830/1437).212

209 This work must have been written before 5 Shaʿbān 888/8 September 1483, the date on which one of its manuscripts was completed (MS Majlis 1918, pp. 205–13; Cat., vol. 5, pp. 410–1). See Ḥ asan Raḥmānī & Sayyid Ibrāhīm Ashk Shīrīn’s introduction to their editions of Maybudī’s Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i mansūb bi Amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib, pp. 43–4. 210 Eds. Ḥ asan Raḥ mānī & Sayyid Ibrāhīm Ashk Shīrīn, under the title Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i mansūb bi Amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib. For the study of this work see Whelan Dunietz, Qāḍī Ḥ usayn Maybudī of Yazd, pp. 65–112. 211 Maybudī, Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i mansūb bi Amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib, pp. 13–14, 26–8. 212 On Ibn ʿArabī’s school of thought, see William C. Chittick, “The School of Ibn ʿArabī”, in History of Islamic Philosophy, eds. Seyyed Hossein Nasr & Oliver Leaman, London 1996, vol. 1, pp. 510–23; Alexander Knysh, Ibn Arabi in the Later Islamic Tradition: The Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam, New York 1999.

introduction

35

After having served six years as judge of Yazd, several accusations were repeatedly made against Maybudī. Three of these accusations were mentioned by Maybudī himself: (1) professing unsound belief on prime matter (hayūlā); (2) having belittled the Prophet Muḥ ammad; and (3) being hard-hearted in his performance as judge.213 These accusations are listed in Maybudī’s letters of vindication to Qāḍī Ṣafī al-Dīn ʿĪsā, in which he strongly denies them.214 In another letter to a certain Mīr ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, however, Maybudī explains the reason for the accusations in different terms, alluding to his mystical beliefs as the reason for his having been accused of unbelief (kufr). Whatever the reason was, the authorities decided against Maybudī and as a consequence he lost his position.215 In 897/1491–92, Maybudī composed a short treatise on philosophy according to the view of the later philosophers (mutaʾakhkhirān-i ḥ ukamāʾ), entitled Jām-i gītī-numā. An Arabic version of this work, together with a translation into Latin by Ibrāhīm al-Ḥ aqilānī al-Mārūnī (Abraham Ecchellensis, 1605–64), was published in 1641 in Paris.216 It is likely that Maybudī was affiliated with a group of Sufis, to whom he refers as silsila muqaddasa-yi Nūrbahkshiyya,217 i.e., the followers of 213 See Maybudī, Munshʾāt-i Maybudī, pp. 135–7; cf. Whelan Dunietz, Qāḍī Ḥ usayn Maybudī of Yazd, p. 125. 214 Whelan Dunietz, Qāḍī Ḥ usayn Maybudī of Yazd, pp. 136–175. 215 In his correspondence with a certain Muḥammad Ṭ ālishī, he implied that he no longer holds a position. See Maybudī, Munshaʾāt-i Maybudī, pp. 121–2. 216 Originally in Persian, this work has been edited by ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, Taḥ qīqāt-i Islāmī, 1 I (1365/1986), pp. 93–112. In 1641, it was published as a bilinqual text (ArabicLatin) under the title: Mukhtaṣar maqāṣid ḥ ikmat falāsifat al-ʿarab al-musammā Jām-i gīti-numā. Synopsis Propositorvm sapientiæ Arabum philosophorum inscripta Speculum mundum representans. According to Daiber, this book is the first Muslim philosophical text ever published in Europe; see Daiber, Bibliography of Islamic Philosophy, Leiden 1999, vol. 1, pp. 628–9, no. 6147. The editior of the original Persian text, ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, did not mention the manuscript(s) he used and by collating the edited text with its Arabic translation published by Ecchellensis in 1641 it became clear to the present author that Nūrānī’s edition had some significant lacunae throughout the text. For the manuscripts of this work which are preserved in Iran, see Aḥmad Munzawī, Fihristwāra-yi kitābhā-yi fārsī, 6, Tehran 1381/2002, pp. 120–1. Jām-i gītī-numā seems to be the last philosophical work of Maybudī. For other works of his, see Maybudī, Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i mansūb bi Amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib, pp. sī u hasht-chihil u panj (introduction). 217 See Mīr Ḥ usayn Maybudī, Munshaʾāt-i Maybudī, p. 119; On the Nūrbahkshiyya, see Shahzad Bashir, “After the Messiah: The Nūrbakhshiyyeh in Late Timurid and Early Safavid Times”, Society and Culture in the Early Modern Middle East. Studies on Iran in the Safavid Period, ed. Andrew J. Newman, Leiden 2003, pp. 295–313; idem, Messianic hopes and mystical visions: The Nurbakhshiya between medieval and modern Islam, South Carolina 2003.

36

introduction

Sayyid Muḥammad Nūrbakhsh (d. 869/1464). Jām-i gītī-numā is dedicated to an unspecified Qāsim, who according to a marginal note in one of its manuscripts was Nūrbakhsh’s son and successor Sayyid Qāsim (d. 919/1513–4).218 Maybudī, moreover, had corresponded with a number of Nūrbakhshī Sufis, including the well-known Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Lāhījī (d. 912/1506–7), the author of Mafātīḥ al-iʿjāz fī sharḥ -i Gulshan-i rāz.219 In his Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i ʿAlī, Maybudī criticizes those who curse the Sunnī caliphs.220 It is therefore not surprising that he did not approve of the Shīʿī extremism of the early Ṣafavid period. On 29 Shāʿbān 909/16 February 1504, Maybudī was executed at the order of Shah Ismāʿīl I.221 In his classification of the post-Avicennan philosophers, Dimitri Gutas distinguishes Maybudī’s thought from that of Dawānī and Dashtakī due to its “mainstream Avicennism”.222 The reason for this distinction is perhaps Maybudī’s renowned commentary on Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma. However, this work hardly reflects Maybudī’s own philosophical positions, as his intention in it was mainly to explain and clarify Abharī’s arguments. Maybudī’s Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i ʿAlī and to some extent his Jām-i gītī-numā are much more representative of his philosophical thought. In these writings he is outspoken in his criticism of Ibn Sīnā’s rejection of God’s knowledge of particulars223 and of the latter’s rejection of bodily resurrection.224 He blames the Aristotelian philosophers for having restricted the sources of knowledge to the intellect (ʿaql ),225 and shows his sympathy with Suhrawardī’s

218 See Maybudī, Jām-i gītī-numā, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, pp. 95–96. Referring to Qāsim as “prince” (shāhzādah), Maybudī in the introduction to this work implied that he would attend the majālis of Qāsim from time to time. Ibid., p. 95. 219 Mīr Ḥ usayn Maybudī, Munshaʾāt-i Maybudī, pp. 82–3. On Shams al-Dīn al-Lāhījī see A. H. Zarrīnkūb, “Lahīdjī”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), vol. 5, pp. 603–5. 220 Maybudī, Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i mansūb bi Amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib, p. 30. 221 Qummī, Khulāṣat al-tawārīkh, vol. 1, p. 84. 222 See Dimitri Gutas, “The study of Arabic philosophy in the twentieth century”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 29 i (2002), pp. 5–15, p. 7. Gutas does not specify to which Dashtakī he is referring. 223 Maybudī, Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i mansūb bi Amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib, p. 12. 224 See Maybudī, Jām-i gītī-numā, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, p. 111; On Maybudī’s discussion of Ibn Sīnā’s view on bodily resurrection, see below, p. 62, fn. 88. 225 See Maybudī’s Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i mansūb bi Amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib, p. 12.

introduction

37

philosophy of Illumination. According to him the path of Illumination is a middle way (barzakh) between intellectual thought (tafakkur) and Sufism (taṣawwuf ). The ancient [Greek] philosophers who were all Illuminationists undertook noble investigations (taḥ qīqāt-i sharīfa), delicate scrutinies (tadqīqāt-i laṭīfa), as well as imaginative inner experiences (mukāshafāt-i ṣūrī) and spiritual observations (mushāhadāt-i maʿnawī). Some of them were prophets and others were sages. They established the branches of philosophy through revelation (waḥ y) and intuition (ilhām). Plato was the last among them. His student, Aristotle, set off on the theoretical path and philosophers after him followed him on this path. After this philosophy has suffered from distortion (taḥ rīf ) due mainly to inaccuracies in translations from Greek to Arabic. Fārābī, who wrote numerous works, was an ascetic and Ibn Sīnā was a follower of his desires. Then Suhrawardī came who revived the Illuminationist path.226 VI. Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī227 Muḥammad b. Nūr al-Dīn Aḥmad al-Khafrī (d. 942/1535–6) is another scholar of the time who was educated in Shiraz, having studied under

226

Maybudī, Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i mansūb bi Amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib,

p. 23. 227 On Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Khafrī, see George Saliba, “A Redevelopment of Mathematics in a Sixteenth-Century Arabic Critique of Ptolemaic Astronomy”, in Perspectives arabes et médiévales sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque, Actes du colloque de la SIHSPAI (Société internationale d’histoire des sciences et de la philosophie arabes et islamiques), Paris, 31 mars-3 avril 1993, eds. Ahmad Hasnawi, Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal and Maroun Aouad, Leuven/Paris 1997, pp. 105–22; idem, “The Ultimate Challenge to Greek Astronomy. Hall mā lā yanḥ all of Shams al-Khafrī (d. 1550)”, in Sic itur ad astra. Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften. Festschrift für den Arabisten Paul Kunitzsch zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. Menso Folkerts and Richard Lorch, Wiesbaden 2000, pp. 490–505; Kākāyī, “Āshnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Muḥ aqqiq-i Khafrī”, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 4 (1375/1996), pp. 71–9; Fīrūzah Sāʿatchiyān, “Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Khafrī. Faylasūf u munajjim-i nāmdār-i maktab-i Shirāz”, Kitāb-i māh-i falsafa, 13 (1387/2008), pp. 69–103; eadem, “Muʿarrifī-yi panj risāla-yi Khafrī dar elāhiyyāt u ithbāt-i wājib”, Maʿārif, 20 ii (1382/2003), pp. 98–111; Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī, Taʿlīqa bar sharḥ -i ilāhiyyāt-i Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād-i mullā ʿAlī Qūshchī, ed. Fīrūzah Sāʿatchiyān, Tehran 1382/2003–4; idem, “Marātib al-wujūd”, ed. Reza Pourjavady, Dard-i falsafa dars-i falsafa. Jashn-nāma-yi ustād duktur Karīm-i Mujtahidī, eds. Muḥammad Raʾīszādah, Bābak ʿAbbāsī, Muḥammad Manṣūr Hāshimī, Tehran 1384/2005, pp. 239–57.

38

introduction

Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī.228 He hailed from Khafr, a small village to the south west of Shiraz.229 Among his early writings are his commentary on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shirāzī’s al-Tuḥ fat al-Shāhiyya, entitled Muntahā al-idrāk fī madrak al-aflāk, which was completed in 901/1496;230 his treatise on the liar paradox, entitled ʿIbrat al-fuḍ alāʾ, in which he criticized Dawānī’s position on this issue while the latter was still alive;231 and his Risāla Fī muhimmāt masāʾil al-kalām, dedicated to Salghur Shah. It must thus have been completed before the latter’s death in 910/1505.232 According to some biographical sources, Khafrī converted to Shīʿism immediately following Shah Ismāʿīl’s invasion of Shiraz in 909/1504.233 Khafrī evidently entertained good relations with Shah Ismāʿīl I and his court. One of his contacts at the court was Amīr Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Sharīf al-Shirāzī (d. 920/1514), who was the vizier of the Shah first between 915/1509 to 917/1511 and later again between 919/1513 untill his death in 920/1514. Khafrī is said to have played a significant role in the reappointment of Amīr Sharaf al-Dīn as vizier by persuading the Shah to reinstate him. According to Khūr Shāh b. Qubād al-Ḥ usaynī, the author of Tārīkh-i Ilchi Niẓām Shāh, Khafrī was sent to the camp of the Shah, near Rayy, as the agent (wakīl ) of Amīr Sharaf al-Dīn in order to persuade the Shah to reappoint the Amīr. Subsequently he returned to Shiraz informing the latter about the positive outcome.234 228 229

Shūshtarī, Majālis al-muʿminīn, vol. 2, p. 233. In his “Marātib al-wujūd” (p. 247), Khafrī describes himself as al-Khafrī mawli-

dan. 230 On the date of completion of this work, see Muḥammad Karīm Ishrāq, Buzurgān-i Jahrum, Tehran 1351/1972, p. 285. For a study of this work, see George Saliba, “The Ultimate Challenge to Greek Astronomy. Hall mā lā yanḥ all of Shams al-Khafrī (d. 1550)”, pp. 491–2. 231 See below, p. 84. ʿIbrat al-fuḍalāʾ has been edited by Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 1, 4 pp. 86–9. The edition is reprinted in Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūghgū, ed. Farāmarz Qarāmalikī in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā, pp. 265–9. Khafrī later wrote another treatise on the same issue entitled Ḥ ayrat al-fuḍalāʾ fī ḥ all shubhat jadhr al-aṣamm. This work has also been edited by Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā in Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūghgū, pp. 265–309. 232 On this work, see Fīrūzah Sāʿatchiyān, “Muʿarrifī-yi panj risāla-yi Khafrī dar elāhiyyāt u ithbāt-i wājib”, pp. 105–7. 233 See Shūshtarī, Majālis al-muʾminīn, vol. 2, p. 234; Khwānsārī, Rawḍāt al-jannāt, vol. 7, p. 196. Saliba doubts the correctness of these reports, arguing that “at that time the religious persuasion was not always obvious”. See his “A Redevelopment of Mathematics in a Sixteen-Century Arabic Critique of Ptolemaic Astronomy”, pp. 113–4. 234 See Khūr Shāh b. Qubād al-Ḥ usaynī, Tārīkh-i Ilchi Niẓām Shāh, eds. Muḥammad Riḍā Naṣīrī & Koichi Haneda, Tehran 1379/2000, p. 60. Amīr Sayyid Sharīf al-Shīrazī

introduction

39

In a Persian treatise that he wrote on the hierarchical stages of existence, entitled Marātib al-wujūd, Khafrī indicates that his place of residence was Shiraz.235 Although this work is undated, it is safe to assume that it was not written late in his career, for later in his career Khafrī resided in Kāshān. He must have moved to Kāshān sometime between 919/1513 and 926/1520 and stayed there until his death, which seems to have occurred on 28 Ṣafar 942/27 August 1535.236 In Kāshān, Khafrī got aquainted with Shāh Ṭ āhir (known later as Shāh Ṭ āhir Dakanī) (d. 952/1545–46), a religious figure with a group of followers, who resided at the time in this city. In 926/1520, Shāh Ṭ āhir was forced to escape to India as he was accused of having Ismāʿīlī leanings, but he maintained contact with Khafrī. In an extant letter he wrote to the latter, Shāh Ṭ āhir consulted with him about some philosophical issues raised in Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt.237 During his stay in Kāshān, Khafrī composed several works. Tafsīr Fātiḥ at al-Kitāb, an exegetical treatise on the Surat al-Fātiḥ a, and his Arbaʿīniyyāt (“Forty Prophetical Sayings”) are among the writings he must have composed before 930/1523, as it is said that in this year he dedicated these two works to Shāh Ismāʿīl who was at the time in Herat.238 On 4 Muḥarram 932/21 October 1525, Khafrī wrote a supercommentary on Sharīf Jurjānī’s commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tadhkira fī ʿilm al-hayʾa, entitled Takmila fī sharḥ al-Tadhkira.239

was one of the grandsons of Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī. He was killed in the battle of Chāldirān on 2 Rajab 920/23 August 1514. See Rūmlū, pp. 145, 167, 195, 199–200. 235 Khafrī, “Marātib al-wujūd”, p. 247. 236 The date of his death is given in one of the manuscripts of Khafrī’s Muntahā l-idrāk fī madrak al-aflāk (see Ishrāq, pp. 275, 285–6). However, Āghā Buzurg al-Ṭ ihrānī (and following him Saliba) gives as his date of death 28 Ṣafar 957/17 March 1550. That date would extend Khafrī’s career to sixty years and therefore is unlikely to be correct. 237 The letter of Shah Ṭ āhir to Khafrī is preserved in MS Danishgāh 2591; cf. Ishrāq, Buzurgān-i Jahrum, p. 276; Kākāyī, “Āshnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Muḥaqqiq-i Khafrī”, pp. 71–9, esp. p. 78. 238 Khwāndamīr, Tārīkh-i Ḥ abīb al-siyar, vol 4, p. 611. If this report is correct, it must be assumed that the Arbaʿīniyyāt had been dedicated at different occasions to both Shāh Ismāʿīl and Aḥmad Khān Kārkiyā, the ruler of Gīlān, as the extant version of Arbaʿīniyyāt preserved in MS Majlis 706 (6b–80a, Cat., vol. 23, p. 20) is dedicated to the latter (see f. 6b). 239 For a study on this work, see George Saliba, “A Sixteenth-Century Arabic Critique of Ptolemaic Astronomy: The Work of Shams al-Din al-Khafrī”, Journal for the History of Astronomy, 25 (1994), pp. 15–38.

40

introduction

Being primarily an astronomer, Khafrī’s philosophical thought is a holistic system in which the universe must be explained in its totality. For this purpose, he relies heavily on Ibn ʿArabī’s “stages of existence” (marātib al-wujūd).240 In this respect his thought differs in outlook from his teacher, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī. Nor did he adhere to Avicennan philosophy to the extent that his teacher did. Nevertheless, he showed a particular interest in philosophical disputes on prime matter and its existence where he supported the existence of Aristotelian prime matter against the criticisms of Suhrawardī.241 Many of his writings reflect the controversies between Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī and Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī. He wrote several short treatises on rational theology, among them: (i) Risāla fī l-ilāhiyyāt (consisting of ten maqṣads);242 (ii) Risāla fī muhimmāt masāʾil al-kalām, dedicated to Salghur Shah;243 (iii) another Risāla fī l-ilāhiyyāt, dedicated to Ḥ usayn Khān Mubāriz al-Dawla (consisting of an introduction, three maqṣads and an epilogue);244 (iv) Risāla fī Ithbāt al-wājib (a short treatise consisting of three lamḥ as and three lamʿas);245 and (v) Risāla fī Ithbāt al-wājib bi-l-dhāt (consisting of an introduction and four maqṣads).246 He also wrote two sets of glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, one on the first chapter ( fī l-umūr al-ʿāmma) and another on the third chapter ( fī l-ilāhiyyāt).247

240 This idea has been explored in Khafrī’s Risāla dar Marātib al-wujūd, and in his Tafsīr Āyat al-kursī. For his discussion in the latter work, see Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī, Tafsīr Āyat al-kursī, ed. ʿAlī Awjabī, Ganijīna-yi Bahāristān. ʿUlūm-i riwʾyī u Qurʾānī-1, ed. Sayyid Mahdī Jahrumī, Tehran 1380/2001, pp. 120–87. 241 Khafrī wrote an independent treatise on the issue entitled Risāla fī taḥ qīq al-hayūlā. See MS Majlis 706. He also discussed this issue in his glosses on Qut ̣b al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt. See Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī, “Ḥ āshiya ʿalā al-Muḥ ākamāt bayna sharḥ ay al-Ishārāt”, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, Ganijīna-yi Bahāristān. Ḥ ikmat-2, ed. ʿAlī Awjabī, Tehran 1387/2008, pp. 133–99, esp. pp. 186–93. 242 See Sāʿatchiyān, “Muʿarrifī-yi panj risāla-yi Khafrī dar elāhiyyāt u ithbāt-i wājib”, pp. 102–5. 243 See above, p. 38, fn. 232. 244 See Sāʿatchiyān, “Muʿarrifī-yi panj risāla-yi Khafrī dar ilāhiyyāt wa ithbāt al-wājib”, pp. 108–110. 245 Ed. Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh, “Risāla fī ithbāt al-wājib”, Jāwīdān khirad, (Autumn 1354/1975), pp. 42–6. 246 See Sāʿatchiyān, “Muʿarrifī-yi panj risāla-yi Khafrī dar ilāhiyyāt wa ithbāt al-wājib”, pp. 100–102. 247 Ed. Sāʿatchiyān, under the title: Taʿlīqa bar sharḥ -i ilāhiyyāt-i Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād-i mullā ʿAlī Qūshchī. For other works of Khafrī and the location of their extant manuscipts, see Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 172–97.

introduction

41

VII. Kamāl al-Dīn al-Ilāhī al-Ardabīlī248 Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥ usayn al-Ilāhī al-Ardabīlī was born in Ardabīl in the second half of the 9th/16th century. His father Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥ aqq was apparently a state official, as he was referred to as al-ṣāḥ ib al-muʿaẓzạ m wa-l-ṣadr al-mukarram.249 Ḥ usayn al-Ilāhī began his education in Ardabīl with ʿAlī al-Āmulī,250 who taught him some of the disciplines based on revelation (ʿulūm sharʿiyya). While he was still dwelling in his hometown, he became a follower of the master of the Safavid order, Sulṭān Ḥ aydar (d. 892/1487).251 The latter is said to have been the one who encouraged Ilāhī to continue his education.252 Ilāhī then moved to Shiraz and studied with Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī. One of the texts he read with him was the latter’s Shawākil al-ḥ ūr fī sharḥ Hayākil al-nūr, for which Dawānī on 14 Jumādā I 892/8 May 1487 granted him an ijāza.253 He also studied with Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī for some time.254 Next, he went to Herat and studied in the Ikhlāṣiyya Madrasa. His teacher there was Jamāl al-Dīn ʿAṭāʾ Allāh al-Ḥ usaynī, with whom he studied some ḥ adīth literature as well as exegesis (concentrating on some parts of Bayḍāwī’s Anwār al-tanzīl). In 899/1493–94, he received an ijāza from ʿAt ̣āʾ Allāh al-Ḥ usaynī.255 During his stay in Herat, Ilāhī came under the patronage of the vizier of the Timurid Sultan Ḥ usayn Mīrzā b. Manṣūr b. Bāyqarā, Amīr ʿAlī-Shīr Nawāʾī (d. 902/1496–7). Two of his writings, namely his

248

On Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥ usayn al-Ilāhī al-Ardabīlī, see Najīb Māyil Hirawī, “Ilāhī-i Ardabīlī”, Dāʾirat al-maʿārif-i buzurg-i Islāmī, vol. 10, pp. 111–4; Barakat, Kitābshināsī-yi maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 234–6; Mīrzā ʿAbd Allāh al-Afandī al-Iṣbahānī, Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ, vol. 2, pp. 98–108. Ilāhī Ardabīlī, Sharḥ - i Gulshan-i rāz, ed. Muḥammad Riḍā Barzigar Khāliqī & ʿIffat Karbāsī, Tehran 1376/1997–98, (introduction) pp. bist u shash-sī u nuh. 249 In his ijāza to Ilāhī, ʿAt ̣āʾ Allāh al-Ḥ usaynī refers to his father with these titles (see Mīrzā ʿAbd Allāh al-Afandī al-Iṣbahānī, Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ, vol. 2, pp. 104–5). 250 See al-Afandī al-Iṣbahānī, Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ, vol. 2, p. 98. 251 Sulṭān Ḥ aydar was active in the rawḍa of Ṣafī al-Dīn in Ardabīlī. On Sulṭān Ḥ aydar, see Michel M. Mazzaoui, The Origins of the Ṣafawids, Wiesbaden 1972, pp. 71–82. 252 See al-Afandī al-Iṣbahānī, Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ, vol. 2, p. 99; Sām Mīrzā Ṣafawī, Tadhkira-yi Tuḥ fa-yi Sāmī, pp. 77–8. 253 See al-Afandī al-Iṣbahānī, Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ, vol. 2, pp. 103–4; Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī & Ismāʿīl al-Khwājūyī al-Iṣfaḥānī, Sabʿ rasāʾil, ed. Sayyid Aḥmad Tūysirkānī, introduction of the editor, pp. 22–4. 254 See al-Afandī al-Iṣbahānī, Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ, vol. 2, p. 99; Sām Mīrzā Ṣafawī, Tadhkira-yi Tuḥ fa-yi Sāmī, pp. 77–8. 255 See al-Afandī al-Iṣbahānī, Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ, vol. 2, pp. 104–7.

42

introduction

commentary on Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī’s (fl. ca. 690/1291) Ashkāl al-taʾsīs and his Talkhīṣ of Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Taḥ rīr al-Iqlīdis, are dedicated to Nawāʾī.256 In 902/1496–97, Ilāhī returned to his hometown Ardabīl, where he started teaching at the Ṣafī al-Dīn shrine. Among the texts he taught was Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Kātibī’s al-Shamsiyya, entitled Taḥ rīr al-qawāʿid al-manṭiqiyya fī sharḥ al-Shamsiyya. One of Ilāhī’s students, Khalīl b. Muḥammad al-Riḍawī, collected his teacher’s glosses on this commentary.257 In 908/1502–3, Ilāhī completed his commentary on Gulshan-i rāz, a mystical mathnawī by Maḥ mūd Shabistarī.258 This commentary is based on the commentary of Shams al-Din al-Lāhījī’s commentary on the same mathnawī. 259 During the reigns of the Safavid Shahs Ismāʿīl I and Ṭ ahmāsb, Ilāhī was a respected figure at court. In 911/1505–6, Ilāhī dedicated to Shah Ismāʿīl a Persian treatise on Shīʿī law, entitled Khulāṣa-yi fiqh.260 Ilāhī also dedicated some other Shīʿī works to Shah Ismāʿīl I, namely a commentary on Nahj al-balāgha (collection of sermons attributed to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib), entitled Manhaj al-faṣāha fī sharḥ Nahj al-balāgha;261 a treatise on the virtues of the Twelve Imams, entitled Tāj al-manāqib fī faḍāʾil al-aʾimma al-ithnā ʿashar;262 and a treatise on the imamate,

256

See al-Afandī al-Iṣbahānī, Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ, vol. 2, p. 102. These glosses are preserved in MSS Malik 1830 (Cat., vol. 5, p. 375), Dānishgāh 4111 (Cat., vol. 13, p. 309), Marʿashī 11773 (Cat., vol. 29, pp. 574–6). Cf. also Kashf al-ẓunūn, vol. 2, p. 1064. 258 On the date of the completion of this work, see Ilāhī Ardabīlī, Sharḥ -i Gulshan-i rāz, the editors’ introduction, p. 21. Ilāhī Ardabīlī’s introduction to his Sharḥ -i Gulshani rāz was later transmitted as an independent work with the title Kashf al-asrār. See the editor’s introduction to Sharḥ -i Gulshan-i rāz, p. 29. Najīb Māyil Hirawī edited this introduction independently. See Majmūʿa rasāʾil-i khaṭtị̄ -yi fārsī, 1, Mashhad 1368/1989–90, pp. 151–67. On the manuscripts of Kashf al-asrār see Aḥmad Munzawī, Fihristwāra-yi kitābhā-yi fārsī, Tehran 1382/2003, vol. 7, p. 745. 259 Lāhījī must have completed his sharḥ , entitled Mafātīḥ al-iʿjāz fī sharḥ Gulshan-i rāz, by 882/1477–8, since the oldest known manuscript of this work (MS Gawharshād 351) is completed in this year. See Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad Lāhījī, Mafātīḥ al-iʿjāz fī sharḥ Gulshan-i rāz, eds. Muḥammad Riḍā Barzigar Khāliqī & ʿIffat Karbāsī, Tehran 1371/1992, pp. hafād-u yak (introduction), 603. 260 See al-Afandī al-Iṣbahānī, Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ, vol. 2, pp. 102–3. The date of authorship of this work is said to be the numerical value of Khulāṣa fiqh, which is 911; In his entry on “Ilāhī-i Ardabīlī” to Dāʾirat al-maʿārif-i buzurg-i Islāmī (vol. 10, p. 111), Najīb Māyil Hirawī calculates this date as 942, which cannot be correct, as the work is dedicated to Shah Ismāʿīl. 261 See Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, p. 236. 262 See al-Dharīʿa, vol. 9, p. 92. 257

introduction

43

which he composed first in Turkish and then translated into Persian.263 Because of these works and some other Shīʿī Persian writings, Ilāhī was said to be the first scholar of the time to have promulgated knowledge of Twelver Shiʿism (maʿārif-i Jaʿfarī) in Persian.264 During the early reign of Shah Ṭ ahmāsb, Ilāhī spent some time in Qazwīn, where he had the opportunity to meet the new king.265 It was during the same period that Ilāhī issued a fatwā, in which he forbade the Friday congregational prayer (jumʿa) during the occultation ( ghayba) of the Mahdī. This was a controversial issue, and Ilāhī’s legal opinion contradicted the fatwā issued in 921/1515 by the chief cleric of the court, al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī.266 Ilāhī spent the last years of his life in Ardabīl, where he died in 950/1543.267 In his ijāza to a certain Kamāl al-Dīn Ibrāhīm al-Ṣafawī, Ilāhī presents a list of his writings, most of which seem to be lost.268 On the basis of this list it is evident that he composed several commentaries and glosses on the works of philosophers of Shiraz, namely: (i) a commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, completed in 916/1510–11;269 (ii) glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād;270 (iii) superglosses on Dawānī’s glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd; (iv) glosses on Maybudī’s commentary on Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma; (v) glosses on al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s commentary on ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī’s Mawāqif; (vi) glosses on Dawānī’s commentary on ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī’s

263

See al-Dharīʿa, vol. 2, p. 324. See al-Afandī Iṣbahānī, Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ, vol. 2, p. 103. 265 See Maḥmūd Afūshtaʾī, Niqāwat al-āthār fī dhikr al-akhyār, ed. Iḥsān Ishrāqī, Tehran 1373/1994–5, p. 183. 266 It is said that Mīr Niʿmat Allāh al-Jazāʾirī, the vizier of Shah Ṭ ahmāsb, who was against the view of Karakī on that issue, collected fatwās of several scholars, among them Ilāhī, to support his own view. See Qummī, Khulāṣat al-tawārīkh, vol. 1, p. 237; Rūmlū, Aḥ san al-tawārīkh, ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥ usay Nawāyī, Tehran 1357/1978–9, pp. 333–4. Generally on the Friday congregational prayer, see Abisaab, Converting Persia, pp. 20–2. 267 See al-Afandī Iṣfahānī, Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ, vol. 2, pp. 99, 101; Sām Mīrza Ṣafawī, Tuḥ fa-yi Ṣāmī, pp. 77–8. 268 This ijāza was available to al-Afandī al-Iṣbahānī, who incorporated the list of Ilāhī’s writings in his bibliographical dictionary. See his Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ, vol. 2, pp. 101–2. 269 See Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 235; Ḥ ājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ʿan asāmī al-kutub wa-l-funūn, vol. 1, p. 253. 270 Four manuscripts of this work have been so far identified: MSS Marʿashī 5007 (Cat., vol. 13, p. 203), Riḍawī 80 (Cat., vol. 1, p. 92), Majlis 1762 (Cat., vol. 5, p. 141), Majlis 1763 (Cat., vol. 5, p. 142). See Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i Maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 234–35. 264

44

introduction

al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyya, entitled Jawāhir al-taḥ qīq; and (vii) glosses on Dawānī’s commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Ithbāt al-ʿaql. After having introduced the most influential philosophers of Shiraz during the late 9th/15th century and their most productive students, we now turn to Najm al-Dīn al-Nayrīzī, whose works reflect the debate between Dawānī and Dashtakī and their respective partisans and constitute the main topic of the present book.

CHAPTER ONE

THE PHILOSOPHER AL-NAYRĪZĪ AND GENERAL ASPECTS OF HIS THOUGHT I. Review of Previous Scholarship The earliest bibliographical source that provides some scant information of Nayrīzī’s works is Kashf al-ẓunūn ʿan asāmī al-kutub wa-l-funūn of Ḥ ājjī Khalīfa (or Kātib Čelebi, 1609–57 ce). Under the entry on Risāla fī ithbāt al-wājib, Ḥ ājjī Khalīfa mentions Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī as the author of two works with the title Ithbāt al-wājib: al-Risāla al-qadīma and al-Risāla al-jadīda. Among the commentators on these two works to which he refers is ‘Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd al-Tabrīzī’, which is clearly a misreading of ‘al-Nayrīzī’.1 In order to determine the approximate date of authorship of Dawānī’s al-Risāla al-qadīma, Ḥ ājjī Khalīfa also adduces a brief quotation allegedly taken from Dawānī’s al-Risāla al-jadīda in which the latter explains that he wrote the older treatise some ten years before at the request of an outstanding personality of Gīlān (who is not further identified). A comparision between Ḥ ājjī Khalīfa’s quotation and both Dawānī’s al-Risāla al-jadīda and Nayrīzī’s commentary on it shows, however, that Ḥ ājjī Khalīfa has conflated Dawānī’s wording in his al-Risāla al-jadīda with some elements taken from Nayrīzī’s commentary on this tract.2 It was presumably on the basis of the same phrase that Ḥ ājjī Khalīfa erroneously assumed that Nayrīzī had also written

1 Ḥ ājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ʿan asāmī al-kutub wa-l-funūn, Tehran 1387/1967, vol. 1, p. 842. 2 Ḥ ājjī Khalīfa’s quotation runs as follows:                                                                        .            Only the first part (here in color) is taken from Dawānī’s al-Risāla al-jadīda, whereas the remainder of the sentence is an abbreviation taken from the commentary of Nayrīzī. The exact wording in Dawānī’s and Nayrīzī’s original is as follows:                                                                 [:   ]                                  [:    ] .                                                                   

46

chapter one

a commentary on Dawānī’s al-Risāla al-qadīma. In his commentary on the Risāla al-jadīda, Nayrīzī refers to a work he wrote concerning the arguments that Dawānī had employed in his al-Risāla al-qadīma. However, Nayrīzī is in fact referring here to an independent work of his that he had written on the issue (Risāla fī ithbāt al-wājib).3 Two other works of Nayrīzī, namely his commentary on Suhrawardī’s al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya and his glosses on the latter’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, were first discovered by Hellmut Ritter (d. 1971). In his study “Philologika IX. Die vier Suhrawardī, Ihre Werke in Stambuler Handschriften”, published in 1937, Ritter refers to a commentary on the al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya, entitled Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī kashf ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ and composed by a certain “al-Wadūd b. M. al-Tibrīzī” in 930/1524, as being preserved in MS Ragip 853.4 Ritter describes the manuscript, quotes the opening sentence of the text and summarizes the author’s colophon.5 In the same article,6 Ritter also refers to glosses on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq written by a certain ‘Najm al-Dīn al-Ḥ ājj Maḥmūd al-Tibrīzī’, of which a copy is preserved in the margin of MS Laleli 2523 (the main text being Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq). The work, Ritter explains, is dedicated to the minister of ‘al-Sulṭān Aḥmad Bahādur Khān’ by the name of ‘Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Sadīd’. He tentatively identifies the Sultan named as Āqquyunlu Sultan Aḥmad, who reigned for the short period of a few months before he died in Rabīʿ II 903/December 1497.7 As will be shown later, Ritter’s identification is not correct. The Sultan Aḥmad referred to                                                                                                   .                     3 See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, MS Şehid Ali 2761, ff. 4b-5a. 4 See Hellmut Ritter, “Philologika IX. Die vier Suhrawardī, Ihre Werke in Stambuler Handschriften”, Der Islam 24 (1937), p. 271. In the manuscript itself the commentator mentions his name only once in the introduction (f. 1b:13–4), stating yaqūl al-rājī raḥ mat rabbihi al-ghanī al-wadūd, Ibn Muḥ ammad al-Nayrīzī, Ḥ ājjī Maḥ mūd . . .’. Ritter evidently misread this. 5 Ritter adduced the two colophons of the MS Ragip 853 (ff. 276a, 272a) for the following information: “Als er ihn am 5. Rabīʿ II 930 beendete, standen Jupiter und Venus in Konjunktion in den Fischen. Später fand er in einer anderen Handschrift des Werkes noch Zusätze des Autors und verfasste auch dazu einen Kommentar (šarḥ d̠ayl al-kitāb). Als er diesen beendete, im Jahre 932h, standen die beiden Glücksplaneten nummehr in den Zwillingen.” Ritter, “Philologika IX. Die vier Suhrawardī”, p. 271. 6 Ibid., pp. 277–8 no. 16. 7 Ibid., p. 277, fn. 1: “Vielleicht ist der 903 umgekommene Herrscher der WeißSchafe gemeint.”

the philosopher al-nayrīzī

47

here is Aḥmad Khān Kārkiyā (r. 911/1506–940/1533), who was the ruler of Biya Pīsh (the Eastern part of Gīlān). The glosses were therefore written some years later than Ritter had assumed, namely shortly after Aḥmad Khān took power in 911/1506.8 Ritter is evidently unable to identify both ‘al-Wadūd b. M. al-Tibrīzī’ and ‘Najm al-Dīn al-Ḥ ājj Maḥmūd al-Tibrīzī’ and seems to consider these names as referring to two different persons. The first scholar who correctly rendered Nayrīzī’s name as Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī was Āghā Buzurg al-Ṭ ihrānī (d. 1970). In the first volume of the latter’s al-Dharīʿa ilā taṣānīf al-shīʿa (published in Najaf in 1355/1936), Nayrīzī is identified as the author of Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda.9 Throughout the Dharīʿa, Āghā Buzurg lists other works of Nayrīzī that he had seen, namely a commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-manṭiq,10 a commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām,11 a commentary on Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma,12 glosses on Dawānī’s Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm,13 and glosses on Dawānī’s Nihāyat al-kalām fī sharḥ ‘kullu kalāmī kādhib’.14 Moreover, he repeatedly refers to a precious codex copied by the hand of Nayrīzī that he had seen in the private library of Sayyid Naṣr Allāh Taqawī (d. 1326/1947) in Tehran.15 The codex was executed by Nayrīzī between 903/1497 and 919/1512–13 and contains fifty-seven philosophical and theological writings, twenty of which are described by Āghā Buzurg in his al-Dharīʿa (the remaining thirty-seven

8

Ritter also mentions that the scribe attributes to the author of the commentary glosses on Qāḍī Mīr Ḥ usayn al-Maybudī’s commentary on Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma. This information is incorrect. Nayrīzī did not write glosses on Maybudī’s commentary on Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, but rather a commentary on Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma. On this work see below, pp. 111–4. 9 Due to technical problems, the 25 volumes of al-Dharīʿa ilā taṣānīf al-shīʿa were published with years of delay and it was only in 1977 that the publication of the whole work was completed. According to Etan Kohlberg, some volumes came out as early as 1918 (see his “al-D̠ arīʿa elā taṣānīf al-Šīʿa”, Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 7, pp. 35–6.). However, Brockelmann dates the first volume in 1355/1936, which seems to be more plausible, as Āghā Buzurg there refers to the first volume of the catalogue of the library of the shrine of Imam Riḍā, published in 1926. See below, p. 48. 10 See Āghā Burzug al-Ṭ ihrānī, al-Dharīʿa ilā taṣānīf al-shīʿa 1–25, Beirut 1403– 6/1983–6, vol. 3, p. 354 (no. 1278), vol. 13, pp. 140–1 (no. 469). 11 Dharīʿa, vol. 6, p. 54 (no. 271), vol. 13, p. 163 (no. 555). 12 Dharīʿa, vol. 14, pp. 175–6 (no. 2059). 13 Dharīʿa, vol. 2, pp. 406–7 (no. 1627), vol. 6, p. 26 (no. 102). 14 Dharīʿa, vol. 7, pp. 76–7 (no. 409). 15 On Sayyid Naṣr Allāh Taqawī, see Ruqayya Rasūlī, “Taqawī”, Dānishnāma-yi jahān-i Islām, vol. 7, pp. 806–7.

48

chapter one

writings are passed over in silence).16 Āghā Buzurg also encountered in the codex an ijāza which Nayrīzī had received in 903/1498 from Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī. As Nayrīzī is addressed in this ijāza as Najm al-Dīn, this honorific title may be attributed to Nayrīzī with certainty. Later on, Āghā Buzurg dedicated an entry to Nayrīzī in his Ṭ abaqāt aʿlām al-shīʿa providing a list of his writings and quoting the ijāza in full.17 In his Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, Carl Brockelmann (d. 1956) refers to the works of Nayrīzī on several occasions but neglects to devote a separate entry to him. In the first supplementary volume (published in 1937), Brockelmann refers to ‘al-Wadūd b. M. at-Tibrīzī’ as the commentator of Suhrawardī’s al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya on the basis of the information provided by Ritter.18 In the second supplementary volume (published in 1938), in the entry on Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī, he mentions ‘Maḥmūd an-Nairīzī aš-Šīrāzī’ as the author of a set of superglosses to Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq, referring to a manuscript kept in Mashhad (“Mešh. II 35”), and identifies him as a contemporary of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī.19 In the same volume, in the entry on Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, Brockelmann states that ‘Hāǧgī̌ Mollā Maḥmūd at-Tibrīzī’ wrote a commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wujūd [sic] al-jadīda in 970/1568 and refers to ‘MS Mashhad I, 12’.20 In his entry on Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī in Volume Two of the second edition (published in 1949), Brockelmann correctly gives ‘Maḥmūd b. M. b. Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī’, a student of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, as the commentator of Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda (Brockelmann renders the title again as Risālat Ithbāt al-wujūd al-jadīda). This identification is based on Āghā Buzurg’s note in the first volume of his al-Dharīʿa. Brockelman adds that the name of the commentator of Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda in one catalogue was given as “al-Tibrīzī”.21 However, he does not acknowledge his 16 On the works of the codex specified by Āghā Burzurg, see below, pp. 193–4 (Appendix II: Philosophical Writings Copied by Nayrīzī). 17 See also below, p. 54, fn. 45. 18 See Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, Leiden 1943–9, vol. 1, p. 782. 19 See Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur. Supplementbände, Leiden 1937–42, vol. 1, p. 303. By Mashhad is meant the library of the shrine of Imam Riḍā, nowadays known as Āstān-i Quds-i Raḍawī. 20 See Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur. Supplementbände, vol. 1, p. 307. This information is taken from the first volume of the catalogue of the library of the shrine of Imam Riḍā, published in 1305/1926. 21 The original note by Brockelmann is as follows: “Dharīʿa I, 103/4, 509, 108, 527, wo Maḥmūd b. M. b. Maḥmūd an-Nairīzī (statt Tibrīzī des Cat.), Schüler des

the philosopher al-nayrīzī

49

own mistakes in the second supplementary volume. Presumably he did not notice that all these various names refer to one and the same person. In the second part of his Histoire de la philosophie islamique (i.e., Depuis la mort Averroës jusqu᾿à nos jours), first published in 1974, Henry Corbin (d. 1978) writes as follows: Deux personnages de Tabrîz, peu connus, sont à nommer ici. Wadûd Tabrîzî écrit, en 930/1524, un commentaire systématique sur l’ouvrage de Sohravardî intitulé Livre des Tablettes dédiées à ʿImâdoddîn (émir seldjoukide d’Anatolie). Un contemporain de Wadûd, moins connu encore, Najmoddîn Mahmûd Tabrîzî, écrit des gloses sur le Livre de la Théosophie orientale.22

The wording clearly shows that he is drawing here on the information provided by Hellmut Ritter in 1937. As was the case with Ritter, Corbin considered the two names to refer to two different persons. Corbin had access to the manuscript of Nayrīzī’s commentary on al-Alwāḥ that had been described by Ritter (MS Ragıp 853) and that Corbin believed to be the only extant manuscript of this work.23 In his En islam iranien, published in 1971, Corbin refers to a discussion on khwarnah (which he renders as “Lumière de Gloire”) in Nayrīzī’s commentary on the Alwāḥ .24 In his L’ Archange empourpré, published in 1976, he even presents translations of some of the relevant passages from the commentary into French.25 Corbin, moreover, noticed that the commentator of al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya refers to glosses he wrote on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, yet he failed to correct Ritter’s misidentification Ṣadraddīn ad-Daštakī, verf. 921/1515”. See Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Literatur, vol. 2, pp. 217–8. This note seems to be entirely based on Āghā Buzurg’s note concerning Nayrīzī’s commentary on Dawānī’s Ithbāt al-wājib in the first volume of his Dharīʿa, which runs as follows: Sharḥ Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīd li-l-Dawānī li-l-muḥ aqqiq al-Nayrīzī . . . huwa al-Ḥ ājj Maḥ mūd al-Nayrīzī muʿāṣir al-muḥ aqqiq al-Khafrī wa-l-mujāz min ustādhihī Mīr Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī sanat 903 . . . tūjad fī al-khizāna al-Riḍawiyya nuskha tārīkh kitābatihā sana 970, wa-mā fī fihris khizāna al-Tabrīzī badal al-Nayrīzī . . . (see Dharīʿa , vol. 1, pp. 108–9). 22 Henry Corbin, Histoire de la philosophie islamique, Paris 1986, p. 451. 23 As he states: “Dans le seul manuscrit connu, Ragıb 853” (L’Archange empourpré, Paris 1976, p. 94). 24 He writes (En islam iranien: Aspects spirituels et philosophiques, Paris 1971, vol. 2, pp. 352–53): “Deux personnages de Tabrîz sont encore à nommer: Wadûd Tabrîzî écrit un commentaire systématique sur le «Livre des Tablettes dédiées à ʿImâdoddîn» émir seldjouqide d’Anatolie. Nous nous sommes référé ici aux pages de cet ouvrage concernant le Xvarnah. Quant au commentaire, il fut achevé en 930/1524. Un certain Najmoddîn Mahmûd Tabrîzî, contemporain de Wadûd, écrit des Gloses sur le Livre de la «Théosophie orientale».” 25 See Corbin, L’Archange empourpré, pp. 94–96, 117–131.

50

chapter one

of the two names as referring to two different persons and to glean the relevant missing links from Āghā Burzurg’s Dharīʿa that could have enabled him to draw the correct conclusions.26 In 1976 Corbin delivered a lecture in Tehran entitled “Trois philosophes d’Azerbaïjan”. The text of this lecture became one of the chapters of his Philosophie iranienne et philosophie comparée, which he published in the same year.27 By “trois philosophes d’Azerbaïjan” Corbin meant Shihāb al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī, “Vadûd Tabrîzî”, and Rajab ʿAlī al-Tabrīzī (1080/1669–70). On the basis of the passages of the commentary which he had translated earlier in his L’Archange empourpré, Corbin tried to establish “Wadūd al-Tabrīzī” as a follower of Suhrawardī and in so doing reminded his readers that “Wadūd” came from Tabriz in Azerbaijan, the region that had produced Suhrawardī himself.28 The next scholar to whom reference should be made is Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh (d. 1375/1996). In the introduction to his edition of Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ ’s (d. ca. 142/759) al-Manṭiq and Ibn Bihrīz’s (fl. 200/816) Ḥ udūd al-manṭiq, published in 1978, Dānishpazhūh provides a list of Arab and Persian logicians and their works in which reference is made to “Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī”.29 The works of Nayrīzī he mentions are those that had been listed by Āghā Buzurg, yet Dānishpazhūh provides more detailed information on the location of some of the manuscripts. In addition, he lists four additional titles, namely: (i) a commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn

26 In L’Archange empourpré (p. 94), Corbin writes: “Wadûd Tabrîzî, inconnu par ailleurs, nous apprend qu’il avait lui-même également commenté le «Livre de la Théosophie orientale»”; cf. Philosophie iranienne et philosophie comparée, Tehran 1977 [reprinted Tehran 2003], p. 95. Moreover, here it is clear that he assumes Nayrīzī’s glosses on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq to be lost. 27 See Corbin, Philosophie iranienne et philosophie comparée, Paris 1976, p. 84 (footnote). 28 Corbin states: “Mais il faut nous limiter ce soir au bref rendez-vous que nous avons donné à un autre Ishrâqî de l’Azerbaïdjan, rendez-vous d’autant plus important que notre interlocuteur est resté à peu près inconnu jusqu’ici. Son nom: Vadûd Tabrîzî. ” (Philosophie iranienne et philosophie comparée, p. 94). Corbin’s emphasis on ‘Wadūd’ being originally from Azerbaijan can be traced in his L’Archange empourpré, where he says: “Il est fort plausible que des hommes d’Azerbaïdjan comme notre Shaykh al-Ishrâq et son commentateur Wadûd Tabrîzî, aient eu sur place des entretiens avec des théologiens chrétiens, et l’on sait l’affinité du nestorianisme avec le christianisme judéo-chrétien primitif ” (pp. 95–96). 29 See Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh (ed.), al-Manṭiq li-Ibn Muqaffaʿ. Ḥ udūd al-manṭiq li-Ibn Bihrīz, Tehran 1357/1978, pp. panjāh u sa-panjāh u panj.

the philosopher al-nayrīzī

51

al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, preserved in the Majlis Library in Tehran;30 (ii) a treatise entitled Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām wa-nihāyātihā wa-tabyīn maqāṣid al-ḥ arakāt wa-ghāyātihā (MS Malik 2614/1); (iii) superglosses on Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s glosses on Shams al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Iṣfahānī’s commentary on al-Bayḍāwī’s Ṭ awāliʿ al-anwār, entitled Maṭāliʿ al-anẓār fī sharḥ Ṭ awāliʿ al-anwār (MS Āṣafiyya 58 manṭiq); and (iv) a Persian treatise entitled Risāla dar qidam u ḥ udūth-i ajsām.31 Dānishpazhūh correctly attributes the first three works to Nayrīzī, yet he is mistaken with regard to the last-mentioned treatise. According to the extant manuscripts of this text, it was written by Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Shīrāzī, whom Dānishpazhūh erroneously assumed to be identical with Najm al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī.32 The information we possess on the life of Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd b. Yaʿqūb al-Shīrāzī (d. 962/1554–5) indicates that Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd was evidently a younger contemporary of Nayrīzī.33 30 Nayrīzī’s commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād was first mentioned by Muḥammad Taqī Mudarris Riḍawī in his Aḥ wāl u āthār-i Khwāja Naṣīr al-Dīn-i Ṭ ūsī (Tehran 1334/1955–56, p. 430). Dānishpazhūh refers to ʿAbd al-Ḥ usayn Ḥ āʿirī, Fihrist-i Kitābkhāna-yi Majlis-i Shūrā-yi Millī, Tehran 1352/1973, vol. 10 iv, pp. 2106–9. 31 See Dānishpazhūh (ed.), al-Manṭiq li-Ibn Muqaffaʿ. Ḥ udūd al-manṭiq li-Ibn Bihrīz, pp. panjāh u sa-panjāh u chahār. Dānishpazhūh also suggested that Risāla fī Bayān maʿnā al-qaḍiyya wa-l-taṣdīq, a work which is included in MS Malik 2614 and copied by the same scribe as Nayrīzī’s Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām, might also be by Nayrīzī. I examined this manuscript and found no reason to justify this attribution. 32 The only two extant manuscripts of this work are MSS Riḍawī 12297 and Mahdawī 282. See the introduction to my critical edition of this treatise (Maʿārif 19 iii (Isfand 1381/March 2003), pp. 88–106), p. 99. 33 In the colophon of MS Dānishgāh 4559, which is a copy of Dawānī’s second set of glosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Urmawī’s Maṭāli al-anwār transcribed from a copy written by the hand of ‘Khwāja Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd’, the full name of the latter is given as Maḥmūd b. Yaʿqūb b. Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb b. Sayf al-Dīn Yaḥyā al-Salmānī al-Ṣāliḥānī (Cat., vol. 13, pp. 3498–99). Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Shīrāzī is said to have studied with Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī and Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr al-Dashtakī. He then taught in Isfahan and later on in Shiraz (see ʿAbd al-Nabī al-Qazwīnī, Tatmīm Amal al-āmil, ed. Sayyid Aḥmad al-Ḥ usaynī, Qum 1407/1986–87, pp. 100–101). His extant works are: (1) glosses on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda (MS Majlis 4001 (Cat., vol. 11, p. 1)), (2) glosses on Dawānī’s al-Ḥ āshīya al-qadīma ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd li-Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād (MS Marʿashī 5596 (Cat., vol. 14, p. 363)), (3) Khalq al-aʿmāl (MS Marʿashī 2564/13 (Cat., vol. 7, p. 155)), (4) glosses on Dawānī’s al-Ḥ āshīya ʿalā sharḥ al-Maṭāliʿ (MS Awqāf Baghdād 13529/2 (Cat., vol. 2, pp. 132–33)), (5) glosses on Dawānī’s commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq (MS Majlis 1937/4 (Cat., vol. 10 (4), p. 1936), and (6) Risāla dar Qidam u ḥ udūth-i ajsām (cf. Muḥammad Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 206–207). In his Tadhkira-yi haft iqlīm, Amīn Aḥmad Rāzī mentions the following as being among his students: Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Muqaddas al-Ardabīlī (d. 993/1585–6), ʿAbd Allāh al-Bahābādī al-Yazdī (d. 981/1573–4), Fakhr

52

chapter one

Dānishpazhūh also discusses the identity of Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī in an article devoted to the works of ʿImād al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Shīrāzī (d. ca. 990/1582), published in 1996.34 There, he suggests that Nayrīzī’s father may have been Abū Isḥāq Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Nayrīzī, the author of a treatise on prepositions, Risāla fī Maʿnā al-ḥ arf. Dānishpazhūh’s suggestion is perhaps due to the fact that the name of Abū Isḥāq was Muḥammad, the same name as Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī’s father. However, Nayrīzī gives his full name as Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd, suggesting that the name of his grandfather was Maḥmūd, whereas Abū Isḥāq’s father was named ʿAbd Allāh. Thus, Dānishpazhūh’s suggestion has to be ruled out. In recent years, Nayrīzī’s name and his writings have also been discussed in a number of studies published by Iranian scholars. Qāsim Kākāyī mentions Ḥ ājjī/Hājj Maḥmūd Nayrīzī in an article on the Philosophical School of Shiraz as having been one of the students of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, and he relies in his account of Nayrīzī’s works on Āghā Buzurg al-Ṭ ihrānī’s al-Dharīʿa.35 Muḥammad Jawād Shams Nayrīzī has devoted an extensive section to ‘Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd-i Nayrīzī’ in his book on the history of Nayrīz and its scholars. He relies on the data provided by Āghā Buzurg and Dānishpazhūh. Under the influence of the latter, however, Shams Nayrīzī has conflated the names of Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Shīrāzī and Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī and refers to ‘Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd-i Nayrīzī’.36 The present author has included a brief discussion on Nayrīzī in the introduction to his edition of Risāla dar qidam u ḥ udūth-i ajsām by Nayrīzī’s younger contemporary, Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd, showing for the first time that Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī was the author of the commentary and the glosses mentioned by Ritter. He was incorrect, however, in supporting Dānishpazhūh’s suggestion that Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd

al-Dīn al-Sammākī (d. 984/1576–7), Ḥ abīb Allāh al-Bāghnawī al-Shīrāzī, known as Mīrzā Jān (d. 995/1587), Fatḥ Allāh al-Shīrāzī (d. 993/1585–86), Afḍal al-Dīn al-Turka al-Iṣfahānī (d. 991/1583–4), Shāh Abū Muḥammad al-Shīrāzī, and ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Shūshtarī; see Amīn Aḥmad Rāzī, Tadhkira-yi haft iqlīm, ed. Sayyid Muḥammad Riḍā Ṭ āhirī “Ḥ asrat”, Tehran 1378/1998, vol. 1, p. 227. 34 See Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh, “Āthār-i ʿImād al-Dīn Maḥmūd-i Shīrāzī”, Majmūʿa khaṭābhā-yi nukhustīn kungira-yi taḥ qiqāt-i Īrānī, 1–3, ed. Ghulām Riḍā Sotude, Tehran 1354/1975, vol. 3, pp. 486–95, esp. pp. 487–8. 35 See Qāsim Kākāyī, “Āshnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Muḥaqqiq-i Khafrī”, Kheradnameh-e Sadra, 4 (Summer 1375/1996), p. 79. 36 See Muḥammad Jawād Shams Nayrīzī, Tārīkh u farhang-i Nayrīz, Tehran 1379/2000, pp. 243–53.

the philosopher al-nayrīzī

53

al-Shīrāzī and Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī are the same person.37 In his bibliography of the philosophers of the school of Shiraz, published in 2004, Muḥammad Barakat included headings for both Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Shīrāzī and Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī, treating them as separate authors. Nevertheless, since he relied mainly on the confused information contained in previous studies, he failed to identify the works of these two philosophers accurately.38 II. Notes on Nayrīzī’s Biography So far, no biographical or otherwise independent historical source has been found that would provide us with information on the life of Najm al-Dīn Maḥmūd b. Muhammad b. Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī, known as Ḥājjī Maḥmūd. The only data with the help of which his biography can at least partially be reconstructed are Nayrīzī’s self-testimonies, which are scattered in his writings and in the colophons that he added to his works. These pieces of information have been used in the following for the reconstruction of his biography. His name suggests that he hailed from Nayrīz, a town 230 km east of Shiraz. Whether his family resided in Nayrīz or Shiraz is not known, but it is likely that he lived mostly in Shiraz during his early life, since he refers to Shiraz as being his hometown in one of his writings.39 The earliest datable piece of information about Nayrīzī’s life comes from 14 Ṣafar 897/16 December 1491 when he completed copying Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq.40 In the colophon of this commentary, Nayrīzī refers to himself with the honorific title Ḥ ājjī, which indicates that he must have gone to 37 See Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd Nayrīzī [Shīrāzī], “Risāla dar Qidam u ḥudūth-i ajsām”, ed. Reza Pourjavady, Maʿārif, 19 iii (Isfand 1381/March 2003), pp. 88–94. 38 See Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-yi maktab-i falsafī-yi Shīrāz, pp. 198–208. Barakat attributes Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd’s Risāla dar qidam u ḥ udūth-i ajsām and his glosses on Dawānī’s glosses on Sharḥ al-Maṭāliʿ to Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī. 39 In the introduction to his commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-lkalām, after explaining about his studies during his youth, Nayrīzī writes about moving out of the city in which he studied as follows: ‘ittafaqa al-khurūj ʿan al-awṭān’. Nayrīzī’s usage of the plural form of waṭan (awṭān) here is most likely for keeping the rhyme. Therefore the sentence means the following: ‘it happened that I moved out of my town’. For the whole introduction see below, pp. 163–5 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 40 This is on the basis of Nayrīzī’s colophon at the end of MS Marʿashī 4266 (f. 200a). For more information on this manuscript see below, pp. 185–6 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings).

54

chapter one

Mecca sometime before 897/1491. At this date the place of his residence is unknown. Three years later he was certainly in Shiraz. The evidence for this is his remark in his commentary on Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma that he saw a rainbow in Shiraz in 900/1494–95.41 This must have been around the time that he was studying in that city with Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī. He also tells us in one of his writings that rational theology (kalām) was his favourite subject.42 Indeed, in contrast to some other scholars of Shiraz who studied in the same school, namely Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī and Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī,43 he showed little interest in mathematics and astronomy, although he was to some extent concerned with astrology.44 Nayrīzī was granted an ijāza by his teacher Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī that the latter issued some few months before his murder on 12 Ramaḍān 903/4 May 1498. In this ijāza Dashtakī shows great respect for Nayrīzī, as is indicated by the honorific titles he employs when addressing him. This suggests that Nayrīzī must have reached a certain age by that time. Dashtakī also mentions here that Nayrīzī studied with him his Ithbāt al-wājib and several glosses that he had written on different texts.45 Nayrīzī’s 41

See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Riḍawī 175-ḥ ikma, f. 97b. In the introduction to his commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-lkalām, explaining about his studies during his youth, Nayrīzī states: “Then I found that the science of kalām, which is the basis of all religions and religious laws and the criterion for the principles of Islamic beliefs, is my favourite and the most significant, since its questions are more important than others and its arguments are more certain than others . . . so I made an effort to examine its principles and elaborate its branches.” For the original Arabic version of this passage, see below, pp. 163–4 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 43 Presumably Nayrīzī and other students of Ṣadr al-Dīn, including Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī and Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī, studied in the Manṣūriyya madrasa established by Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī in 883/1478–9. On this madrasa see above, p. 18. 44 At the end of his Miṣbāh al-arwāḥ fī sharḥ ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ and Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, Nayrīzī mentions the astrological coincidence with the completion of the respective works, see below, pp. 161, 175–6 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 45 The original copy of the ijāza is included in a philosophical codex copied by Nayrīzī. Āghā Buzurg quotes this ijāza in his Ṭ abaqāt aʿlām al-shīʿa (vol. 7, pp. 243– 4). According to Āghā Buzurg, the ijāza is located in the codex following Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib. The ijāza runs as follows:            .                                                  ،       ،                                                         ،             ،                                                              ،                                                                                                                   [      ،                                    =]           42

the philosopher al-nayrīzī

55

familiarity with the works of his teacher is evident, as he frequently refers to them throughout his own writings.46 Ṣadr al-Dīn is in fact the only person that Nayrīzī refers to as his teacher in his writings. However, Nayrīzī also attended the courses of Ṣadr al-Dīn’s son Ghiyāth al-Dīn for a long period of time and ultimately received an ijāza from the latter.47 According to this ijāza, which sheds light on an important part of Nayrīzī’s education, Ghiyāth al-Dīn taught Nayrīzī some of his own writings, namely his Mirʾāt al-ḥ aqāʾiq,48 his supercommentary on Dawānī’s commentary on Suhrawardī’s Ishrāq Hayākil al-nūr (entitled Ishrāq Hayākil al-nūr li-kashf ẓulumāt Shawākil al-gharūr),49 a part of his al-Maʿārij together with its supplement (on astronomy),50 and a part of al-Lawāmiʿ51 (on astronomy), as well as some pieces of his commentary on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-Ishrāq,52 several of his glosses on Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt,53 and some passages from his commentary on Sirāj al-Dīn al-Sakkākī’s (d. 626/1228–9) al-Miftāḥ al-ʿulūm (on semantics).54 With Ghiyāth al-Dīn, Nayrīzī also studied Jār Allāh al-Zamakhsharī’s al-Kashshāf (Qurʾānic exegesis), al-Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s commentary on Sirāj al-Dīn al-Sakkākī’s Miftāḥ al-ʿulūm, Shams al-Dīn al-Bukhārī’s commentary on Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ʿayn together with the glosses by al-Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī, Jurjānī’s glosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār,                                             .                                 .  46 See below, pp. 117, 120–1, 123, 129. 47 A unique manuscript of this ijāza has been preserved in MS Malik 956, f. 266a. For the edition of this ijāza, see below, pp. 196–7 (Appendix III: An Ijāza Given to Nayrīzī by Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī). 48 On this work, see above, p. 25. 49 On this work, see above, p. 25. 50 On this work, see above, p. 25. 51 Two manuscripts of this work have been preserved: MSS Majlis 6320/2 (Cat., vol. 19, p. 310), and Ilāhiyyāt-i Mashhad 614/1 (Cat., vol. 1, p. 372). Cf. Barakat, Kitābshināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 162–3. 52 It has been unknown until now that Ghiyāth al-Dīn wrote a commentary on Ḥ ikmat al-Ishrāq. No manuscript of this work has been reported to be extant and as a matter of fact this is the only piece of information that we have about the existence of this work. 53 On this work, see above, p. 30. 54 Presumably Ghiyāth al-Dīn is referring to a work he wrote on Sakkākī’s Miftāḥ al-ʿulūm and Jurjānī’s commentary on it, of which a manuscript is preserved in Majlis 507 (Cat., vol. 22, p. 201). Cf. Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 138–9.

56

chapter one

ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Qūshchī’s commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī and Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentaries on al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt, Bahmanyār’s al-Taḥ sị̄ l, Ibn Sīnā’s al-Shifāʾ, and Ibn Bārīzī al-Ḥ amawī’s commentary on Najm al-Dīn al-Qazwīnī’s al-Ḥ āwī, enttitled al-Taysīr al-ḥ āwī fī taḥ rīr al-fatāwī (on the Shāfiʿī school of fiqh).55 Unfortunately the unique manuscript of this ijāza (MS Malik 956) is undated. But since Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s Mirʾāt al-ḥ aqāʾiq, mentioned in this ijāza, is known to have been dedicated to Aqquyunlu Sultan Aḥmad in 902/1497,56 the ijāza must have been written at some time around this date or within the next couple of years (i.e., before Nayrīzī left Shiraz). Nayrīzī informs us that during his youthful studies he had access to numerous sources and that he used to work as a scribe. He states that copying various philosophical and theological texts helped him to increase his understanding of these disciplines.57 Many of the writings that Nayrīzī copied are part of the Nayrīzī codex, containing fifty-seven philosophical and theological texts that partly identified and described by Āghā Buzurg al-Ṭ ihrānī.58 In 904/1498–99, Nayrīzī completed his commentary on Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma in Shiraz. Soon after this, he left Shiraz and never returned to this city. Apparently he no longer felt safe in Shiraz after the murder of his teacher Dashtakī only a year earlier. In the introductions to some of his later works he expresses his homesickness for Shiraz,59 yet he never explains the reasons why he left it. In 909/1504 he was in Isfahan, for he states in a revised copy of his commentary on Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma (completed in 916/1510) that he observed a rainbow in Ramaḍān 909/February–March 1504 for the second time in his life, this time in Isfahan.60 During that period, Isfahan itself was far from being a peaceful place. At the beginning of 909/1503, the city had been captured by the newly established Safavid king, Shah Ismāʿīl I. After brutally forcing the people of Tabriz

55

On this work see above, p. 22. See above, p. 25, fn. 156. 57 In the introduction to his commentary on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām, Nayrīzī writes: “rāqiman fī dhālika l-awān ʿalā l-kutub al-kathīra raqaman yufīd al-makhlūqīn lahu l-baṣīra”, see below, p. 164 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 58 See below, pp. 193–4 (Appendix II: Philosophical writings copied by Nayrīzī). 59 Namely in his commentaries on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām and al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya; see below, pp. 164, 173 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 60 See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Riḍawī 175-ḥ ikma, f. 98b. 56

the philosopher al-nayrīzī

57

to accept Shīʿism in 907/1501, the Shah and his qizilbāsh were now imposing this denomination on the population of Isfahan.61 It was in particular the religious scholars of the town who were forced to endorse Twelver Shīʿism publicly. There is no indication that Nayrīzī ever refused or even hesitated to do so. On the contrary, the fact that he had been under the patronage of rulers who had been appointed by the Shah (he may even have been sponsored by the Shah himself ) indicates that he was on good terms with the new government. He was directly linked to the court, perhaps through Shāh Mīr, the son of Malik Maḥmūd Jān, who had studied with Nayrīzī for a while and was later on appointed by the Shah as vizier.62 Despite these favourable conditions, Nayrīzī’s stay in Isfahan was evidently unpleasant as he bitterly complains about the way he was treated by the other scholars of the city: It then happened that I moved away from my town and went to a city of seditions and troubles, where I could no longer see my true friends. There I met people who were not graced by virtues, and who were of mean disposition. If one of them should attain a certain level of knowledge by the help of God, the others would consider that he lost his way . . . Yet they regarded themselves at the level of mystics, who had attained the knowledge that was never achieved by the scholars. However, they knew nothing about the methodological principles (ʿilm al-uṣūl) nor about mysticism.63

On 24 Rabīʿ II 911/23 September 1505, Nayrīzī completed a treatise entitled Fī taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām and dedicated it to someone referred to as al-malik al-majīd Ḍ iyāʾ al-milla wa-l-dunyā wa-l-dīn Sadīd.64 Some time later but before 913/1507 Nayrīzī was in Biya Pīsh, the eastern part of the province of Gīlān (in the north of Iran bounded by the Caspian Sea), and it is likely that he sojourned in Lāhījān, the urban centre of Biya Pīsh. There, Nayrīzī was patronized by Nāṣir al-Dīn, who was presumably the vizier of Sultān Aḥmad Khān Kārkiyā (r. 911/

61 See Manūchihr Pārsādūst, Shah Ismāʿīl-i awwal: Pādishāhī bā atharhā-yi dīrpāy dar Irān u Irānī, Tehran 1381/2002, pp. 289–300. 62 See Sām Mīrzā Ṣafawī, Tadhkira-yi Tuḥ fa-yi Sāmī, ed. Rukn al-Dīn Humāyūn Farrukh, Tehran 1384/2005, p. 92. 63 Nayrīzī’s introduction to his Sharḥ Tahdhīb al-manṭiq, MS Şehid Ali 1780, f. 1b. See below, p. 164 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 64 See MS Malik, 2614/1, ff. 1b, 22a. For a description of this work, see below, pp. 114–5.

58

chapter one

1506–940/1533).65 Aḥmad Khān belonged to the Zaydī dynasty of the Kār-Kiyāʾīs who were at that time vassals of the Safavids.66 During his sojourn in Biya Pīsh, Nayrīzī completed his Ithbāt al-wājib as well as his glosses on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq. Both are dedicated to Nāṣir al-Dīn.67 Nayrīzī apparently did not stay in Gīlān for long. He indicates in his commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-manṭiq, completed in 913/1507–8, that he was travelling from Isfahan to Qazwin while in the process of writing this commentary.68 He dedicated this work to a certain Amīr Niẓām al-Din Maḥmūd.69 After completing it, he commented on Ṭ ūsī’s Twelver Shīʿī creed, Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād. This latter commentary, entitled Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, shows that Nayrīzī was a fierce supporter of Twelver Shīʿism who evidently agreed with the extremist tendencies of the time, as is indicated by the fact that he curses the first three caliphs in the course of the work.70 To the best of

65 The date of his residence in Gīlān (Biya Pīsh) is not explicitly mentioned in his works. The two works that he wrote while living there are undated. The only safe indication is his statement in his commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, completed in 921/1515–6, where he indicates that some ten years earlier, i.e., around 911/1505–6, he had written a work on ithbāt al-wājib at the request of an authority in Gīlān whom he does not identify any further. See above, p. 45, fn. 2. 66 The Kār-Kiyā Sayyids ruled the area from 769/1367–8 onwards. Before seizing power, Shah Ismāʿīl spent six years (899/1494–905/1499) in this region as a refugee. In appreciation of their rulers’ hospitality, he allowed them to retain control of the region after he became Shah. With Shah Ismāʿīl’s support, Aḥmad Kār-Kiyāʾ succeeded in seizing power in Biya Pīsh following his father’s death on 4 Ramaḍān 911/29 January 1506. In his time, Gīlān and particularly Biya Pīsh became an important cultural center. See Khūr Shāh b. Qubād al-Ḥ usaynī, Tārīkh-i Ilchi Niẓām Shāh, eds. Muḥammad Riḍā Naṣīrī & Koichi Haneda, Tehran 1379/2000, pp. 212–6. 67 Nayrīzī’s praise of his patron Nāṣir al-Dīn contains some indications that the latter was a physician and scholar of law. See below Nayrīzī’s introductions to his Ithbāt al-wājib, p. 155 (Appendix I: Inventory of the Nayrīzī’s Writings) and to his glosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-Ishrāq, pp. 179–80 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 68 This is according to Āghā Buzurg al-Ṭ ihrānī, who saw a copy of this work. See Dharīʿa, vol. 13, 141, no. 469. This work was not available to the present author. 69 Dharīʿa, vol. 13, 141, no. 469. 70 See for eg. Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Majlis 3968, f. 294b: 20, where he curses them with ‘ʿalayhim al-laʿna wa-l-ʿadhāb’. Cursing the first three caliphs seems to have been widely practised at the time among qizilbāsh. In 916/1510–11, al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī, who was the legal authority at the court of Shāh Ismāʿīl I, wrote a treatise entitled Nafaḥ āt al-lāhūt fī laʿn al-jibt wa-l-ṭāghūt, in which he legalized it. See Andrew J. Newman, “The Myth of the Clerical Migration to Safawid Iran. Arab Shiite Opposition to ʿAlī al-Karakī and Safawid Shiism”, Die Welt des Islam, 33 (1993), pp. 66–112, esp. p. 79; Abisaab, Converting Persia, pp. 26–7. Cf. Dharīʿa, vol. 24, pp. 250–1 no. 1297.

the philosopher al-nayrīzī

59

our knowledge this commentary is the first Twelver Shīʿī theological work written in the Safavid period, and for this reason it is particularly significant. On 12 Ṣafar 916/20 May 1510, Nayrīzī completed copying and revising his commentary on Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma in Isfahan. At the end of the commentary he adds a note mentioning five of his previous works, namely his commentaries on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād and his Tajrīd al-manṭiq, his commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām, his commentary on ʿAllāma al-Ḥ illī’s Tahdhīb al-aḥ kām, and his commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda.71 On 2 Rabīʿ I 919/8 May 1513 Nayrīzī was in Yazd, for he completed copying and revising his commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād on this date in the congregational mosque of that city. In the same year, he finalized a codex in which he collected and transcribed fifty-seven works written by himself and a number of other scholars in philosophy and theology. He had worked on this codex for seventeen years – the earliest item contained in it is dated in the year 903/1497.72 Moreover, in 921/1515 he was still in Yazd as he records having finished copying and revising his commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, again in the same mosque. Nayrīzī seems to have kept in contact with his colleague Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr al-Dashtakī, the son of his teacher. This is indicated by an approbation note written around 921/1515 by Ghiyāth al-Dīn on Nayrīzī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām, in which he praises this work and acknowledges Nayrīzī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād.73 On 5 Rabīʿ II 930/10 February 1524, Nayrīzī was still in Yazd, completing his commentary on the Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya of Suhrawardī,

71 See Nayrīzī’s colophon at the end of MS Carullah 1327 (f. 218b) as quoted below, p. 171 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 72 See below, p. 193 (Appendix II: Philosophical Writings Copied by Nayrīzī). 73 This approbation note (taqrīẓ) is to be found in MSS Marʿashī 13793/8 and Riḍawī 18410. See below, p. 165 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). There is also a brief note on the last leaf of Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī’s glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-Iʿtiqād in MS Majlis 1761, which runs as follows: “al-Fāḍil al-Nayrīzī Ḥ ājjī Maḥ mūd shāriḥ Tajrīd tilmīdh Ṣadr al-mudaqqiqīn”. ʿAbd al-Ḥ usayn Ḥ āʾirī, the compiler of Volume Ten of the manuscript catalogue of the Majlis Library, suggests that the note is written by Khafrī (Cat., vol. 10 (4), pp. 2106–8). There is, however, no clear evidence to prove his assumption.

60

chapter one

entitled Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī sharḥ ḥ aqāʾiq al-alwāḥ .74 Later on, he found another manuscript of the Alwāḥ which had an additional section not contained in the manuscript(s) that had been available to him before. He therefore expanded his commentary two years later in Jawzā (Rajab-Shaʿbān) 932/May–June 1526.75 On 2 Rabīʿ II 933/25 January 1526, Nayrīzī completed copying Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr al-Dashtakī’s Risāla fī l-Sayr wa-l-sulūk.76 Three days later, on 5 Rabīʿ II 933/9 January 1526, he completed another copy of his own commentary on al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya. This is the latest extant dated note of Nayrīzī. It is not clear how much longer he lived, but he was apparently still alive on 2 Rabiʿ I 943/10 September 1536, when his son produced another copy of the commentary of al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya. This is indicated by the fact that no prayer for his soul follows the mention of his name.77 Although there is no account of Nayrīzī’s death, there is reason to believe that his decease was not due to natural causes, since Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī refers in one his late writings to Nayrīzī as “the very learned martyred” (al-ʿallāma al-shahīd).78 The only student of Nayrīzī who is known by name is Shāh Mīr b. Malik Maḥmūd Jān al-Daylamī, one of Shah Ismāʿil’s viziers.79 Nayrīzī’s son, Muḥammad, was evidently educated and apparently interested in philosophy, and it is likely that he also studied with his father although there is no positive evidence for this. Muḥammad copied his father’s commentaries on Suhrawardī’s al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya80 and on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda,81 as well as the 74 Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī sharḥ ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ , MS Şehid Ali 1739, ff. 208b-209a; cf. below, p. 177 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 75 Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī sharḥ ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ , MS Şehid Ali 1739, f. 213a. 76 Āghā Buzurg states that the manuscript was preserved in a private library in Samarra. See Dharīʿa, vol. 12, p. 284, no. 1910. The current location of this manuscript is unknown. 77 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī sharḥ ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ , MS Şehid Ali 1739, f. 213a. 78 Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, “Taʿlīqāt ʿalā al-Sharḥ al-jadīd li-l-Tajrīd”, in Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, p. 643. There are two versions of this work, the earlier version can be found in MS Riḍawī 444 (Cat., vol. 4, p. 117) and the later version in MS Majis (Sinā) 32 (Cat., vol. 1, p. 16). 79 See above, p. 57. 80 See the colophon of MS Şehid Ali1739, f. 213a. The copy was completed on 2 Rabīʿ I 943/10 September 1536. 81 According to Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh and Iraj Afshār the manuscript (completed on 5 Rajab 940/20 January 1534) was preserved in the private library of Muḥammad Jawād Wājid. Its present location is unknown (Nuskhahā-yi khaṭtị̄ , vol. 5, Tehran 1346/1967, p. 285).

the philosopher al-nayrīzī

61

latter’s commentary on Suhrawardī’s Hayākil al-nūr.82 As he indicates in his commentary on al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādīyya, Nayrīzī had a very close relationship with his son. His grandson, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd, was also involved in copying philosophical and scientific writings. An extant codex copied by him contains Nayrīzī’s commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda as well as some writings of Qūshchī, Dawānī and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī.83 III. Nayrīzī’s Approach to Philosophy and Theology Nayrīzī was one of the few scholars of his time who dealt with philosophy and who also regarded themselves as philosophers. He admired the authoritative Muslim philosophers, namely Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā, in all respects.84 To him – to use his words – rationalism (ʿaql ) corresponds fully with the religious tradition (naql), while philosophy is the Qurʾānic ḥikma, which conveys enormous good (khayran kathīran). It is the most solid way to achieve the greatest happiness announced by the prophets and it is the noblest gift.85

82

Preserved as MS Majlis 1887 (Cat., vol. 5, p. 381). The scribe refers to his name in the colophon of this manuscript (f.106a) as follows: qad tamma kitābatuhu ʿalā yad al-ʿabd al-ḍaʿīf ʿAlī b. Muḥ ammad b. Ḥ ājjī Maḥ mūd al-Nayrīzī. The codex contains (i) Nayrīzī’s commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, (ii) Risāla fī taʿdād al-thawābit al-raṣadiyya wa-masāḥ at al-ʿarḍ wa-l-aflāk wa-l-kawākib (anonymous), (iii) ʿAlī Qūshchī’s Fī bayān iṣtilāḥ āt waqaʿa fī l-ʿilm al-riyāḍī, (iv) Dawānī’s Risāla fī kalimat al-tawḥ īd (or Tahlīliyya) (Persian), (v) Dawānī’s commentary on a ghazal of Ḥ āfiz (Persian), (vi) Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s Ithbāt al-wājib. The entire codex was written by two hands. The first work in the codex (until f. 29b:3) was apparently copied by Nayrīzī’s son, as is suggested by the similarity of the handwriting with MS Şehid Ali 1739, which we know was copied by him. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd thus persumably completed the codex that had been started by his father. 84 Ottoman thinkers who were his contemporaries, such as Muʾayyadzāde (Ibn Muʾayyad) and Kamāl Pāshāzāde (Ibn Kamāl ), under the influence of Ghazālī, were critical of some ideas of the philosophers, such as the eternity of the world, the denial of the bodily resurrection and the universal knowledge of God; see Remzi Demir, ̇ Philosophia Ottomanica. Osmanlı Imparatorluğu Döneminde Türk Felsefesi, Ankara 2005, pp. 45–73. Even Dawānī, who regarded himself as a philosopher, tried to detach himself from Ibn Sīnā and Fārābī’s path. In his Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm, Dawānī criticized Ibn Sīnā and Fārābī for their idea of the eternity of the world and their disagreement with the Islamic belief on bodily resurrection (see Dawānī, “Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm”, in Thalāth rasāʿil, pp. 284–319, esp. 318–9). 85 See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 1b. Alluding to the Qurʾānic usages of the word ḥ ikma, Nayrīzī asserts: wa-ishārahū ilā annahā (= al-ḥ ikma) atqan al-ṭuruq al-mūṣila ilā saʿādat al-ʿuẓmāʾ al-mabʿūth li-al-iʿlām bihā al-anbiyāʾ. Cf. below, p. 170 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 83

62

chapter one

Nayrīzī evidently tried to improve the negative reputation of “the philosophers”. In his commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, for example, he attempts to justify Ibn Sīnā’s position on the issue of bodily resurrection. He quotes from Ibn Sīnā’s al-Shifāʾ, in which the latter argues that there is no way to establish bodily resurrection except by way of religious law and through belief in the report of prophecy. Nayrīzī then says: This is what he [= Ibn Sīnā] says, which shows explicitly that they [i.e., Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā] admit bodily resurrection. Therefore it is not appropriate to regard them [i.e., the philosophers] as unbelievers for this reason, particularly those who were prior to Islam such as Plato and Aristotle. Because, as is apparent from a passage in Naqḍ al-Muḥaṣṣal . . . the books of earlier prophets were not explicit about bodily resurrection, let alone making it part of their fundamental belief.86

Under the assumption that he was following Ibn Sīnā, Nayrīzī suggests that bodily resurrection is a necessary religious belief which is beyond doubt, but that it is not the subject of philosophy since its nature is beyond understanding. He was presumably unfamiliar with Ibn Sīnā’s al-Aḍḥawiyya, in which the latter explicitly opposed bodily resurrection. Nayrīzī bases his argument exclusively on Ibn Sīnā’s assertion in his Shifāʾ.87 Nayrīzī’s respect for Ibn Sīnā and Fārābī prevented him from criticizing them, even when his view differed from theirs. For instance, instead of supporting their notion of the eternity of the world he promotes Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s (theological ) position of the occurrence 86 Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Majlis 3968, f. 306b: 13–6. For the quotation in its original language, see below, p. 198, no. 1 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources). 87 Yahya Michot has pointed out the significance of studying the reception of Ibn Sīnā’s al-Aḍḥ awiyya among later Muslim scholars. See his “A Mamlūk Theologian’s Commentary on Avicenna’s Risāla Aḍhawiyya (Part One)”, Journal of Islamic Studies, 14 ii (2003), pp. 149–203, esp. pp. 152–3. Like Nayrīzī, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr al-Dashtakī argues that Ibn Sīnā believed in bodily resurrection, but he seems to have been referring to al-Aḍḥ awiyya as a work attributed to Ibn Sīnā in which the latter argues against bodily resurrection. He rejects this attribution as being in contradiction with works whose attribution to Ibn Sīnā is certain. See Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Ḥ ujjat al-kalām li-īḍāḥ maḥ ajjat al-Islām, in Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 1, pp. 153–204, esp. 179. Another colleague of Nayrīzī, Mīr Ḥ usayn Maybudī, is explicit about not knowing the nature of Ibn Sīnā’s statement concerning resurrection for which Ghazālī accused him of heresy. He assumes that perhaps Ghazālī drew this conclusion by inferring that bodily resurrection entailed opposition to the eternity of the world, and therefore the philosophers’ argument for the eternity of the world undermines bodily resurrection. See Maybudī, “Jām-i gītī-numā”, p. 111.

the philosopher al-nayrīzī

63

of bodies in time.88 This belief, he states, is shared by Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. At the same time, however, and again like Ṭ ūsī, he argues for the eternity of the intellects (ʿuqūl).89 This shows that he did not object to the notion of the existence of eternal beings apart from God, so long as this did not contradict the scripture. Yet although he argues for the compatibility of reason and religion, Nayrīzī seems to have been concerned that he might be persecuted for his philosophical ideas. At times he expresses the Neo-Platonic idea that philosophy should be kept away from those who do not understand it, as they would do it an injustice. 90 Nayrīzī’s notion of philosophy in his commentary on Suhrawardī’s al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya, which was his last work, appears to be different from that of his previous works. In his introduction to this commentary, Nayrīzī explains that knowledge of the origin (mabdaʾ) and return (maʿād) can be gained in two ways: the way of those who contemplate and deal with arguments (ahl al-naẓar wa-l-istidlāl) with the intention of passing from the state of doubt to that of certainty, and the way of those who practice austerity and spiritual exercises (arbāb al-riyāḍāt wa-l-mujāhadāt) in order to see things as they are and to see the First Light (al-nūr al-awwal, meaning God or the Necessary Existent) and the surrounding lights (al-anwār al-muqarrabīn, meaning angels or the intellects). However, neither of these two ways on its own is sufficient to protect one from the temptations of Satan. He explains that for years he has been a traveller on these two paths and that now in this work he is going to show what he has attained.91 In this commentary, Suhrawardī’s theoretical ideas and arguments are the subject of several criticisms by Nayrīzī, as will be explained below in Chapter Four. But when it comes to Suhrawardī’s visions of the hidden world, Nayrīzī treats him as his shaykh. Indeed, his main efforts in his commentary on the Alwāḥ are devoted to exploring this side of Suhrawardī’s philosophy. Commenting on the mystical passages of the Alwāḥ was like a meditation for him. He states:

88 Commenting upon Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s argument for the occurrence of bodies in time, Nayrīzī asserts: fa-ʿlam anna al-muṣannif qad akhadha madhhab jumhūr al-muslimīn; see Nayrīzī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 3968, f. 173b:18–9. 89 See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, ff. 198a ff. 90 See Nayrīzī’s introduction to his commentary on Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma quoted below, pp. 169–70 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 91 See Nayrīzī’s introduction to his Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī kashf ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ quoted below, pp. 172–3 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings).

64

chapter one Our inadequate knowledge is too little about these spiritual wonders (al-ʿajāʾib al-rūḥāniyya). Yet, contemplation and meditation on them makes us experience some similar divine flashes (al-bāriqāt al-ilāhiyya) and sacred lights (al-anwār al-qudsiyya), while all engagements of our souls with other things diverted our attention and concentration.92

Here, Nayrīzī implies that one of his motivations for commenting upon Suhrawardī’s al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya was to have illuminationist experiences. This mystical tendency is hardly evident in Nayrīzī’s earlier works, including his glosses on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq. It is only in this commentary that Nayrīzī pays respect to the Sufi masters, particularly Abū Yazīd al-Bast ạ̄ mī (d. ca. 261/874) and Ḥ usayn b. Manṣūr al-Ḥ allāj (ex. 309/922).93 Henry Corbin, who was the first modern scholar to study Nayrīzī’s commentary on the Alwāḥ, points to Nayrīzī’s positive attitude towards the Sufis. He refers also to the significance of Nayrīzī’s citing Socrates and Plato in his comment on a saying of Ḥ allāj, which Corbin regards as an indication of his ‘illuminationist’ approach.94 Nayrīzī even approved of the Sufi idea of unification with God (ittiḥ ād), which was a controversial issue and was rejected by the mainstream philosophers, including Ibn Sīnā, and also accepted the Sufis’ musical ceremonies (samāʿ). However, references to Ibn ʿArabī’s thought and terminology are conspicuously absent from Nayrīzī’s works. It seems that he deliberately refrained from applying Ibn ʿArabī’s terminology. Nayrīzī’s teacher, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, had manifested the same attitude towards Ibn ʿArabī’s thought and it is likely that Nayrīzī inherited this view from him. Ṣadr al-Dīn’s notion of wujūd in particular, as will be explained later on, was different from that of the school of Ibn ʿArabī, according to which God was referred to as wujūd.95 It is therefore not surprising that Ṣadr al-Dīn and Nayrīzī distanced themselves from Ibn ʿArabī’s terminology. Another aspect of Nayrīzī’s thought is his adherence to Twelver Shīʿism. This is shown fully in his commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn 92 Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī kashf ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ , MS Şehid Ali 1739, ff. 123b– 4a. For the quotation in its original language, see below, p. 198, no. 2 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources). 93 Nayrīzī shows respect in his comments on the sayings of Ḥ allāj and Abū Yazīd quoted by Suhrawardī in Lawḥ II of al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya. See Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī kashf ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ , MS Şehid Ali 1739, ff. 59a–60a. 94 Corbin, Philosophie iranienne et philosophie comparée, pp. 96–7. 95 See below, pp. 94–9.

the philosopher al-nayrīzī

65

al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād (completed before 916/1510). In his introduction to this work, Nayrīzī explains that for a long time he had wanted to comment on the Tajrīd to free it from all misinterpretations and sophistries of the previous commentaries. But “the lack of fairness and excessive aberration and tendency to envy and enmity” in people hindered him from doing so.96 Eventually Nayrīzī overcame his feeling of vulnerability when Shāh Ismāʿīl I declared Twelver Shīʿīsm to be the state religion: Until the lights of Truth appeared from the horizon of certainty, illuminated the faces of regions with the lights of guidance, and cleansed the deceit of their words about the idols, as well as the deadly dirt of their actions. His noble house [contains] everyone whose religion corresponds to that of Ibrāhīm. He is specifically addressed with “surely thou art upon a mighty morality” [Q 68:6].97 He is the right successor of the prophet and God made a covenant with him and his father with the following divine word: “and We made a covenant with Ibrāhīm and Ismāʿīl: ‘Purify My House for those that shall go about it and those that cleave to it’” [Q 2:125]. He announced with decisive arguments the guidance of the saved sect (al-firqat al-nājiyya) and removed the misguiding traces of the perishing rebellious sects. Thanks be to God who kept His promise, helped His servant, and made his army powerful, took away the sadness from us, and put the enemies of the religion to all kinds of trials. [Then] I pursued my purpose and firmed my intention to distribute its [= Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād’s] benefits and its unique pearls to those who desire [them].98

Instead of referring to Shah Ismāʿīl I explicitly, Nayrīzī prefers here to allude to him by quoting a Qurʾānic verse in which the Shah’s name, Ismāʿīl, is mentioned. There is no indication that Nayrīzī’s commentary is dedicated to the Shah or that it was written at his request. However, Nayrīzī’s endorsement of the people of the Shah’s court as the true followers of Ibrāhīm indicates that he had some contacts with that circle. From the above passage, it is also evident that ‘the saved sect’ (al-firqat

96

See Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Iḥyāʾ-i mīrāth 1849, f. 2b. Translation of the Qurʾānic verses in this book is based on A. J. Arberry’s The Koran Interpreted (London & New York 1955), occasionally with some modifications. 98 See Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Iḥyāʾ-i mīrāth 1849, f. 2b. For the complete introduction of Nayrīzī to his Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid see below, pp. 157–60 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 97

66

chapter one

al-nājiyya)99 was considered by Nayrīzī to be the sect that Shah Ismāʿīl had endorsed, i.e., Twelver Shīʿism.100 Nayrīzī’s work likewise shows that the formation of Shīʿī kalām occurred soon after the emergence of the Safavids.101 The circle around Shah Ismāʿīl I is known to have concerned itself greatly with the practice of Shīʿī law ( fiqh). It was for this reason that ʿAlī al-Karakī was invited to Iran as jurisconsult.102 But besides Shīʿī law, Shīʿī dogma needed attention and it seems that those in power were also aware of this gap. Therfore, any work like the one by Nayrīzī must have been welcome at the time.103 Throughout his commentary Nayrīzī’s positions are those he refers to as the positions of Twelver Shīʿīs (al-Imāmiyya), which often, as he admits, correspond with the views of the Muʿtazilīs. He supports (among others) the Muʿtazilī position that human actions are consequent upon choice (ikhtiyār),104 and that the goodness or badness of our actions can be recognized by human reason (ḥ usn wa-qubḥ ʿaqlī).105 Following the Muʿtazilīs he also rejects the Ashʿarī and Māturīdī notion that the divine attributes exist eternally.106 At the time of Nayrīzī, Ṭ usī’s Tajrīd had been commonly read along with the commentary of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Qūshchī, who explicitly 99 The ‘saved sect’ (al-firqat al-nājiyya) is a doctrinal term infered from a prophetic ḥ adīth according to which among the seventy three sects of the prophet’s nation (umma), only one will be rescued from hell. On this doctrine, see Joseph Van Ess, Der Eine und das Andere. Beobachtungen an islamischen häresiographischen Texten, Berlin 2010. 100 Nayrīzī states the following at the end of his commentary:                       ،                                     .     101 This is much earlier than the time, which has been generally assumed namely, the reign of Shah ʿAbbās. 102 On Karakī’s migration to Iran, see A. Hourani, “From Jabal Amil to Persia”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 49 (1986), pp. 133–40; Newman, “The Myth of the Clerical Migration to Safawid Iran”, pp. 66–112; Devin J. Stewart, “Notes on the Migration of ʿĀmilī Scholars to Safavid Iran”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 55 ii (Apr., 1996), pp. 81–103; Rula Jurdi Abisaab, “The Ulama of Jabal ʿAmil in Safavid Iran, 1501–1736: Marginality, Migration and Social Change”, Iranian Studies, 27 (1994), pp. 103–22. 103 To my knowledge the only study which deals with Shīʿī theologians of the early Safavid period in detail is: Erika Glassen, “Shah Ismāʿīl I. und die Theologen seiner Zeit”, Der Islam, 48 (1972), pp. 254–68, which is however based on bibliographical sources only. 104 See Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Princeton 70, f. 47a ff. 105 See Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Princeton 70, f. 36b ff. 106 See Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Princeton 70, f. 2a ff.

the philosopher al-nayrīzī

67

criticized the Twelver Shīʿī doctrines of Ṭ ūsī, particularly in the chapter on the imamate.107 Nayrīzī’s opposition to Sunnī doctrine becomes most evident in this chapter. He explains there that some Ashʿarīs argue that appointing an imam is obligatory (wājib) for the morally obliged (mukallafūn), since some religious obligations (wājibāt), such as inflicting punishments (ḥ udūd) and waging jihād, can only be authorized in the Muslim community by an imam. Therefore, there must at all times be an imam present in the community. This can only be guaranteed when the imam is chosen by the believers who are under moral obligation. Nayrīzī rejects this line of argumentation by asserting that inflicting punishments and waging jihād do not constitute religious obligations (wājibāt). If they were obligatory, they would not have been linked to a condition, namely the presence of an imam. Nayrīzī maintains the Twelver Shīʿī position that the designation of an imam is not in the hands of men. One of the characteristics of an imam is his being infallible (maʿṣūm), i.e., immune from sin, a quality that is granted to him by God. This criterion, he argues, cannot be recognized by anyone but God. Hence, only God can designate the imam. When there is no imam, Nayrīzī continues to explain, there is nothing that Muslims can do about it. Of course, the community needs an all-powerful sultan (sulṭān qāhir), who takes care of the interests of the community while stopping short of dealing with religious issues.108 To support his argument for the advantage of having an all-powerful sultan, Nayrīzī reminds his readership of the difficult times they experienced before Shah Ismāʿīl I seized power: Because, I say, if the authorities become numerous in directing and handling affairs, it will cause fights and enmity, leading to a breakdown of order and the corruption of this system. This would be just like what we witnessed before as the result of empowering numerous authorities, something which would not possibly be seen at any other time nor even imagined by anyone [under any other circumstances]. This occurred before the emergence of the Imam of this epoch and time, vicegerent (khalīfa) of the Compassionate [i.e. God’s deputy on earth], to whom I referred by name in the beginning of this book, may God perpetuate

107 See ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Qūshchī, Sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, Lithograph Edition by Mulla ʿAbbās ʿAlī, Tabriz 1301/1883, pp. 399 ff. 108 See Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Majlis 3968, ff. 282b–3a.

68

chapter one his shade of mercy over the believers of Islam and let his rule last until the resurrection.109

It is Shah Ismāʿīl I that Nayrīzī refers to as “the Imam of this epoch and time, vicegerent of the Compassionate” [i.e., God’s deputy on earth] (imām hādhā l-ʿaṣr wa-l-awān, khalīfat al-raḥmān). As Newman has pointed out, these titles were widely used at the time for Shah Ismāʿīl I.110 However, in contrast to what has been suggested by Newman, the use of these titles did not necessarily imply any kind of religious authorization for the Shah.111 This is evident from Nayrīzī’s discussion quoted above, in which the divine legislation and even religious affairs per se are excluded for any ruler other than the true imams.112 IV. The Reception of Nayrīzī in the Later Period Nayrīzī seems to have been quite well-known during his lifetime. That he dedicated his Taḥrīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid to Shah Ismāʿīl I indicates that he was established as a scholar at the court. It is possible that this work was even written at the request of the Shah. Moreover, reference 109 The translation of this quotation is based on two manuscripts of Nayrīzī’s Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid: MSS Majlis 3968 (f. 283a: 14–6) and Millī Fārs 55 (f. 140b: 10–6). For the quotation in Arabic, see below, pp. 198–9, no. 4 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources). 110 Newman presents several pieces of evidence: 1) a farmān inscribed in Isfahan’s Friday mosque in 911/1505, in which Shah Ismāʿīl I was described as “khalīfat al-zamān (the Caliph of the age), the spreader of justice and beneficence, al-imām al-ʿādil al-kāmil (the just, the perfect Imam), al-hādī (the guide), al-ghāzī, al-walī . . .”; 2) an inscription on a coin minted in Mashhad in 924/1518 referring to the Shah as al-imām al-ʿādil; 3) in the introduction to his Nafaḥ āt al-lāhūt fī laʿn al-jibt wa-’lṭāghūt completed in 916/1510, ʿAlī b. Ḥ asan al-Karakī praised the Shah as al-imām al-ʿādil. See Newman, “The Myth of the Clerical Migration to Safawid Iran”, pp. 70–1. 111 Newman asserts: “Although such terms as al-imām al-ʿādil (the just Imam) and al-sulṭān al-ʿādil could have secular implications, in Twelver Shii discourse they could also refer to the Hidden Imam himself. Given claims for Ismāʿīl’s identification with other, non-Shiʿi divinities, the use of such terms with reference to the shah only exploited this ambiguity of meaning to bolster Ismāʿīl’s pretensions to the imamate.” See Newman, “The Myth of the Clerical Migration to Safawid Iran”, pp. 71–2. 112 Apart from the discussion of the imamate, Nayrīzī tries to apply his Twelver Shīʿī point of view to other issues. An example of this can be found in his commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda on the issue of God’s speech, where he supports the view of the Muʿtazilīes that speech is not a separate attribute of God, but simply consists in His power to create words in their appropriate places ( fī maḥ allihā). To strengthen this claim, he states that the Muʿtazilīes were followers of the impeccable Imams (al-aʾimma al-maʿṣūmīn) on this issue, as is evident from the Imāmī theological writings. See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, MS Şehid Ali 2761, f. 49b.

the philosopher al-nayrīzī

69

is made to ‘Mawlānā Ḥ ājjī Māḥmūd Nayrīzī’ in Sām Mīrzā Ṣafawī’s Tadhkira-yi Tuḥfa-yi Sāmī, as having been the teacher of ‘Shāh Mīr’ (the son of Malik Maḥmūd Jān), one of Shah Ismāʿīl’s viziers.113 This Shāh Mīr is likely none other than Hibat Allāh al-Ḥusaynī, known as Shāh Mīr, who wrote a commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq (completed in 936/1529),114 glosses on Qut ̣b al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on al-Shamsiyya,115 and a commentary on Qūshchī’s Risāla dar Hayʾa, entitled Tanqiḥ-i maqāla dar tawẓih-i Risāla.116 Among his contemporary philosophers, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr al-Dashtakī is known to have been familiar with Nayrīzī’s commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām as well as with his commentary on Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād. This is known from an approbation note written around 921/1515 by Ghiyāth al-Dīn on Nayrīzī’s commentary on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-lkalām, in which Ghiyāth al-Dīn praises this work and refers to Nayrīzī as the commentator of Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād (shāriḥ al-Tajrīd).117 Moreover, in one of his writings Ghiyāth al-Dīn quotes from Nayrīzī’s glosses on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād an explanation by Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī on the issue of the human soul, which was orally transmitted to Nayrīzī. Here again Ghiyāth al-Dīn refers to Nayrīzī with great respect as ʿālim al-ʿilm al-ʿallāma al-shahīd.118 Nayrīzī’s younger contemporary, Naṣr al-Bayān al-Kāzirūnī (fl. 950/1543–4), was also familiar with some of Nayrīzī’s philosophical views. Evidence for this is his reference to Nayrīzī as al-fāḍil al-kāmil mawlānā al-Ḥājj Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī in his Risāla fī Taḥqīq al-zāwiya, completed in 950/1543–44. There Nayrīzī, along with Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī, is criticised for his view on the angle (al-zāwiya).119 Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Khwājagī, known as al-Shaykh al-Shīrāzī (fl. 953/1546) was another scholar of the time who was familiar with Nayrīzī’s writings. Khwājagī was a Twelver Shīʿī theologian and philosopher who moved in Deccan. In his supercommentary on Dawānī’s

113

Sām Mīrzā Ṣafawī, Tadhkira-yi Tuḥ fa-yi Sāmī, p. 92. Nayrīzī’s name, however, appears erroneously as ‘Ḥ ājjī Māḥmūd Tayrīzī’. 114 Preserved in MSS Princeton 853 and 854 (Cat. (1938), pp. 276–7). 115 Preseved in MS Marʿashī 5471 (Cat., vol. 14, p. 256). 116 Preseved in MSS Dānishgāh 5637 (Cat., vol. 16, p. 51), Majlis 2134 (Cat., vol. 5, pp. 108–10), Gulpāygānī 289 (Cat., vol. 1, p. 250). 117 See below, p. 165 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 118 Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Taʿlīqāt ʿalā al-Sharḥ al-jadīd li-l-Tajrīd, in Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, pp. 643–4. See above, p. 60, and below, pp. 110–1. 119 See Naṣr al-Bayān al-Kāzirūnī, Risāla fī Taḥ qīq al-zāwiya, MS Marwī 877, ff. 43b–8b. For the contents of this work and its other extant manuscripts, see below, p. 154 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings).

70

chapter one

commentary on Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq, Khwājagī addressed the objections made by Nayrīzī to the positions of Dawānī.120 Since Nayrīzī was not active as a teacher, his works were not used for teaching purposes, and were thus not copied by a large number of students. Nevertheless, his Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib and his glosses on Dawānī’s Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥ all shubhat ‘kullu kalāmī kādhib’ were copied by an anonymous contemporary of his, who apparently knew Nayrīzī personally since he offers up a prayer for the latter’s health (MS Malik 688).121 As mentioned before, Nayrīzī himself used to produce copies of his own works. Nayrīzī’s son, Muḥammad b. Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd, and his grandson, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd, also promoted his works by producing copies of them.122 Some of Nayrīzī’s works made their way to the Ottoman Empire, namely his commentary on Suhrawardī’s al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya, his glosses on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, his commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām, his commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, and his commentary on Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma. Among these works, the only extant manuscripts of his commentary on al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya and of his glosses on Suhrawardī’s commentary on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq are preserved in the libraries of Istanbul. One of the extant manuscripts of Nayrīzī’s glosses on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq (MS Laleli 2523) was copied by Ṣadr al-Dīn Zāde Muḥammad Ṣādiq b. Fayḍ Allāh al-Shīrwānī (d. 1120/1708), the grandson of the prominent Ottoman scholar Muḥammad Amīn al-Shīrwānī (d. 1036/1626–7). Muḥammad Ṣādiq was a teacher in several madrasas of Istanbul and Grand Muftī (shaykh al-Islam) of the Ottoman Empire on more than one occasion.123 Among other subjects, Ṣadr al-Dīn Zāde 120 See Muḥammad al-Khwājagī al-Shīrāzī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ al-Dawānī ʿalā Tahdhīb al-manṭiq li-Taftāzānī, MS British Musum Or. 8500. In f. 2a the author states that through out his work he deals with the criticisms of ‘Ḥ ajjī Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī’ and ʿIṣām al-Dīn al-Isfarāyinī (d. 943/1536–7 or 951/1543–4) to Dawānī’s positions. Khwājagī seems to have played a significant role in transmission of philosophical and theological discussions into India. He was for a while under the patronage of the ruler of Ahmadnegar state, Burhān Niẓām Shāh (r. 914/1508–961/1554), who converted to Twelver Shīʿism in 944/1537. Another well-known work of his is a Twelver Shīʿī creed, al-Niẓāmiyya fī madhhab al-Imāmiyya, written at the request of Burḥān Niẓām Shah (ed. ʿAlī Awjabī, Tehran 1375/1996). For other writings of his, see the introduction of Awjabī to his edition of the latter work, pp. 49–56. 121 See below, copyist᾽s colophon of MS Malik 688,6, p. 156 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 122 See above, pp. 60–1. 123 On Ṣadr al-Dīn Zāde Muḥammad Ṣādiq b. Fayḍ Allāh’s life, see Mehmed Şeyhî Efendi, Şekaik-i Nu’maniye ve zeyilleri. Vakayi ül-fuzalâ, ed. Abdülkadir Özcan,

the philosopher al-nayrīzī

71

was evidently interested in logic and philosophy as he copied some works in these fields. His note on the manuscript shows that he had also some vague knowledge of Nayrīzī’s commentary on Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, to which he refers wrongly as ‘Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Ḥ idāyat al-ḥ ikma li-l-Qāḍī Mīr Ḥ usayn al-Maybudī’. Presumably the relatively early transfer of Nayrīzī’s works to the Ottoman Empire was the main reason for the fact that some of his works remained completely unknown to later Iranian philosophers. However, the codex copied by Nayrīzī, containing fifty-seven philosophical and theological works (executed between 903/1497 and 919/1512–3), together with some of his own writings, remained in Iran. The ownership statements of this codex, as recorded by Āghā Buzurg, show that it was in the hands of two philosophers of Isfahan towards the end of the 10th/16th century. In 989/1581–2 the codex belonged to Afḍal al-Din Muḥammad al-Turka al-Iṣfahānī (d. 991/1583–4). Thereafter it was handed over to Muḥammad Bāqir Astarābādī (“Mīr Dāmād”, d. 1041/1631) whose ownership statement is dated 997/1588–9.124 These two renowned philosophers were thus evidently familiar with the two (or possibly more) writings of Nayrīzī contained in the codex, namely his glosses on the Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm of Dawānī and his glosses on the latter’s Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥ all shubhat ‘kullu kalāmī kādhib’.125 Another scholar who was familiar with the works of Nayrīzī is Mīr Sayyid Muḥammad Ashraf al-Ḥ usaynī al-ʿAlawī al-ʿĀmilī (d. 1130/1718). ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī belonged to a family hailing from Isfahan that was known for its philosophical tendencies. His grandfather was the philosopher and scholar Mīr Sayyid Aḥmad al-ʿAlawī (d. between 1054/1644 and 1060/1650), who was the son-in-law of Mīr Dāmād. As the inheritor of these philosophers’ books, ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī seems to have had access to a large library. In his Faḍāʾil al-sādāt, ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī refers once to Nayrīzī’s commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda and adduces the view of Nayrīzī on the meaning of āl (posterity) from this work.126 The impact of Nayrīzī on ʿAlawī

Istanbul 1989, pp. 313–5; Muḥammad Thurayyā, Sijill-i Uthmānī yākhūd Tadhkara-i mashāhīr-i Uthmāniyya, Istanbul 1311/1893–4, vol. 3, pp. 188–9. 124 See Āghā Buzurg al-Ṭ ihrānī, Ṭ abaqāt, vol. 7, p. 244. 125 See below, pp. 193–4 (Appendix II: Philosophical Writings Copied by Nayrīzī). 126 See Muḥammad Ashraf ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī, Faḍāʾil al-sādāt, Lithograph Edition, Tehran 1319/1901, pp. 11–2. For its original place in Nayrīzī’s commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, see MS Şehid Ali 2761, f. 3b: 6–15.

72

chapter one

ʿĀmilī becomes even more evident when reading the latter’s Persian commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, entitled ʿIlāqat al-Tajrīd. In this work, ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī frequently quotes from Nayrīzī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād (he refers to it as sharḥ instead of taḥ rīr), referring explicitly to “Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd Nayrīzī” or simply “Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd”.127 Among all the earlier commentaries on the Tajrid to which he had access, Nayrīzī’s commentary is one of his prominent sources, if not the most prominent. Although ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī’s commentary is written in Persian, he does not hesitate to include numerous quotations from Nayrīzī’s commentary in Arabic. Sometimes, however, he translates his words into, or summarizes his positions in Persian.128 Reading ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī’s ʿIlāqat al-Tajrīd sheds light on specific views of Nayrīzī that are expressed in his commentary on Tajrīd, since he juxtaposes them with the views of other major commentators of the text. ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī’s general attitude towards Nayrīzī is positive. On many occasions he expressly supports Nayrīzī’s views and prefers them to those of others. Moreover, he informs us that his great-grandfather, Mīr Dāmād, held Nayrīzī’s assertions in high esteem.129 The colophon of MS Princeton 70, which contains a fragment of Nayrīzī’s Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, shows that the copy was made for “Muḥammad Ashraf al-Ḥ usaynī”, who must be identical with Muḥammad Ashraf al-ʿAlawī al-ʿĀmilī.130 In his ʿIlāqat al-Tajrīd, ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī indicates that his manuscript of Nayrīzī’s commentary is poor, and that he hopes to be able to correct those quotations that he included in the book with the help of a better manuscript.131 It is therefore plausible that later on ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī found another manuscript of the commentary and asked a scribe to copy it for him from that recension. Apart from ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī, an anonymous later commentator of Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, who was alive in 1091/1680, also consulted the com-

127 For the locations of these quotations see ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī, ʿIlāqat al-Tajrīd, ed. Ḥ āmid Najī Iṣfahānī, Tehran 1381/2002, vol. 2, pp. 1259–60. 128 See, e.g., ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī, ʿIlāqat al-Tajrīd, pp. 117, 130. 129 He writes: jadd-i dāʿī thālith al-muʿallimīn ḥ usn-i ẓannī bi kalām-i ū dāshti ast. See Muḥammad Ashraf ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī, ʿIlāqat al-Tajrīd, vol. 1, p. 233. 130 For the colophon, see below, pp. 162–3 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 131 He writes: Īn ast ān-chi az nuskha-yi Ḥ ājjī Maḥ mūd ki nazd-i īn jānib būd mukhraj shud, in shāʾ Allāh az nuskha-yi aṣaḥ ḥ akmal shawad. See Muḥammad Ashraf ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī, ʿIlāqat al-Tajrīd, vol. 1, p. 182.

the philosopher al-nayrīzī

73

mentary of Nayrīzī. A copy of this commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād is held in the National Library of Iran (MS Millī 2005).132 The impact of Nayrīzī on later scholars needs to be examined on the broader basis of the philosophical and theological works of the following generations, most of which have not yet been studied. Certainly, such an investigation will demonstrate that Nayrīzī was better known among the scholars who came after him than is presently thought.

132 See Cat., vol. 11, pp. 69–70. According to ʿAlī Naqī Munzawī, the author of the catalogue, Nayrīzī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād is referred to there on f. 115b. This manuscript was not however examined by the present author.

CHAPTER TWO

NAYRĪZĪ AND THE TWO STRANDS OF PHILOSOPHY IN SHIRAZ I. The Two Strands of Philosophy in Shiraz The “School of Shiraz” is the label first applied by Henry Corbin to the philosophical activities which took place in Shiraz in the late 9th/15th and early 10th/16th centuries.1 Some later scholars, such as Qāsim Kākāyī,2 Muḥ ammad Barakat,3 and Seyyed Hossein Nasr,4 followed Corbin in using this label. Employing the notion of “school” as a way of grouping together a number of philosophers, though perhaps in some ways justified, can lead to misunderstandings, as in this case. It suggests that these philosophers shared some kind of common doctrine or at least a common doctrinal point of departure. Since this was not the situation with the philosophers of Shiraz, other scholars have been more hesitant to label them a “school”. Instead, they speak of “two strands of philosophy” or “two schools of philosophy” of Shiraz. This approach, adopted by ʿAlī Naqī Munzawī,5 Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī,6 and ʿAlī Awjabī,7 seems to be more appropriate, as most of the philosophers of

1

Henry Corbin, Histoire de la philosophie islamique, pp. 459–61. Kākāyī, “Āshnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Ṣadr al-Dīn Dashtakī”, pp. 82–9; idem, “Āshnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Muḥ aqqiq-i Khafrī”, pp. 60–70; idem, “Āshnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Mīr Ghiyāth al-Dīn Dashtakī (1)”, pp. 83–90; idem, “Āshnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Mīr Ghiyāth al-Dīn Dashtakī (2)”, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 7 (1376/1998), pp. 59–67. 3 Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 9–12. 4 Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present: Philosophy in the Land of Prophecy, New York 2006, pp. 185–208. 5 ʿAli Naqī Munzawī, “Madāris-i Shirāz dar sada-yi nuhum-i hijrī”, Chīstā, 14 ii–iii (1375/1996), pp. 161–75. 6 Farāmarz Qarāmalikī defines them as “two competing schools” (du madrasa-yi/ maktab-i raqīb). See Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī, “Mukātabahā-yi Dawānī u Dashtakī dar ḥall-i muʿammā-yi jadhr-i aṣamm”, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 8–9 (1376/1997), p. 95; the introduction to Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūghgū, ed. Aḥ ad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrifniyā, Tehran 1386/2007, pp. panjāh u chahār-panjāh u panj. 7 Cf. Awjabī’s introduction to Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr al-Dashtakī’s Ishrāq Hayākil al-nūr li-kashf ẓulumāt Shawākil al-gharūr, pp. 88–93. 2

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz

75

the time leaned either towards the thought of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī or that of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī. The two leading philosophers of Shiraz, Dawānī and Dashtakī, held different views on a number of issues, each one criticizing the other on these matters. This conflict is reflected particularly in the following writings of these two philosophers: i) their glosses on ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Qūshchī’s commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, ii) their superglosses on Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s glosses (ḥ awāshī) on Qut ̣b al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār, entitled Lawāmiʿ al-asrār fī sharḥ Maṭāliʿ al-anwār,8 iii) their superglosses on Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s glosses on ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī’s commentary on Ibn Ḥ ājib’s Mukhtaṣar al-muntahā,9 iv) their superglosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī’s al-Shamsiyya,10 and v) their treatises on the proof of existence of the Necessary Existent and His attributes ( fī ithbāt al-wājib wa-ṣifātihi).11 These controversies attracted much attention during their lifetime and continued to be hotly debated for decades after they had died. Despite its evident significance, however, the conflict is not documented in any independent source of the time, and our knowledge of it is mainly restricted to allusions made to it by the two sides involved. The most significant disagreement can be seen in their respective glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād. Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī seems to have been the first of the two to write glosses on

8

See below, pp. 80–1. Neither Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s nor Dawānī’s superglosses on Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s glosses on ʿAḍ ud al-Dīn al-Ījī’s commentary on Ibn Ḥ ājib’s al-Mukhtaṣar al-muntahā are known to be extant. Our knowledge of these superglosses is based on Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s superglosses on Jurjānī’s glosses, where he rejects Dawānī’s criticisms of the respective superglosses of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī. See above, p. 23. 10 Of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s superglosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on the Shamsiyya, at least five manuscripts are extant: MSS Riḍawī 1027 (Cat. vol.1, p. 283), Marʿashī 3844 (Cat. vol. 10, p. 229), Marʿashī 8459 (Cat. vol. 22, p. 48), Dāʾirat al-maʿārif 387 (Cat. vol. 1, p. 84), Dāʾirat al-maʿārif 359 (Cat. vol. 1, p. 84). See Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 23–4. Dawānī’s superglosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on this commentary is published in Shurūḥ al-Shamsiyya (Istanbul n.d., pp. 256–86), where he criticises “Ṣadr al-Shīrāzī”. Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī also wrote superglosses on the same glosses of Jurjānī in which he responded to Dawānī’s criticisms of the respective superglosses of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī. See ʿAbd al-Ḥ usayn Ḥ āʿirī’s description of MS Majlis 3728 (Cat. vol. 22, pp. 202–3). 11 On these superglosses, see below, pp. 116–7. 9

76

chapter two

this commentary.12 The date of completion of this work is unknown and as the glosses were subject to numerous revisions and additions by the author, the majority, if not all the extant copies of this work contain the later recension(s).13 Dawānī’s first set of glosses (al-ḥ āshīya al-qadīma) on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd was completed by 882/1477 or early 883/1478.14 His glosses cover the first and half of the second maqṣad of the commentary, dealing with general issues (al-umūr al-ʿāmma) and substances and accidents (al-jawāhir wa-laʿrāḍ). In these glosses Dawānī paid no particular attention to the glosses of Dashtakī. Soon after its completion, one of Dawānī’s students, Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥ usayn al-Lārī, wrote supplements (mulḥ aqāt) to them.15 After having read Dawānī’s first set of glosses, Ṣadr al-Dīn wrote his second set of glosses on the same work, which he completed in 887/1482. In them he criticized the positions of both Dawānī and Lārī. In the introduction to these glosses, Ṣadr al-Dīn writes: I had first written on al-Sharḥ al-jadīd li-l-Tajrīd (i.e., Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād) what had come to my mind while I was studying, discussing and debating it with others. Then I realized that a

12 This is according to Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī in the introduction to the second set of glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād quoted below. 13 In his Kitāb-shināsī-i Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, ʿAlī Ṣadrāyī Khūyī provides a list of manuscripts of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād (pp. 84–7, 90–2). Ṣadrāyī Khūyī distinguishes two sets of glosses, both of which were written in response to Dawānī’s glosses. The one he suggests as the earlier set is the one dedicated to Sult ̣ān Bāyazīd, a copy of which was given to the Sultan by Muʾayyadzāde in 887/1482. But this cannot have been the first set of glosses, as the first set had been completed by Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī before the completion of Dawānī’s first set of glosses on the same commentary, in 882/1477–883/1478. Thus, none of the manuscripts presented by Ṣadrāyī Khūyī in his bibliography contains Ṣadr al-Dīn’s first set of glosses. Barakat follows Ṣadrāyī Khūyī in his bibliography of this work of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī. See Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 19–23. 14 See above, p. 10. 15 For the manuscripts of Kamāl al-Dīn al-Lārī’s supplement to this work, see Ṣadrāyī Khūyī, Kitāb-shināsī-i Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, pp. 64–8. Only little is known about Lārī, although he seems to have been an outstanding figure in his time. It is to him that Ṣadr al-Dīn refers when in his introduction to his glosses on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād he mentions “one of the greatest and most excellent students” (baʿḍ min ʿuẓamāʾ fuḍalāʾ al-ṭullāb). Lārī taught later on in Shiraz. His extant works are: i) a commentary on Dawānī’s al-Zawrāʾ, entitled Taḥ qīq al-Zawrāʾ, completed in 918/1512–3 (MSS Millī 813/ʿayn (Cat. vol. 8, p. 316), Majlis 3914 (Cat. vol. 10 (4), pp. 1942–3)); and ii) glosses on Shams al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, entitled Taḥ qīq al-Tajrīd (MS Riḍawī 13953). In his commentary on al-Zawrāʾ, Lārī refers to another work of his, which he completed in 913/1507–8 on the uniqueness of the Necessary Existence, entitled Taḥ qīq al-tawḥ īd. See the note on MS Majlis 3914 in Cat. vol. 10 (4), pp. 1942–3. Cf. Ṣadrāyī Khūyī, Kitāb-shināsī-i Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, pp. 56–7.

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz

77

venerable man among the people (baʿḍ ajallat al-nās) (i.e., Dawānī) was mistaken and confused about the text and the commentary, and had altered the context of words in such a way that what was intended by them is lost. Thus he had constructed flimsy conclusions like spiders’ webs. This could deceive a weak student whose first consideration is the speaker rather than what is spoken, and because of his noble position [that student] accepts these unreliable words which are not worthy of attention. I was [also] apprised of what has been written on the book by one of the greatest and most excellent students (i.e., Kamāl al-Dīn al-Lārī), [which showed that] he was unable to distinguish the husk from the kernel or the mirage from water. This motivated me to write for the second time glosses [on that work], in order to do justice to the commentary and its glosses. [In these latest glosses] I deal only with the issues discussed in the commentary and the glosses, and try to explain complexities and difficulties which have baffled scholars.16

Subsequently, a number of oral disputations between the two philosophers took place. In his Tārīkh-i Ḥ abīb al-siyar, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Khwāndmīr (d. 942/1536) explains that every new ruler of Shiraz made it a practice to organize debates between the two, in order to become acquainted with their respective philosophical positions.17 In his Sullam al-Samāwāt, Abū al-Qāsim Kāzirūnī (fl. 1014/1605) indicates that one of these debates took place in the Jāmiʿ ʿatīqī mosque of Shiraz.18 Kāzirūnī also says that “Dawānī in his disputations used to explore and elaborate, whereas Ṣadr al-Dīn often based his arguments on intuitions (ḥ adsiyyāt), and contented himself with some concise allusions and subtle statements (ishārāt-i mūjaz u ʿibārāt-i laṭīfa).”19 As may be seen from his introduction to his glosses on al-Sharḥ al-jadīd li-lTajrīd,20 Dawānī regarded himself as the victor in these disputations. Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī likewise confirms in his Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya that Dawānī was a powerful disputant.21

Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Fâtih 3025, f. 1b. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, pp. 199–200, no. 5 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources). 17 Khwāndmīr, Tārīkh-i Ḥ abīb al-siyar, vol. 3, p. 603. 18 Abū l-Qāsim Kāzirūnī, Marqūm-i panjum–i kitāb-i Sullam al-Samāwāt: dar sharḥ -i aḥ wāl-i shuʿarāʾ u chakāma-sarāyān u dānishmandān, ed. Yaḥyā Qarīb, Tehran 1340/1961, pp. 126–7. 19 Kāzirūnī, Sullam al-Samāwāt, vol. 5, p. 126. 20 See below, pp. 79–80. 21 See Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, “Kashf al-ḥ aqāʿiq”, in Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, p. 986, where Ghiyāth al-Dīn says that the astrological sign of Dawānī supported his power of disputation (quwwat al-mujādala). 16

78

chapter two

In addition to these oral disputations, Dawānī and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī also corresponded with each other. One of the issues on which they exchanged letters was the liar paradox. This paradox is a famous piece of sophistry dating from antiquity, according to which the statement “I am lying” or “what I say is a lie” is said to be neither true nor false or both true and false.22 This paradox was known from early on among Muslim philosophers and theologians.23 But nowhere did the liar paradox arouse as much interest as it did among the philosophers of Shiraz. Their correspondence on this subject24 is extant in the form of four fragments (without an introduction or a proper ending). The arrangement of these fragments in the manuscript tradition suggests that Dawānī was the one who initiated the correspondence with his solution of the paradox (Fragment One). Thereupon Ṣadr al-Dīn criticised Dawānī’s view (Fragment Two). Dawānī responded to this (Fragment Three), which was then again refuted by Dashtakī (Fragment Four).25

22

The oldest known version of the liar paradox is attributed to the Greek philosopher Eubulides of Miletus who lived in the fourth century BC. On the origin of the paradox and its development in Medieval European logic, see Paul Vincent Spade, ‘The Origins of the Mediaeval Insolubilia-Literature’, Franciscan Studies, 33 (1973), pp. 292–309, reprinted in his Lies, Language and Logic in the Later Middle Ages, London, 1988; ‘Insolubles’, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Stanford, 2005 (URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2005/entries/ insolubles/). For a survey of discussions on the liar paradox in the Islamic lands until the mid-seventh/mid-thirteenth century, see Ahmad Alwishah & David Sanson, “The Early Arabic Liar: The Liar Paradox in the Islamic World from the Mid-Ninth to the Mid-Thirteenth Centuries CE”, Vivarium, 47 (2009), pp. 97–127. 23 Farāmarz Qarāmalikī traced the discussions of this paradox in the writings of some early Muslim philosophers and theologians, namely Fārābī, ʿAbd al-Jabbār Hamadānī (d. 415/1024), and ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī (429/1038). See Aḥ a d Farāmarz Qarāmalikī’s introduction to Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūgh-gū, p. hashtād u du. 24 According to Farāmarz Qarāmalikī they were described as a mudhākira in the earliest manuscript of the work, copied presumably close to the time of their composition (MS Riḍawī 877). See Farāmarz Qarāmalikī’s introduction to Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūgh-gū, pp. haftād u panj-haftād u shish. 25 These four fragments have been edited twice, first by Ḥ āmid Nājī Iṣfahānī, in Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, Rasāʾil-i falsafī-i Ṣadr al-mutaʾallihīn, Tehran 1375/1996, pp. 467–76 (on the basis of MS Dānishgāh 1257) and then by Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī in “Mukātabahā-yi Dawānī u Dashtakī dar ḥ a ll-i muʿammāyi jadhr-i aṣa mm”, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 8–9 (1376/1997), pp. 95–101 (on the basis of MSS Riḍawī 877, Marʿashī 6025, Dānishgāh 6616, Dānishgāh 1257). The latter edition of these fragments is again included in Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūghgū, ed. Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī [in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā], pp. 17–25, 93–100.

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz

79

Eventually each of the two scholars wrote a separate treatise on the issue, including a more detailed criticism of the other.26 In around 893/1488, Dawānī wrote a second set of glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on the Tajrīd, which he entitled “The Outlines of the Veils and Exaltations of the Glosses” (Tajrīdāt al-ghawāshī wa-tashyīdāt al-ḥ awāshī). In them he first quotes on each issue the entire counter-argument of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, to whom he refers as “the opponent” (al-muʿtariḍ),27 followed by his own response.28 In these glosses he also incorporates the entire correspondence on the liar paradox together with additional remarks on Ṣadr al-Dīn’s position. This in turn motivated Ṣadr al-Dīn to revise his glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, and to add some new glosses in response to the new glosses of Dawānī.29 A few years later, Dawānī also revised his glosses on the commentary. In the introduction to this revised version he states: A long time ago, I wrote glosses on al-Sharḥ al-jadīd li-l-Tajrīd (i.e., al-Ḥ āshiya al-qadīma), which became widely circulated and popular. Consequently, the blood of anger and jealousy pulsated in the veins of one of the people of the region, who then took measures on the one hand, by fabricating and altering the context of [my] words, and on the other, by presenting some sophistries and criticisms containing contentions and arguments [regarding my positions]. So I set about refuting those sophistries and clarifying my positions, and appended treatises to the glosses, naming them Tajrīdāt al-ghawāshī wa-tashyīdāt al-ḥ awāshī (“The Outlines of the Veils and Exaltations of the Glosses” i.e., al-Ḥ āshiya al-jadīda). These treatises became popular with students and were circulated among friends. Thereupon, the two sides exchanged views several times through which I was able to contact him in person.

26 Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s treatise on the liar paradox, entitled Risāla fi shubhat Jadhr al-Aṣamm, is edited by Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī in Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 5–6 (1375/1997), pp. 74–82. The treatise of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, entitled Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥ all shubhat ‘kull-u kalāmī kādhib’, is also edited by Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī in Nāma-yi mufīd, 2, i (1375/1996), pp. 97–134. Editions of both texts are again reprinted in Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūghgū, ed. Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī [in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā], pp. 27–62, 101–55. 27 See Dawānī, “Al-muntakhab min ḥ āshiyatihi ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd li-l-tajrīd”, Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūghgū, ed. Ahad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī [in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā], p. 121, where Ṣadr al-Dīn is referred to as al-muʿtariḍ. 28 The date of completion of this work can be estimated roughly on the basis of the colophon of MS Riḍawī 19827 (f. 268b), which contains a copy of this work transcribed from the autograph of Dawānī in 943/1537. The scribe states that Dawānī completed this work fifty years earlier. 29 See above, pp. 76–7.

80

chapter two Then after a while I became ill, which prevented me from doing even simple things, let alone carrying out discussions or disputations. He then resumed those arguments and sophistries, taking up his earlier positions, repeating the same arguments, criticizing [me] harshly and insisting on his view. He thought that no one would later challenge what he said, and forgot the subtle ways of destiny. These [reiterations of his views] spread among a small number of savage sectarians, whom he gathered around [himself] with his false promises. They covered their slates with these words and wasted their quires. [But] he did not propose anything new. Stripped of the viciousness of repetition, those harsh arguments would have conveyed nothing but the same old invective. He combined these false and incoherent sophistries like someone who makes clothes from the reverse side of cloth and presents it for sale. However, it is very unlikely that “the camel passes through the needle of the tailor” [Q 7:40]. They [i.e., those sophistries] do not rise from the ground and do not even move a jot. My companions requested that I should present the truth, remove the veil from the sight of observers and eliminate doubtful points from the path of the students, particularly those who are innocently mistaken. At first I was hesitant to waste my precious time on reading such poor arguments – this kind of investigation was for those with weaker minds. Moreover, I am not like those people who only feel satisfied when theirs is the final word [on a subject], regarding their own view as bringing the matter to a close. Nonetheless, when they repeatedly persisted [in this request], I began [to write] it, spending [only] some of my spare time on it, regarding it as an entertainment and something to keep me away from boredom.30

As is evident from the above quotation, the conflict between the two had reached its peak at this point, for now Dawānī no longer shows any respect for Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, referring to him simply as “one of the people of the region” (baʿḍ ahl al-balad) and dismissing his criticism as sophistry based on taking words used by Dawānī out of their context. Echoes of these disputations are also to be found in their respective superglosses on Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s glosses (ḥ awāshī) on Qutḅ al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ

30 The translation of this quotation is based on MSS Riḍawī 19827 (f. 1b) and Majlis 1999 (f.1b). For the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 200, no. 6 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources).

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz

81

al-anwār, entitled Lawāmiʿ al-asrār fī sharḥ Maṭāliʿ al-anwār.31 But here Dawānī was the first to write superglosses on Jurjānī’s ḥ awāshī, entitled Tanwīr al-Maṭāliʿ.32 Thereupon, Ṣadr al-Dīn wrote his superglosses, in which he objects to the positions of Dawānī.33 Dawānī then wrote the second set of superglosses, defending his positions against Ṣadr al-Dīn’s objections. Thereupon, the latter replied with another set of superglosses, again rejecting Dawānī’s positions. In this work, he also includes some counter-arguments by his son, Ghiyaṭh al-Dīn. Again, Dawānī did not leave these glosses unanswered. He composed a third set of glosses, in which he dealt with both Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s glosses and the arguments formulated by his son. This set of superglosses is entitled Tanwīr al-Maṭāliʿ wa-tabṣīr al-maṭāliʿ (or Taʿwīdh al-maṭāliʿ wa-tabṣīr al-maṭāliʿ).34 In the introduction to this last set of superglosses, Dawānī still refers to Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī as “one of the learned nobles” (baʿḍ al-fuḍalāʾ al-ashrāf ) and to his son as his true successor (khalaf ṣidq).35 Dawānī continued to write about these controversial issues after Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s death. His Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥ all ‘shubhat kulli kalāmī kādhib’ and his Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda were both written after Ṣadr al-Dīn’s death. However, in these writings Dawānī no longer polemicizes against Ṣadr al-Dīn, as he had done when the latter was alive. Instead he rather criticizes Ṣadr al-Dīn’s view indirectly, sometimes not even ascribing it to a specific person.

31

One of the topics of debate between the two, both in their respective glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād and in their respective superglosses written on Jurjānī’s glosses on the commentary of Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār, is that of mental existence (al-wujūd al-dhihnī). In his Ḥ āshiya ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd li-Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād (MS Majlis 1999, f. 107a), Dawānī alludes to the way this discussion developed between him and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī in their respective glosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on the commentary of Maṭāliʿ al-anwār. For detailed discussion of the views of these two scholars on mental existence, see below, pp. 99–101. 32 This set of glosses is preseved in MS Majlis 3908 (Cat. vol. 10 (4), pp. 1935–6). 33 MSS Riḍawī 990 (Cat. 1/316), Dānishgāh 6802 (Cat. vol. 16, p. 363), Marʿashī 7312/3 (Cat. vol. 19, p. 103), Escorial 684 (Cat. vol. 1, p. 483) contain the superglosses of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī on Jurjānī’s glosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār. According to the respective catalogues the beginnings of all these treatises are the same, yet it is unclear whether they contain the first or the revised version of the superglosses. 34 See ʿAbd al-Ḥ usayn Ḥ āʾirī’s description of MS Majlis 3728 (Cat. vol. 10 (4), pp. 1707–10). In the catalogue, however, the date of the completion of this work appears erroneously as 986/1578–9, the correct date might be 896/1490–1. 35 I base myself here on ʿAbd al-Ḥ usayn Ḥ āʾirī’s description of MS Majlis 3728, which contains this work (Cat. vol. 10 (4), pp. 1707–10).

82

chapter two

Chronological outline of the philosophical disputes between Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī

Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī First set of glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād

882–3/1477–8 First set of glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād 887/1487

Second set of glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād First set of glosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on Qut ̣b al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār Glosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on Quṭb alDīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār Second set of glosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār First set of glosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on Ījī’s commentary on Ibn Ḥ ājib’s al-Mukhtaṣar al-muntahā Glosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on Ījī’s commentary on Ibn Ḥ ājib’s alMukhtaṣar al-muntahā Correspondence on the liar paradox Second set of glosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on Ījī’s commentary on Ibn Ḥ ājib’s alMukhtaṣar al-muntahā New edition of glosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ alanwār

896/1490–1

Second set of glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary of Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād Third set of glosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on Qut ̣b al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār New edition of the second set of glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād New edition of the second set of glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd aliʿtiqād Treatise on the liar paradox (Risāla fi shubhat Jadhr al-Aṣamm)

903/1497

908/1502

Death of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī Treatise on the liar paradox (Nihāyat alkalām fī ḥ all shubha ‘kullu kalāmī kādhib’) Death of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz

83

In the introduction to his last set of glosses on the Tajrīd, Dawānī states that at that time, not only Dashtakī but also some of his students, to whom he refers as “savage sectarians” (hamaj al-shuʿūbiyya), were opposing him.36 The only student of Ṣadr al-Dīn who can safely be assumed to have been among those to whom Dawānī is referring is Ṣadr al-Dīn’s son, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr. As mentioned before, in the controversies between his father and Dawānī on Jurjānī’s glosses on the commentary on the Maṭāliʿ al-anwār as well as those on the glosses on the commentary on the Tajrīd, Ghiyāth al-Dīn had suggested to his father some criticisms of Dawānī’s positions. Ṣadr al-Dīn had accepted these and incorporated them into his glosses on the Maṭāliʿ and the Tajrīd. Moreover, at about that time, Ghiyāth al-Dīn wrote his refutations of Dawānī’s Shawākil al-ḥ ūr fī sharḥ Hayākil al-nūr, Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm and al-Zawrāʾ in order to undermine the latter’s credibility.37 After his father’s death and while Dawānī was still alive, Ghiyāth al-Dīn completed his Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ al-Tajrīd, in which he justified the positions of his father against those of Dawānī. Into this Ḥ āshiya, Ghiyāth al-Dīn incorporated a treatise on the liar paradox.38 Evidently his intention was not to suggest something new – his position on the liar paradox was no different from that of his father– but to undermine Dawānī’s position, even if only by rhetorical means. In his criticisms of Dawānī, Ghiyāth al-Dīn used sarcastic and at times even offensive language, such as when he refers to Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī as al-ajilla wa-l-dawānī meaning literally the most glorious and cheapest person.39 It seems that he was emotionally involved in the dispute. In his Fārs-nāma, Mīrzā Ḥ asan Fasāyī (d. 1316/1898) narrates an account that suggests that Dawānī did not take the young Ghiyāth al-Dīn seriously: In a majlis in which many philosophers and scholars were present, Amīr Ghiyāth al-Dīn, who was at that time eighteen, asked Dawānī some

36

See above, pp. 79–80. See above, p. 29. 38 This part of Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād has been edited in Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūghgū, ed. Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī [in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā], pp. 159–261. 39 See Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Tajrīd al-Ghawāshī (section on the Liar paradox), in Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūghgū, ed. Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī [in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā], p. 160. For his sarcastic and offensive words against Dawānī in his Ishrāq Hayākil al-nūr, see ʿAlī Awjabī’s introduction to the edition of this work, pp. 92–3. 37

84

chapter two scientific question, with the intention of debating with him. But Dawānī refrained from answering. Amīr Ṣadr al-Dīn, the father of Manṣūr, became angry and, addressing Dawānī, said: “My son is talking to you”. Dawānī replied: “You yourself answer, so that I may know what your position is”.40

Following Dawānī’s death, Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s animosity gradually subsided. In his Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya, written nearly forty years after Dawānī’s death, he refers to him respectfully as al-mawlā al-fāḍil: Ab al-ābāʾ [i.e., my father], Ṣadr al-Dīn Muḥ ammad, [who was] the sayyid of the greatest philosophers, and al-mawlā al-fāḍil Jalāl al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Dawānī, peace be upon them, had some disputations and debates with each other on the sciences. Anyone who intends to know which one of them was more correct and true should look into their writings carefully so that it becomes clear to him that my father was right. If he is unable to do that, he should look into my evaluations of them. If he is unable to do that either, there are other ways [for him to find out who was right] such as by means of astrology (aḥ kām al-nujūm) . . . and physiognomy ( firāsa).41

Besides Ghiyāth al-Dīn, two other students of Ṣadr al-Dīn contributed to the subjects under dispute, namely Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī and Najm al-Dīn al-Nayrīzī. In his ʿIbrat al-fuḍalāʾ fī ḥ all shubhat ‘kullu kalāmī kādhib’, Khafrī criticises Dawānī’s solution of the liar paradox, though he refers to him respectfully as al-Ḥ aḍrat al-Jalāliyyat al-Muḥ ammadiyya jallat ifādātuhu.42 In another treatise that he wrote on the subject years later, entitled Ḥ ayrat al-fuḍalāʾ fī ḥ all shubhat jadhr al-aṣamm, he suggests five solutions for the paradox, among them – apparently the one he considered the most profound – that of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī.43

40

Ḥ asan Fasāyī, Fārs-nāma, vol. 1, p. 142. Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, “Kashf al-ḥaqāʾiq al-Muḥammadiyya”, in Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, pp. 985–7. 42 See Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī, “ʿIbrat al-fuḍalāʾ fī ḥall shubhat ‘kullu kalāmī kādhib’”, ed. Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 4 (1375/1996), p. 87; Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūghgū, ed. Farāmarz Qarāmalikī [in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā], p. 266. 43 This solution, which Khafrī explicitly described as bi-izāʾ al-jawāb alladhī mansūb ilā sayyid al-muḥ aqqiqīn (i.e., Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī) is more credible according to Khafrī than the others. See Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūghgū, ed. Farāmarz Qarāmalikī [in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā], p. 304. 41

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz

85

Khafrī also wrote critical superglosses on Dawānī’s al-Ḥ āshīya al-qadīma ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd li-Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād.44 As one of the most celebrated students of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Nayrīzī was actively involved in the disputes with Dawānī. While his teacher was still alive, Nayrīzī wrote his Ḥ āshīya ʿalā Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, in which he elaborated on the view of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī in response to Dawānī’s criticisms.45 At about the same time Nayrīzī wrote a commentary on Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma (completed in 904/1498) in which he criticised Dawānī’s view on the existence of the Necessary Existent. But unlike Ghiyāth al-Dīn, Nayrīzī refers to Dawānī respectfully as hādhā l-qāʾil al-muḥ aqqiq.46 Nayrīzī continued commenting on the issues which had been a matter of dispute between Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī and Dawānī even after the latter’s death. Throughout his commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, Nayrīzī mainly deals with their disagreements in their respective glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād. Nayrīzī’s positions as a rule are close to those of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī. In his glosses on Dawānī’s Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥ all shubhat ‘kullu kalāmī kādhib’, he defends the view of his teacher against that of Dawānī.47 In his Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib he deals with Dawānī’s proofs of the existence of the Necessary Existent as presented in the latter’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-qadīma.48 Nayrīzī also wrote a critical commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda. In the introduction to this commentary, he writes that after reading the Risāla, he realized that in contrast to what Dawānī claims, the latter’s arguments in this work were not in agreement with the views of the fair observers (dhawī l-abṣār al-nāqida). Therefore, Nayrīzī opposed in his commentary what he found in Dawānī’s Risāla to be against the established views of the early philosophers. Nevertheless, his intention, as he explicitly states, was not to contradict or devaluate Dawānī’s Risāla, but to comment upon and analyze it.49 In this commentary, he

44 See ʿAbd al-Ḥ usayn Ḥ āʾirī’s description of MS Majli 1736 (Fihrist-i kitābkhāna-yi majlis-i Shūrā-yi millī, 5/139–40), which contains these superglosses. For other manuscripts of this work, see Barakat, Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, pp. 182–3. 45 Nayrīzī’s “Ḥ āshiya ʿalā l-Tajrīd” is mentioned by Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, see Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, pp. 643–4. Otherwise, the Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād is unknown and seems to be lost. See below, pp. 110–1. 46 See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 177a:18. 47 See below, p. 129. 48 See below, pp. 115–8. 49 See below, pp. 129–31.

86

chapter two

again supports the views of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī on all the issues where the latter’s views differed from those of Dawānī. He also refers at times to the views of Ghiyāth al-Dīn. Discussing the issue of God’s knowledge, for instance, he explicitly mentions the view of Ghiyāth al-Dīn by saying ʿalā mā huwa madhhab al-Manṣūr fī l-ʿilm.50 Many students and younger colleagues of Dawānī refrained from supporting his side in the controversies, at least in writing. Dawānī’s most renowned student, Mīr Ḥ usayn al-Maybudī, does not deal with these issues in those works of his which have so far been identified. Another of Dawānī’s students, Ilāhī Ardabīlī, who refers to his master as ustādh al-aqāṣī wa-l-adānī, does not hesitate to criticize him in his own glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād and in his commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda.51 II. The Main Subjects of the Dispute between the Two Strands of Philosophy The respective glosses of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād cover only the first two chapters of the book, i.e., those dealing with general ontology (al-umūr al-ʿāmma) and with substances and accidents (al-jawāhir wa-l-aʿrāḍ). But the dispute between the two went beyond the narrowly defined subjects of these chapters and covered various themes from the fields of logic (such as the Liar Paradox), ontology (such as the issues related to essence and existence), epistemology (such as issues related to mental existence, al-wujūd al-dhihnī), and psychology (such as the separablity of the soul, tajarrud al-nafs). A comprehensive study of their dispute can only be undertaken once critical editions of all the philosophical works related to the issues involved become available. In the following pages, a brief outline of the most prominent issues debated between them will be given.

50

See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, MS Şehid Ali 2761, f. 34b:5. Neither Sharḥ Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda nor Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ al-jadīd li-Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād of Ilāhī Ardabīlī were at my disposal. I therefore relied on ʿAbd al-Ḥ usayn Ḥ āʾirī’s descriptions of MS Majlis 1762 (Ḥ āshiyat sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād) (Cat. vol. 5, pp. 140–2) and MS Majlis 1841 (Sharḥ Ithbāt al-wājib) (Cat. vol. 5, pp. 301–2). Ilāhī Ardabīlī’s philosophical writings have yet to be studied. 51

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz

87

II.i. The Liar Paradox In their glosses on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd as well as in the treatises they wrote specifically on the liar paradox, Dawānī and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī both present a survey of the solutions of the earlier scholars to this paradox. The scholars whose views they discuss are: 1) Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī, 2) Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī al-Qazwīnī, 3) Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī, 5) Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī, 5) Ibn Kammūna, and 6) Shams al-Dīn Samarqandī.52 In each case they first analyze their respective solutions and then reject their validity. Next, after discussing of the solutions of previous scholars, they present the view of their contemporary opponent and reject it extensively, adducing several arguments. Finally, they outline their own solution of the paradox. Dawānī, who formulates the paradox as “Whatever I say at this moment is a lie” (kullu kalāmī fī hādhihi l-sāʾa kādhib), argues that this is not a statement (khabar), although structurally it resembles a statement. He explains that every statement (khabar) has a truth value: i.e., it is either true or false. It is true when the thing the statement indicates corresponds with the reality (al-wāqiʿ) and it is false when it doesn’t. The problem with the paradoxical sentence is that, on the one hand it purports to indicate something, as all genuine statements do, on the other hand its relation to the thing indicated is sabotaged from within. Therefore, it is not a statement (khabar) and it cannot have a truth value.53 Ṣadr al-Dīn, by contrast, treats the sentence as a statement. His formulation of the liar paradox is “Whatever I say today is a lie” (kullu kalāmī al-yawm kādhib) and he argues that there is a difference between first order statements and second order statements, which

52 Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī and Dawānī both took Taftāzānī’s solution from the latter’s commentary on his own Maqāṣid. For Kātibī’s solution, both relied on his Sharḥ al-Kashf, which is a commentary on Afḍal al-Dīn al-Khūnajī’s (d. 646/1248) Kashf al-asrār ʿan ghawāmiḍ al-afkār fī l-manṭiq. Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s solution is taken by Dawānī from Ṭ ūsī’s Taʿdīl al-miʿyār fī naqd tanzīl al-asrār, whereas Ṣadr al-Dīn’s source for this solution was an unidentified work of ʿAllāma Ḥ illī. For Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s solution, Dawānī refers to his source as “some folios” (baʿḍ al-awrāq). Dashtakī’s source for the latter’s solution is an unidentified work of Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Jurjānī. They both took Ibn Kammūna’s solution from his correspondence with Kātibī (which is lost). Samarqandī’s solution is taken by both from the latter’s commentary on his own Qisṭās. See Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s “Risāla fi shubhat jadhr al-aṣamm” and Dawānī’s “Nihāyat al-kalām”, in Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūghgū, pp. 28–35, 103–19. 53 See Dawānī, “Nihāyat al-kalām”, pp. 136–8.

88

chapter two

are statements about statements, e.g., “The statement of Zayd is true”. Ṣadr al-Dīn explains that the truth value of second order statements depends on that of the first order statements they are about. For as long as we don’t know what Zayd said, we don’t know the truth value of the statement of the statement. Likewise, Ṣadr al-Dīn continues, “Whatever I say today is a lie” is a second order statement whose truth value depends on the truth value of “whatever I say today” (kalāmī al-yawm). Since there is no way to know whatever I say today, the truth value of the second order statement about whatever I say today is unknown. Therefore the statement is neither true nor false.54 Dawānī was eventually to reject Ṣadr al-Dīn’s distinction between first and second order statements, but he argued that even if the distinction be granted, the paradoxical sentence would have a determinate false value and not a suspended truth value as Dashtakī suggested. It is false because of the nonexistence of the subject (bi-intifāʿ al-mawḍūʾ). Just as if Zayd says nothing, it is false to say “the statement of Zayd is true” or “the statement of Zayd is false”. 55 II.ii. The Distinction between Wujūd and Mawjūd In his al-Zawrāʾ, completed by 871/1467, Dawānī uses two analogies to explain the relation between the cause (al-ʿilla) and the caused (al-maʿlūl ): (1) that of the relation between a body ( jism) and the colour black, and (2) that of the relation between cloth (quṭun: cotton) and garment (thawb): Enlightening (tabṣira): The caused is therefore not a purely mental construction (iʿtibāriyyan maḥ ḍan). Considering it with respect to its relation with its cause, it is real (kāna lahu taḥ aqquqan) and considering it as an independent essence, it is non-existent or even impossible (kāna maʿdūman bal mumtaniʿan). Analogy (tashbīh): If the colour black is considered with respect to its being in the body, that is, being a disposition (hayʾa) of a body, it is existent (mawjūd), and if it is considered as an independent essence it is non-existent (maʿdūman) or rather impossible (mumtaniʿan). If the garment (al-thawb) is considered as a form of cloth (or cotton: quṭun) it is existent (mawjūd), and if it is considered as something distinct (mubāyin) from cloth with a separate essence it is impossible. Take this as a criterion for all the realities. Com-

54 55

See Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, “Risāla fī shubhat jadhr al-aṣamm”, pp. 55–6. See Dawānī, “Nihāyat al-kalām”, pp. 136–8.

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz

89

prehend the meaning of this word that “the fixed ideas did not [even] catch the scent of existence, neither did they become manifest. Indeed, they will never become manifest; what is manifest is merely their image (al-aʿyān al-thābita mā shammat rāʾiḥ at al-wujūd wa-annahā lam taẓhir wa-lā taẓhiru abadan bal innamā yaẓhiru rasmuhā)”.56

These two novel analogies suggest that Dawānī was trying to explain the relation between the cause and the caused in a manner that was different from that of his predecessors. But from the text of al-Zawrāʾ itself it is not entirely clear what Dawānī intended to say. His likening the relation of the cause and the caused to a relation of substance and accident – in the case of the body and the colour black – and to a relation of matter and form – in the case of garment and cotton – complicates the issue rather than clarifying it. In the autocommentary on this text (entitled al-Ḥ awrāʾ), which he composed a year later, in 871/1467, the above passage is explained as follows: This means that each one of the inner realities (al-ḥ aqāʾiq)57 when considered as an independent essence apart from the essence of its cause, as by some narrow-minded people, is impossible in respect of existence (wujūdan) and in respect of [concrete] manifestation (ẓuhūran). First, nothing other than the True (al-ḥ aqq), who is necessary in Himself, can plausibly be called existent in the true sense (mawjūdan ḥ aqīqiyyan). Secondly, appearance originates from being related to the existence of the True (al-wujūd al-ḥ aqq)58 and these [inner realities] are supposed to have an essence other than His. Therefore, it is not conceivable that they are related to Him. But if they are considered as being a consequence of Him (tābiʿatan lahā) and subsisting through Him (qāʾimatan bihā), they are existent (mawjūd) in the sense that they are related to the existence (wujūd), or they are apparent (ẓāhir).

56 Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, “al-Zawrāʾ”, in Sabʿ rasāʾil, pp. 174–5. In his commentary on al-Zawrāʾ, Dawānī treats the last sentence of the above passage as a quotation, although he does not specify from whom it derives. See Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, “al-Ḥ awrāʾ” [Sharḥ al-Zawrāʾ], in Sabʿ rasāʾil, p. 207. The first part of this quotation (i.e., “The fixed ideas did not [even] catch the scent of existence”) is extracted from Ibn ʿArabī’s Fuṣūṣ al-ḥ ikam (ed. Abu al-ʿAlā al-ʿAfīfī, Beirut [1966], p. 76:12–3) and the rest seems to be a clarification by one of Ibn ʿArabī’s followers. 57 Ḥ aqīqa, which is translated in the above quotation as “inner reality”, is here and often in the philosophical texts after Ibn Sīnā interchangeable with māhiyya (quiddity). 58 The edition of Tūysirkānī has al-mawjūd al-ḥ aqq instead of al-wujūd al-ḥ aqq. The latter, which I prefer, is the reading of MS Majlis 1836, mentioned by Tūysirkānī in the critical apparatus.

90

chapter two The fixed ideas (al-aʿyān al-thābita), that is to say these inner realities (al-ḥ aqāʾiq), when they are considered on their own by [the faculty of] estimation (wahm), do not exist. For instance, the fixed idea of the human being, which is a quiddity (māhiyya) separate from the True (al-ḥ aqq), who is described by specific attributes (al-muttaṣif bi-l-ṣifāt al-makhṣūṣa), does not exist at all, [nor] does any inner reality attach to its impossibility (lā ḥ aqīqata li-istiḥ ālatahu). That is not in the sense that it is related to existence, since in this respect [i.e., conceived of as a separate, independent quiddity] it does not have any relation with existence. But it is as if the True tinges ( yanṣabigh) it, in the sense that His image (rasmahū) appears in it. [Then] separate from its essence it is described as existent (mawjūd), in the sense that it belongs to the existence (yataʿallaqu bi-lwujūd). The existent (al-mawjūd) according to the truth-seekers is that whose inner reality (ḥ aqīqa) is existence (wujūd). Others do not exist in the true sense, since existence is not a description to subsist through others. Rather, it is a true essence. Of course there are existents other than Him, [but only] in the sense that they depend on existence and their appearance is through Him.59

In sum, in the above passage Dawānī asserts that only the True (al-ḥ aqq), whose existence is His essence, is truly existent. Other beings, given that they are all caused, are only existent in the sense that the True tinges (inṣabagha) them. By using the verb “to tinge” he wants to say that existence is not part of the essence of a caused being. Dawānī therefore disagrees with the Avicennan notion that what is contingent in itself (mumkin al-wujūd bi-l-dhāt) can be necessarily existent through another (wājib al-wujūd bi-l-ghayr).60 That is presumably the reason why he explains the relationship as one of cause and caused and as the True (ḥ aqq) and inner reality (ḥ aqīqa), without having recourse to necessity. In his later works, such as his glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād and in his Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, this idea appears in a more developed and sophisticated manner. In these works he differentiates between the concepts of existent (mawjūd) and existence (wujūd) and argues that whereas contingent beings are to be called mawjūd, the Necessary Existent is to be considered as wujūd. Mawjūd as a term is derived from wujūd, which is infinitive in nature, so that the meaning of mawjūd is based completely on its relation with its root w-j-d. Contingent beings originate from existence and their 59

Dawānī, “al-Ḥ awrāʾ”, in Sabʿ rasāʾil, pp. 207–8. On this issue in Avicenna’s philosophy, see Robert Wisnovsky, Avicenna’s Metaphysics in Context, London 2003, pp. 245–63. 60

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz

91

being existent is based on their relation to Him. Dawānī explains that common language is but a poor guide for attaining truth. To clarify what he means, he adduces some examples, one of them being the fact that water heated by the sun is called mushammas in Arabic, a word which is derived from shams (sun). The sun is not in the water, and it is only because of the relation between the sun and the heated water that a word derived from the root sh-m-s is used for the water heated by the sun. Another example is the Arabic term ḥ addād, which means ironmonger. This word, Dawānī explains, is derived from ḥ adīd which means iron. What justifies the use of a word derived from iron for ironmonger is the relation between the latter and iron. As is the case in the foregoing examples, contingent beings are to be referred to as mawjūdāt because they benefit from wujūd, the Necessary Existent. However, their existence is unreal ( ghayr ḥ aqīqī), since wujūd does not subsist in them: If a word derived from a root (al-mushtaqq) truly relates to something, it does not necessitate that the root of that word relates to that thing, even though it might be taken for granted because of common usage (ʿurf al-lugha). The linguists, for instance, define the ism al-fāʿil as something/ someone to which the word derived from the root relates. This definition is problematic. If ḥ addād truly relates to Zayd, for instance, it is because ḥ adīd is part of his profession, as is indicated by Ibn Sīnā and others. [Similarly] if the mushammas truly relates to water, it is on the basis of the relation water has with the sun which is being heated through facing it. Deriving a conclusion from these two premises I say that it is right to assume wujūd – the root of the derived [word] mawjūd – which is something self-sufficient, to be the Necessary Existent. The existence of others in fact lies in the relation (intisāb) of others to Him. Therefore mawjūd is more general than the True (al-ḥ aqq),61 and others are related to Him. This general conception is something mentally constructed, which belongs to the secondary intelligibles (al-maʿqūlāt al-thāniyya) and is the first among the self-evident conceptions (badīhiyyāt).62

In Dawānī’s glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, the slight difference between Ibn Sīnā’s thought and that of Dawānī becomes

61

Reading ḥ aqq for ḥ aqīqa in the edition. Dawānī, “Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda”, in Sabʿ rasāʾil, p. 129. Although here Dawānī follows Farābī in referring to mawjūd as secondary intelligible, his idea that things are mawjūd through a wujūd really distinct from their essences, differs from the notion of Fārābī, who regarded this as a basic metaphysical error. For Farābī’s view on this matter see Stephen Menn, “al-Fārābī’s Kitāb al-Ḥ ūrūf and His Analysis of the Senses of Being”, Arabic Science and Philosophy, 18 (2008), pp. 59–97, esp. pp. 75–84. 62

92

chapter two

more evident in the latter’s definition of the necessity of contingent beings. According to Ibn Sīnā, the Necessary Existent necessitates the existence of contingent beings, and as long as this necessity continues contingent beings exist. Dawānī, however, argues that contingent beings do not exist in a true sense and that their relation with the Necessary Existent is like heat’s relation to fire.63 He refers to the existence of contingent beings as a “portion of Absolute Existence” (ḥ issa min al-wujūd al-muṭlaq).64 Dawānī quotes from Bahmanyār’s al-Taḥ sīl that “when we say something is mawjūd, we mean that wujūd is external (khārij) to it.”65 In other words, the existence of contingent beings is external to their quiddities. This, according to Dawānī, is a development of Ibn Sīnā’s view, developed by later philosophers.66 For Ibn Sīnā, everything possesses a quiddity that is distinct from its existence, except for the Necessary Existent whose quiddity is identical with his existence (inniyya).67 Commenting on this view of Ibn Sīnā, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī in his commentary on the Ishārāt asserts: Anything whose existence is not within the concept of its essence in part or its quiddity as a whole, the existence [of that thing] does not subsist (muqawwim) in its essence, but it is rather accidental (ʿāriḍ) to it.68

63

Dawānī, “Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda”, in Sabʿ rasāʾil, p. 129. See, e.g., Dawānī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1752, f. 50b. 65 Idhā qulnā kadhā mawjūdan, fa-l-maʿnā bihi anna l-wujūd maʿnā khārij ʿanhu. See Dawānī, al-Ḥ āshiya al-qadīma ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1752, f. 49b (with some modifications). This statement in the edition of Bahmanyār’s al-Taḥ sīl (ed. Murtaḍā Mut ̣ahharī, Tehran 1349/1971) appears in the footnote of p. 285 as follows: Idhā qulnā kadhā mawjūdan, fa-laysa l-maʿnā bihi anna l-wujūd maʿnā khārij ʿanhu. This reading, which has the opposite meaning, seems to be mistaken since it contradicts the argument of Bahmanyār in the lines follows. Therefore, Dawānī’s reading should be preferred. 66 Dawānī says: “muqaddamāt hādhā l-kalām min al-shaykh”, see Dawānī, al-Ḥ āshiya al-qadīma ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1752, f. 50a. 67 See Dawānī, al-Ḥ āshiya al-qadīma ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1752, f. 50a. Dawānī explains the view of Ibn Sīnā by quoting from the latter’s al-Shifāʾ: “Everything that has quiddity other than [individual] existence is a caused” (Avicenna, The Metaphysics of the Healing: A Parallel English and Arabic text, Translated Introduced and Annotated by Michael E. Marmura, Provo-Utah 2005, p. 276). 68 See Dawānī, Ḥ awāshī ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1752, f. 50a: 15–7. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 200, no. 7 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources). The quotation corresponds to Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s assertion in his Sharḥ al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt. See al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt maʿa l-sharḥ li-l-muḥ aqqiq Naṣīr al-Dīn Muḥ ammad b. Muḥ ammad b. al-Ḥ asan al-Ṭ ūsī wa-sharḥ li-l-ʿallāma Quṭb al-Dīn Muḥ ammad b. Muḥ ammad b. Abī Jaʿfar al-Rāzī, Qum 1375/1996, vol. 3, p. 57. 64

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz

93

Likewise, Shams al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī in his commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād says: “Pure existence is not occurring to its quiddity”.69

These statements, Dawānī concludes, show that only the existence of the Necessary Existent is within the concept of the quiddity, unlike the existences of the mawjūdāt which are accidental to their quiddities. Hence Dawānī describes the quiddities of mawjūdāt as something potential: The quiddities in themselves ( fī ḥ add dhātihā) are potential. Nothing potential can be the origin of something actual. Contingent beings are all quiddities. Therefore, none of them is the true origin (maṣdar ḥ aqīqī) of actual existence. Their existence, when it is actual, i.e., when they are caused by the agent, is something mentally constructed (iʿtibārī), related to their quiddities which is potential. Hence, it is mixed with potentiality and cannot be the true origin of actual existence . . . The true origin is therefore the assured existence (al-wujūd al-mutaʾakkid), which is free from quiddity.70

The distinction between wujūd and mawjūd is in fact the core notion of Dawānī’s ontology. The most direct application of this idea is to the philosophical problem of the uniqueness of God. This problem, which Dawānī himself derived from Ibn Kammūna’s al-Maṭālib al-muhimma and which later on became known as “Ibn Kammūna’s sophistry on the uniqueness of God” (shubhat Ibn Kammūna fī l-tawḥ īd) results from the rational possibility of two necessary existents, each being the only representative within its own species, that is to say two completely distinct essences both of which are necessarily existent. Dawānī claims that no one prior to him had adequately solved this problem. He explains that this problem only occurs if we consider the Necessary Existent to be mawjūd, for mawjūd is the one whose existence is accidental (ʿāriḍ) to its quiddity. This, however, holds true only for contingent beings, whereas the Necessary Existent is not mawjūd but wujūd, with no essence other than his existence.71

69 “Wujūd al-maḥ ḍ ghayr ʿāriḍ [ʿan] al-māhiyya”. Dawānī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1752, ff. 49b–50a. 70 Dawānī, Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, in Sabʿa rasāʾil, pp. 139–40. 71 See Dawānī, Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, in Sabʿa rasāʾil, pp. 127–37. On this sophistry and the philosophical discussions raised by it see Reza Pourjavady & Sabine Schmidtke, A Jewish Philosopher of Baghdad. ʿIzz al-Dawla Ibn Kammūna (d. 683/1284) and His Writings, Leiden 2006, pp. 37–51.

94

chapter two

In a passage in his glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, Dawānī ascribes the above mentioned idea as “the insight of those who became Divine-like” (dhawq al-mutaʾallihīn): According to the insight of those who became Divine-like, wujūd cannot be truly ascribed to contingent beings, but that wujūd of the Necessary Existent has a relation with them which makes it correct to use a derived word (al-mushtaqq) for them.72

Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī and some later philosophers referred to this idea as “the insight of those who became Divine-like”.73 Ṣadr al-Dīn also suggests that Dawānī mixed up in his discussion of this issue some paradoxical statements of the Sufis with philosophical issues (wa-kāna hādhā l-qāʾil khalaṭ shaṭaran min shaṭḥ iyyāt al-ṣūfiyya bi-l-maṭālib al-ḥ ikmiyya). Dawānī himself, however, neither identifies his source nor does he specify whom he means by “those who became Divine-like”. Nevertheless, he states that Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā would have agreed with this idea if it had been presented to them, since in principle it accords with their outlook. Evidence for this is their assertion that the customary application of the term mawjūd to the Necessary Existent is metaphorical (majāz).74 For Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, in contrast to Dawānī, the Necessary Existent is mawjūd, just like contingent beings. His existence is thus equivalent to the existence of contingent beings. The difference between the Necessary Existent and contingent beings is that the Necessary Existent has no quiddity, whereas all other existents have quiddity.75 Ṣadr al-Dīn states that in his rejection of quiddity for the Necessary Existent he is following Ibn Sīnā. To prove this statement, he adduces several quotations from the latter’s writings.

72 Dawānī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1752, f. 50b: 14–6. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 200, no. 8 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources). 73 Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī refers to this idea as dhawq al-ḥ ukamaʾ al-mutaʾallihīn, see, e.g., his glosses on the commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1998, f. 68b: 20–2. Among the later philosophers, Ḥ ājjī Mullā Hādī al-Sabzawārī (d. 1289/1878) refers to Dawānī’s view as dhawq al-taʾalluh. See Ḥ ājjī Mullā Hādī Sabzawārī, Sharḥ Ghurar al-farāʾid or Sharḥ Manẓūma (Part One: Metaphysics), eds. M. Muḥaqqiq &_T. Izutsu, Tehran 1348/1969, pp. 5, 56–7. 74 Dawānī states: “wa-li-hādhā ṣarraḥ a al-muʿallim al-thānī wa-l-shaykh [Abū] ʿAlī anna mā tawahhamahu ʿurf al-lugha min iṭlāq al-mawjūd ʿalayhi taʿālā majāz”; Dawānī, Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, in Sabʿ rasāʾil, p. 132. 75 See Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1998, ff. 67a–74b.

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz

95

From al-Shifāʾ: Hence, everything that has a quiddity is caused. The rest of the things, other than the Necessary Existent, have quiddities. And it is these quiddities that in themselves are possible in existence, existence occurring to them externally. The First, hence, has no quiddity. Those things possessing quiddities have existence emanate on them from Him. He is pure existence with the condition of negating privation and all other description of Him. Moreover, the rest of the things possessing quiddities are possible, coming into existence through Him. The meaning of the statement, “He is pure existence with the condition of negating all other additional [attributes] of Him,” is not that this is the absolute existence in which there is participation [by others]. If there is an existent with this description, it would not be the pure existent with the condition of negation, but the existent without the condition of positive affirmation. I mean, regarding the First, that He is the existent with the condition that there is no additional composition, whereas this other is the existent without the condition of [this] addition. For this reason, the universal is predicated of all things, whereas [pure existence] is not predicated of anything that has addition. Everything other than Him has addition.76

From the Taʿlīqāt: What we mean by saying that his quiddity is his existence is that he does not have any quiddity.77

From the Taʿlīqāt: The First has no quiddity, thus the denial of any quiddity from him is absolute.78

According to Ṣadr al-Dīn, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī seems to have been unfamiliar (lam yaṭtạ liʿ) with the assertions of Ibn Sīnā quoted above, as in his commentary on the Ishārāt he takes it to mean that He has a

76 Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1998, ff. 67a:19–67b:3. The translation of this quotation is based on Marmura’s (Ibn Sīnā, The Metaphysics of the Healing, pp. 276:27–277:8). 77 Wa-maʿnā qawlunā: māhiyyatuhu inniyyatuhu, annahu lā māhiyya lahu. Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1998, f. 67b:23. The closest statement that I found in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Badawī’s edition of Taʿlīqāt (Cairo 1975 [reprinted Qum 1379/2000], p. 224) runs as follows: Mā ḥ aqīqatuhu inniyyatuhu fa-lā māhiyya lahu. 78 Al-awwal lā māhiyya lahu fa-nafy al-mahiyya ʿanhu muṭlaqan. Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1998, f. 67b:23. I was unable to find this quotation in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Badawī’s edition of Taʿlīqāt.

96

chapter two

quiddity, which is existence (inniyyatuhū māhiyyatuhū).79 Presumably Ṣadr al-Dīn is alluding here to Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s comment on the following statement of the Ishārāt: “For everything the existence of which is within the conception of its essence, as we explained before, existence does not subsist in its quiddity.”80 Commenting on the above statement Ṭ ūsī writes: The intention is to say that existence which is within the essence of the Necessary Existent is not the common existence which exists only in the intellect, it is rather the specific existence which is the first origin of all the existences and since it does not have any parts it is the essence itself. That is what they meant by saying “His quiddity is His existence”.81

Ṣadr al-Dīn implies that Dawānī’s argument to the effect that the quiddity of the Necessary Existent is its existence is based on Ṭ ūsī’s mistaken understanding of Ibn Sīnā’s assertions in the Ishārāt, whereas for the correct understanding of Ibn Sīnā’s position on this issue, the latter’s explanation in his Shifāʾ should be consulted, for there he explicitly says that the Necessary Existent is existence without quiddity. Although it appears that Ibn Sīnā held slightly different positions in the Ishārāt and the Shifāʾ on the subject,82 it is noteworthy that Ṣadr al-Dīn regarded Ibn Sīnā’s philosophy in all his writings as a single coherent entity. As for the contingent beings, Ṣadr al-Dīn argues that their existence is not added (zāʾid) or accidental (ʿāriḍ) to their quiddity, as existence and quiddity in the extramental world are always co-implied (mulāzim) and indispensably together. It is even more accurate to say that existence has priority over quiddity. The existence of the thing precedes what makes it distinct from others, namely, the quiddity. It is the existence that determines the quiddity. In the mind, however, it is the other way around. The intellect has the ability of first rendering an abstract, conceptual version of the quiddity, to the extent that it is free from existence, and subsequently ascribing existence to the quiddity. Yet,

79 See Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1998, f. 68a:2–5. 80 “Kullu mā lā yadkhul al-wujūd fī mafhūm dhātihi ʿalā mā iʿtabarnā qablu fa-lwujūd ghayr muqawwim lahu fī māhiyyatihi.” Ibn Sīnā, al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt maʿa al-sharḥ li-l-muḥ aqqiq, vol. 3, p. 57. 81 Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī, al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt maʿa al-sharḥ li-l-muḥ aqqiq, vol. 3, p. 58. 82 In his Shifāʾ, Ibn Sīnā states that the Necessary Existent has no quiddity, whereas his wording in the Ishārāt seems to allow for Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s interpretation that “His existence is His quiddity”.

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz

97

he argues, this process is only a mental construction (iʿtibār dhihnī).83 Therefore, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s assertion in his commentary on Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt that the quiddity is essentially prior to the existence84 should be treated with caution; otherwise it may even contradict the latter’s statement on the issue in his Maṣāriʿ al-Muṣāriʿ: Know that being existent (mawjūdiyya) is prior to the actuality of the quiddities in and of itself (nafs al-amr),85 that is, [for instance,] a human being within the domain of non-existence ( fī ḥ ayyiz al-ʿadam) is not human. It [i.e., mawjūd] is not even distinct in one way or another and is posterior to quiddity in respect of its being a mental construct ( fī l-iʿtibār al-dhihnī) . . . The philosophers’ assertions are sometimes for the priority of quiddity over existence and sometimes vice versa. In his Maṣāriʿ al-Muṣāriʿ, the author [i.e., Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ usī] says: “know that the existence of the effects in and of itself is prior to quiddity and in the intellect (al-ʿaql) are posterior to it.” That is the priority of the one of which accidents are predicated (maʿrūḍ) over the accident (ʿāriḍ).86

Moreover, Ṣadr al-Dīn elucidates that existent and thing (shayʾ) are equally applicable (musāwiq). Dawānī, therefore, when he rejects their true existence, is rejecting also that they are things: . . . if the contingent beings are not to be included in existence and calling them mawjūd is the same as calling water mushammas, calling them mawjūd in the absolute sense is not the common meaning understood from it. For instance, the meaning of mushammas, which is in the form of mafʿūl, is different from maḍrūb and manṣūr, as is said before.

See Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1998, f. 23b:6–23. Ṣadr al-Dīn’s explanation here concerns māhiyya bi-sharṭ lā. For this notion and the discussions about it among the philosophers after Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī, see Toshihiko Izutsu, “Basic Problems of Abstract Quiddity”, Manṭiq u mabāḥ ith-i alfāẓ (Collected Texts and Papers on Logic and Language), eds. M. Mohaghegh & T. Izutsu, Tehran 1974, pp. 1–25. Izutsu’s study covers the disputation between Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī and Dawānī on this issue. However, relying merely on a secondary source, namely ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Lāhījī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, Izutsu attributes Ṣadr al-Dīn’s investigations on this issue to the latter’s son, Ghiyāth al-Dīn (pp. 17–9). 84 Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s exact assertion in his commentary on Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt is as follows: wa-yalzamu taqaddum al-māhiyya ʿalā l-wujūd bi-l-dhāt. Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī, al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt maʿa l-sharḥ li-l-muḥ aqqiq Naṣīr al-Dīn Muḥ ammad b. Muḥ ammad b. al-Ḥ asan al- Ṭ ūsī, vol. 3, p. 57. 85 Nafs al-amr, literally meaning “the thing of itself ”, i.e., regardless of whether the thing exists in the mind or in the concrete, extramental world, is a technical term which does not have an equivalent in English. 86 Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1998, f. 24a:10–4. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 200, no. 9 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources). I was unable to find Ṣadr al-Dīn’s quotation in Masāriʿ al-muṣāraʿ, ed. Wilferd Madelung, Tehran 1383/2004. 83

98

chapter two However, mawjūd in its common meaning is equally applicable (musāwiq) as thing (shayʾ). That is what has been asserted earlier in the text of the book [i.e., Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād] and no one among the philosophers argued against it. If on the basis of the insight of specialists in metaphysics the contingent beings are not to be called mawjūd, they are not to be called things as well, and that is a contradiction. Thus, on the basis of the insight of specialists in metaphysics the sensible reason of calling them mawjūd would be extremely hidden. Perhaps the divine philosophers perceive this reason also with their taste.87

To explain why Farābī and Ibn Sīnā stated that the use of the term mawjūd for the Necessary Existent is metaphorical, Ṣadr al-Dīn argues that mawjūd primarily means mā lahu l-wujūd (that which has existence). He explains that the word mā here means shayʾ (thing) and that Farābī and Ibn Sīnā used shayʾ to refer to quiddities. For them, according to Ṣadr al-Dīn, the Necessary Existent is not a thing (shayʾ) because it does not have quiddity. Nevertheless, because of the limitations of language, mawjūd is also used for the Necessary Existent. Therefore, it is asserted that its use is metaphoric.88 Following his teacher, Nayrīzī criticizes Dawānī’s notion of wujūd. He argues that Dawānī’s understanding of wujūd is applicable to the Necessary Existent only, whereas in fact wujūd is equally applicable to every single mawjūd. Moreover, according to Nayrīzī, Dawānī uses wujūd in its infinite sense for the Necessary Existent, which makes no sense (ikhrāj al-kalām ʿan ẓāhirihī ilā mā laysa yufham minhu). It is, in contrast to what Dawānī argues, his own invention since none of the former philosophers used wujūd with this meaning for the Necessary Existent. Wujūd, according to Nayrīzī, has two different meanings: The first meaning is in its infinite sense, i.e., that which is purely conceptual with no reality in the external world. He explains that Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā usually used wujūd with this meaning, as is the case in the following assertions of theirs:

87 Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1998, f. 68b:16–21. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, pp. 200–1, no. 10 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources). 88 Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1998, f. 72b:15–6.

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz

99

• Wujūd is one of the intellectual predicates (al-maḥ mūlāt al-ʿaqliyya) as it is impossible for it to subsist in a locus (al-maḥ all ) [such as a substance] or to be located (ḥ uṣūlihi fīhi) [like an accident]; • Wujūd is one of the secondary intelligibles (al-maʿqūlāt althāniyya); • Wujūd can be divided into necessary and contingent as well as into eternal (qadīm) and originated (ḥ ādith); • Wujūd multiplies with the multiplicity of the subjects ( yatakaththar bi-takaththur al-mawḍūʿāt); • Wujūd is modulated (maqūl bi-l-tashkīk). The second meaning of wujūd is mawjūd. It is with this meaning, Nayrīzī argues, that Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā used it for the Necessary Existent, because the Necessary Existent is mawjūd like all contingent beings. Thus Dawānī’s argument that the Necessary Existent is absolute existence (al-wujūd al-muṭlaq) disagrees with Fārābī’s and Ibn Sīnā’s assertions. It is based on false premises such as the idea that existence is unique of a certain one (wāḥ id bi-l-shakhṣ), and necessitates the falsehood of the consenting idea that wujūd is the most known thing (aʿraf al-ashyāʾ). The truth is that He is pure existent (mawjūd baḥ t).89 II.iii. Mental Existence Philosophers after Ibn Sīnā distinguished between two modes of existence. The first is the familiar mode of existence in the concrete individuals of the material world (al-wujūd al-khārijī), and the other the existence of quiddities in the mind (al-wujūd al-dhihnī). The latter mode, mental existence, as Ibn Sīnā describes it, is on a par with concrete existence in the external world and no less real (muḥ aṣsạ l) or affirmed (muthbat) than the other.90 Dawānī and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī had a disagreement concerning Ibn Sīnā’s description of mental forms as accidents of the soul. In his Shifāʾ Ibn Sīnā states:

89

See Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Majlis 3968, ff. 33a:12–4b:24. This parallelism is based on Ibn Sīnā’s idea of the Active Intellect (al-ʿaql al-faʿʿāl), which assigns forms both to the sublunar bodies (ajsām) and to the rational souls. On Ibn Sīnā’s idea of mental existence, see Deborah L. Black, “Mental Existence in Thomas Aquinas and Avicenna”, Mediaeval Studies, 61 (1999), pp. 45–79, esp. pp. 47–61; Robert Wisnovsky, “Avicenna and Avicennian Tradition”, The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, eds. Peter Adamson and Richard Taylor, Cambridge 2005, pp. 92–136. 90

100

chapter two And because these [mental forms] are influences (āthār) in the soul and are not the entities of these things, nor examples of these things subsisting in either corporeal or psychological materials, these [influences] are, hence, accidents in the soul.91

Dawānī suggests that this assertion of Ibn Sīnā must be regarded as a loose way of expression (ʿalā wajh al-musāmaḥ a), since the quiddities in mental existence cannot be described as accidental qualities in the strict sense. Assuming that these quiddities correspond to the forms of external things, the quiddity of a substance, such as “animal”, in the mind or soul should be similarly a substance, but it is taken by Ibn Sīnā to be like a quality. It would be like saying, “Zayd is truely in the house, but he is not truely Zayd” (Zayd ḥ āṣil fī l-dār ḥ aqīqatan wa-lākinnahu laysa Zaydan ḥ aqīqatan). This is a contradictory statement, which is not even appropriate for poetic fantasy (al-mutakhayyil al-shiʿrī), let alone for philosophical investigation (al-taḥ qīq al-ʿilmī).92 Dawānī, then, suggests that the category of a quiddity in the mind corresponds to the category of that object in the external world. If something in the external world is substance, its mental form is such that if it exists outside the mind, it would be substance. And if it is an accident in the mind, it is such that if it exists outside the mind, it would be the same category of accident.93 Ṣadr al-Dīn objects to this suggestion of Dawānī, supporting instead, as was characteristic of him, the view of Ibn Sīnā. Ṣadr al-Dīn quotes a passage from Ibn Sīnā’s Shifāʾ, which shows that the latter was not careless but fully aware of the consequences of his assertion: If it is said, “You have rendered the quiddity of substance to be at one time an accident and at another time a substance, when [in fact] you have disallowed this,” we say, “We have also disallowed that the quiddity of something is [such that] it would exist in external reality at one time [as] an accident and at another time [as] a substance, whereby it would in external reality be [at one time] needing some subject and [at another time] in [external reality] not needing a subject at all. But we did not disallow that what is intellectually apprehended of these quiddities

91 The translation of this quotation is based on Marmura’s (Ibn Sīnā, The Metaphysics of the Healing, p. 110). 92 Dawānī, Ḥ āshiya jadīda ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd li-Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1999, f. 105b. 93 Dawānī, Ḥ āshiya jadīda ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd li-Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1999, f. 105b–7a.

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 101 would become an accident – [allowing,] that is, for [these quiddities] to exist in the soul [but] not as part [of it].94

Ṣadr al-Dīn argues that Ibn Sīnā did not find this statement contradictory and that indeed it is not so. A contradiction would have occurred if both the external form and the mental form had a single existence. But since it is established that each constitutes a distinct type of existence, there is no contradiction in assuming each of them to have a distinct quiddity. Evidence for the distinction between the forms of external things and the forms in the mind is that the former are effective (mabdaʾ al-āthār) and the latter are not. It is, as Ṣadr al-Dīn suggests, existence which determines the quiddity. Thus, the form of a concrete thing, regardless of the category it belongs to, is substituted (tubaddal) in its mental existence with quality.95 Dawānī rejects Ṣadr al-Dīn’s explanation. He argues that taking the mental existence of a quiddity to be distinct from the quiddity of a concrete thing goes against the idea of unity between the two forms, one substantial, the other intelligible. Moreover, he explains that Ṣadr al-Dīn’s argument is based on his principle that existence is prior to quiddity, which is, according to Dawānī, opposed to the view of Ibn Sīnā. However, even if we accept this, it does not allow us to draw the conclusion that existence is an accident of (ʿāriḍ ʿan) quiddity, given that accident (ʿāriḍ) cannot cause any transformation of its subject (maʿrūḍ).96 II.iv. God’s Knowledge For Dawānī and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī the discussion of mental existence seems to have had significant implications also for their respective conceptions of God’s knowledge. Both believed in a similarity between human and divine knowledge. Both also adhered to Ibn Sīnā’s idea

94 Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Hāshiya ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd li-Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1998, f. 33a–b. The translation of the quotation is based on Marmura’s (Ibn Sīnā, The Metaphysics of the Healing, p. 109). 95 See Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Hawāshī ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd li-Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1998, ff. 26a–35a, esp. ff. 30b-1a. 96 See Dawānī, Hawāshī jadīda ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd li-Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1999, ff. 106a–7a. For an analysis of the view of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī and Dawānī on mental existence, see ʿAbdullāh Shakībā, “Shinākht az dīdgāh-i Ṣadr al-mutaʾallihīn”, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 3 (1375/1996), pp. 61–7; idem, Barrasī-yi āthār u afkār-i falsafī-i Mīr Ṣadr al-Dīn Dashtakī, pp. 195–207.

102

chapter two

that God’s knowledge does not depend upon things.97 Dawānī argued that God’s knowledge, as mental existence, is self-sustained, whereas Ṣadr al-Dīn maintained that as mental existence His knowledge is not self-sustained. Dawānī explains that God’s knowledge is not produced through cognitive forms being imprinted (murtasam) upon His mind, since this contradicts God’s being simple. Instead of cognitive forms, Dawānī explains His knowledge to be existential, which he describes as a cognitive existence (al-wujūd al-ʿilmī). That is to say, His knowledge is the very wujūd. 98 Therefore, wujūd in itself is God’s knowledge and the origin of all differentiating forms (al-ṣuwar al-tafṣīliyya) in the external world.99 Like Dawānī, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī opposes the idea of forms being imprinted in God’s knowledge. But instead he suggests an explanation with the help of the notion of cause (al-muqtaḍī). According to Ṣadr al-Dīn, there are two ways of distinguishing things from each other. One is on the basis of their forms, because of the correspondence (inṭibāq) and attestation (ishʿār) of the form to a specific thing. The concept of “writer”, for instance, which is sustained in the mind and to which the mind attests (mushʿir bihi), is identical with someone who writes in the external world. The second way, however, is on the basis of the cause. The cause necessarily determines the effect’s essence and its attributes (al-dhāt al-muqtaḍā wa-ṣifātihā). Ṣadr al-Dīn argues that God knows things because He knows the requirement (al-muqtaḍā) of the whole world. Although Ṣadr al-Dīn’s idea relies heavily on Ibn Sīnā’s theory of God’s knowledge, he made it distinct by referring to the process of this simple knowledge as cognitive witnessing (al-shuhūd al-ʿilmī):100 When the form of something, which makes the thing distinct from others, is produced by the perceiver, knowledge of that thing is obtained. Likewise, when its requirement (al-muqtaḍā) – by means of which the thing is distinct – is produced by the perceiver, knowledge of that thing is obtained. Then, when the cause of the whole world as it is in and of itself, is single without any multiplicity, and every atom of the existence is distinct from one another by its necessity, it is not implausible [to say] that

97 On Ibn Sīnā’s theory of God’s knowledge, see Michael E. Marmura, “Some Aspects of Avicenna’s Theory of God’s Knowledge of Particulars”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 82, 3 (1962), pp. 299–312. 98 See Dawānī, Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, in Sabʿ rasāʾil, p. 148. 99 Dawānī, Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, in Sabʿ rasāʾil, p. 148. 100 Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib, MS Ṣehid Ali Paṣa 2761, f. 96: 12–6.

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 103 when such single issue is produced by the perceiver, it becomes knowledge of every single character of it, and therefore everything becomes in the cognitive witnessing (al-shuhūd al-ʿilmī) which is like mental existence, a single issue.101

It is, however, unclear why Ṣadr al-Dīn refers to God’s knowledge as cognitive witnessing, since in his explanation there is no indication of the “witnessing” character of His knowledge. II.v. The Human Body and the Soul102 The relationship of the human body to the soul was another controversial issue between the two scholars. In his discussion of this issue, Ṣadr al-Dīn differentiates two kinds of composition: 1) a composition in which the parts are adjoined (al-tarkīb al-inḍimāmī), and 2) a composition in which the parts are totally fused together to form a complete unity (al-tarkīb al-ittiḥ ādī). According to Ṣadr al-Dīn the body-soul relationship corresponds to the latter, as the body and the soul are in reality indissolubly fused together. What is known as “human” is composed of body and soul in such a way that the two form one. Ṣadr al-Dīn explains that the exact nature of “human” is unknown, but that the intellect, on the basis of a human’s manifestations (āthār), defines it as a substance with the following attributes: receptive of dimensions (qābil abʿād), growing (nāmī), sensitive (ḥ assās), and finally perceptive of the universals (mudrik li-l-kulliyyāt). For whereas being receptive of dimensions, growing, and being sensitive necessitate having magnitude (miqdār), position (waḍʿ), and place (ḥ ayyiz), being perceptive of the universals requires being separated (mujarrad) from magnitude, position and place. Ṣadr al-Dīn continues with the following passage: If it is plausible that an animal changes ( yanqalib) to another state, in such a way that some attributions of the animal remain – for instance, with the death of a horse, the magnitude, shape, and colour of it remain, but

101 Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib, MS Ṣehid Ali Paṣa 2761, ff. 96a:17–97b:1. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 201, no. 11 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources). 102 The controversy on this issue reportedly occurred in the glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād written by Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī and Dawānī. However, I was unable to trace it in these glosses. The source which was used was Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s Taʿlīqāt ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd li-Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād and his Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya, where the views of both Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī and Dawānī on this issue are quoted from their respective glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād.

104

chapter two not its growing and sensitivity – likewise when a human being changes [through death] to a state which does not have magnitude, position, and place, it is to say that it is changed to something abstract (mujarrad). [Thus] the abstraction which was potential in it becomes actual and there is no reason to refuse this.103

It appears from the above statement that Ṣadr al-Dīn regards the human soul as not separated before death and views the separated character of the soul as being only potentially so during life. Ṣadr al-Dīn further elucidates that what is understood from the word “I” is a meaning to which it is plausible to predicate at the same time both “being perceptive of the universals” as well as being in a sitting position (jālis). If what was meant by “I” was merely the body, it would have been false to predicate “perceiver of the universals” to it, since the body is material and the perceiver of the universals is something separated (mujarrad). If what was meant by “I” were either the soul alone or the composition of the soul and the body, it would have been false to say “I am in a sitting position”, because a separated entity does not sit. Nor does the composition of a material entity and a separated one sit either.104 Contrary to Ṣadr al-Dīn, Dawānī maintains that the soul’s task is the management (tadbīr) and control (taṣarruf ) of the body. Therefore the two are not in a state of unity; rather, the body is in possession of the soul. To Dawānī, the argument from “I am in a sitting position” – which is used by Ṣadr al-Dīn – is just a customary extension of a term (iṭlāqāt ʿurfī), which cannot be used as a basis to attain philosophical truths (ḥ aqāʾiq falsafiyya). Moreover, Ibn Sīnā and other philosophers used “I” only to refer to the separated soul. Dawānī further argues that it has been well established that the perceiver of the universals is separated. If Ṣadr al-Dīn is correct in his argument, the soul is only able to perceive the universals after death, not while it is together with the body.105 Dawānī also criticises this idea from a religious point of view: to him this belief would lead to denial of the resurrection.106

103 Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’, “Kashf al-ḥ a qāʾiq al-Muḥ a mmadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, p. 975. 104 See Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, “Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, pp. 974–6. 105 See Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s “Taʿlīqāt ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd li-l-Tajrīd”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, pp. 655–69. 106 See Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s “Taʿlīqāt ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd li-l-Tajrīd”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, pp. 635–6.

in in in in

nayrīzī and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 105 It seems that Ṣadr al-Dīn never replied to Dawānī’s criticisms. Nor did Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, who defended his father’s view on this issue in his Taʿlīqāt ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd l-Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, ever allude to any response by his father. Presumably, the sudden death of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī prevented him from further clarifying his view.

CHAPTER THREE

WORKS OF NAYRĪZĪ Nayrīzī’s career as an author evidently started some time before Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s death in 903/1498 and lasted for at least thirty years. This is attested by his commentary upon Suhrawardī’s postscript (dhayl) to al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya, which is dated 932/1526.1 To our knowledge, Nayrīzī wrote exclusively in Arabic. Nonetheless, he did not hesitate to adduce quotations in Persian, taking for granted that most, if not all of his readers, would be able to read Persian.2 With the exception of two treatises, his writings take the form of a commentary or gloss on the works of earlier thinkers. As was seen in the previous chapters, the writing of commentaries and glosses was common by the time of Nayrīzī, particularly in the fields of philosophy and theology, as well as in the sciences.3 Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt seems to have played a significant role in regenerating this genre in the field of philosophy, and it had become well established through the numerous commentaries written by Nas ̣īr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī.4 Nayrīzī seems to have had different reasons for writing each of his commentaries, depending on the text he was dealing with. Sometimes he commented on a text in order to endorse the basic system of 1 Among the works that Nayrīzī wrote during the lifetime of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī were his glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād and his commentary on Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma. See below, pp. 111–4. 2 In his commentary on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq, Nayrīzī included Persian quotations from Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Sharḥ al-Thamarat li-Baṭlamyūs (MS Majlis 3968, f. 14b:1–3), Ibn Sīnā’s Dānishnāma-yi ʿAlāyī (f. 149b:25) and Fīrūzābādī’s Sifr al-saʿāda (f. 303b:15–8). In his commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq, he quotes from Nasị̄ r al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Persian work on logic, Asās al-iqtibās (MS Riḍawī 1088, ff. 104b–5a). 3 According to George Saliba, this genre has to be viewed as “the functional equivalent of today’s periodical literature in the research, where new findings were made public”. See G. Saliba, “Writing the History of Arabic Astronomy: Problems and Different Perspectives.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 116 (1996), p. 714. 4 Among the well-known commentaries written by Ṭ ūsī in the field of philosophy and theology are his al-Maṣāriʿ al-Muṣāriʿ (a commentary on Shahrastānī’s al-Muṣāriʿ), his Naqd al-Muḥ aṣsạ l (a commentary on Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s al-Muḥ aṣsạ l otherwise known as Talkhīṣ al-Muḥaṣsạ l ), and his commentary on Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt. For a bibliography of Nas ̣īr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s works see Muḥammad Taqī Mudarris Riḍawī, Aḥ wāl u āthār-i khwāja Naṣīr al-Dīn-i Ṭ ūsī, Tehran 1379/2000.

works of nayrīzī

107

thought and elaborate his preferred view on specific issues it contained that interested him. This holds true for his commentary on Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, his commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām, his commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, and his commentary on Suhrawardī’s al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya. Sometimes, however, he commented on a text mainly in order to criticise it. This is the case with his glosses on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq and his commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda. But regardless of his intention, he seems to have made an effort to collect and consult other works by the author concerned, in order to comprehend his views as a whole.5 All his commentaries by far exceed the respective texts in size. Throughout his career Nayrīzī used to revise the commentaries he had previously written in the process of copying them again. One of his reasons for doing so was in order to produce a copy of the text that would be easier to follow. An extant autograph fragment of his commentary on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām (MS Șehid Ali 1780) shows that he used to strike out a lot in his first drafts. In the process of rewriting these drafts he would add references to works he had subsequently written. His commentaries on Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda and al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya were also evidently subjected to revisions.6 Not all of Nayrīzī’s works are preserved in their entirety. Of his commentary on Tajrīd al-Iʿtiqād three manuscripts are extant, none 5 The only exception is his commentary on Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, in which he remains silent regarding other works of Abharī, presumably because he did not have access to any of them. 6 Nayrīzī’s colophon at the end of his commentary on Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma (MS Carullah 1327, f. 219a) shows that he completed the composition of this work in 904/1498–9 in Shiraz, and that he completed a copy of it on 12 Ṣafar 916/20 May 1510 in Isfahan. In the same colophon he refers to his commentaries on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda and Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, which shows that these works were composed prior to the date of the completion of this copy, i.e. 12 Ṣafar 916/20 May 1510. However, the author’s colophon of MS Millī Fārs 55 (f. 260a) indicates that he completed a copy of his commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād on 2 Rabīʿ I 919/8 May1513. The date of authorship of his commentary on Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda was also changed by Nayrīzī to the chronogram Ithbāt wājibihī, i.e., 921/1515–6 (see MS Majlis 184, f. 156a). His commentary on al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya was first completed on 5 Rabīʿ II 930/10 February 1524. Two years later his commentary on Suhrawardī’s postscript (dhayl) to the Alwāḥ was added at the end of the commentary. Nayrīzī copied this commentary at least once more. MS Șehid Ali 1739, completed on 5 Rabīʿ II 943/9 January 1527, was copied from an autograph copy; see below, p. 177 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings).

108

chapter three

of which contains the complete introduction of the commentator. Of his commentary on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām only the first part on logic is extant. His commentary on Tahdhīb al-aḥ kām and his glosses on Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, to which he refers in his writings, are completely lost. Moreover, Āghā Buzurg al-Ṭ ihrānī informs us that he once saw Nayrīzī’s glosses on Dawānī’s Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm in the Nayrīzī Codex.7 However, the present location of this codex is unfortunately unknown to us. Nayrīzī may also have written other works of which we have as yet no knowledge. It is, therefore, not unlikely that in the future additional writings of Nayrīzī will come to light. Nayrīzī usually identifies himself in the introductions and sometimes in the colophons of his writings. For this purpose, he uses a rhyming phrase containing his name. The following three different rhyming phrases appear in his known works:                 ،(     )    (    /    ) ،   ( )         8        9       )      ،               (            ،         10                                        

Nayrīzī’s glosses may be identified by the sign:  .11 It seems that  stands for intahā meaning “ended”, while  is the combination of the first and last letters of his first name (Maḥmūd).

7

See Dharīʿa, vol. 2, pp. 406–7, no. 1627, vol. 6, p. 26, no. 102. This is the rhyming phrase he uses in the introduction to his glosses on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq and on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary (MS Laleli 2523, f. 2b), in the introduction to and in the colophon of his Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām wa-nihāyātihā (MS Malik 2614, ff. 2b, 22a), in the introduction to his Risāla Ithbāt al-wājib (MS Malik 688, f. 115b), in the introduction and in the colophon of his commentary on Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma (MS Carullah, ff. 1b, 218b), and in the introduction to his commentary on al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya (Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ ) (MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 2b). 9 This phrase has been used in the colophon of his commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād (MS Princeton 70, f. 121a), and at the end of his commentary on al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya (Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ ) (MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 208a). 10 This phrase has been used in the introduction to his commentary Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām (MS Șehid Ali 1780, f. 1b). 11 The authenticity of this sign is certain because of being used in his autograph of his glosses on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq and on its commentary (MSS Marʿashī 4266). The same sign is preserved in some later copies of his glosses, namely another copy of his glosses on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq and on its commentary (MS Laleli 2523) as well as a copy of his glosses on Shawākil al-hūr fī sharḥ Hayākil al-nūr (MS Majlis 1887, copied by the author’s son). 8

works of nayrīzī

109

Two items written by the hand of Nayrīzī are known to have been preserved: 1) A fragment from the beginning of his commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām (MS Șehid Ali Paşa 1780) [Fig. 1], and 2) a copy of Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-Ishrāq containing Nayrīzī’s glosses on the text and Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary (MS Marʿashī 4266) [Fig. 2]. The latter also contains an example of Nayrīzī’s seal [Fig. 3].

Fig. 1: Nayrīzī’s autograph commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām (MS Șehid Ali Paşa 1780, f. 3a, line 15–16)

Fig. 2: Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-Ishrāq, copied by Nayrīzī (MS Marʿashī 4266, f. 5a, line 1–2)

Fig. 3: Seal of Nayrīzī: “Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd Nayrizī” (MS Marʿashī 4266, f. 4a)

110

chapter three

It is important to establish a relative chronology of Nayrīzī’s works, as his philosophical thought evidently developed throughout his career. This is clearly indicated, for example, by his attitude towards Suhrawardī. In some of his early writings, such as his commentary on Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma and his glosses on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, he shows himself to be critical towards Suhrawardī. By contrast, in his last extant work, that is, his commentary on Suhrawardī’s al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya, the latter’s thought evidently appeals to him more than before. In what follows, a descriptive inventory of his writings in relative chronological order will be given. It contains a general description of each work, a discussion about the date of its authorship, Nayrīzī’s motivation in writing the work as indicated by himself, and the sources he used in each instance. In addition to what can be found in this chapter, Appendix I contains information concerning the location of the manuscripts of each extant work and the incipit and explicit of these works. Those writings that have been attributed to Nayrīzī, albeit uncertainly, are also discussed in Appendix I. I. Glosses on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād Our knowledge of these glosses is based on Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s Taʿlīqāt ʿalā l-Sharḥ al-jadīd li-l-Tajrīd, where Nayrīzī’s request to Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī that he explain his view about the human soul and the latter’s oral response are quoted from Nayrīzī’s “Ḥ āshiyat al-Tajrīd”.12 This quotation has no equivalent in Nayrīzī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād.13 Hence his “Ḥ āshiyat al-Tajrīd” must have been different from his Sharḥ ʿalā al-Tajrīd. “Ḥ āshiyat al-Tajrīd” is probably an abbreviated reference to glosses on another commentary on al-Tajrid; “Ḥ āshiyat ʿalā l-Sharḥ al-jadīd li-l-Tajrīd”, in other words, these glosses were presumably written on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, and not on the text of the Tajrīd itself. But as long as these glosses are unavailable we cannot be certain about this. The citation by Ghiyāth al-Dīn also suggests that Nayrīzī was writing this work while his teacher, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, was still alive. That is to say, he had started writing it before 17 Ramaḍān 903/9 May

12 See Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, “Taʿlīqāt ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd li-l-Tajrīd”, in Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn, vol. 2, pp. 985–7. 13 On this commentary see below, pp. 121–4.

works of nayrīzī

111

1498. Thus, this work is one of his earliest writings, if not his very first composition. II. Commentary on Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma When compared to his other philosophical works, Nayrīzī’s commentary on Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma stays most faithfully within the tradition of Avicennan philosophy. Completed in 904/1498–9, this work was written during Nayrīzī’s early life in Shiraz, when he still had to establish himself as a scholar. This is indicated by the wording of his introduction: If your ears hear some secrets [in the commentary], which you have not come across in their [i.e., the philosophers’] books, and which do not accord with the tradition of the scholars of the past, think about it first and do not reject it simply because it disagrees with a tradition . . . You should not consider who is saying it, but what is said . . . So if you find that something in it accords with existence, it would cause extreme satisfaction to my expectation and intention. Otherwise, I hope you might possibly correct it or simply efface and ignore it.14

Nayrīzī evidently started writing this commentary before Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s death on 12 Ramaḍān 903/4 May 1498. He quotes him on one occasion, referring to him as sayyidunā wa-sanadunā wa-mawlānā nāṣir al-sharīʿa al-ḥ aqqa, followed by a prayer for him: ayyad ḍilluhu l-ʿālī ʿalā mafāriq al-adānī’ wa-l-aʿālī.15 On 12 Ṣafar 916/20 May 1510, Nayrīzī completed a revised version of the commentary in Isfahan. Among the notes he added are references made to other works of his that had been written by that date, namely his commentary on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām and his commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād.16 Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma is comprised of three parts (qism): logic, physics and metaphysics. The final two parts of the text, physics and metaphysics, were the subject of many commentaries and glosses by philosophers of the following generations. Prior to Nayrīzī, 14 Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 2a. For Nayrīzī’s whole introduction to this work, see below, pp. 169–70 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’z Writings). 15 See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, ff. 87b–88a. 16 See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, f. 104b (reference to Sharḥ Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām), and ff. 104b, 108b, 132a, 154b (reference to Sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād). Apart from these two works, Nayrīzī makes reference to a commentary he wrote on an unidentified epistle (sharḥ baʿḍ al-rasāʾil), which may correspond to his commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda (f. 160b:17).

112

chapter three

the following commentaries, listed here in chronological order, were written on this text: 1) the commentary by Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Mubārakshāh al-Bukhārī;17 2) the commentary by Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Jurjānī, entitled Ḥ all al-Hidāya;18 3) the commentary by Mawlānāzāde al-Hirawī (fl. 815/1412);19 and 4) the commentary by Mīr Ḥ usayn al-Maybudī, completed in 880/1475.20 As was the case with the previous commentaries on the Hidāya, Nayrīzī’s Sharḥ covers only the last two parts of the text, those on physics and metaphysics. He states that given how it is presented by the author, the first part on logic does not require any commentary.21 Some of the previous commentaries on the text were also evidently known to Nayrīzī. However, he clearly did not consider them to be sufficient. This at least is suggested by the wording of the introduction to his commentary, where he states that no commentary on Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma has yet successfully explored the intentions of its author.22 Nayrīzī consulted some previous commentaries when writing his own Sharḥ . He refers repeatedly to “most of the commentators” (akthar al-shurrāḥ ) and presents their views.23 Maybudī’s commentary seems to be among the works he used. In his introduction, Nayrīzī reproduces the same reasons as to why Abharī did not include mathematics and practical philosophy in the Hidāya that were mentioned by Maybudī. The latter had explained that mathematics was excluded from Abharī’s treatise because it is based on imaginary (mawhūm) issues which have no reality in the world (lā tuḥ aqqaqu fī l-khārij), while practical philosophy was excluded because its issues were fully discussed in the sharīʿa. Nayrīzī adduces the same argument almost verbatim, only adding with respect to mathematics that Abharī’s intention was to write a short treatise. Had he included mathematics,

17

For the lithograph edition of this work see above, p. 2, fn. 7. For the location of an autograph copy of this commentary, see above, p. 4, fn. 19. 19 A manuscript of this commentary is preserved in the British Museum (MS Or. 9443). 20 Maybudī’s commentary became popular soon after its composition. Another student of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Taqī al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, wrote glosses on it. For the commentaries and glosses written on Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, see Akbar Thubūt, “Hidāyat al-ḥikma u Shurūḥ-i ān”, Khirad-i jāwidān: Jashnnāma-yi ustād sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn Āshtiyānī, ed. ʿAlī Asg̣ har Muḥammadkhānī & Ḥ asan Sayyid ʿArab, Tehran 1378/1999, pp. 135–150. 21 See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 5a:17–9. 22 Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 1b:9–2a:8. 23 See, for example, Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 154a:13. 18

works of nayrīzī

113

it would have greatly extended the length of the book.24 Near the end of the commentary, where Abharī refers to his more elaborate work, Zubdat al-asrār, there is further evidence to confirm Nayrīzī’s use of Maybudī’s commentary. Maybudī had recommended to his readers to turn to the works of Ibn Sīnā and Suhrawardī rather than to the Zubdat al-asrār. This suggestion is objected to by Nayrīzī, who states that the reference is given to the author’s Zubdat al-asrār and not, as “most of the commentators” suggest, to the Shifāʾ, the Najāt, or the Ḥ ikmat al-Ishrāq.25 In addition to Maybudī’s commentary (and possibly those others) on this text, Nayrīzī consulted other sources, some of which are explicitly mentioned in his commentary, such as the Uthūlūjiyā (“Theology”), which he attributes in his commentary to Aristotle,26 Ibn Sīnā’s al-Shifāʾ, al-Najāt and al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt, and various commentaries written on the Ishārāt by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī (to whom he refers as al-Muḥ aqqiq) and Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī. Nayrīzī also used Bahmanyār’s al-Tahṣīl and refers on one occasion to Ibn Zayla’s Talkhīṣ al-Shifāʾ.27 There are also references to Shams al-Dīn al-Shahrazūrī’s Rasāʾil al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya,28 Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s al-Mabāḥ ith al-mashriqiyya,29 and Taftāzānī’s Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid.30 No reference, however, is made to any other work by Abharī, probably because no other philosophical works of Abharī were available to him.31

24

Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 4a:16. Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 218b. 26 Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 211:18. On the so-called “Theology of Aristotle”, see Cristina D’Ancona, “Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in translation”, in The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, eds. Peter Adamson & Richard C. Taylor, Cambridge 2005, pp. 10–31, esp. pp. 24–6. 27 See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 143b:21. In Shahrazūrī’s Nuzhat al-arwāḥ wa- rawḍat al-afrāḥ fī tārīkh al-ḥ ukamāʾ (ed. Sayyid Khurshīd Aḥmad, Hyderabad 1396/1976, vol. 2, p. 59) this work is referred to as “Ikhtiṣār Ṭ abīʿiyāt al-Shifāʾ. On Ibn Zayla and his works see Taqī Bīnish, ‘Ibn Zayla’, in Dāʿirat al-maʿārif-i buzurg-i islāmī, vol. 3, Tehran 1374/1995, pp. 649–52. According to Bīnish (p. 650) this work is lost. 28 See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, ff. 173a:7; 140a:7; 143b:21; 144a:11; 146b:19; 149b:3; 215a:13. 29 Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 164b:8. 30 Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 166b:19. 31 On Athir al-Dīn al-Abharī’s writings, see Heidrun Eichner, “Athir al-Dīn al-Abharī” Encyclopaedia of Islam Three, ed. Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, and Everett Rowson, forthcoming. 25

114

chapter three

The commentary also reflects some of the disputes between Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī and Dawānī. On the issue of the existence of the Necessary Existent, for instance, Nayrīzī explains and criticizes at length the view of Dawānī. He refrains, however, from mentioning Dawānī’s name and refers to the latter as hādhā l-qāʾil al-muḥ aqqiq (qaddasa sirruh).32 III. Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām wa-nihāyātihā wa-tabyīn maqāṣid al-ḥ arakāt wa-ghāyātihā This work, which is one of the two independent works of Nayrīzī, was completed on 24 Rabīʿ II 911/23 September 1505. It was dedicated to someone referred to as al-malik al-majīd Âiyāʾ al-milla wa-l-dunyā wa-ldīn Sadīd,33 who apart from being a ruler, must have been a scholar since Nayrīzī praises him as mawlā al-fāḍil and ʿallāmat al-ʿaṣr.34 Nevertheless, the scant reference does not allow for his identification. This treatise, which discusses the finitude of dimensions, consists of three chapters ( fuṣūl): 1) On the finitude of the dimensions ( fī bayān tanāhī al-abʿād); 2) On the limits of the two directions ( fī bayān muḥ addid hātayn al-jihatayn); 3) Resolution of the doubt that has been expressed on the existence of the limits ( fī ḥ all shakk aw radd ʿalā wujūd al-muḥ addid). In the beginning of the first chapter, Nayrīzī explains that some early Greek and Indian philosophers, as well as Abū l-Barakāt al-Baghdādī (d. 552/1157) among the later philosophers, believed that dimensions were unlimited. Without identifying his source, Nayrīzī presents some of their arguments for the infinitude of dimensions,35 followed by several arguments supporting

32 Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 177a:18. Dawānī was still alive in 904/1498–9 when Nayrīzī completed the first draft of this work. Therefore the eulogy, qaddasa sirruh, equivalent to the English “may he rest in peace”, must have been added later on, possibly by Nayrīzī himself in his revised version of the commentary, completed in 916/1510. 33 See Nayrīzī, Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām wa-nihāyātihā, MS Malik 2614, f. 1b:12. 34 Nayrīzī, Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām, f. 1b. 35 See Nayrīzī, Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām, ff. 2a–b. The arguments he presents here are different from those of Abū l-Barakāt in his Muʿtabar and it seems unlikely that he used this work as a source. For Abū l-Barakāt al-Baghdādī’s discussion of the issue, see his al-Muʿtabar fī l-ḥ ikma, Lithograph Edition, Hyderabad 1357/1938, [reprinted Isfahan 1373/1994], vol. 2, pp. 80–7. Generally speaking, no evidence has been found in Nayrīzī’s writings which would indicate that Abū l-Barakāt al-Baghdādī’s al-Muʿtabar was available to him.

works of nayrīzī

115

their finitude.36 He refers to some of the sources he used, namely Ibn Sīnā’s al-Shifā,37 an unspecified work of Suhrawardī (ṣāḥ ib al-Ishrāq fī baʿḍ taṣānīfihī),38 Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt,39 Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī’s commentary on his own al-Maqāṣid,40 and ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-Iʿtiqād.41 Nayrīzī discusses the issue of the finitude of dimensions in his other major works, namely in his commentary on Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, his glosses on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, his commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām, his commentary on Nasị̄ r al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, and in his commentary on Suhrawardī’s al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya. In the last-mentioned work, he presents some arguments for the finitude of dimensions, and refers to his glosses on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq and to his commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-kalām, in which he had elaborated on this topic more extensively.42 Surprisingly, he does not refer to the independent work he had written on the topic; perhaps later on he became dissatisfied with this treatise and his argumentation in it. IV. Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib In his commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, completed in 921/1515–6, Nayrīzī refers to his own independent treatise as follows: There is a treatise that I had written ten years earlier, at the request of a grandee in Gīlān (baʿḍ al-aʿāẓim fī l-Jīlān), in which I added to the proofs the introductory section without which they [i.e., the proofs] are incomplete. I also added to it the issue of [God’s] oneness (wāḥ idiyya) and unity (waḥ da) and the way the attributes are related to Him. In those arguments, I was concerned with the remarks made by him [i.e.,

36 See Nayrīzī, Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām, ff. 4a–9a. For these arguments, see Fāṭima Fanā, “Tanāhī abʿād”, Dānishnāma-yi jahān-i Islām, vol. 8, Tehran 1383/2004, pp. 246–8. 37 Nayrīzī, Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām, MS Malik 2614, f. 5b. 38 See Nayrīzī, Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām, MS Malik 2614, f. 7a. 39 Nayrīzī, Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām, MS Malik 2614, f. 6a. 40 Nayrīzī, Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām, MS Malik 2614, ff. 2b, 8b,15a. 41 Nayrīzī, Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām, MS Malik 2614, f. 16b. 42 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f 25a.

116

chapter three Dawānī] on most of these proofs and abstracted the arguments from the irrelevant remarks.43

In his introduction to Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib, Nayrīzī’s patron is referred to ambiguously as “Nāṣiran li-l-ḥaqq Sadīd” and “Nāsị r riyāḍ al-mulk”.44 Nayrīzī also dedicated to the same patron his glosses on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq. There, he refers to him once as Nāṣir li-l-ḥ aqq raʾyuhu l-Sadīd and another time as Nāṣir li-l-islām Naṣīran li-l-Dīn Sadīd.45 Nayrīzī, moreover, praises him as ṣāḥ ib al-sayf wa-l-qalam, a title that was usually used for viziers.46 In the dedication of his glosses on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, he praises, apart from the above mentioned patron, a so-called “Sultạ̄ n b. Sulṭān Aḥ mad Baḥādur Khān”, who can safely be identified as Sultan Aḥ mad Kārkiyā, the ruler of the eastern part of Gīlān (Biya Pīsh) since 911/1505. Therefore, it can be concluded that Nayrīzī wrote this work in 911/1505 or shortly after, while staying in Gīlān, and dedicated it to Nāṣir or Nāṣir al-Dīn, who was presumably the vizier of Aḥmad Khān Kārkiyā. Ithbāt al-wājib (or Ithbāt al-mabdaʾ) was a title given to a philosophical genre dealing with the proofs for the existence of the Necessary Existent. Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-qadīma, which was completed in 894/1489, was the first contribution by a philosopher from Shiraz to this genre. In this work, Dawānī differentiates in a highly analytical manner between the proofs for the existence of the Necessary Existent which are based on the finitude of causes and those which are not. The work ends with an epilogue about how contingent being lacks the predisposition within itself either to exist or not to exist. Following Dawānī, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī wrote a treatise in 903/1497 with the title Ithbāt al-wājib. Dashtakī presents in it only one proof for the existence of the Necessary Existent and, compared to Dawānī, his discussion of this subject is much briefer. Instead, he elaborates on the issue of God’s unity (aḥ adiyya) and His 43 Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, MS Majlis 1841, f. 20a. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, pp. 154–5 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 44 See Nayrīzī, Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib, MS Malik 688, f. 159a. 45 See below, pp. 179–80 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 46 For instance, this title is used by Ibn Kammūna for ṣaḥ ib dīwān Shams al-Dīn al-Juwaynī (d. 683/1284). See his “Kalimāt wajīza mushtamila ʿalā nukat laṭīfa fī l-ʿilm wa-l-ʿamal”, edited by Reza Pourjavady and Sabine Schmidtke, in A Jewish Philosopher of Baghdad, p. 140. Nayrīzī furthermore describes his patron as a metaphysician knowledgeable in religious law and politics (ilāhī lahu ʿilm al-sharāʾiʿ wa-l-mulk wa-lsiyāsa). See Nayrīzī, Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib, MS Malik 688, f. 159a.

works of nayrīzī

117

attributes (ṣifāt). Dashtakī’s treatise motivated Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī to devote another epistle to this subject, entitled Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, in which he follows the same structure as Dashtakī’s treatise. The above-quoted remark made by Nayrīzī in his commentary on the Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda clearly shows that he was concerned in his independent tract on this subject with Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-qadīma. Nayrīzī divided his work into two chapters (maqṣadayn). Chapter One, on the principles ( fī l-mabādiʾ), is divided into two sections ( faṣlayn): 1) the concepts of the necessary, the contingent and the impossible ( fī taḥ sị̄ l maʿnā al-wājib wa-l-mumkin wa-l-mumtaniʿ); and 2) the definition of cause and its divisions ( fī taʿrīf al-ʿilla wa taqsīmuhā). Nayrīzī’s incorporation of these subjects in his Ithbāt al-wājib is likely a result of the influence of Dawānī’s epilogue to his own Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-qadīma, in which the latter discussed contingency and its conditions. In his introduction Nayrīzī broadens the subject by addressing other issues as well. Without a discussion of these issues, he maintains, the proof for the existence of the Necessary Existent is incomplete; therefore they must be included in any work belonging to the genre of Ithbāt al-wājib. Chapter Two, “On the intentions ( fī l-maqāṣid)”, is again divided into two sections: 1) on proving that beings have a principle that is necessarily existent and does not have any cause ( fī ithbāt anna li-l-mawjūdāt mabdaʾ wājib wujūdihi min ghayr an yakūna lahu ʿilla); and 2) on His uniqueness ( fī waḥ dāniyyat dhātihī). In the first section of this chapter, Nayrīzī adduces some passages from Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-qadīma.47 Nayrīzī, however, does not directly refer here or anywhere else in this work either to Dawānī or to his Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-qadīma. The sources to which he explicitly refers are Ibn Sīnā’s Shifāʾ, Taftāzānī’s Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid, Jurjānī’s commentary on Ījī’s Mawāqif, and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād. This section ends with Dashtakī’s proof for the existence of the Necessary Existent, which Nayrīzī quotes from Dashtakī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib. It is also under the influence of the latter’s work that Nayrīzī devoted the second section of this chapter to the discussion of the 47

For instance, he quotes Dawānī’s comment on the argument of taḍāyuf for the finitude of causes. See Nayrīzī, Risalat Ithbāt al-wājib, MS Malik 688, f. 178a. Instead of explicitly referring to Dawānī, Nayrīzī structured the sentence in the passive (waqad yuqālu . . . ).

118

chapter three

oneness (aḥ adiyya) and uniqueness (waḥ dāniyya) of the Necessary Existent. V. Glosses on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq and on Quṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī’s Commentary on this Work Nayrīzī’s collection of glosses on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-Ishrāq is another work dedicated to Nāṣir or Nāṣir al-Dīn (see above, pp. 115–6). It was presumably composed around the same time as his Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib during his stay in Gīlān. In his Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, Suhrawardī criticizes Ibn Sīnā’s philosophy on the one hand, and proposes his own Philosophy of Illumination with its peculiar language on the other. This work, despite its significance, is unsystematic, straying sometimes from one subject to another without any logical order, with some topics being treated repeatedly on different occasions. The two early commentators on the text, Shams al-Dīn al-Shahrazūrī (d. after 687/1288) and Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, both tried to render the text more coherent. Whereas Shahrazūrī’s commentary was not widely received, that of Quṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī was popular, so that later on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq was usually copied and studied together with this commentary.48 In the extant manuscripts, Nayrīzī’s glosses are found written on the margin of Qutḅ al-Dīn Shīrāzī’s commentary. These are concerned primarily with Suhrawardī’s text, but at times also with Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary. In his introduction, Nayrīzī explains his intention in writing the glosses as follows: Part of the book called al-Ishrāq is an evaluation of the two groups of philosophers, consisting of some arguments which were accepted by most of the later scholars because of the positive attitude they had towards the author. I decided to look at the text fairly, trying to comprehend it.

48 With the exception of Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, who consulted Shahrazūrī’s commentary on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq for his own commentary on the same text, no later philosopher is known to have used the commentary of Shahrazūrī. Apart from Nayrīzī, Mīr Dāmād and Mullā Ṣadrā (d. 1050/1640) wrote glosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary. For the glosses of Mīr Dāmād on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary, see Mīr Dāmād, Muṣannafāt-i Mīr Dāmād, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, Tehran 1381/2003, vol. 1, pp. 523–7. For the glosses of Mullā Ṣadrā, see Qutḅ al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, Sharḥ Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, lithograph edition, 1313/1895–6; cf. Sajjad H. Rizvi, Mullā Ṣadrā Shīrāzī: His Life and Works and the Sources for Safavid Philosophy, Oxford 2007, p. 76.

works of nayrīzī

119

I spent considerable time reading it thoroughly, so as to enable myself either to admit or to reject every statement of it. After making such a precise investigation, it became clear to me that although it [i.e., the work] includes some delicate points, in some issues it deviates from the right path and descent from the truth. It also contains some alterations of words from their proper meanings, and arguments that are applied in the wrong contexts. In order to show what is right concerning those issues and make it evident by means of arguments, I decided to write glosses on the text to distinguish the right from the wrong, the mirage from the water, and remove the cover from the heart.49

Nayrīzī is referring to the evaluation Suhrawardī made of Peripatetic views on some particular issues, distinguishing them from what he calls the Ishrāqī views on the same matters. Chapter Three (al-maqāla al-thālitha) of the first part (al-qism al-awwal ) of Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq is entitled “On the falsifications and some judgments between the Ishrāqī expressions and the expressions of philosophers”. Nayrīzī’s glosses, which include this chapter, start with his remark on causal and assertoric demonstrations (burhān lima wa-burhān inna) near the end of the second chapter of the first part, and continue with a discussion on the transmigration of the soul in the fifth chapter of the second part, where his last remark can be found. The number of Nayrīzī’s marginal remarks differs in the two extant manuscripts of this work: MS Laleli 2523 contains  889 remarks with the signature of Nayrīzī (  ), whereas MS Ragıp  854 contains 840 of his remarks with his signature (). Most of these remarks are brief, explaining the text of Suhrawardī. VI. Glosses on Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s Commentary on ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī’s al-Mawāqif fī ʿilm al-kalām Al-Mawāqif fī ʿilm al-kalām is a theological-philosophical work by ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī consisting of six chapters (mawāqif ). Chapter One contains some epistemological preliminaries ( fī l-muqaddamāt), while Chapter Two is devoted to some general ontology (al-umūr al-ʿāmma). Chapter Three is entitled On accidents ( fī l-aʿrāḍ), Chapter Four, On substances ( fī l-jawāhir), Chapter Five, On Metaphysics (ilāhiyyāt), and Chapter Six,

49 Nayrīzī, Ḥ āshīya ʿalā Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, MS Laleli 2523, f.2b. For the whole introduction of Nayrīzī to this work, see below, pp. 179–80 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings).

120

chapter three

On the knowledge that is based on revelation ( fī l-samʿiyyāt).50 Completed in Shawwāl 807/April 1405, Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s commentary on this text became one of the most popular theological works of the later Islamic period. This is indicated by the large number of extant manuscripts and the numerous glosses that were written on it.51 Nayrīzī’s set of glosses on this commentary is probably one of his relatively early writings. There are references to it in his commentary on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām and in his Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād.52 These glosses are apparently lost, and hence it is unclear whether they cover the entire text or only some part of it. The two occasions on which Nayrīzī refers to these glosses, which are to be found in his Taḥrīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid and his Sharḥ Tahdhīb al-manṭiq, are both on the issue of the definition of knowledge (ʿilm). This topic is discussed in the second section (marṣad) of Chapter One of al-Mawāqif. It is possible that Nayrīzī may only have written glosses on this section of the commentary.53 VII. Commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-manṭiq In his Dharīʿa ilā taṣānīf al-shīʿa and his Ṭabaqāt aʿlām al-shīʿa, Āghā Buzurg al-Ṭ ihrānī states that he had seen a manuscript of Nayrīzī’s commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd al-manṭiq in a library in Sāmarrāʾ.54 According to Āghā Buzurg, Nayrīzī started the commentary in Isfahan, completed it in Qazvin on 23 Dhu l-Ḥ ijja 913/24 April 1508 and dedicated it to a certain Amīr Niẓām al-Din Maḥmūd. He further informs us that the commentary is long, consisting of about ten thousand lines, and that in its introduction Nayrīzī explicitly mentions that he made use of the glosses of his teacher, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, on

50

In his study on Ījī, Josef van Ess translates and analyzes the first chapter of this book into German; see Die Erkenntnislehre des ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Īcī: Übersetzung und Kommentar des ersten Buches seiner Mawāqif. 51 For the extant glosses on this text, see Shakībānīyā/Pourjavady, “Kitāb-shināsī-i Mīr Sayyid Sharīf-i Jurjānī”, pp. 145–6. 52 For his reference to this work in his commentary on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-lkalām, see MS Riḍawī 1088, f. 31a. For the reference in Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, see MS Majlis 3968, f. 221a. 53 For the reference to this work in his Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, see MS Majlis 3968, f. 221b:9, and in his Sharḥ Tahdhīb al-Manṭiq, see MS Riḍawī 1088, f. 30a. 54 See al-Dharīʿa, vol. 13, pp. 140–1, no. 469, and vol. 3, p. 354, no. 1278; Ṭ abaqāt, vol. 7, p. 244.

works of nayrīzī

121

Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd al-manṭiq.55 The manuscript described by Āghā Buzurg later on became part of the Ḥ akīm Library of Najaf (MS Ḥ akīm 59), and is mentioned in the manuscript catalogue of the library published by Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh in 1967.56 It is on the basis of several references to this commentary in Nayrīzī’s other writings that the correctness of the attribution of this commentary to him is established.57 VIII. Commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād: Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid Nayrīzī’s commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, entitled Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, is his largest extant work and one of the largest commentaries ever composed on this text.58 The first draft of this work must have been written some time before 12 Ṣafar 916/20 May 1510, since in a note he wrote on this date at the end of the revised copy of his commentary on Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, he mentions this work as one of his earlier writings.59 There is also a reference to this work in his commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām, which may be an indication that he wrote his commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād prior to his commentary on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq.60 Later on he copied it, probably with some revisions.61 The revised commentary was completed on 2 Rabīʿ I 919/8 May 1513. Nayrīzī writes at the end of the work:

55

Ṭ abaqāt, vol. 7, p. 244. The glosses of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī on the text are extant in MS Marʿashī 1707 (cat. 95/5). Cf. ʿAlī Ṣadrāyī Khūyī, Kitābshināsi-yi Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, Qum 1382/2003, p. 16. 56 See Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh, Fihrist-i kitābkhānahā-yi ʿIrāq u ʿArabistān, vol. 5, Tehran 1346/1967–8, p. 425. Dānishpazhūh’s entry to this manuscript in the catalogue does not contain any additional information but its location. 57 Reference is given to this work in Nayrīzī’s commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām (MS Riḍawī 1088, f. 117a), and in his note at the end of the revised version of his commentary on Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma (MS Carullah 1327, f. 218b). 58 Instead of Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, Nayrīzī calls the work ‘Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid’. The latter title seems to have become popular after Shams al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Isf̣ ahānī called his commentary Tasdīd al-qawāʿid fī sharḥ Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid. However, earlier commentators such as Ḥ illī and Isfarāyinī refer to the text as Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād. See ʿAlī Ṣadrāyī Khūyī, Kitābshināsi-yi Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, pp. 9–10. 59 For this note see below, p. 171 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 60 For the reference to this work in his commentary on Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām, see MS Riḍawī 1088, f. 108. 61 There is no particular evidence indicating that Nayrīzī revised the commentary in the copy completed on 2 Rabīʿ I 919/8 May 1513. However, his wording in the colophon quoted below suggests that he had done more than a simple copying of the text.

122

chapter three God allowed me here to complete this commentary on Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, which contains all the true points in the works of earlier scholars and the delicate points written by the later scholars, and some points which have never been discussed or even thought about by anyone so far. I have called it Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, consisting of a selection of kalām disputations, based on the beliefs of the Imāmī Shīʿa, the sect which will attain salvation.62

Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād a work written by Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī in his late carreer, consists of six chapters (maqāṣid): Chapter One: On general ontology (al-umūr al-ʿāmma); Chapter Two: On substances and accidents ( fī l-jawāhir wa-l-aʿrāḍ); Chapter Three: On metaphysics ( fī l-ilāhiyyāt); Chapter Four: On prophecy ( fī l-nubuwwa); Chapter Five: On the imamate; Chapter Six: On eschatology ( fī l-maʿād). The significant number of commentaries and glosses written on this work shows its popularity in the later period of Islamic thought. By the time of Nayrīzī, the following commentaries had been written on this text: 1) Kashf al-murād fī sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād by Ḥ asan b. Yūsuf al-Ḥ illī (d. 726/1326); 2) Taʿrīd al-iʿtimād fī sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād by Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Bihishtī al-Isfarāyinī (fl. 741/1340); 3) Tasdīd al-qawāʿid fī sharḥ Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid by Shams al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Iṣfahānī, also known as al-Sharḥ al-qadīm, on which significant glosses had been written by al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī; and 4) al-Sharḥ al-Jadīd by ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Qūshchī.63 The only Twelver Shīʿī among these commentators was ʿAllāma al-Ḥ illī. The rest, all Sunnīs, criticized and rejected Ṭ ūsī’s Twelver Shīʿī doctrines. The scholars of Shiraz showed special interest in Qūshchī’s commentary. As discussed in Chapter Three, the controversy between Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī was developed mostly through the glosses they wrote on Qūshchī’s commentary. Some of Dashtakī’s and Dawānī’s students also wrote glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary, namely Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥ usayn al-Lārī, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr al-Dashtakī, Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī, and Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥ usan al-Ilāhī al-Ardabīlī.64 The glosses written by the above-mentioned scholars all dealt with the first three chapters of the text, meaning that 62 Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Princeton 70, f. 121a. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 160 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 63 For the locations of the manuscripts of these commentaries, see ʿAlī Ṣadrāyī Khūyī, Kitābshināsi-yi Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, pp. 35–38, 42–4, 59–62, 172–4. 64 For the glosses and superglosses written on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, see ʿAlī Ṣadrāyī Khūyī, Kitābshināsi-yi Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, pp. 63–160.

works of nayrīzī

123

none of them covered the chapter on the imamate. Nayrīzī’s commentary is different from those of his Shirazian contemporaries in that he comments on the text of Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād directly and covers the entire text, including the chapter on the imamate. Nayrīzī explicitly follows Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī on the latter issue and elaborates on it with reference to Ṭ abarī’s Tārīkh and the Nahj al-balāgha, the collection of sermons attributed to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib compiled by al-Sharīf al-Raḍīy (d. 406/1015), as well as some other Shīʿī sources, like Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī’s (d. 817/1414–15) Sifr al-saʿāda.65 He also dealt with the critical positions of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and Taftāzānī on the imamate.66 In the introduction to the commentary, Nayrīzī acknowledged three works as the most significant studies that had been done on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād: (1) al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s glosses on Shams al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, (2) Qūshchī’s commentary, and (3) Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary.67 But he maintained that despite all this scholarship on the text, many of its precious ideas still awaited proper explanation. Some of the commentators, he believed, were too suspicious and raised superfluous doubts regarding the author’s arguments. Others assumed that the author was completely misled and that his contribution was nothing but an attempt to epitomize the work and dress it with allusions and metaphors. Hence, they interpreted it according to their own desires and merely wounded the text when they thought they were commenting on it. Nayrīzī seems to have included Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī among the latter group with an allusion to “one of the well-known persons” (baʿḍ al-aʿlām).68 Nayrīzī’s method of commenting the text, as he explains it, was to elaborate the author’s ideas and then paraphrase some of the richest expositions of the commentators.69 To elaborate Ṭ ūsī’s ideas, the latter’s other works are frequently cited by Nayrīzī. He explicitly refers to Ṭ ūsī’s commentary on Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt,

65 Nayrīzī adduces a quotation from Fīrūzābādī’s Sifr al-saʿāda. See Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Majlis 3968, f. 303b:15–8. On Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī, see Muḥammad Taqī Mīr, Buzurgān-i nāmī-yi pārs, vol. 1, pp. 497–503. 66 For Nayrīzī’s discussion on this issue, see his Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Majlis 3968, f. 283a ff. 67 See Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Iḥyāʾ-i mīrāth 1849, f. 2a. 68 See Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Iḥyāʾ-i mīrāth 1849, f. 2a. 69 See Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Iḥyāʾ-i mīrāth 1849, ff. 2b–3a.

124

chapter three

his critical commentary on Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Muḥ aṣsạ l entitled Naqd al-Muḥ aṣsạ l, Sharḥ al-Thamarat li-Baṭlamyūs, Asās al-iqtibās, Tajrīd al-manṭiq, his commentary on Shahrastānī’s al-Muṣāriʿ entitled Maṣāriʿ al-Muṣāraʿ, and his commentary on Risālat al-ʿilm by Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad b. ʿAlī b. Saʿāda (fl. early 7th/13th). Of the previous commentaries, he adduced mainly the ones by ʿAllāma al-Ḥ illī and Qūshchī. But he also used Shams al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī’s commentary together with its glosses by al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī and on one occasion the commentary of al-Bihishtī al-Isfarāyinī.70 Nayrīzī also covers the philosophical disputes between Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī in their respective glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād. He criticizes the views of Dawānī, to whom he exclusively referred as baʿḍ al-muḥ aqqiqīn or baʿḍ al-shurrāḥ . Most of these criticisms are based on Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s counter-arguments. Nayrīzī, however, usually wrote them in his own words; references to his teacher only appear occasionally, i.e., when he cited the latter’s argumentation verbatim.71 Among Nayrīzī’s previous works, his Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib was also used in the commentary. On the arguments for the finitude of causes and on the proofs for the existence of the Necessary Existent, Nayrīzī partly paraphrases and partly quotes verbatim some passages from the latter work.72 IX. Superglosses on Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s Glosses on Qūṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Commentary on Kātibī’s al-Risāla al-Shamsiyya In his commentary on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām, Nayrīzī refers to one of his earlier works on logic as ḥ awāshīnā ʿalā ḥ awāshī al-risāla al-Shamsiyya, and mā ʿallaqnāhu ʿalā ḥ awāshī al-sharīfa al-Sharīfiyya ʿalā sharḥ al-risāla al-Shamsiyya.73 From the latter reference, it is clear that he wrote superglosses on Mīr Sayyid Sharīf Jurjānī’s glosses on Qut ̣b al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Taḥ rīr al-qawāʿid al-manṭiqiyya, which is itself a 70

See Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Majlis 3968, f. 212a:12. See, e.g., Nayrīzī, Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Majlis 3968, f. 212a:12. 72 Compare the argument in Nayrīzī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib (MS Malik 688, ff. 179b:2–183b:2, 185b:9–186a:8) with his Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid (MS Majlis 3968, ff. 121a:20–122a:23, 122a:26–b:7). Cf. also his proofs for the existence of the Necessary Existent in his Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib (ff. 175b:5–6b:3) with Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid (MS Majlis 3968, f. 264b:13–28). 73 See MS Riḍawī 1088, ff. 71a:9–10, 163b:5–6. 71

works of nayrīzī

125

commentary on Najm al-Din al-Kātibī’s al-Risāla al-Shamsiyya.74 The reference also indicates that Nayrīzī wrote this work prior to his commentary on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām. No manuscript of this work has yet been found. X. Superglosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Commentary on Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s Matạ̄ liʿ al-anwār and on Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s Glosses on the Same Commentary In the introduction to this work, Nayrīzī writes: These are glosses that I wrote partly on the commentary on Maṭāliʿ and partly on the commentary of al-Sharīf while I was going through them. I collected them here as a memorandum (tadhkira) for some of my friends, and a clue for anyone who pays attention to the right. I hope they disseminate their good points and correct their mistakes . . . 75

As mentioned earlier,76 Qutḅ al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār (entitled Lawāmiʿ al-asrār fī sharḥ Maṭāliʿ al-anwār), together with Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s glosses on it, were among the texts debated by Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī and Ṣadr al-Dīn and Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī. Presumably Nayrīzī addressed these disputed issues in his glosses. Reference to this work is given in his commentary on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām.77 XI. Commentary on Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī’s Tahdhīb al-mant ̣iq wa-l-kalām Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī’s Ghāyat tahdhīb al-kalām fī taḥ rīr al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām, which later on became known as Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-lkalām, consists of two parts dealing with logic and kalām. The part on

74 Kātibī’s Shamsiyya, together with Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary (Taḥ rīr al-qawāʿid al-manṭiqiyya fī sharḥ al-Shamsiyya) and Sharīf Jurjānī’s glosses, have been published repeatedly. See Daiber, Bibliography of Islamic Philosophy, vol. 1, pp. 266, 519–20. 75 The only identified manuscript of this work (MS Āṣafiyya manṭiq 58) was not available to me. The quotation is according to the description of the manuscript of this work in the Catalogue of Ās ̣afiyya library (vol. 2, p. 519). For the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 178 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 76 See above, pp. 80–1. 77 See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām, MS Riḍawī 1088, f. 108a:5.

126

chapter three

logic, following the logical system of Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt, is arranged in two sections: 1) On concepts (al-taṣawwurāt) and 2) on assertions (taṣdīqāt). This part of the work was more popular than the second part dealing with kalām.78 The extant manuscripts of Nayrīzī’s commentary contain the first part on logic only. However, there are several reasons for believing that Nayrīzī’s commentary originally covered the second part of the text on kalām as well (or that at least he intended to cover the second part). First, the commentator’s wording in the colophon at the end of the logic part, as well as a remark on one occasion in the commentary, suggest that it was the commentator’s intention to extend the commentary to the second part.79 Secondly, in his Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī kashf ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ , Nayrīzī refers to the elaborations on the issue of the finitude of dimensions in his commentary on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām.80 This issue is not discussed in the extant part of the commentary on logic and its subject-matter suggests that it would have been discussed in the second part devoted to kalām. In the introduction to this commentary, Nayrīzī explains the reason for writing the commentary as follows: Then it happened that I moved out of my town and went to a city [i.e., Isfahan] of seditions and troubles, where I could no longer see my true friends. There I met people who had not benefited from the virtues and were of mean quality . . . In their hands I saw a book, short but full of meaning, the most purified form of purification of kalām, and the most scrutinized form of scrutiny of the subject, short, without any extraneous matter, . . . a selection of the thought of philosophers and theologians, a survey of all the experiences of earlier and later scholars . . . The seekers of

78 Of the two parts of the text only the first is available in a critical edition, i.e., Ḥ asan Malikshāhī’s Tarjuma u tafsīr-i Tahdhīb al-manṭiq, Tehran 1363/1984. The second part on kalām is only available in a lithograph edition, together with its commentary by ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muḥammad al-Sanandajī al-Kurdistānī (d. 1304/1887). See ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muḥammad al-Sanandajī al-Kurdistānī, Taqrīb al-marām fī sharḥ Tahdhīb al-kalām, Lithograph Edition, Bulāq 1318/1900. On Taftāzānī’s logical works, see Wilferd Madelung, “Al-Taftazanī und die Philosophie”, Logik und Theologie. Das Organon im arabischen und im lateinischen Mittelalter, eds. Dominik Perler and Ulrich Rudolph, Leiden 2006, pp. 227–36. 79 This colophon is preserved in MS Riḍawī 1088 (261b) where Nayrīzī writes:           [. . .]                                        [. . .]     Elsewhere in the commentary (MS Riḍawī, f. 108a), he states:                      .                             80 See above, p. 115.

works of nayrīzī

127

the truth (ṭullāb al-ḥ aqq) used to look at this work like a thirsty man who reaches a mirage, amazed by the abridged language, and the delicacy of its meanings, with no hope of catching the true sense of their meanings. So I tried to further enhance its helpfulness for the seekers of truth . . . 81

The attitude of the commentator towards the author is positive both in his introduction and throughout the first extant part. With regard to the second part of the book, however, his attitude could not have been as positive as in the first, particularly on the issue of the imamate where Taftāzānī had refuted the Shīʿī position.82 For the first part, Nayrīzī uses Taftāzānī’s commentaries on Kātibī’s Shamsiyya and on Ījī’s al-Mukhtaṣar fī l-uṣūl.83 Other sources that he refers to are Ibn Sīnā’s al-Shifāʾ and his al-Ishārāt wa-l-tabīhāt, Bahmanyār’s al-Tahṣīl, Suhrawardī’s al-Talwīḥ āt, Nas ̣īr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-manṭiq as well as his commentary on the Ishārāt, his Asās al-iqtibās, Kātibī’s Shamsiyya, Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār, Shahrazūrī’s al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya, and some unspecified works of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī. Nayrīzī moreover mentions that he had access to other commentaries that had been written on the text, yet he refrains from identifying them.84 We are aware of four commentaries on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq that were written prior to Nayrīzī’s, namely by Ḥ asan Shāh Baqqāl,85 by Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Kāfiyajī (d. 879/1474) (entitled al-Tajrīb fī kashf al-rumūz al-Tahdhīb) completed in 876/1471–72,86 by Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī,87 and by Sayf al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī (d. 916/1510), completed in 882/1477–78.88 Although Nayrīzī does not refer to Dawānī’s commentary, it is evident that he knew and presumably used it. This is

81 Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Tahdhīb al-manṭiq, MS Șehid Ali 1780, f. 2a. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 164 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 82 See Insiyya Barkhwāh, “Tahdhīb al-mant ̣iq wa-l-kalām”, in Dānishnāma-yi jahān-i Islām, vol. 8, Tehran 1383/2004, pp. 703–5. 83 See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Tahdhīb al-manṭiq, MS Riḍawī 1088, f. 122b (reference to Taftāzānī’s commentary on Kātibī’s Shamsiyya), and f. 260a (reference to Taftāzānī’s commentary on Ījī’s al-Mukhtaṣar fī l-uṣūl ). 84 See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Tahdhīb al-manṭiq, MS Riḍawī 1088, f. 240a. 85 On Ḥ asan Shāh Baqqāl and his commentary on Tahdhīb al-manṭiq, see above, p. 3, fn. 17. 86 The autograph MS of this commentary is preserved in MS Laleli 2592. 87 See Dharīʾa, vol. 6, p. 54. One of the manuscripts of this commentary is MS Majlis 1834 (cat. vol. 5, p. 318). 88 A copy of this commentary is preserved in MS Malik 965 (Cat. vol. 1, 393).

128

chapter three

suggested by his explicit reference to it in his commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda.89 XII. Commentary on Ḥ asan b. Yūsuf al-Ḥ illī’s Tahdhīb al-aḥ kām In his note at the end of the revised copy of his commentary on Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma (completed on 12 Ṣafar 916/20 May 1510), Nayrīzī mentions among his previous writings a commentary on Ḥ asan b. Mut ̣ahhar al-Ḥ illī’s “Tahdhīb al-aḥkām”.90 This work, which is apparently lost, was most likely a commentary on ʿAllāma al-Ḥ illī’s Tahdhib ṭarīq al-wuṣūl ilā ʿilm al-uṣūl, which is a concise work on legal methodology.91 This constituted, to our knowledge, the only contribution of Nayrīzī in the field of legal methodology. Besides Nayrīzī, two other scholars of the early Safavid period, Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥ usayn al-Ilāhī al-Ardabīlī and Jalāl al-Dīn al-Astarābādī, wrote commentaries on this text.92 XIII. Glosses on Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī’s Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm Āghā Buzurg al-Ṭ ihrānī mentions that Nayrīzī copied Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī’s Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm in his philosophical codex and that he wrote glosses on the text in the margins.93 This seems to have been the only extant manuscript of the text. Since the codex has been moved in the last fifty years, no more certain knowledge of the glosses is available. The most significant part of the text of Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm is the theology section, devoted to the issue of the creation of the world (ḥ udūth al-ʿālam). Here, Dawānī criticizes the views of Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā on this issue. As was discussed earlier,94 Nayrīzī maintains that the views of these two philosophers did not contradict religious dogma. Therefore, the glosses may contain some critical remarks by Nayrīzī with regard to Dawānī’s view on this issue. 89

See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Risālat ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, MS Majlis 1841, f. 190 a. See below, p. 171 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 91 See ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Ṭ abāṭabāʾī, Maktabat al-ʿAllāma al-Ḥ illī, Qum 1416/1995–6, pp. 109–11. 92 Ilāhī Ardabīlī’s commentary on this text is mentioned in his ijāza to Kamāl al-Dīn Ibrāhīm al-Ṣafawī. See al-Afandī al-Iṣfahānī, vol. 2, p. 101. On Jalāl al-Dīn al-Astarābādī’s commentary on this text see above, pp. 15, fn. 96. 93 See Dharīʿa, vol. 2, pp. 406–7, no. 1627, and vol. 6, p. 26, no. 102, Ṭ abaqāt, vol. 7, p. 244. 94 See above, pp. 61–2. 90

works of nayrīzī

129

XIV. Glosses on Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī’s Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥ all shubha ‘kulli kalāmī kādhib’ According to Aghā Buzurg al-Ṭ ihrānī, the philosophical codex transcribed by Nayrīzī contains Dawānī’s Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥ all shubhat ‘kulli kalāmī kādhib’ together with Nayrīzī’s glosses in the margin.95 Unfortunately, the codex has been missing for the last fifty years. However, the Malik library in Tehran possesses a manuscript containing glosses on Dawānī’s Nihāyat al-kalām, which seems to be by Nayrīzī (MS Malik 688/1).96 Unfortunately, the beginning of this manuscript, which may have contained the author’s name, is lost, but there are several factors to indicate that the glosses were written by Nayrīzī: first, the glossator refers to Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī as ‘our master’ (ustādhunā); second, the signature used by the glossator at the end of each gloss is MD () which might be the abbreviated form of Maḥmūd, Nayrīzī’s first name. A similar signature is also used in one of the manuscripts of Nayrīzī’s glosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq (MS Laleli 2523).97 Third, these glosses are critical of Dawanī’s positions while supporting Dashtakī’s. The views of Dashtakī were presented there on the basis of his glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād as well as his treatise on the liar paradox. XV. Commentary on Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda A commentary by Nayrīzī on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda was completed, according to the chronogram given by the author at the end of the text (using the abjad-system), in ithbāt wājibihi, which corresponds to 921/1515–6. Its first draft, however, must have been written five years or more before, since in the note he wrote on 12 Ṣafar 916/20 May 1510 at the end of his commentary on Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma he mentions this title as one of his previous writings.98 Nayrīzī may possibly have revised the text later on in 921/1515–6 but this revision seems to be so substantial that he took the date of completion

95 96 97 98

See Dhariʿa, vol. 7, pp. 76–7, no. 409. See below, pp. 187–8 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). See above, p. 181 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). See below, p. 171 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings).

130

chapter three

of this revision as the date of completion of the work. It should be noted here that there is another early commentary on this work by Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥ usayn Ilāhī Ardabīlī completed in ithbāt al-wājib, a chronogram corresponding to 916/1509–10.99 Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda seems to be one of his later works, written after Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s death in 903/1498.100 Therefore, the commentary of Nayrīzī, together with the commentary of Ilāhī, must be regarded as the earliest reception of this work. In his introduction, Nayrīzī explains his intention in writing the commentary as follows: One of those days I happened to see a treatise written by one of the excellent renowned scholars (ajillat ʿulamāʾ al-aʿlām). I read it carefully thinking to discover its [hidden] ideas. At the end I found some useful remarks ( fawāʾid), which were not mentioned by the earlier philosophers and did not occur to the later philosophers. So I decided to clarify my understanding of these truths and reveal the delicate points to them. In so doing [I tried] to distinguish between its obviously false and true statements and to show observers its beautiful and ugly aspects, distinguishing for them the mirage from the water and the husk of this precious and noble issue from its core. As the author claims that his argument is based on the contemplation of people with critical minds (anẓār dhawī l-baṣāʾir al-nāqida), I am determined to demonstrate by quoting to them what I found here in this work that was opposed to their arguments. It may be thought that my intention is only to criticize and attack the work, rather than to explain, interpret and comment on it, and that by doing so I was unjust, unfair and pernicious without having a specific aim, may God save me from all these . . . 101

Nayrīzī points out that some of Dawānī’s arguments in this work are moderate compared to his previous works, such as his glosses on Qūshchī’s commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād.102 It can be assumed that these moderations were the result of Dawānī’s reconsiderations occasioned by Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s criticisms. Yet, even these moderated arguments are not acceptable for Nayrīzī, as he criticizes a number of them. At the end of the text, however, in an attitude that clearly differs

99 MS Majlis 1840 contains this commentary (Cat. vol. 5, pp. 297–9). See also above, p. 43. 100 See above, p. 81. 101 Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Risālat ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, MS Majlis 1841, f. 2b. For Nayrīzī’s whole introduction, see below, pp. 167–8 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 102 See Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Risālat ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, f. 209b.

works of nayrīzī

131

from the introduction, the commentator claims that his commentary is intended to complete the text: Since the author of the text explicitly writes in the beginning that his argument is based on the proof of al-Ṣiddīqīn [i.e. Ibn Sīnā’s ontological proof]103 for the existence of God and the attributes of His perfection and epithets of His majesty, this attempt would not be complete without the addition of the issues mentioned in the commentary to what he wrote.104

XVI. Commentary on Suhrawardī’s al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya: Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī kashf ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ This commentary on Suhrawardī’s al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya, entitled Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī kashf ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ , was first completed on 5 Rabīʿ II 930/10 February 1524 without including the postscript (dhayl ). When the author found another manuscript of Suhrawardī’s Alwāḥ two years later (in 932/1526), he decided to comment on the last section as well and added this to his commentary.105 Suhrawardī’s al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya is one of his last extant works, written after Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq during the last five years of his life.106 It was dedicated to ʿImād al-Dīn Abū Bakr b. Qarā Arsalān, the king of Kharput (reigned 581/1185–600/1204). To suit the king, Suhrawardī made it brief, excluding any logical discourse as well as many physical and some abstract philosophical discussions on existence. The topic treatise, as he himself describes it, is restricted to “provenance and destination” (al-mabdaʾ wa-l-maʿād), enriched with numerous Qurʾānic references on each issue.107 The work also includes a relatively long 103 On this proof, see Toby Mayer, “Ibn Sīnā’s Burhān al-Ṣiddīqīn”, Journal of Islamic Studies, 12 i (2001), pp. 18–39. 104 Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, f. 156a. For the end of Nayrīzī’s commentary on Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, see below, p. 168 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 105 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī kashf ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ , MS Rag¤p 853, ff. 271a–277a. 106 In the edited version the name of the patron is erroneously given as Qarā Arsalān b. Dāwūd (“al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya”, in Œuvres philosophiques et mystiques iv, ed. Najaf Qulī Ḥ abībī, Tehran 1380/2001, p. 33) On this work, the approximate date of its authorship, and the patron to whom it is dedicated, see Nasrollah Pourjavady, “Shaykh-i Ishrāq u taʾlīf-i Alwāḥ-i ʿImādiyya”, in Ishrāq u ʿirfān, Tehran 1380/2001, pp. 83–94. 107 Suhrawardī explicitly says that to structure Alwāḥ , he used a work by “one of the latest scholars” (baʿḍ fuḍalāʾ al-mutaʾakhkharīn) as a model (see al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya, in Œuvres philosophiques et mystiques iv, p. 34).

132

chapter three

discussion of the legendary Iranian kings, their spirituality and manners, which in its detail is unique among the philosophical works of Suhrawardī. The work consists of an introduction and four “tablets” (alwāḥ , sg. lawḥ ): Tablet One: on proofs for the finitude of dimensions, on the boundaries of the sky and the world, simplicity of the elements and those that were made by them ( fī ithbāt tanāhī al-abʿād wa-fī ṭaraf min al-samāʾ wa-l-ʿālam wa-fī baṣāʾiṭ al-ʿunṣuriyyāt wa-mā yaḥ duthu minhā); Tablet Two: on the Soul with reference to its faculties ( fī l-nafs wa-ishāra ilā quwāhā); Tablet Three: on the proofs for the existence of the Necessary Being and on His attributes of greatness and perfection ( fī ithbāt wājib al-wujūd wa-mā yalīq bihī min ṣifāt al-jalāl wa-nuʿūt al-kamāl); Tablet Four: on the order of the world, the destiny and eternity of souls and their happiness and wretchedness and pain and pleasure and the influences of souls ( fī l-niẓām wa-l-qaḍāʾ wa-l-qadar wa-baqāʾ al-nufūs wa-l-saʿāda wa-l-shaqāwa wa-l-ladhdha wa-l-alam wa-āthār al-nufūs). Nayrīzī’s commentary on al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya is to our knowledge the only commentary ever written on this work. By the time of Nayrīzī, three other philosophical works of Suhrawardī, namely Talwīḥ āt, Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq and Hayākil al-nūr had each been commented upon twice: al-Talwīḥ āt by Ibn Kammūna and Shahrazūrī, Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq by Shahrazūrī and Quṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī and Hayākil al-nūr by Jalāl al-Dīn Dawānī and Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī. Little attention, however, was paid to Alwāḥ . One of the reasons for this was perhaps the assumption, voiced by Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī,108 that Alwāḥ was among the works that Suhrawardī wrote in his youth. The indication of this statement was that it was of less value than Suhrawardī’s more significant philosophical works written later in his life. Nayrīzī correctly rejects this assumption in his glosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, arguing that Alwāḥ ’s content indicates that its composition took place after Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq and hence was a work of Suhrawardī’s maturity.109 In the introduction to his commentary on Alwāḥ , Nayrīzī explains why he chose to comment on the work as follows: 108 See Qut ̣b al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s Sharḥ Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī & Mahdī Muḥaqqiq, Tehran 1379/2000, p. 14. 109 See Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq wa-ʿalā sharḥ ihi li-Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrazī, MS Marʿashī 4266, f. 7a. Nayrīzī must have noticed a reference to Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq in Alwāḥ , which leaves no doubt that the writing of Alwāḥ must have taken place either sometime after the composition of Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq or at least at the same time.

works of nayrīzī

133

It is necessary for those complete adult Muslims (al-mukallafūn) to acquire knowledge of the origin (al-mabdaʾ) and the hereafter (al-maʿād). There are two ways to reach these two: the first is the way of the theoreticians (ahl al-naẓar wa-l-istidlālāt), whose intention it is to move from doubt to certainty. The second way is the way of the people who practice austerity, and its aim is to observe the things on the basis of their origin as well as the vision of the first light and the lights of those who are close [to Him] (anwār al-muqarrabīn). Neither of these two methods, however, without using the other at the same time, would save you from being tempted by Satan . . . I was for quite a long period of time using both of these two methods, with the intention of reaching absolute certainty through gaining knowledge, fleeing from everything doubtful, murky or rusty. I did what I could until I attained maturity and right belief. At that time I decided to . . . write down and explain what was shown to me by the seekers and what I learned from the masters . . . While I was travelling from one city to another, I happened to find a book which was in agreement with what I intended to write, composed by someone with whom no one could compete at his time, the great and knowledgeable master of ancient time, the king of the Peripatetic philosophers, the owner of the balcony of the stoics, the sun in the sky of knowledge, Shihāb al-milla wa-l-irshād wa-l-hidāya (i.e., the shooting star of the people for direction and guidance) whose name as I heard from one of the scholars is ʿAlī but according to the commentary of al-Ishrāq [i.e., Qut ̣b al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq],110 is Shihāb al-Dīn ʿUmar b. Muḥammad, and in the History of Yāfiʿī Shihāb al-Dīn Yaḥyā b. Ḥ abash al-Suhrawardī known as the executed (al-maqtūl ). The book is full of extraordinary and interesting things, a selection of the secrets of the theoreticians (ahl al-naẓar wa-l-istidlāl) and an abridged explanation of experiences of the mystics (ahl al-wajd wa-l-ḥ āl). With precious and noble issues which were concealed and out of hand . . . the issues which should be delivered to those who deserve it (ahlihā) . . . and kept from those who do not deserve it . . . Since the author in this book includes delicate and subtle points, it is not adequate to deal with it only with thought, contemplation, and argument. [Similarly,] purification with austerity and using the skill of interpretation (taʾwīl) alone do not lead to success. The reason is that the divine secrets, as was said, are inexpressible in word in the true sense and unachievable in discussion. It needs frequent illuminative lights (al-anwār al-sharqiyya), which let the soul be detached from the body and its engagement and let him observe the abstract entities which are free from place and time. That is the condition to receive images of knowledge from the spiritual world (al-rūḥ āniyyāt), in the same way as an image from a mirror reflects to another mirror. This can only be

110

Nayrīzī usually refers to Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq as al-Ishrāq.

134

chapter three achieved with the help of frequent illuminative lights (al-nūr al-shāriq) and glittering flashes (wa-l-wamīḍ al-bāriq) and hence, although the book was written a long time ago, the meaning of it was still concealed from many of the students . . . As I was not happy to see these true matters and delicate points remain ambiguous and untouched by mental comprehension, I decided to write a commentary which clarifies the complicated points of the text, explains the intentions of the author, unveils its ambiguous meanings, and eases the way of understanding its intentions and its foundations. In addition, it properly explains the complicated words and expressions, and the styles of writings used in the text, but the main goal was to present the principles, interpret its intentions, multiply its benefits, expand upon its succinct points, clarify the enigmatic language, determine some unrestricted statements, and elaborate the short explanations of the text with the help of other works of the author and the early and later commentators of his books using the experiences of the true seekers and the masters of the spiritual experiences (ahl al-ḥ aqq wa-arbāb al-kashf wa-l-mukāshifīn), intending to call it after it is completed Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī kashf ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ .111

Compared to his glosses on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, Nayrīzī’s attitude towards Suhrawardī in this commentary, written in his old age, is more positive. Evidence for this can be found in the above-quoted introduction, in which Nayrizi expresses great admiration for Suhrawardī and his works. He describes Suhrawardī as the king of the peripatetic philosophers (malik al-ḥ ukamāʾ al-mashshāʾīn) whose Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq should be written in light “on the wings of the angels”.112 In his introduction to this work, Nayrīzī states his intention to comment upon Alwāḥ with the help of Suhrawardī’s other works and the comments of early and later commentators (bi-iʿānat sāʾir kutub al-muṣannif wa-aqwāl al-shāriḥ īn al-sābiqīn wa-l-lāḥ iqīn).113 Throughout the commentary, Nayrīzī repeatedly quotes from Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq and from his Talwīḥ āt.114 There are also references to Suhrawardī’s al-Mashāriʿ wa-l-Muṭāraḥ āt, his Hayākil al-nūr, as well as to an unspecified work of his, the description of which corresponds to Āwāz-i par-i Jibraʾīl.115 111 Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff 1b–2b. For Nayrīzī’s whole introduction to this work, see below, pp. 172–5 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrīzī’s Writings). 112 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 2a. 113 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 2b. 114 One of the instances of Nayrīzī’s citing the text of Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq is his inclusion of Suhrawardī’s exhortation (waṣiyyat al-muṣannif ), which is quoted in its entirety. See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 203a:17–204a:12. 115 Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 182b. – In his narration of the story of this work, Nayrīzī mentions that the author saw ten men sitting in a row, nine

works of nayrīzī

135

Among the works of Suhrawardī’s commentators, Shahrazūrī’s Rasāʾil al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya fī ʿulūm al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-rabbāniyya,116 Ibn Kammūna’s commentary on al-Talwīḥ āt, and Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq were frequently used throughout the commentary.117 Another source that was used by Nayrīzī was Firdawsī’s (d. ca. 410/1020) Shāhnāma. In Tablet Four of Alwāḥ , there is a passage in which Suhrawardī refers to the Iranian mythic kings, Firiydūn and Kay Khusraw. In his comment on this passage, Nayrīzī introduces Firiydūn and his three sons, Salm, Tūr, and Iraj on the basis of the Shāhnāma.118 He also mentions the name of Kay Khusraw’s successor Luhrāsp.119 Throughout the commentary, Nayrīzī refers to numerous additional sources. These references give the impression that while he was writing the commentary, he had a large collection of sources at his disposal. Apart from the sources mentioned above, he quotes from Ibn Sīnā’s al-Shifāʾ as well as his al-Isharat wa-l-tanbīhāt, his Taʿlīqāt, his Mabdaʾ wa-l-maʿād and his Dānishnāma-yi ʿAlāʾī. References are also given to Bahmanyār’s al-Taḥ sīl, Lawkarī’s Bayān al-ḥ aqq bi-ḍimān al-ṣidq, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s al-Tafsīr al-kabīr and his commentay on Ibn Sīnā’s Ishārāt as well as to Nasị̄ r al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī’s commentary on the Ishārāt. Nayrīzī also refers to some of his own works throughout the commentary, namely his commentary on Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, on Ṭ ūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, his glosses on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, and his commentary on an unspecified theological work (Sharḥ baʿḍ al-kutub al-kalāmiyya), possibly a reference to his commentary on Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda.120 Other sources of the commentary are unspecified. There are numerous instances in which of whom were millers. This clearly corresponds to the story of Āwāz-i par-i Jibraʾīl. See the edition of this work in Œuvres philosophiques et mystiques iii, ed. Sayyid Ḥ usayn Nasṛ , Tehran 1355/1976, pp. 209–23, esp. pp. 210–4. 116 Generally on Shahrazūrī’s al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya and its impact on later Muslim philosophers, see Reza Pourjavady & Sabine Schmidtke, “Some notes on a new edition of a medieval philosophical text in Turkey: Shams al-Dīn al-Shahrazūrī’s Rasāʾil al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya”, Die Welt des Islams, 46 (2006), pp. 76–85. 117 For details see below, pp. 145–52. 118 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 193, and compare it with Shāhnāma (ed. Jule Mohl, Tehran 1369/1990), vol. 1, pp. 58 ff. (story of Firiydūn and his sons). 119 Henry Corbin was the first to notice Nayrīzī’s usage of the Shāhnāma for this passage. See L’Archange empourpré, Paris 1976, pp. 128–9 (endnote no. 77). 120 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 65a:6–7.

136

chapter three

Nayrīzī adduces long quotations from unspecified sources. He refers to the authors of these sources as baʿḍ min al-ʿuẓamāʾ, baʿḍ min al-aʿāẓim, baʿḍ ajilla min al-ʿulamāʾ, baʿḍ al-ʿulamāʾ, baʿḍ al-fuḍalāʾ al-muʾawwilīn, baʿḍ al-muʾawwilīn al-muḥ aqqiqīn, and baʿḍ al-muḥ aqqiqīn.121 XVII. Glosses on Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī’s Commentary on Suhrawardī’s Hayākil al-nūr Nayrīzī’s last known work is the glosses he wrote on Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī’s Shawākil al-ḥ ūr fī sharḥ Hayākil al-nūr. Dawānī’s commentary on Suhrawardī’s Hayākil al-nūr was itself completed on 11 Sawwāl 872/4 May 1468. In the colophon to his glosses, Nayrizi specifies that he started writing these glosses in his youth, but for years left the draft untouched without finalizing it. Sometime after completing his first draft of Miṣbāh al-arwāḥ (on 5 Rabīʿ II 930/10 February 1524), he returned to this unfinished task and in the same year completed his glosses on Shawākil al-ḥ ūr. Nayrīzī was not the first scholar to comment on Dawānī’s Shawākil al-ḥ ūr. Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s supercommentary on this commentary entitled Ishrāq hayākil al-nūr li-kashf ẓulumāt Shawākil al-gharūr, had been completed decades earlier, sometime before 895/1490–1. Although Nayrīzī studied Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s supercommentary with its author,122 there is no reference to this work in these glosses. Unlike Ghiyāth al-Dīn whose position’s are very critical of Dawānī, Nayrīzī’s main concern here is to elaborate various issues addressed in the commentary and only occasionally he offered his different opinions. His glosses here demonstrates his masterity of Suhrawardī’s thought, already glimpsed in his commentary on the latter’s al-Alwāḥ al-Imādiyya. Certainly, this placed him in a better position to evaluate the correctness of Dawānī’s understanding of Suhrawardī’s philosophy.

121 The scholars to whom he refers in this manner are probably close to his time, possibly even his contemporaries. 122 See above, p. 55.

CHAPTER FOUR

NAYRĪZĪ AND THE SUHRAWARDIAN PHILOSOPHY I. Nayrīzī as a Critic of Suhrawardī It was explained in Chapter One that Nayrīzī’s major interest in Suhrawardī’s philosophy was in particular the latter’s apprehensions of the inner world, which he gained through an arduous course of mystical training. But when it came to Suhrawardī’s deductive statements, Nayrīzī allowed himself to doubt their correctness, particularly Suhrawardī’s critical remarks on Ibn Sīnā’s philosophy. Nayrīzī’s glosses on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq consist mainly of his critical remarks on a number of Suhrawardī’s deviations from the Avicennan philosophical system. In the introduction to these glosses, he explains that Suhrawardī’s arguments contain a “deviation from the right path and descent from the truth”.1 Nayrīzī’s main intention in his glosses is to show all these “deviations”. In his commentary on Suhrawardī’s al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya, which he wrote about twenty years later, most of the criticisms remain, though in this latter work his critical approach is no longer dominant. In what follows, some of the issues on which Nayrīzī opposes the view of Suhrawardī will be discussed: I.i. Prime Matter In his Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, Suhrawardī denies the existence of Aristotelian “prime matter”. He states: The Peripatetics argue that body ( jism) admits of connection (al-ittiṣāl) and division (al-infiṣāl), but that connection does not admit of division. Therefore, something must exist in the body that admits of both, and this is the prime matter. They further argue that magnitude (miqdār) does not enter into the reality of bodies, since all bodies share in corporeality yet differ in magnitudes – and because a single body may become smaller or larger with compression and rarefaction.2

1

See above, pp. 118–9. The translation of this quotation is based on the John Walbridge and Hossein Ziai rendering of Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq (Suhrawardī, The Philosophy of Illumination. A New Critical Edition of the Text of Ḥ ikmat al-Ishrāq, Provo/Utah 1999, p. 52). 2

138

chapter four

Suhrawardī defines prime matter as a mental concept equal to the absolute body (al-jism al-muṭlaq). The role of Aristotelian “prime matter” in his philosophy is assigned to magnitude. He argues that the body by itself is nothing but magnitude (miqdār), which is receptive of the three extensions, namely length, width, and depth. These extensions of a body may change, since they are accidents (aʿrāḍ). But with all changes of extension the absolute magnitude remains the same. Therefore, magnitude is not accidental to the body, it is the very substance of it: The argument that these [= magnitudes] are accidents (aʿrāḍ) because of the alteration of length, width, and depth, as in a candle, is a baseless assertion. Even if this magnitude extending in various directions is an accident, it does not follow that magnitude in itself is accidental to the body or is an accident; for to the extent that the length increases, the breadth, for example, decreases. Likewise, if the breadth is increased, the length is decreased; and certain parts, previously unconnected, are now in contact with each other, while other parts, previously connected, are now separated.3

In his glosses on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, Nayrīzī expresses his disagreement with Suhrawardī’s idea, and tries to justify the Aristotelian definition of prime matter as the unchangeable substratum in the body. His main argument here is that it is false to define body as something which maintains the consistency of the extensions, since in that case the existence of the body would be dependent on the existence of the extensions (which are accidents) and if these dimensions are destroyed (inʿidām al-abʿād), the body as a whole must be considered destroyed.4 Nayrīzī, however, does not explain why he thinks that a body can remain undestroyed when its dimensions are destroyed. Although he rejects this idea of Suhrawardī, his argument shows the extent to which he had considered the matter. It has been argued that a similar idea emerged later on, though in more sophisticated terms, in Descartes and indeed it has become a milestone of modern physics.5

3 The translation of this quotation is based on John Walbridge and Hossein Ziai’s rendering (Suhrawardī, The Philosophy of Illumination, p. 53). 4 Nayrīzī, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, MS Laleli 2523, f. 88a. 5 For a detailed study of Suhrawardī’s view on this issue and its comparison to that of Descartes, see John Walbridge, “Al-Suhrawardī on Body as Extension: An Alternative to Hylomorphism from Plato to Leibniz”, Reason and Inspiration in Islam. Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim thought. Essays in Honour of Hermann Landolt, ed. Todd Lawson, London 2005, pp. 235–47. However, Walbridge’s efforts to connect Suhrawardī’s view with the Platonic idea of “Receptacle” are not very convincing. It is

nayrīzī and the suhrawardian philosophy

139

In his commentary on al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya, Nayrīzī is much less concerned with arguing against this view of Suhrawardī, since he believes that in the Alwāḥ , in contrast to his Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, Suhrawardī maintains an Aristotelian view of prime matter. He specifically refers to the following passage of the Alwāḥ to support this judgment: The substance on which these forms are interchangeable, is called prime matter. Then if it is posited (ukhidha) with (maʿa) the extensions of length, width, and depth, that is body.6

On the basis of the above quotation Nayrīzī argues that Suhrawardī in this passage regards prime matter together with (maʿa) extensions as equal to body. According to Nayrīzī, had Suhrawardī maintained the same view as he did in his Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, where it was stated that the extensions are in the essence of body and hence in the essence of prime matter, he would not have expressed himself thus. It seems, however, that the whole assumption of Nayrīzī results from a mistake in the manuscript of the Alwāḥ available to him. The correct wording of the second sentence of the quotation based on several manuscripts of the text is as follows: Then if it is posited with regard to (maʿa iʿtibār) the extensions of length, width, and depth, that is body.7

Nayrīzī’s argument holds true only if Suhrawardī had written in the passage “with the extensions” (maʿa imtidādāt), whereas his statement according to several early manuscripts of the text is “with regard to extensions” (maʿa iʿtibār imtidādāt), a formulation which fully agrees with Suhrawardī’s idea of prime matter as stated in his Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq. Since the word iʿtibār was missing in the manuscript of the Alwāḥ available to Nayrīzī, it was inevitable that he would misunderstand the text and draw the wrong conclusion.8

noteworthy that before Suhrawardī, Abu l-Barakāt al-Baghdādī (547/1152) held this view. See his al-Muʿtabar fī al-ḥ ikma, Haydarabad 1358/1939, vol. 3, pp. 196–202. 6 Wa-l-jawhar alladhī yatabaddal ʿalayhi hādhihi l-ṣuwar, huwa l-musammā bi-lhayūlā, fa-huwa idhā ukhidha maʿa imtidādāt ṭūliyya wa-ʿarḍiyya wa-ʿumqiyya, fa-huwa l-jism. Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 50. 7 Suhrawardī, “al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya”, in Œuvres philosophiques et mystiques iv., p. 46. 8 It is notable that about the same time as Nayrīzī, Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī criticized Suhrawardī’s view on prime matter in his Risāla fī taḥ qīq al-hayūlā. See Shams al-Dīn al-Khafrī, Taḥ qīq al-hayūlā, MS Majlis 706, p. 80 ff. Whether or not the two were aware of each other’s criticism is as yet unclear.

140

chapter four I.ii. The Theory of Vision

In his Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq Suhrawardī suggests a new theory of vision which differs from that of Ibn Sīnā. According to Ibn Sīnā, vision occurs when the forms of things (ṣuwar al-ashyāʾ) are imprinted (munṭabaʿ or munṣabaḥ ) in the crystalline humor of the eye.9 Suhrawardī argues against this theory, maintaining that the forms seen, being immaterial, are not in the eye, just as the forms in a mirror are not in the mirror. Rather, they are in suspension (muʿallaq) without being in a place or receptacle (maḥ all). Vision, according to Suhrawardī, is the work of the soul, though it occurs only when an illuminated object stands opposite to the eye.10 This is evident to those who can separate their soul from their body: Those who have ascended in the soul (aṣḥ āb al-ʿurūj al-nafs) and cut themselves off from their bodies have at that moment experienced a clear contemplation more perfect than that which the eye possesses. At that moment, they know with certainty that these entities which they behold are not being engraved in one of the bodily faculties and that visual contemplation endures as long as the managing light (al-nūr almudabbir) does.11

In his glosses on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, his commentary on Abharī’s Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma and in his commentary on al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya, Nayrīzī argues against Suhrawardī’s above-mentioned theory.12 He explains that according to Suhrawardī the forms which are the objects of vision are detached from the body and are hence immaterial. The perceiver is the soul which is also immaterial. It thus follows that the immaterial forms, as Suhrawardī explains it, are perceived by the immaterial soul. But why should a material faculty intervene at all?13 In other words, Nayrīzī argues that the forms perceived with the help of the faculty of vision must be somehow materialized. Otherwise there would have been no reason for intervention on the part of this material faculty. He rejects Suhrawardī’s theory for not addressing this problem properly. Nayrīzī

9

Ibn Sīnā,ʿUyūn al-ḥ ikma, ed. Ḥ ilmī Ziya Ülken, Ankara 1953, p. 32. Suhrawardī, The Philosophy of Illumination, pp. 138–40. 11 The translation of this quotation is based on that of John Walbridge and Hossein Ziai (Suhrawardī, The Philosophy of Illumination, p. 139) with some modifications. 12 Nayrīzī, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, ff. 103a–104b; idem, Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, MS Laleli 2523, ff. 108b ff.; idem, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 68b–70b. 13 Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 70b. 10

nayrīzī and the suhrawardian philosophy

141

supports instead Ibn Sīnā’s theory, in which this materialization of the forms is explained by the notion of imprint (inṭibāʿ). I.iii. The Imaginary World Suhrawardī’s idea of the imaginary world (ʿālam al-mithāl) to some extent depended on his theory of vision, at least in its explanation. According to him, the suspended forms (al-ṣuwar al-muʿallaqa) of the eye and those of the mirror belong to the imaginary world. He even suggested that these forms are only indications in the material world of the existence of the imaginary world.14 Nayrīzī was fully aware that the rejection of Suhrawardī’s theory of vision implied the denial of sensory perception of the imaginary world. He nevertheless qualified his criticism by stating that he did not reject the existence of the imaginary world altogether, but only its perception by the senses: Of course, if it is said that this [= the suspended form] is the depicted object that the sleeping person perceives, with no existence among the concrete beings, that is plausible and its existence in the second world (al-ʿālam al-thānī)] [= the imaginary world], suggested by the author in his [Ḥ ikmat] al-Ishrāq and his other writings, cannot be rejected.15

Nayrīzī further argues that the existence of the imaginary world is not plausible in the way suggested by Suhrawardī, overlapping in some occasions with the sensible world. Instead he suggested a barrier (muḥ addid) separate the two worlds from each other: Were it not for fear of making the discourse long, I would have informed you about it. It should be noticed that if these worlds are inside a single barrier (muḥ addid), they should be part of this world. If they are not inside a barrier, then either it necessitates a vacuum, which is definitely false, or there is another barrier, which should be ruled out to consider it to be outside of this world. This [barrier] which is not out of the world is what we desired.16

I.iv. The Nature of Sound In his Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, Suhrawardī rejects the common belief that sound is caused by vibration of the air. He explains: 14

Suhrawardī, The Philosophy of Illumination, pp. 72–3, 96–7, 138–40. Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 70b. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 201, no. 11 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources). 16 Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 29b. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 201, no. 12 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources). 15

142

chapter four The most that one can say is that sound here is conditioned by it [= vibration of the air]. However, it does not follow that if something is conditioned by a thing in one place, its like is necessarily so conditioned. A thing as a universal may have different causes in different instances, and so it may also have different conditions in different instances . . . The awesome sounds (al-aṣwāt al-hāʾila) heard by the mystics cannot be said to be the vibration of air in the brain. Instead, it is an image (mithāl) of sound – which is a sound. Thus, there may be sounds and music in the spheres not conditioned on air or ringing.17 Nayrīzī argues against Suhrawardī that to make a sound requires the vibration of a body ( jism), which is tender (raṭb) and flowing (sayyāl) like water or air. This is the necessitating cause (al-sabab al-muqtaḍī) for having sound, and not simply, as Suhrawardī suggested, a condition for it. In the spheres, where there is no tender and flowing body, there cannot be any sound or music.18

I.v. Political Thought In al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādyya, there is a passage where Suhrawardī uses an Old Persian term, Kiyān khurrah, for two mythical Iranian kings, Afrīdūn (i.e. Firiydūn) and Kay Khusraw. Kiyān khurrah is a royal divine light, vouchsafed to just kings, which brings them strength, superiority, and dominion. Suhrawardī refers in this passage to Afrīdūn and Kay Khusraw as two sainted kings who ascended with their soul to the higher world (al-ʿālam al-aʿlā), where they experienced Kiyān khurrah among other divine lights, and because of that experience prevailed over their enemies.19 Commenting on this passage Nayrīzī shows that he is not in full agreement with Suhrawardī’s political view. To him, Suhrawardī’s thought first of all implies polarization of good and evil, something which does not correspond with the reality of this world: There is another subtle point here: in the actual world of elements and the elemental things (ʿālam al-ʿanāṣir wa-l-ʿunṣuriyyāt) nothing is free from evil and corruption. What is feasible is there being someone whose goodness prevails over his evilness. Thus, both at the time of a just [king] and at the time of a cruel [one], many good things happen in coexistence with some little evil. Neither of the two [kings] has priority over the other

17 The translation of this quotation is based on John Walbridge and Hossein Ziai’s translation of Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq (Suhrawardī, The Philosophy of Illumination, p. 154) with some modifications. 18 Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 66b. 19 Suhrawardī, al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya, pp. 92–3. On Kiyān khurrah in Suhrawardī’s political thought, see Nasrollah Pourjavady, The Light of Sakina in Suhrawardi’s Philosophy of Illumination, Binghamton/New York 1998.

nayrīzī and the suhrawardian philosophy

143

to be called good. Unless it is said that when the good is dominant over evil it can become so prominent an accident that makes it plausible to call some kings evil and some others not, or to argue that the necessary coexistence of evil with these good things may have a single origin or it may not have, similarly the great majority of good things may have a single origin or they may not, making it correct to call one king just and the other cruel.20

Nayrīzī further explains that Suhrawardī’s concern is only with the wise and just kings. However, the cruel kings may also be impressed by the spiritual world. For instance, in Moses’ victory over Pharaoh, the souls of the children that Pharaoh had killed were acting against the latter.21 Nayrīzī continues his remark by criticizing what he believed to be the core of Suhrawardī’s political thought. According to Nayrīzī, Suhrawardī maintained that true philosophers have the right to attain kingship and that he was perhaps himself ambitious to obtain such power: To me, some of the perfect men in knowledge and practice had the illusion that perfection in knowledge and in practice, and ruling and domination and victory by force are indispensable, or there is a consensual necessity between them. That was the reason that they were killed. It is also what is said about the death of the author who was one of those philosophers and saints (awliyāʾ), God bless their souls. The reality, however, is not like that and anyone who has some knowledge of astrology and astronomy knows that it happens sometimes that either knowledge and wisdom, or ruling (al-mulk) would be bestowed upon one and not upon the other. Do you not see that Noah, peace be upon him, with his perfection in his prophecy and his knowledge, lived at a time when the ignorant people excelled him in ruling and only a small group of them followed him for a long time? Solomon, peace be upon him, had both. And both Shaddād and Nimrūd had only ruling without knowledge and wisdom. Then, know that there is no necessity between these two and it is not possible that your effort to reach the last stage of knowledge would lead you to the ruling and governing (al- ḥ ukūma). The truth is that both are in the hand of God.22

Nayrīzī explains here that a philosopher, or a “man perfect in knowledge and practice”, who merits a kingdom should not risk his life to achieve this goal. The reason for this, he suggests, is that the philosopher’s kingdom may only be realized when a harmonious astrological and 20 Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 194b. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 201, no. 13 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources). 21 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 194b. 22 Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 195a. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 201, no. 14 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources).

144

chapter four

astronomical coincidence occurs. Nayrīzī presumes that Suhrawardī was ambitious to get hold of a throne and that he was killed by the authorities for having entertained this ambition. Although Suhrawardī in his al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya and in his Partaw-nāma supports the idea of the philosopher-king,23 there is no clear evidence that he actually had a political plan to achieve power. By saying “what is said about the death of the author”, Nayrīzī alludes in the above-quoted passage to an account of Suhrawardī’s death. In Ibn Khallikān’s well-known biographical notes on Suhrawardī, a meeting between Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī (d. 631/1233) and Suhrawardī is described, which seems to be the account Nayrīzī had in mind: Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī says: I met Suhrawardī in Aleppo. He told me I have to become the sovereign of the earth. I told him: why is that so? He said: In a dream I saw myself as if drinking the water of the sea. I said: It might be about you becoming famous for your knowledge or something similar. Then, I found that he would not turn back from what had happened to him. I found him with great knowledge but little sensibility.24

23 At the end of his Partaw-nāma he states: “Every King who knows philosophy, and continues to thank and sanctify the Light of Lights, will be bestowed with kiyān khurrah and with luminous farrah, and as we have said elsewhere divine light will further bestow upon him the cloak of royal power and value. Such a person shall then become the natural Ruler of the Universe. He shall be given aid from the High Heaven, and whatever he commands shall be obeyed; and his dreams and inspirations will reach their uppermost, perfect pinnacle.” (The Book of Radiance, ed. and trans. Hossein Ziai, Costa Mesa 1998, pp. 84–5) with some modifications. For the original Persian, see Suhrawardī, The Book of Radiance, pp. 84–85; idem, Œuvres philosophiques et mystiques iii., ed. Sayyid Hossein Naṣr, p. 81. For detailed analyses of this passage and the various versions of it in the manuscript traditions, see Nasrollah Pourjavady, “Partaw-nāma u tarjuma-yi ingilīsī-i ān”, in ʿIrfān u ishrāq, Tehran 1380/2001, pp. 387–407, esp. pp. 401–2. 24 Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt al-aʿyān wa-anbāʾ al-zamān, ed. Iḥsān ʿAbbās, Beirut 1388–92/1968–72, vol. 6, p. 272. This account was quoted from Wafayāt al-aʿyān by some later bibliographical sources including Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Yāfiʿī’s (d. 768/1367) Mirʾāt al-janān wa-ʿibrat al-yaqẓā n (Lithograph Edition, Hydarabad (Deccan) 1338/1919–20, vol. 3, p.437). The account given by Yāfiʿī was evidently known to Nayrīzī and he quotes it at the beginning of his copy of Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq (MS Marʿashī 4266, f. 4b). For various hypotheses on the reason for which the authorities executed Suhrawardī, see Hermann Landolt, “Suhrawardī’s Tale of Initiation. Review Article”, Journal of the American Oriental Society (1987), pp. 475–86; Hossein Ziai, “The Source and Nature of Authority: a Study of al-Suhrawardī’s Illuminationist Political Doctrine”, The Political Aspects of Islamic Philosophy. Essays in Honor of Muhsen S. Mahdi, ed. C. E. Butterworth, Cambridge 1992, pp. 294–334; Roxanne D. Marcotte, “Suhrawardī al-Maqtūl, the Martyr of Aleppo”, Al-Qanṭara 21 ii (2001), pp. 395–419.

nayrīzī and the suhrawardian philosophy

145

It is likely that Nayrīzī’s assumption about the political ambitions of Suhrawardī was based on this account. Regardless of being right or wrong in this judgment, Nayrīzī’s criticism of Suhrawardī reveals that he was also doubtful about Suhrawardī’s idea of Kiyān khurrah. To him, dominance and superiority is not something to be achieved through spiritual perfection. Noah was an example of a perfect man who was under pressure from ignorant people and not strong enough to release himself from his unfortunate circumstance. I.vi. Bodily Resurrection In his commentary on al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya, Nayrīzī asserts that Suhrawardī believed only in resurrection of the soul, and that it was for this reason that he entitled the section devoted to resurrection: “When a body dies his resurrection will start” (man māta fa-qad qāmat qiyāmatahu).25 Nayrīzī, as was stated earlier, believed in bodily resurrection and in his commentary on the Alwāḥ consistently maintains this position, listing the relevant Qurʾānic affirmations, adducing a long quotation from Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, and summarizing what an unspecified scholar, to whom he refers to as baʿḍ al-muʾawwilīn al-muḥ aqqiqīn, wrote on this issue.26 II. Nayrīzī and the Commentators of Suhrawardī II.i. Shams al-Dīn al-Shahrazūrī Nayrīzī’s major source for his commentary on the Alwāḥ was Shahrazūrī’s magnum opus, Rasāʾil al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya fī ʿulūm al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-rabbāniyya.27 This work of Shahrazūrī seems to have become popular only during the late 9th/15th and early 10th/16th centuries. In his Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm, Dawānī refers to it under the title Thamarat alShajara al-ilāhiyya – presumably some kind of summary or extract of

25 Suhrawardī seems to employ this saying in the sense that separation from the body through death is the first step towards spiritual resurrection. 26 Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 183a–187b. 27 This work has been edited twice, first by Muḥ ammad Najīb Kūrkūn [Necip Görgün] (PhD Dissertation, Marmara University, Istanbul 1996) published with revisions in Istanbul 2004, and then by Najaf-Qulī Ḥ abībī (Tehran 2005–6). I refer to the latter edition in the following.

146

chapter four

the Shajara, about which nothing further is known at the moment.28 Ibn Abī Jumhūr (d. after 906/1501) used the Shajara extensively in his Kitāb al-Mujlī quoting entire chapters from it throughout the book.29 Nayrīzī, the younger contemporary of both Dawānī and Ibn Abī Jumhūr, used the Shajara in his commentary on Hidayat al-ḥ ikma,30 and more extensively in his commentary on Alwāḥ . Of the five epistles (rasāʾil) of the Shajara, only the last two dealing with physics and metaphysics were consulted by Nayrīzī in his commentary.31 Their impact is significant throughout Nayrīzī’s entire commentary on the Alwāḥ . There are nineteen explicit references to al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya in the work, yet the number of quotations from the Shajara therein exceeds these by far, since Nayrīzī used the Shajara in many instances without explicitly making reference to it.32 On one occasion he refers to the Shajara as “the discussion of one of the illuminationists” (kalām baʿḍ min al-Ishrāqīyīn).33 There seem to be various reasons why the Shajara was used so prominently in this work. For Nayrīzī, the Shajara constituted an accessible encyclopedia from which he could extract various explanations on issues in which he did not have any particular interest. A number of Nayrīzī’s quotations from the Shajara – particularly those taken from the epistle

28

Dawānī, “Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm”, in Thalāth rasāʾil, p. 302. See Sabine Schmidtke, “The Influence of Šams al-Dīn Šahrazūrī (7th/13th century) on Ibn Abī Ǧ umhūr al-Aḥsāʾī (d. after 904/1499) – A Preliminary Note.” Encounters of Words and Texts. Intercultural Studies in Honour of Stefan Wild on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, ed. Lutz Edzard & Christian Szyska. Hildesheim 1997, pp. 23–32; eadem, Theologie, Philosophie und Mystik im zwölferschiitischen Islam des 9./15. Jahrhunderts. Die Gedankenwelten des Ibn Abī Ǧ umhūr al-Aḥ sāʾī (um 838/1434–35–nach 906/1501), Leiden 2000, pp. 279–81. Ibn Abī Jumhūr, however, did not explicitly mention Shajara as his source. On the impact of Shahrazūrī on later Islamic thought, see Reza Pourjavady and Sabine Schmidtke, “Some Notes on a New Edition of a Medieval Philosophical Text in Turkey: Shams al-Dīn al-Shahrazūrī’s Rasāʾil al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya,” Die Welt des Islams 46 (2006), pp. 76–85. 30 See, e.g., Nayrīzī, Sharḥ al-Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327, ff. 140a, and 173a, where he refers to Shajarat al-ilāhiyyaa. 31 The first three epistles of the Shajara are on methodology and the divisions of the sciences ( fī l-muqaddimāt wa-taqāsīm al-ʿulūm), logic ( fī māhiyyat al-shajara wa-tafāṣīl al-ʿulūm al-āliya al-mantiqiyya), and practical philosophy ( fī l-akhlāq wa-ltadābīr wa-l-siyāsāt). 32 See, e.g., ff. 155b–156b, in which Nayrīzī used Shajara, ed. Najaf-Qulī Ḥ abībī, vol. 3, pp. 593–6. 33 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 141a. Before and after this reference the major part of Shahrazūrī’s explanation of the hierarchy of existents (alShajara, vol. 3, pp. 451–5) is quoted verbatim by Nayrīzī. 29

nayrīzī and the suhrawardian philosophy

147

on physics – can be explained in this way. For instance, commenting on a passage in which different forms of water (ice, vapor, etc.) through variant heat and formation of clouds and different types of rain and snow are explained, Nayrīzī quotes several passages from the Shajara, without mentioning his source.34 Another reason for using the Shajara seems to have been its usefulness for better grasping Suhrawardī’s philosophy; as in many philosophical discussions of this work, the author elaborates on Suhrawardī’s opinions. Nayrīzī was presumably unfamiliar with Shahrazūrī’s commentaries on Suhrawardī’s Talwīḥ āt and his Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq. However, the Shajara, with the exception of its third epistle on practical philosophy, serves equally as a commentary on Suhrawardī’s thought. It is evident that Nayrīzī used the Shajara and particularly its epistle on metaphysics with this purpose in mind. The stages of the mystics and the purpose of their exercises (riyāḍāt),35 and the state of the soul after its separation from the body36 are two examples of the issues for which Nayrīzī relied on the Shajara as a commentary on Suhrawardī’s thought.37

34 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 45b–46b, and compare it with Shahrazūrī, Shajara, vol. 2, pp. 275–6, 278. Some other instances in which the epistle on physics of the Shajara has been used by Nayrīzī, are as follows: 1) Commenting on a passage of introduction of Alwāḥ , where indivisible parts are rejected, Shahrazūrī’s rejection of the indivisible parts in Faṣl One of Qism One of Risāla Four of Shajara, entitled “On the rejection of the indivisible parts and the arguments of its adherents” ( fī nafy al-juzʾ alladhī lā yatajazzaʾ wa-ḥ ujaj aṣḥ ābihī, vol. 2, pp. 27–9) is adopted (MS Șehid Ali Paşa 1739, f. 22a–22b). Reference to al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya is given explicitly in the respective passage of the commentary; 2) One of the arguments of Shahrazūrī on the finitude of dimensions (tanāhī abʿād) is included by Nayrīzī among his arguments in Lawḥ One of Alwāḥ (MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 23a). This argument is the fifth argument presented by Shahrazūrī on the issue in Faṣl Five of Qism One of Risāla Four of the Shajara (vol. 2, p. 97); 3) Shahrazūrī’s speculation on time in Faṣl Ten, Qism One, Risāla 4 (vol. 2, pp. 185–6, 189–90, 193–4) is adopted by Nayrīzī to elaborate on Suhrawardī’s discussion of the issue in Lawḥ One of Alwāḥ (MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 32a–35a); 4) In Lawḥ Two, where Suhrawardī explains the common faculties of human and plant, Nayrīzī quotes in his commentary (MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 77a–79b) several passages from Faṣl One of Qism Six of Risāla Four of the Shajara (vol. 2, pp. 328–32, 336). 35 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 195a–197b, and compare it to the Shajara, ed. Najaf-Qulī Ḥ abībī, vol. 3, pp. 632–3, 642–52. 36 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 161a–165a, quoted from the Shajara, ed. Najaf-Qulī Ḥ abībī, vol. 3, pp. 598–607. 37 Another issue discussed by Shahrazūrī in the Epistle on Metaphysics of the Shajara and adduced by Nayrīzī is the existence of evil in the world, for which he offers an explanation. See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 146a ff., and compare it with the Shajara, ed. Najaf-Qulī Ḥ abībī, vol. 3, p. 611–7.

148

chapter four

In addition, the Shajara seems to have attracted Nayrīzī’s attention due to some of the extraordinary ideas expressed in it. An example of this category is Shahrazūrī’s explanation of predictions of the future on the basis of periodic circles (al-adwār) of the universe, an account adopted by Nayrīzī. According to Shahrazūrī, knowledge of the future by itself is not plausible, as the future has not yet come into existence to be known. It is only plausible to know something which has already happened in the past. The universe, Shahrazūrī explains, follows periodic cycles, while predictor is someone who knows the first cycle, and because of the similarity between the events of the coming cycle with that previous cycle he is able to tell something about the future. The fact that Nayrīzī quotes this explanation suggests that he is in agreement with it. He even quotes some passages from the Shajara concerning the various beliefs about the length of these periodic cycles.38 Nayrīzī, however, did not follow Shahrazūrī in the latter’s controversial belief in the transmigration of the soul. He cites some of Shahrazūrī’s arguments in this regard and refutes them one by one. He also quotes what Shahrazūrī presented as Qurʾānic affirmations of the transmigration of the soul, which he refutes altogether.39 Another disagreement concerns Shahrazūrī’s suggestion that the statement “plants can think”, attributed to Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and Democritus, is symbolic in nature and hence cannot be falsified as was done by Ibn Sīnā. Nayrīzī rejects Shahrazūrī’s interpretation and maintains that there was no reason for them to use symbols in this connection, as they would not have been endangered by expressing their thoughts clearly. Moreover, none of their students regarded their respective statements as being symbolic. Nayrīzī further blames Shahrazūrī because he believes that Shahrazūrī’s statement implies that they did not really mean what they said.40

38 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-Arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 180a–181a, and compare it with the Shajara, ed. Najaf-Qulī Ḥ abībī, vol. 3, pp. 510–3, 520–2. 39 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 155b–156b, and compare it with the Shajara, vol. 3, ed. Najafqulī Ḥ abībī, pp. 593–596. For the views of Suhrawardī and his early commentators on the issue of the transmigration of the soul, see Sabine Schmidtke, “The Doctrine of the Transmigration of the Soul according to Shihāb al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī (killed 587/1191) and his followers”, Studia Iranica, 28 (1999), pp. 237–54. 40 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff.79 a–b. On the discussion of this issue in the Shajara, see al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya, ed. Najaf-Qulī Ḥ abībī, vol. 2, pp. 337–8.

nayrīzī and the suhrawardian philosophy

149

II.ii. ʿIzz al-Dawla Ibn Kammūna Ibn Kammūna’s commentary on Suhrawardī’s Talwīḥ āt, known as al-Tanqīḥ āt fī sharḥ al-talwīḥ āt, is another source for Nayrīzī for commenting on al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya.41 Although there are references to the commentary on al-Talwīḥ āt throughout Nayrīzī’s entire commentary, it is in particular with regard to the following issues related to the soul that Ibn Kammūna’s commentary on al-Talwīḥ āt was used prominently: (1) Ibn Kammūna’s argument for the continuity of the existence of the soul after the destruction of the body (baqāʾ al-nafs baʿd kharāb al-badan) is adopted by Nayrīzī with explicit reference to the source, stating that he completed the argument (maʿa tatmīmāt).42 (2) The arguments of the adherents of transmigration of the soul (tanāsukh) are quoted by Nayrīzī with some slight changes and without making reference to the source.43 (3) On the nature of pain and pleasure and the explanation of the way these are perceived through perception of the sensory faculties he quotes from Ibn Kammūna’s Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt again without naming his source.44 Similarly he quotes from Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt (4) Ibn Kammūna’s explanation of the perception of the rational faculty’s being nobler to the perception of the sensory faculties,45 and (5) the latter’s six possible forms of connection of the soul to the spiritual world.46 41

This work has been edited by Sayyid Ḥ usayn Sayyid Mūsawī under the title al-Tanqīḥ āt fī sharḥ al-talwīḥ āt (PhD Dissertation: University of Tehran, Tehran 1375–76/1996–7). The part on physics has also been edited by Hossein Ziai and Ahmad Alwishah (Al-Tanqīḥ āt fī sharḥ al-talwīḥ āt. Refinement and Commentary on Suhrawardī’s Intimations. A Thirteenth Century Text on Natural Philosophy and Psychology, Costa Mesa 2003). 42 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-Arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 149b–150b, and compare it with Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt [al-Tanqīḥ āt fī Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt], ed. Sayyid Mūsawī, vol. 3, pp. 903–6. 43 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-Arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 154a–156b, and compare it with Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt [al-Tanqīḥ āt fī Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt], ed. Sayyid Mūsawī, vol. 3, pp. 916–25. Nayrīzī elaborated on Ibn Kammūna’s brief discussion on the Qurʾānic arguments of the adherents of tanāsukh with the help of Shahrazūrī’s al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya. See above, p. 148, fn. 40. 44 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-Arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 157a–158a, and compare it with Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt, [al-Tanqīḥ āt fī Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt], ed. Sayyid Mūsawī, vol. 3, pp. 928–30. 45 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-Arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 159b–161a, and compare it to Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt [al-Tanqīḥ āt fī Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt], ed. Sayyid Mūsawī, vol. 3, pp. 934–6. 46 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-Arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 179a–b. The passage is quoted from Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt [al-Tanqīḥ āt fī Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt], ed. Sayyid Mūsawī, vol. 3, pp. 978–9.

150

chapter four

This use of Ibn Kammūna’s Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt on the issue of the soul shows that Nayrīzī was aware of the strength of Ibn Kammūna on this issue. It is also to be noted that in all the issues on which he quotes Ibn Kammūna, he refrains from ever criticizing the latter’s position. There is only one exception, namely Ibn Kammūna’s idea of the pre-eternity of the soul (azaliyyat al-nafs), on which he adopts a distinctive position.47 Ibn Kammūna’s syllogism for pre-eternity of the soul runs as follows: The soul is simple. (2) Everything originated in time (ḥ ādith zamānī) is not simple. Therefore, the soul is not temporally originated.

The first premise, the simplicity of the soul, was an idea agreed upon by many philosophers including Ibn Sīnā.48 For the second premise, Ibn Kammūna again sets a syllogism: The cause of everything originated in time is compound. (2) It is implausible that something compound causes something simple. Therefore, every temporally originated thing is not simple.

Ibn Kammūna argues that when the cause is complete, its effect is inevitably there (al-maʿlūl yastaḥ īl takhallufihu ʿan al-ʿilla al-tāmma).49 In the case of an effect that is originated in time, the completion of the cause occurs at the very moment of the origination of the effect. This is only plausible if part of the complete cause (al-ʿilla al-tāmma) is also temporally originated at the same moment of the origination of the effect. Therefore, the complete cause of something temporally originated should be composed of two parts: a temporally originated part and a continuously existent part (mawjūd dāʾim al-wujūd).50 On the other hand, the emanation of the simple from the compound is impossible. When a compound causes an effect, Ibn Kammūna argues, every part of the compound, in one way or another, influences the effect. Hence, it is implausible for the effect to be simple. It follows that

47 Ibn Kammūnā discusses this issue in a number of his writings. See Ibn Kammūna, Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt [al-Tanqīḥ āt fī Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt], ed. Ziai & Alwishah, pp. 430–42; “Maqāla fī Azaliyyat al-nafs wa-baqāʾihā”, Azaliyyat al-nafs wa-baqāʾihā, ed. Insiyah Barkhāh, Tehran 1385/2006, pp. 110–21; eadem, “Maqāla fī anna al-nafs laysat bi-mizāj al-badan”, Azaliyyat al-nafs wa-baqāʾihā, pp. 159–61; eadem, “Risāla fī abadiyyat al-nafs wa-baqāʾihā wa-basāṭatihā”, Azaliyyat al-nafs wa-baqāʾihā, pp. 198–202. 48 On the view of Ibn Sīnā on this issue, see “al-fann al-sādis min al-ṭabīʿiyyāt min Kitāb al-Shifāʾ”, in Psychology d’ibn sīnā (avicenne) d’après son œuvre aš-šifāʾ, ed. & trans. Ján Bakoš, Paris 1982, vol. 1, pp. 224–31. 49 Ibn Kammūna, “Maqāla fī Azaliyyat al-nafs wa-baqāʾihā”, p. 110. 50 Ibn Kammūna, “Maqāla fī anna l-nafs laysat bi-mizāj al-badan”, p. 161.

nayrīzī and the suhrawardian philosophy

151

a simple is to be caused only by a simple and, consequently, a simple is inevitably eternal. Since the soul is simple, it is eternal.51 In his argumentation on the temporal origination of the soul, Nayrīzī first briefly presents Ibn Kammūna’s argument, and then rejects it, but without explicit reference to Ibn Kammūna, simply by saying “the [above-] mentioned argument was objected to by one who said . . .” (waqad ʿūriḍa al-dalīl al-madhkūr wa-qīla). Nayrīzī shows his disapproval of Ibn Kammūna’s argument by saying that the compound cause in its totality has an impact on the effect and not, as Ibn Kammūna suggests, each part of it independently. The impact of the compound cause in its totality is one, and hence the issuing of the simple from it is plausible.52 Nayrīzī further posits that had Ibn Kammūna been right in his argument, the compound as well as the simple could not have been temporally originated, for the compound has parts which are simple. II.iii. Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī Qut ̣b al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq was specifically consulted in order to shed light on a few points in al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya, points that were discussed neither in Shahrazūrī’s Shajara nor in Ibn Kammūna’s commentary on al-Talwīḥ āt, so that Qutḅ al-Dīn’s commentary on Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq was the only secondary source available to Nayrīzī. This is the case, for example, with the following issues: (1) the discussion of the soul’s connection with the spiritual realm in the state of sleeping and dreaming;53 (2) Suhrawardī’s principle of the nobler contingency (qāʿidat imkān ashraf), according to which everything that exists at the lower level of being is sure proof that it exists a fortiori at a higher level, which is its cause;54 and (3) on the lord of the species (rabb al-nawʿ). On this later topic, Nayrīzī writes as follows:

51 For a detailed study of Ibn Kammūna’s arguments for the eternity of the human soul, see Lukas Muehlethaler, “Ibn Kammūna (d. 683/1284) on the Eternity of the Human Soul. The Three Treatises on the Soul and Related Texts”, PhD Dissertation, Yale 2009. 52 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 81b, and compare with Ibn Kammūna, Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt [al-Tanqīḥ āt fī Sharḥ al-Talwīḥ āt], ed. Ziai & Alwishah, pp. 430–4. 53 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 176a–b. 54 See Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, ff. 118a–119a.

152

chapter four The sages and the sovereigns of ancient Persia all concurred that each species, among the celestial spheres and stars as well as the simple and compound elements, has a lord (or angel) in the world of light, who is a separate Intellect managing this species. It is the same thing that our Prophet points to by saying that “each thing has an angel” and continues that “for each drop of rain an angel goes down”. The sages of old Persia professed the existence of the lords (or angels) of the species, and called a great number of them by different names. They called the lord (or angel) of water Khurdād, the lord (or angel) of the trees Murdād, the lord (or angel) of fire Urdībihisht. It is this intellect which is regulator and guardian of the [members of] the species of fire, and which gives to them light, regulates the cone of the flame, and attracts oil or wax towards the flame. For each bodily species they determined an angel, who expresses for it an extreme solicitude. It is he who makes it grow, nourishes it, and makes it reproduce, as these various activities in the plant and in the animal proceed through an unconscious energy. The process is also unconscious in us; otherwise it should have come to our knowledge. The angel of a species is a light in its substance belonging to the immaterial world. These are the lights about which Empedocles spoke and others among the metaphysical philosophers (al-ḥ ukamāʾ al-mutaʾallihīn) like Pythagoras.55

Corbin regarded this passage as an Ishrāqī element of “Wadūd al-Tabrīzī” ’s thought, without noticing that he had taken it from Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq.56 Nayrīzī’s mere recounting this remark does not necessarily shows his approval of this Suhrawardian idea. Otherwise he would have realized the need for explaining its implementations within his own philosophical system.

55 Nayrīzī, Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ , MS Șehid Ali 1739, f. 192b. It is quoted from Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s Sharḥ Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, pp. 357:22–358:11. 56 See Corbin, Philosophie iranienne et philosophie comparée, p. 98. Elsewhere, in his L᾽Archange empourpré, Corbin translates this passage into French (see p. 126). Nayrīzī provides no further explanation concerning the nature of the Lords of Species and the philosophical consequences of their existence. Similar to Nayrīzī, Mullā Ṣadrā approves this idea. But unlike Nayrīzī he expounds it further. See Fazlur Rahman, The Philosophy of Mullā Ṣadrā (Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī), Albany 1975, pp. 48–9.

APPENDIX I

INVENTORY OF HIS WRITINGS 1. Authentic Works 1.1. Independent Works 1.1.1. Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām wa-nihāyātihā wa-tabyīn maqāṣid al-ḥ arakāt wa-ghāyātihā On the finitude of the dimensions (tanāhī al-abʿād) and related issues, completed on 24 Rabīʿ II 911/23 September 1505 and dedicated to a certain Ḍ iyāʾ al-Dīn. The name of the author is mentioned in the introduction to the text. Beginning (MS Malik 2614/1, f. 2b):

                  ،               ،           ،            ،                ،                                       :                                       ،                     ،                              ،           ،       ،                                       ،          ،                                      ،    ،                                              ،...            ،                                   ،    ،       ،     ،         ،                 ،        ،               ،              ،          ،      ،                                  ،           ،                       ،    ،                 ،           ،          ...   ،              ،          ،                                              ،               ،       .                         ، .          ،      

154

appendix i

End (MS Malik 2614/1, f. 22a):

                                                            ،                     ،                     .        

Colophon (MS Malik 2614/1, f. 22a):

                             .     ،                     ،                    :                       ،             ،                           ٩١١  .   

Manuscripts MS Malik 2614/1, ff. 2b–22a, copied from the autograph in Isfahan in Rabīʿ I 1032/January 1623 (Cat. vol. 6, p. 71). Criticism Risāla fī Taḥqīq al-zāwiya by Nas ̣r al-Bayān b. Nūr al-ʿAyān al-Kāzirūnī, completed in 950/1543–44, preserved in MS Marwī 877 (ff. 43b–48b), consisting of three chapters: 1) on definitions of the angle; 2) on the views of later scholars; and 3) the views of Khafrī and Nayrīzī (who is referred to as al-fāḍil al-kāmil mawlānā al-Ḥ ājj Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī) on the issue and the author’s rejection of these. According to Āghā Buzurg, two other manuscripts of this work are preserved in the private libraries of Mīrzā ʿAbd Allāh Tihrānī (copy completed on 13 Ramaḍān 950/10 December 1543) and Sayyid Riḍā Is ̣fahānī (copy completed on 13 Dhū al-Qaʿda 950/7 February 1544) (see Dharīʿa, vol. 12, p. 12, no. 68; Ṭabaqāt, vol. 7, p. 243). 1.1.2. Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib/ Risāla fī l-wājib wa-l-mumtaniʿ On the proofs for the existence of God, dedicated to Nāsị r al-Dīn, the vizier of Sulṭān Aḥmad Kār-Kiyā. In his commentary on the Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda of Dawānī [see below no. 1.2.4.], completed in 921/1515–6, Nayrīzī refers to this work as follows (MS Şehid Ali Paşa 2761, ff. 4b–5a):

                                                                                                                         

inventory of his writings

155

                                                                   .            Beginning (MS Malik 688/6, f. 115b):

                                    ،                              ،               ،         ،         .           ،              ،   ،                        ،                                                                   ،﴾         ﴿                        ،         ،﴾            ﴿                  ،                  ،                             ،                ،                                             ،       ،    ،                                   ،             ،           ،                     ،                                     ،                                                          ،            ،                             ،      ،      ،                                  ،                                     ،              ،                  ،            ،                             ،   ،                ،                        ،      ،                                   ،       ،          ،                   ،                    ،           ،          ،           ،               ،               ،                                        ،    ،         .  

156

appendix i

End (MS Malik 688/6, f. 148a):

                                                                                                                   .                                    .              

Manuscripts Malik 688/6, ff. 115b–148a, copied from the autograph in 918/1512–3, with glosses on the margin (Cat. vol. 5, p. 148). Copyist’s colophon:

                                    .  1.2. Commentaries

1.2.1. Sharḥ Tajrīd al-manṭiq A commentary on the Tajrīd al-manṭiq of Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, completed on 23 Dhu l-Ḥ ijja 913/24 April 1508 and dedicated to Amīr Niẓām al-Din Maḥmūd. Nayrīzī refers to this work in his Taḥr īr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid. The name of the author is mentioned in the introduction, where it is also stated that he moved from Isfahan to Qazwin while he was in the process of writing the commentary (Dharīʿa, vol. 13, pp. 140–1, no. 469, vol. 3, p. 354, no. 1278; Ṭabaqāt, vol. 7, p. 244; Mudarris Riḍawī, p. 422). Beginning (Dharīʿa, vol. 13, p. 140, no. 469):

           ،                              ،                 ، .

Manuscripts Ḥ akīm 59, copied from the autograph by Ḥ usayn b. Ḥ aydar al-Karakī al-ʿAmilī, copy completed on 28 Ramaḍān 1021/22 November 1612 (Cat. vol. 5, p. 425; Dharīʿa, vol. 13, p. 141, no. 469; Ṭabaqāt, vol. 7, p. 244). Colophon of the scribe:

                             ...       

inventory of his writings

157

           ،                                                             ،                                                  .           Private collection of Muḥammad al-Samāwī library, copied by ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ b. Mīrzā Muqīm (Dharīʿa, vol. 13, p. 141, no. 469). Private collection of Sayyid Muḥammad Bāqir Iṣfahānī; the present location of the manuscript is unknown (Dharīʿa, vol. 13, p. 141, no. 469). 1.2.2. Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid/Sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād A commentary on the Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād of Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, completed on 2 Rabīʿ I 919/8 May 1513 (Mudarris Riḍawī, p. 430; Ṣadrāyī Khūyī, p. 175). The author refers to this work in his Sharḥ Hidāyat al-Ḥ ikma (MS Riḍawī 175–ḥikmat f. 169b), Sharḥ Tahdhīb al-manṭiq (Riḍawī 1088, f.108a), and Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī kashf ḥaqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ (MS Ragıp 853, ff. 108a, 134b). The beginning (MS Iḥyāʾ-i mīrāth 1849, ff. 1b–3a):

                                      ، ،                                                      ،      ،                                      ،                    ،                                       ،                                                       .        ،      ،                                              ،      ،                                             ”      ،              ” :    ،“                                    ،“               ،       ،                                 ،       .                            :       ،      ،              ،           ،                                                ،             ،                      ،               ،﴾      ﴿                ،            ،                                                 .          ،       

158

appendix i

                  ،      ،                        ،           ،       ،     ،                   ،                 ،               ،              ،                                  ،                ،                                           ،           ،                 ،                         ،                                      ،      ،        ،                                      ،                                         ،      ،         ،                       ،﴾          ﴿   ،                            ،      ،               ،                          ،                                                         .           ،                       ،                                                    ،     ،        ،                                  ،          ،       ،                   ،                           ،                       ،    ،                ،                                                ،           ،                        ،            ،                     ،       ،           ،                    ،                       ،                                             ،        ،                              ،                           ،                                             ،                   ،                                ،         ،       ،                          ،                 ،                        ،                      ،                        ،      ،  ،            ،    

inventory of his writings

159

                           ،                                  .    ،        ،                            ،          ،     ،                 ،                                                  .     ،                                            ،                 ،              ،            ،            ،                ،                                              ،             .             ،                                                                      ،       ،             ،                               ،              ،                  ،        ،       ،                                                ،      .                   ،           ،      ،                                        ،       ،                       ،             ،                                                ،                      ،                  ،                                    .       -﴾     ﴿-           ،                 ،                                                            .              ،                                ،       ،  .                                              ،                                         ﴿   ،﴾       ﴿ ،         ،               ،﴾              ،              .                                            ،     ،                          ،        ،          ،           ،        ،                           ،                                ،                  ،        

160

appendix i

                          ،           ،                 ،                                                    ،    ،﴾     ﴿    ،                               ﴿ :   ،      ،                        ،﴾                           ،    [  ،  : ]                                                ،               ،    ،    ،               ،        ، : ]            .                  ،    .                    [       ،           ،      .      ،                                  ،              ،                                             ،         ،                                  ،          ،                               ،           ،           ،         ،                                 ،                                                         ،                        .                    ،            ،                                   ،     ،         ،                                            ،    ،                                  ،           ،                        .                     ،                          .          ،   End (MS Princeton 70, f. 121a):

             ،                                                                     ،        ،             ،     ،                 ،                                                                ،                      .                          

inventory of his writings

161

                ،                                                   ،                ،       [ ]         .  Author’s colophon (Princeton 70, f. 121a; Millī Fārs 55, f. 260a):

                                                                                    ،         ،         ،                             ،                                                                          .                                                              ،                                        ، .          

Manuscripts Majlis 3968, ff. 1b–324b, with the name of the author mentioned on the title page (Cat. vol. 10(4), pp. 2106–9; Mudarris Riḍawī, p. 430; Ṣadrāyī Khūyī, p.175). Contains two fragments of the text written by two different hands. The first fragment begins near the end of the commentator’s introduction (f. 1b) and ends in the middle of Chapter Three on ilāhiyyāt (f. 276b:2). The beginning of the first fragment (f.1b):

              …     ،                 ،                                         .                                                                                                                                                                                     ...    

The end of the first fragment (f. 276b):

                                                                      [...]          

The second fragment begins in the middle of Chapter Four (f. 277a) and extends to the end of the commentary (f. 324b). The beginning of the second fragment (f. 277a):

162

appendix i

                            .                                                   .              [...]      Comparison with MS Princeton 70, which is complete in this part, reveals that a large portion between the two fragments is missing (the lacuna extends from f. 16a:6 to f. 77b:3 in the latter manuscripts). Millī Fārs 55 (297/2 khū), ff. 1a–260a, incomplete in the beginning (it starts near the end of faṣl 1 of Chapter Three), copied by Shāh Muḥammad b. Ḥ asan, completed in Shaʿbān 1050/November– December 1640 (Cat. vol. 2, p. 207, therein attributed to “Ḥ ājj Maḥmūd Tabrīzī b. Muḥammad”). Beginning:

                                                       [...]     

Princeton 70, ff. 1b–121a (Cat. (1987), pp. 329–30, no. 1460), corrupt and incomplete at the beginning and throughout, completed on 1 Rabiʿ I 1100/24 December 1688, copied by Sharaf al-Dīn b. Zayn al-Dīn al-Nāʾīnī at the request of Mīrzā Muḥammad Ashraf al-Ḥ usaynī (d. 1130/1718) from the autograph. The manuscript contains two fragments of the text. The first fragment starts at the beginning of Chapter Three (f. 1b) and concludes near the end of Chapter Four (f. 87a). It ends as follows:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ...               

The second fragment starts at the beginning of Chapter Six (f. 89a [ff. 87b–88b being blank]) and extends to the end of the commentary (f. 121a). Copyist’s colophon (f. 121a):

                         ،        ،                                ،  ،      ،                         ،                       ،                                  ،       ،            

inventory of his writings

163

               ،                      ،                              ...                                      ،           ،         ،                                                    ،                               ،     ،                                                       ،                            .             

Iḥyāʾ-i mīrāth 1849, ff. 3b–194b, incomplete at the end, extends to the conclusion of Chapter One (Cat. vol. 5, pp. 266–8). 1.2.3. Sharḥ Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām

A commentary on the Tahdhīb al-manṭiq of Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī (Dharīʿa, vol. 6, p. 54, no. 271, vol. 13, p. 163, no. 555; Ṭabaqāt, vol. 7, p. 244); Nayrīzī seems to have commented on the whole text, as is indicated by him in the introduction to the commentary and also in its colophon at the end of the part on logic. However, whereas several manuscripts of the commentary on the first part of the Tahdhīb are extant, the second part of the commentary appears to be lost. Beginning (MS Şehid Ali 1780, ff. 1b–2a):

                  ،            ،                    ،                                          ،             ،                               ،             ،     ،                                    .      ،                               ،     ،                 ،                        ،                                             ،                                     ،      ،         ،                         ،        ،        ،                                                     ،                ،                      ،          ،                                                        ،         

164

appendix i

   ،                                                                      ،       ،       ،                                      .    ،         ،                                               ،          ،                                ،         ،      ،       ،                           ،   ،     ،                      ،                   ،              ،                                                ،      ،                ،              ،                               ،          ،        ،                                       ،           ،             ،                            ،              ،     ،                 ،              ،                                   ،                ،                                  ،                  ،                   ،         ،          ،                  ،         .                      ،        ،              ،                       ،        ،             ،                        ،                   ،                              ،                        ،                          ،   ،                                ،            ،                ،                ،                                                      ،              ،      ،          ،     ،     ،       ،  ،                       ،                 .     ،                                                    ،         ،                                 ،   ،               

inventory of his writings

165

                            ،       ،       ،         ،            ،      ،                                       ،         ،                      ،       ،                    ،                             ،          ،  ،                     ،     ،      ،                                ،          ،                      ،           ،    ،                                 ،                 ،               ،       ،           ،                                   ،          ،                         ،                           ،                      ،                          ،                 ،                                         :  ،        ، :                [...]    End [of Section One] (MS Riḍawī 1088, 261b):

                               ...                                                                       ...                            ...           ...    .               

Manuscripts Riḍawī 1088, ff. 1b–261b, containing the first part on logic only (Cat. vol. 1, pp. 329–30; cf. Dharīʿa, vol. 6, p. 54, no. 271, vol. 13/163, no. 555). The front page contains the following note:

              ،                                                                                                      .         

Another note in Persian on the same page written by the same scribe states that the above note was written by Ghīyāth al-Dīn Mansụ̄ r al-Dashtakī on the first folio of the manuscript of the text he used.

166

appendix i

Since the note by Dashtakī is extant as an autograph in MS Marʿashī 13793/8 (described below), it is likely that Riḍawī 1088 was produced on the basis of that manuscript. Dānishgāh 7051, 115ff., containing the first part on logic only (Cat. vol. 16, p. 439; cf. Shams Nayrīzī, pp. 252, 722–3). Şehid Ali Paşa 1780, ff. 1b–51a, containing a fragment from the beginning of the first part on logic; it is declared on the front page to be an autograph. This assertion seems to be correct, as the manuscript is without any mistakes. The numerous corrections by striking out and additions throughout the manuscript also support this assumption. It ends abruptly near the beginning of the khātima of the text, which corresponds to MS Riḍawī 1088, f. 254a:9, as follows:

           [...]               

Yeni Cami 1181, ff.102b–107b, containing a fragment from the beginning of the first part on logic; it ends abruptly as follows:

  [...]                  

Riḍawī 18410, ff. 66b-67b, a fragment of the commentary dealing with the conditions of the four syllogistic figures (Sharḥ ḍābiṭat al-ashkāl al-arbaʿa fī Tahdhīb al-manṭiq). Copy completed on 26 Ramaḍān 904/7 May 1499. In the title it is attributed to “Mullā Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd”. Beginning (which corresponds to MS Riḍawī 1088, f. 239a:3–4):

                             ،         [...]  

End (which corresponds to MS Riḍawī 1088, f. 241a: 5–8):

                                                                                                                               .       .     

Colophon:

                      ٩٠٤                                ...                    .  Marʿashī 13793/8, ff. 163–189 (Cat. vol. 34, pp. 832–3), containing a fragment from the beginning of the first part on logic. It is undated,

inventory of his writings

167

yet contains a note at the end written by the scribe in 921/1515. It ends abruptly as follows:

          [...]    ،           

The front page contains the same note by Ghiyāth al-Dīn al-Dashtakī which is extant in MS Riḍawī 1088. According to the writer of the catalogue (Cat. vol. 34, p. 833) this is not an autograph. Gulpāygānī 293, ff. 1b-62b (Cat. vol. 1, p. 293), incomplete at the end. It ends abruptly as follows:

                          [...]                  

1.2.4. Sharḥ Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda A commentary on the Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī (d. 908/1502). The date of the completion of this work is given in the Abjad-system as “Ithbāt wājibihi” (= 921/1515) (Dharīʿa, vol. 1, pp. 108–9, no. 527, vol. 1, pp. 103–4, no. 509–10, vol. 13, pp. 58–9, no. 188; Mīr, vol. 1, p. 585). According to the colophon of MS Riḍawi 144/4, the commentary was completed in the Jāmiʿ mosque of Yazd (Cat. vol. 1, p. 134). Beginning (MS Majlis, 1841, f. 2b):

          ،           ،           ،                                                                ،         ،                     .      .                               ،     ،                             ،        ،                                       ،    ،           ،                            ،                         ،       ،                                            ،      ،                                       ،             ،                                         ،            ،                  ،                          ،                            ،             ،                  

168

appendix i

              ،                                              ،                                                        ،   ،                                         ،                             ،          ،      ،                                  ،          ،                      ،        ،          ،                                                                            ،       ،     ،                                                         .                        [...]      :  ،     End (MS Majlis 1841, f. 156a):

                                                                             ،                     .                        ،                         .                                                                       .                                                                ،                                                                                     ،                                ،                                                ،   .        

Manuscripts Majlis 1842/9, ff. 59a–105b [pp. 117–210, the text is actually paginated and not foliated], copied by Jaʿfar b. Bābā b. Muḥammad Bāqir al-Tabrīzī, probably in the 13th/19th century. The author’s introduction is missing (Cat. vol. 5, pp. 301–2). The text of the MS starts as follows:

                                  ،                   [...]         

inventory of his writings

169

Majlis 1841, ff. 3a–156b, copied in 1040/1630–1 (Cat. vol. 5, pp. 299– 301). The scribe collated the copy of the text, which he used as the base together with another recension of the text, as is indicated in the margin of the text. The colophon reads as follows:

      .   ١٠٤٠         

Riḍawī 144/4, 94 ff., copy completed on 1 Shawwāl 970/23 May 1563 (Cat. vol. 1, p. 134; cf. Dharīʿa, vol. 1, pp. 108–9, no. 527; vol. 1, pp. 103–4, no. 509; no. 510; Shams Nayrīzī, p. 253). Marʿashī 9705/5, ff. 197b–237b, copied in the late 10th/16th century, incomplete at the end (Cat. vol. 25, p. 70). The last sentence of the text is as follows:

          .                   

Private library of Sayyid Riḍā Iṣfahānī; the present location of the manuscript is unknown (Dharīʿa, vol. 13, p. 59). Private library of Sayyid Mahdī Ṣadr, incomplete at the beginning; the present location of the manuscript is unknown (Dharīʿa, vol. 13, p. 59, no.188). Köprülü 825, ff.1b–92b (Cat. vol. 1, p. 403 unidentified). Şehid Ali Paşa 2761, ff. 1b–54b. Complete, the name of the scribe is not given in this manuscript, but the copy is completed by the same hand as the Risāla fī Ithbāt al-wājib of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī at the end of the codex (f. 106a). This last mentioned risāla was copied, according to its colophon, by ʿAli b. Muḥammad b. Ḥājjī Maḥmūd, who seems to have been the grandson of Maḥmūd Nayrīzī. Private library of Muḥammad Jawād Wājid, copied by the author’s son Muḥammad b. Ḥājjī Maḥmūd, copy completed on 5 Rajab 940/20 January 1534. The present location of the manuscript is unknown (Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh & Iraj Afshār, Nuskhahā-yi khaṭṭī, vol. 5, p. 285). 1.2.5. Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma A commentary on the Hidāyat al-ḥikma of Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī (Dharīʿa, vol. 14, pp. 175–6, no. 2059), completed in Shiraz in 904/1595– 6, copied again by the author with some revisions in Isfahan on 12 Ṣafar 916/20 May 1510. The commentary covers only Chapters Two and Three of Hidāyat al-Ḥ ikma, and in the introduction to the commentary Nayrīzī explains that he did not comment on the first chapter on logic because he found it to be clear, not containing anything controversial.

170

appendix i

Beginning (MS Carullah 1327, ff. 1b–2b):

                         ،                 ،     ،       ،        ،                                  ،                ،                                                ،     ،                                             ،             ،             ،                  ،                                                   ،                          ،                                                   ﴿ :  ،            ،                                ﴿ : .                ﴾   ﴾                       ﴿ : .                                                     .﴾                  ،      ،                                            ” :         !     ، !                           .                                          ،              ،                                                                                          ،                                         ،                                    ،                                     ،         ،      .                         ،                           ،          ،                  ،                                     ،              ،         ،                        ،           ،        ،           .“        !        ” :                                 .                ،           ،        ،                                         ،                  .           

inventory of his writings

171

                    ،                ،                 ،           ،                          ،                               ،         .                                                   ،                                .                          [...]            

End (MS Carullah 1327, f. 218b):

                 :                                                      .                                                                                                                                              .      

Author’s colophon (MS Carullah 1327, f. 218b):

         ،             ،                          ،                          ،        ،    ،                ،            ،                                                                         ،                                                     ،                         .        ،               ،                  .                                          ،                                                                                                                                           ،           :   ،                                  .           ، ،        ،            ،           ،                                         ،          ،                                    ،                                               ،              ،

172

appendix i

                     ،                ،                                   ،                                        .       ﴿ :          ،﴾                                                                                  ،            ،       ،               ،        ،         ،                 .       Manuscripts Carullah 1327. ff. 1b–218b, copied from the autograph, which was completed in Isfahan in Ṣafar 916/ May1510. On f. 218b, the date 942/1535–6 is given, indicating possibly the date of copying. Riḍawī 175, ff. 3b–192b, incomplete at the end, covers the section on physics and the beginning of the metaphysics section. It has an endowment note dated 1067/1656–7 (Cat. vol. 1, p. 160; cf. Dharīʿa, vol. 14, pp. 175–6, no. 2059). It ends abruptly as follows (corresponding to MS Carullah Efendi 1327, f. 176a:5):

                               ،                    .        

1.2.6. Miṣbāḥ al- arwāḥ fī kashf ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ Commentary on the al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya of Shihāb al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī; the name of the commentator is mentioned in the introduction. Nayrīzī completed the commentary first in Yazd on 5 Rabīʿ II 930/10 February 1524 without having covered the postscript (dhayl) of the Alwāḥ which was not available to him at the time. Having found another manuscript containing the postscript two years later in Jawzā (Rajab-Shaʿbān) 932/ May–June 1526, he added a commentary on the postscript. Nayrīzī later re-copied the whole commentary, completing it on 5 Rabīʿ II 933/ 9 January 1527. Beginning (MS Şehid Ali Paşa 1739, ff. 2b–4b):

                     ،                                          ،     ،    ،            ،            ،                                     ،                               ،  

inventory of his writings

173

         ،     ،       ،     ،                                           ،         ،                               ،                             ،        ،        ،      ،                                    ،   ،     ،                 ،    ،      ،                 ،                     .               ،           ،                ،           ،                                     ،                                       ،                :                           ،                     ،                               .                                           ،                           ،      ،                                                                   ﴿ : ،             .  ،             ،            ﴾               ،﴾                    ﴿ :   ،                               ﴾    ﴿ : ،                 :       :  ،                    ﴿   ﴾   ﴿                                                          :       ،﴾                ،                                ﴿       ،      ،                                        ،﴾  ،          ،    ،                        ﴿        ،                       ،              ﴾                       ،                      ،                             ، .                           ،               ،                       ،             ،               ،     

174

appendix i

    ،                   ،                                        :           ،            ،                       ،                     ،       .﴾   ﴿            ،              ،                              ،                   ،                                                         ،              ،       ،         ،        ،                   ،                      ،          ،        ،                                   ،           .                        ،          ،      ،                       ،                 ،         ،           ،           ،         ،                            ،             ،                                                           ،                        ،      ،                                               ،          ،                 ،         ،                                                      ،    ،                                    ،        ،                   :     ،               ،      ،﴾   ﴿                         :                     .                                                     ،    ،                                      ،         ،                                                      ،        ،    ،                                              ،         ،     ،                                 ،             ،                                                    ،           ،                                                                       .                                                    ،                         

inventory of his writings

175

                    ،           ،          ،                                       ،              ،        ،                            ،                                                    ،        ،           ،               ،         ،    ،                                        ،        ،                                                        ،             ،    ،        ،            ،           ،       ،                            ،                                                               ،          .                 ،                   ،                                                                             ،                                                .     End (MS Şehid Ali Paşa 1739, ff. 208a–209a):

                                                               ،                :  .                             ،                 ،    ،                                     ،          ،    ،                    ،      ،      ،         ،                 ،        ،               ،                 ،                                                              ،            ،                                                                ،      ،         ،                   ،  ،    ،             ،                            ﴿ ،       ،     ،  ﴾                    ﴿              ،﴾                         ﴿           ﴾             ﴿ :      ، ﴾                                 .    ،           :                        ﴿               ﴾   ﴿  

176

appendix i

       ،       ﴾            ،              ،                ،        ،                                   ،          ،                ،                 ﴿ ،                ﴿  ﴾                                 ﴿ ،        ،      ،﴾                                                          ،                ،﴾          ،                            ،                                                  ،        ،                             ،       ،                    ،              ،                                           ،                ،                                     ،               ،           ،                      ،        ،            ،     ،               ،    ،                  ،     ،       ،                                                                         .           ،            ،                                                ،                                           ،    ،                                                         ،           ،                                ،                                                ،                             ،       ،         ،                           ،                 ،                         .          ،   Beginning of the commentary on the postscript (MS Şehid Ali Paşa 1739, f. 209a):

                                                                     ،                       

inventory of his writings

177

                          ،                                                 ، .   ،            ،             ،  :   ،      :        [...]             End of the commentary on the postscript (MS Şehid Ali Paşa 1739, f. 213a):

         ،             ،                             ،﴾          ،        ﴿                                 ،       ،         ،         ،    ،   .  

Author’s colophon at the end of the commentary on the postscript (MS Şehid Ali Paşa 1739, f. 213a):

                                                                                 ،                                                               .   

Manuscripts Ragıp 853, ff. 1b–277a, copied from the autograph by Muḥammad al-Ṭāhir al-Badakhshī, copy completed on 1 Jumādā II 1095/16 May 1684 (cf. Ritter, p. 271). A microfilm copy of this MS is preserved in the Hellmut Ritter Microfilm Collection at Uppsala: M.F. Ritter/Uppsala 15:3040– 3046a [The microfilm is apparently incomplete at the end and not legible at the very beginning] (Cat. p. 107). Şehid Ali Paşa 1739, ff. 2b–213a, complete, copied by the son of the author, Muḥammad b. Ḥājjī Maḥmūd, copy completed on 2 Rabiʿ I 943/10 September 1536 from the autograph that had been completed on 5 Rabiʿ II 933/9 January 1527. Copyist’s colophon (f. 209a):

                          :                             ،             ،                                            ،    ،                  

178

appendix i

        ،                   ، ،                                       .    ،  

                                                             .      

1.2.7. Sharḥ Tahdhib ṭarīq al-wuṣūl ilā ʿilm al-uṣūl In his colophon at the end of his Sharḥ Hidāyāt al-ḥikma, Nayrīzī names among his earlier writings a commentary on the Tahdhīb al-aḥkām of Ḥ asan b. Yūsuf b. al-Muṭahhar al-Ḥ illī (d. 726/1326). As there is no known work written by the ʿAllāma al-Ḥ illī with the title Tahdhīb al-aḥkām, the author presumably was referring to the Tahdhib ṭarīq al-wuṣūl ilā ʿilm al-uṣūl of Ḥ illī. So far, no manuscript of the commentary has been discovered. 1.3. Glosses 1.3.1. Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Maṭāliʿ al-anwār wa-ʿalā al-ḥ awāshiyya al-Sharīfiyya Glosses on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-anwār (entitled Lawāmiʿ al-asrār fī sharḥ Maṭāliʿ al-anwār) and on the glosses by Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī on that commentary. The only extant manuscript of this work (Āṣafiyya 58 Manṭiq) is misidentified in the catalogue as Nayrīzī’s superglosses on Jurjānī’s glosses on Shams al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Is ̣fahānī’s commentary (entitled Maṭāliʿ al-anẓār fī sharḥ Ṭawāliʾ) on ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar al-Bayḍāwī’s Ṭawāliʾ al-anwār. However, this identification contradicts Nayrīzī’s own statement in his introduction quoted in the same catalogue. Beginning (in MS Āṣafiyya 58 Manṭiq and according to the catalogue of the library (vol. 2, p. 519)):

                                                       ، .                                                                                                   . 

inventory of his writings

179

Manuscripts Āṣafiyya 58 manṭiq, ff. 6, 23 lines per page, copied by the author’s son (Ibn Ḥajjī Maḥmūd), copy completed on 1 Jumādā I 942/28 October 1535 (Cat. vol. 2, p. 519). 1.3.2. Taʿlīqa ʿalā l-Mawāqif Glosses on the commentary of Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī (d. 816/1413–4) on the Mawāqif of ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī. Reference to the glosses was made in the author’s Sharḥ Tahdhīb al-manṭiq (Riḍawī 1088, f. 31a). So far, no MS of the text has been discovered. 1.3.3. Taʿlīqa ʿalā l-ḥ awāshiyya al-Sharīfiyya ʿalā sharḥ al-Risāla al-Shamsiyya Glosses on the glosses of Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī on the commentary of Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī on the Risāla al-Shamsiyya of Najm al-Dīn al-Dabīrān al-Kātibī. References to the glosses were made in the author’s Sharḥ Tahdhīb al-manṭiq (Riḍawī 1088, ff. 71a, 161b). So far, no MS of the text has been discovered. 1.3.4. Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq wa-sharḥ ihi Glosses on the Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq of Shihāb al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī and on Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary on the work. Dedicated to Nāṣir al-Dīn, the vizier of sultan Aḥmad Kārkiyā (cf. Ritter, pp. 277–8).1 Introduction (MS Laleli 2523, f. 2b):

          ،             ،                                                          .          ،                  ،            ،   ،                                        ،             ،       

1 Ritter rendered the name of the person to whom the glosses are dedicated as “Nas ̣īr al-Dīn Sadīd”. However, it is more likely that his correct name was Nāṣir al-Dīn, as the name Nāṣir is repeated twice in the introduction (once in the beginning as al-Nāṣir li-l-ḥaqq and the second time as Nāsị ran li-l-Islām). Moreover, Nayrīzī dedicated his Ithbāt al-wājib to a certain Nāṣir al-Dīn in Gīlān. Ritter’s suggestion that the sultan Aḥmad Bahādur Khān mentioned in the text is perhaps the Aqquyunlu ruler who was killed in 903/1497 (Sultan Aḥmad Göwde b. Ughurlu Muḥammad) is also incorrect.

180

appendix i

                                ،                               ،              ،     ،                           ،               ،                 ،             ،                       ،     ،                                                                ،             ،           .         ،  ،                                         ،                            .     ،       ،          ،                   ،                                                  ،      ،               ،                        ،         ،                                         ،          ،               ،                ،    ]  ،             ،      [       ،                        ،         ،                           ،             ،   ،    ،                                         ،          ، ، ،            ،          ،                                      ،                   ،           ،                          ،             ،                       ،                   ،            ،              .  ،                     ،                  ،             ،                               ،            ،                               ،                     ،              ،                    ،            ،                     ،         ،                          ،         ، ،         

inventory of his writings

181

       ،          ،         ،                                               ،    ،        ،                    ،     ،        ،   ،   ،       .         The first gloss (MS Marʿashī 4266, f. 7a):

    .          

End of the glosses (MS Marʿashī 4266, f. 171a):

                                    ،                          ...                 .     

Manuscripts Laleli 2523, on the margins of Sharḥ Ḥ ikmat al-Ishrāq of Qut ̣b al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, distinguished from other glosses by the sign at the end:    . Copied from the autograph by the grand-son of Muḥammad Amīn al-Shīrwānī, Ṣadr al-Dīn Zāde Muḥammad Ṣādiq b. Fayḍ Allāh. Copyist’s colophon at the end of the introduction (f. 1b):

                                                                  ،“  ”                                                                         ،                                    ،                .      ،        

On f. 3a, there are some notes, the first, in which the commentator of the text and the author of the glosses are introduced, written by someone who seems to have known Nayrīzī in person, since he refers to Nayrīzī with the title, “Najm al-Dīn”: Note no. 1.

          ،           ،                                      ،       ،                ،        ،        (   ،     )                              ،      ،           ،                                   ،      .  ،              

182

appendix i

There are three additional notes: Note no. 2.

                         ،                  :                                         .                         .        Note no. 3.

                           :                                                                                                                                                                                                              ،     ،        ،                                                   ،          ،                                                                ،      ،            ،  ،   ،                  .         ،                                             :                                          ،                 " :            .         ،               :   .          :            :  ‫؟‬                             .                     :  .                                                  ".      .                            .    : .               ،          .                      ،                        .          ” :  ،                                                                ،    ،          .       

inventory of his writings

183

                             ،        “.           .    

Note no. 4.

        )                                  (             ،             ،                                                  ،              ،                       .              

The number of glosses amounts to 889. These appear on the following folios according to the foliation of the codex: ff. 54a (1 gloss), 55b (10 glosses), 56a (4), 56b (3), 57a (3), 57b (5), 58a (4), 58b (6), 59a (8), 59b (7), 60a (6), 60b (4), 61a (5), 61b (3), 62a (5), 62b (4), 63a (3), 63b (4), 64a (2), 64b (2), 65a (2), 65b (5), 66a (3), 66b (3), 67a (1), 67b (3), 68a (3), 68b (4), 69a (5), 69b (1), 70a (3), 70b (1), 71a (2), 72b (2), 73a (4), 73b (2), 74a (5), 74b (5), 75a (6), 75b (4), 76b (4), 77a(2), 77b (2), 78a (4), 78b (3), 79a (3), 79b (5), 80a (4), 80b (3), 81a (2), 82a (1), 82b (2), 83a (2), 83b (2), 84a (3), 84b (3), 85a (3), 85b (3), 86a (4), 86b (2), 87a (2), 88a (2), 88b (4), 89a (4), 89b (1), 90a (5), 90b (5), 91a (6), 91b (6), 92a (2), 92b (3), 93a (2), 93b (5), 94a (4), 94b (5), 95a (1), 95b (2), 96a (7), 96b (2), 97a (7), 97b (5), 98a (2), 98b (6), 99a (3), 99b (4), 100a (2), 100b (4), 101a (2), 101b (2), 102b (3), 103a (1), 103b (2), 104a (1), 104b (2), 105a (1), 105b (2), 106a (1), 108a (1), 108b (4), 109a (6), 109b (3), 110a (6), 110b (3), 111a (4), 111b (2), 112a (1), 112b (1), 113a (3), 113b (1), 114b (4), 115a (4), 115b (3), 116b (5), 117a (3), 117b (6), 118a (4), 118b (2), 119a (3), 119b (4), 120a (4), 120b (5), 121a (3), 121b (2), 122a (5), 122b (7), 123a (5), 123b (5), 124a (8), 124b (4), 125a (3), 125b (4), 126a (3), 126b (5), 127a (5), 127b (2), 128a (2), 128b (3), 129a (4), 129b (3), 130a (2), 130b (3), 131a (3), 132a (2), 133a (3), 133b (1), 134a (3), 134b (5), 135a (3), 135b (8), 136a (5), 136b (3), 137a (3), 137b (3), 138a (4), 138b (3), 139a (1), 139b (3), 140a (2), 140b (2), 141a (2), 141b (1), 142a (2), 142b (5), 143a (2), 143b (4), 144a (6), 144b (1), 145a (6), 145b (3), 146a (4), 146b (4), 147a (2), 147b (2), 148a (2), 148b (6), 149a (3), 149b (4), 150a (3), 151b (2), 152a (3), 152b (1), 153a (3), 153b (2), 154a (4), 154b (2),

184

appendix i

155a (3), 155b (2), 156a (3), 156b (5), 157a (1), 157b (2), 158a (5), 158b (3), 159a (2), 159b (1), 160a (2), 160b (4), 161a (2), 161b (4), 162a (5), 162b (2), 163a (3), 163b (2), 164a (5), 164b (3), 165a (3), 165b (2), 166a (6), 166b (2), 167a (5), 167b (4), 168a (4), 168b (6), 169a (1), 169b (3), 170a (4), 170b (4), 171a (3), 171b (4), 172a (6), 172b (3), 173a (1), 173b (2), 174a (4), 174b (7), 175a (5), 175b (4), 176a (2), 176b (3), 177a (3), 177b (1), 178a (4), 178b (6), 179a (3), 179b (5), 180a (5), 180b (8), 181a (2), 181b (2), 182a (4), 182b (6), 183a (4), 183b (5), 184a (3), 184b (6), 185a (6), 185b (4), 186a (4), 187a (3), 187b (4), 188a (7), 188b (5), 189a (5), 189b (5), 190a (2), 190b (2), 191b (3), 192a (1). Colophon at the end of the glosses (f. 193b):

                                        .                 ،        ،                                    .               

Ragıp 854, on the margins of Sharḥ Ḥ ikmat al-Ishrāq of Quṭb al-Dīn  al-Shīrazī, distinguished from other glosses by the abbreviation  at the end of each gloss (cf. Ritter, p. 278). Instead of an introduction by the author, there is a note written at the beginning by the copyist that reads as follows:

                                  “  ”                                                                                                                                   .                                                                                         ...                       ،                                   .                       .         

The manuscript contains 840 glosses of Nayrīzī, which appear on the following folios: 56b (1 gloss), 58a (8 glosses), 58b (4), 59a (4), 59b (2), 60a (5), 60b (4), 61a (6), 61b (8), 62a (7), 62b (3), 63a (3), 63b (2), 64a (3), 64b (5), 65a (3), 65b (2), 66a (4), 66b (2), 67a (2), 67b (1), 68a (6), 68b

inventory of his writings

185

(4), 69a (1), 70b (3), 71a (2), 71b (3), 72a (5), 72b (4), 73a (3), 73b (3), 74a (3), 75a (2), 76b (3), 77a (2), 77b (4), 78b (4), 79a (5), 79b (4), 80b (3), 81a (2), 81b (2), 82a (4), 82b (4), 83a (2), 83b (6), 84a (3), 84b (3), 85a (2), 86a (1), 86b (1), 87a (3), 87b (1), 88a (4), 88b (3), 89a (3), 89b (2), 90a (2), 91a (1), 92a (2), 92b (3), 93a (4), 93b (3), 94a (2), 94b (5), 95a (6), 95b (5), 96a (6), 96b (1), 97a (4), 97b (2), 98a (2), 98b (3), 99a (2), 99b (3), 100a (1), 100b (2), 101a (4), 101b (5), 102a (4), 102b (5), 103a (4), 104b (1), 104a (4), 104b (3), 105a (3), 105b (3), 106a (2), 106b (3), 107a (2), 107b (3), 108a (2), 109a (1), 109b (2), 110a (1), 110b (1), 111a (2), 111b (1), 112a (1), 112b (1), 113a (1), 115b (2), 116a (2), 116b (7), 117a (2), 117b (4), 118a (4), 118b (5), 119a (1), 120b (3), 121a (1), 121b (2), 122a (2), 123a (1), 123b (3), 124a (3), 124b (3), 125b (2), 126a (4), 126b (3), 127a (4), 127b (4), 128a (2), 128b (3), 129a (4), 129b (3), 130a (4), 130b (3), 131a (3), 131b (1), 132a (3), 132b (5), 133a (3), 133b (3), 134a (6), 134b (5), 135a (5), 135b (4), 136a (1), 136b (4), 137a (2), 137b (3), 138a (5), 138b (2), 139a (2), 139b (1), 140a (2), 140b (4), 141a (4), 141b (2), 142b (4), 143a (2), 144a (1), 144b (2), 145a (1), 145b (2), 146b (2), 147a (5), 148b (3), 148a (2), 149b (6), 149a (5), 149b (3), 150a (2), 150b (2), 151a (3), 151b (2), 152a (3), 153a (2), 153b (2), 154a (2), 154b (2), 155a (1), 155b (1), 156a (2), 156b (2), 157a (4), 158a (3), 158b (6), 159a (2), 159b (2), 160a (7), 160b (1), 161a (4), 161b (3), 162a (2), 162b (1), 163a (2), 163b (3), 164a (7), 164b (2), 165a (4), 165b (2), 166a (2), 167a (1), 167b (1), 168a (3), 168b (1), 169a (2), 169b (3), 170a (2), 170b (3), 171a (1), 171b (2), 172a (2), 172b (4), 173a (5), 173b (1), 174a (2), 174b (4), 175a (2), 175b (2), 176a (2), 176b (1), 177a (2), 177b (4), 178a (2), 178b (3), 179a (5), 179b (1), 180a (2), 180b (4), 181a (2), 181b (5), 182a (2), 182b (2), 183a (4), 183b (6), 184a (2), 184b (4), 185a (4), 185b (3), 186a (4), 186b (1), 187a (3), 187b (3), 188a (2), 188b (4), 189a (3), 189b (4), 190a (4), 190b (2), 191a (3), 192a (5), 192b (7), 193a (5), 193b (3), 194a (3), 194b (2), 195a (2), 196a (4), 196b (5), 197a (3), 197b (3), 198a (5), 198b (5), 199a (4), 199b (2), 200a (2), 200b (3), 201a (4), 201b (3), 202a (5), 202b (3), 203a (4), 203b (6), 204a (4), 204b (3), 205b (2), 206a (4), 206b (4), 207a (4), 207b (4), 208a (5), 208b (2), 209a (3), 210b (3), 211a (1). Marʿashī 4266, autograph, on the margins of Sharḥ Ḥ ikmat al-Ishrāq of Qutḅ al-Dīn al-Shīrazī, copied by Najm al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī, the copy of the commentary was completed on 14 Ṣafar 897/16 December 1491(Cat. vol. 11, p. 268). The codex does not contain

186

appendix i

Nayrīzī’s introduction to the glosses, but it seems that the codex in its original form had some extra folios at the beginning, which possibly contained this introduction. Nayrīzī distinguished his glosses from other notes on the margin of the commentary by the sign:  . Altogether there are 938 glosses on the following folios: 7a (3 glosses), 49a (2), 50b (13), 51a (4), 51b (4), 52a (9), 52a (6), 53a (13), 53b (8), 54a (8), 54b (11), 55a (4), 55b (10), 56a (4), 56b (8), 57a (4), 57b (3), 58a (5), 58b (4), 59a (2), 51 b (3), 60a (3), 60b (3), 61a (7), 61b (4), 62a (2), 62b (4), 63a (2), 64b (5), 65a (3), 65a (5), 66a (6), 66b (6), 67a (3), 67b (1), 68a (5), 68b (3), 69a (6), 69b (4), 70 (9), 70b (3), 71a (2), 71b (1), 72a (2), 72b (3), 73a (3), 74a (3), 74b (4), 75a (4), 75b (2), 76a (1), 76b (4), 77a (3), 77b (5), 78a (2), 78b (6), 79a (7), 79b (9), 80a (3), 80b (4), 81a (5), 81b (4), 82a (5), 82b (1), 83a (4), 83b (7), 84a (4), 84b (5), 85a (4), 85b (3), 86a (5), 86b (4), 87a (3), 87b (5), 88a (1), 88b (2), 89a (2), 89b (1), 90a (3), 90b (1), 91a (2), 91b (1), 92a (2), 92b (1), 94b (1), 95a (7), 95b (4), 96a (3), 96b (7), 97a (7), 97b (2), 98a (2), 98b (2), 99a (2), 99b (2), 100b (4), 101a (4), 101b (2), 102a (1), 102b (5), 103a (4), 103b (7), 104a (2), 104b (5), 105a (2), 105b (5), 106a (4), 106b (3), 107a (3), 107b (6), 108a (8), 108b (6), 109a (6), 109b (8), 110a (4), 110b (4), 111a (3), 111b (6), 112a (5), 112b (3), 113a (2), 113b (3), 114a (7), 114b (2), 115b (2), 116b (2), 117b (3), 118a (2), 118b (5), 119a (3), 119b (6), 120a (8), 120b (3), 121a (3), 121b (4), 122a (4), 122b (4), 123a (1), 123b (3), 124a (3), 124b (1), 125a (2), 125b (3), 126a (4), 126b (4), 127a (7), 127b (4), 128a (7), 128b (7), 129a (5), 130a (4), 130b (2), 131a (2), 131b (4), 132a (4), 132b (3), 133a (2), 133b (2), 134a (2), 134b (3), 135a (2), 135b (3), 136a (4), 136b (2), 137a (3), 137b (3), 138a (6), 138b (2), 139a (3), 139b (6), 140a (3), 140b (2), 141a (1), 141b (3), 142a (3), 142b (4), 143a (4), 143b (3), 144a (3), 144b (3), 145a (6), 145b (3), 146a (3), 146b (4), 147a (6), 147b (3), 148a (7), 148b (5), 149a (6), 149b (2), 150a (2), 150b (5), 151a (3), 151b (5), 152a (6), 152b (4), 153a (3), 153b (3), 154a (1), 154b (6), 155a (10), 155b (4), 156a (3), 156b (2), 157a (5), 157b (2), 158a (5), 158b (5), 159a (4), 159b (5), 160a (7), 160b (5), 161a (7), 161b (4), 162a (3), 162b (2), 163a (6), 163b (5), 164a (6), 164b (3), 165a (6), 165b (7), 166a (4), 166b (3), 167a (8), 167b (5), 168a (6), 168b (5), 169a (3), 169b (1), 170a (2), 170b (1), 171a (1). The codex contains the stamp of Nayrīzī, who was its first owner (ff. 4a (2), 200a). It was then passed to Nayrīzī’s son, Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī, whose stamp appears on f. 3a. Later in

inventory of his writings

187

989/1581–2, the codex was owned by a certain Muḥammad Ḥ usayn al-Ḥ usaynī whose stamps are on ff. 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, 200a. Colophon of the copyist (= Nayrīzī) at the end of the commentary:

                           ،                                  ،     ،                                                       .            ،         

Note on the manuscripts: Apart from these two manuscripts, Ritter refers to four other manuscripts, which supposedly contain Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary and the glosses of Nayrīzī: MSS Revan Köşkü 1773, Saray Ahmed III 3212, Ahmed III 3197, and Ali Emiri Arapça 1451 (Ritter, p. 278). Of these four, MS Ali Emiri Arapça 1451 was examined by the present writer. It is evident that none of the glosses on the manuscript was written by Nayrīzī, but rather by some other scholars, including Muḥammad Bāqir Dāmād known as Mīr Dāmād, whose glosses are identified by the signature  .  1.3.5. Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm Glosses on Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī (Dharīʿa, vol. 2, pp. 406–7, no. 1627, vol. 6, p. 26, no. 102; Ṭabaqāt, vol. 7, p. 244). Āghā Buzurg al-Ṭihrānī describes it as al-Ḥ awāshī al-kathīra ʿalā Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm (Ṭabaqāt, vol. 7, p. 244). Manuscripts Private collection of Riḍā Taqawī, autograph, contained in an autograph Majmūʿa, completed between 903–17/1497–507. Its current location is unknown (Dharīʿa, vol. 2, pp. 406–7, no. 1627, vol. 6, p. 26, no. 102). 1.3.6. Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥ all shubhat ‘kulli kalāmī kādhib’/Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Ḥ all mughālaṭat ‘kullu kalāmī kādhib’/Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Ḥ all mughālaṭat jadhr aṣamm Glosses on Dawānī’s Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥall-i shubhat ‘kulli kalāmī kādhib’; these glosses were included, according to Āghā Buzurg, in the Nayrīzī Codex, the current whereabouts of which are unknown (Dharīʿa, vol. 7, pp. 76–77, no. 409; Ṭabaqāt, vol. 7, p. 244). However, they are at least partly extant in MS Malik 688. The name of the glossist in this codex—which contains another work of Nayrīzī, Risālat Ithbāt

188

appendix i

al-wājib (see above, no. 1.1.2)—is not mentioned. There are, however, two signs pointing to Nayrīzī being their author: first, the glossist refers to Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī as “al-Ustādh al-muḥaqqīq” and second,  his signature as    at the end of each gloss is similar to Nayrīzī’s signature at the end of his glosses on Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq and Qutḅ al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī’s commentary according to MS Laleli 2523 (see above, no. 1.3.4). Manuscripts Private collection of Riḍā Taqawī, autograph, contained in an autograph Majmūʿa, completed between 903–17/1497–507 on the margins of Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥall shubhat ‘kulli kalāmī kādhib’. Its current location is unknown (Dharīʿa, vol. 7, pp. 76–7, no 409). Malik 688/1, ff. 3a–34b, on the margin of Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥall  shubhat ‘kulli kalāmī kādhib’ distinguished with the signature   (Cat. vol. 5, p. 147, [unidentified]). Incomplete in the beginning (precisely speaking, the first folio of the text and the glosses accompanying are missing). Altogether, there are 26 glosses which appear on the following folios: 5a (4 glosses), 5b (2), 6a (1), 6b (1), 7a (1), 7b (2), 8a (1), 8b (1), 9a (1), 9b (3), 10b (3), 11a (1), 12a (1), 12b (1), 13a (1), 14a (1), 14b (1). There is no introduction by Nayrīzī. 1.3.7. Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Shawākil al-ḥ ūr fī sharḥ Hayākil al-nūr Glosses on Dawānī’s commentary on Suhrawardī’s Hayākil al-nūr, entitled Shawākil al-ḥūr fī sharḥ Hayākil al-nūr; a copy of Dawānī’s Shawākil al-ḥūr fī sharḥ Hayākil al-nūr completed by “Muḥammad b. Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd” on 5 Saʿbān 943/17 January 1537 contains glosses on this commentary by Nayrīzī (MS Majlis 1887). Although Nayrīzī’s name was not explicitly mentioned as the author of the glosses, the copyist of the glosses who is identical with the copyist of the commentary refers to himself as the author’s son (walad muṣannifihī). Moreover, in his colophon to the glosses (f. 64a), the author refers to another writing of his as “Miṣbāḥ al- arwāḥ” which leaves no doubt that the author is Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī. The date of revision and completion of these glosses is mentioned by the author in the Abjad-system as “ḥawāshī sharḥ al-Hayākil” (= 930 /1523–4). He also informs us that he dealt with it after completing his Miṣbāḥ al- arwāḥ [fī kashf ḥaqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ]. The latter work was completed on 5 Rabīʿ II 930/10 February 1524. Therefore, these glosses must have been completed sometime after this date.

inventory of his writings

189

Manuscripts Majlis 1887, ff. 1a–64a, containing Dawānī’s Shawākil al-ḥūr fī sharḥ Hayākil al-nūr, Dawānī’s additional glosses )distinguished by the signature  ) and Nayrīzī’s glosses (distinguished by the signature  ), copied by Muḥammad b. Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī, copy completed on 28 Ramaḍān 943/10 March 1537, incomplete in the beginning (precisely speaking, the first folio of the text and the glosses is missing). Altogether, there are 560 glosses distinguished by the signature , which appear on the following folios: 1a (2 glosses), 1b (9), 2a (6), 2b (6), 3a (6), 3b (5), 4a (4), 4b (7), 5a (3), 5b (5), 6a (4), 6b (4), 7a (5), 7b (8), 8a (3), 8b (3), 9a (5), 9b (5), 10a (5), 10b (5), 11a (2), 12a (3), 12b (6), 13a (6), 13b (1), 14a (1), 15a (1), 15b (1), 16b (5), 17a (1), 17b (2), 18a (2), 18b (5), 19a (4), 20a (8), 20b (3), 21a (3), 22a (5), 22b (7), 23a (4), 23b (6), 24a (4), 24b (4), 25a (3), 25b (6), 26a (7), 26b (6), 27a (4), 27b (9), 28a (6), 28b (3), 29b (5), 30a (5), 30b (9), 31a (3), 31b (10), 32a (6), 32b (6), 33a (6), 33b (3), 34a (6), 34b (1), 35a (2), 35b (3), 36a (3), 36b (9), 37a (6), 37b (4), 38a (1), 38b (12), 39a (6), 39b (6), 40a (7), 40b (6), 41a (9), 41b (5), 42a (7), 42b (6), 43a (8), 43b (2), 44a (7), 44b (4), 45a (8), 45b (5), 46a (6), 46b (4), 47a (6), 47b (3), 48a (8), 48b (3), 49a (6), 49b (5), 50a (9), 50b (5), 51a (8), 51b (8), 52a (5), 52b (4), 53a (6), 53b (5), 54a (4), 54b (6), 55a (7), 55b (2), 56a (2), 56b (1), 57a (1), 57b (6), 58b (4), 59a (3), 59b (1), 60b (4), 61a (3), 61b (5), 62a (3), 63a (1), 43b (3). Colophon of the author (f. 64a):

                                                                                                       ،              ،                                                                                               .                                                                                                                         ،          ،           ،              .          ،       ،    

Colophon of the copyist (f. 64a):

                                                    .٩٤٣

190

appendix i 2. Works of Uncertain Authorship 2.1. Maṭāʿin al-thalātha

MS Ilāhiyyāt 749 D contains a work entitled Maṭāʿin al-thalātha, on blaming the first three caliphs, written (according to the introduction) in Madina by “Ḥ ajjī Maḥmūd” (Cat. p. 381). The author, however, refrains from identifying himself properly. The language of the writing is offensive and contains curses directed at the caliphs. On the basis of its content, it is plausible that Nayrīzī was its author, yet the attribution remains uncertain. Beginning (MS Ilāhiyyāt 749 D/24, f. 271b):

       ،       ،        ،                                           ،         ،               ،                              ،          ،          ،                      ،                  ،                       .                     ،         ،          ،                                     ،                                     ،                                                  ،                 ،           [...]          ،                 

End (MS Ilāhiyyāt 749 D/24, f. 234b):

                     .                  

Manuscript Ilāhiyyāt 749 D/24, ff. 271b–274b, incomplete at the end, copied in Ṣafar 1130/January 1718, as is evident from some other writings in the same codex copied by the same hand. The codex contains some works of the scholars of Shiraz from the 9th and 10th / 15th and 16th centuries. It ends abruptly as follows:

               [...]     

inventory of his writings

191

3. Falsely Attributed Works 3.1. Sharḥ Ithbāt al-wājib al-qadīm In the catalogue of the National Library in Tehran, a commentary on Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī’s Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-qadīma with the shelfmark MS Millī 193/1 (pp. 1–60, copied in Van in 1071/1660–1) is attributed to Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī (Cat. vol. 7, p. 167). In the manuscript itself there is no reference to al-Nayrīzī apart from a note in a modern hand on the front page, stating that it might be by Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī. As other manuscripts of the same commentary show its author to be Muḥammad Amīn al-Ḥ anafī al-Tabrīzī, this attribution is erroneous (see catalogue of Majlis library 5/303–5). 3.2. Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyya Glosses on Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī’s commentary on al-ʿAqāʾid alNasafiyya of Najm al-Dīn ʿUmar al-Nasafī (d. 537/1142–3) contained in MS Riḍawī 8914 (copied by Muḥammad b. Ḥ abīb Allāh al-Multạ̄ nī, cf. Cat. vol. 11, pp. 110–1) in the first two folios of its manuscript two names are put forward as the author of the text: “al-Baḥrābādī” and “Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī”. There is clear evidence that these glosses are not by Nayrīzī. The author of the glosses disagrees with the Shīʿī notion of the imamate (see, e.g., f. 4a) and tries to keep his distance from any influence on the part of philosophy. In the whole text there is not a single quotation from a philosopher. As the attitude of Nayrīzī was the opposite on both the above-mentioned issues, it can safely be excluded that he was the author of these glosses. Beginning (MS Riḍawī 8914, f. 2b):

             ،                                                    ،               ،                            ،  .        ،        ،                      ،                      ، ،         ،                                    ،     ،                      ،           ،        ،                                            ،        ،        

192

appendix i

            ،         ،             ،                           ،           ،     ،                         ،       ،            ...                                                                        ،         ،       ،        ،                   ،                  ،        ،        ،       ،                      ،        ،                                                        ،            ،                                  ... ،       ،    ،                             ،                                         ،               ،                                        ،          ،                 .                ” :            “    ...   End (MS Riḍawī 8914):

          :            ﴾    ﴿ :                                            .    .          

Copyist’s colophon:

                                                      . .           

APPENDIX II

PHILOSOPHICAL WRITINGS COPIED BY NAYRĪZĪ 1. Nayrīzī Codex The so-called Nayrīzi Codex is a collection of 57 works copied by Nayrīzī from 903/1497 to 919/1512–13, in a codex, most of them on philosophy and theology and logic, bound together in codex format. This codex, which might provide us with some knowledge of Nayrīzī’s favourite philosophical-theological works, was extant until the early 1930’s, when Āghā Burzurg al-Ṭihrānī saw it in the private collection of Sayyid Rīḍā Taqawī in Tehran. The manuscript collection of Taqawī was later located in the Majlis library in Tehran, but this codex was among the few codices that were not handed on to the library; hence, its location is unknown. On various occasions in his al-Dharīʿa ilā taṣānīf al-shīʿa and also in his Ṭabaqāt aʿlām al-shīʿa, Āghā Burzurg refers to this codex and specified 19 works of it (other works of the codex were probably among the well known philosophical or theological works with many copies that Āghā Burzurg did not bother to pen down). It also contains an autograph ijāza of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī to Najm al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī, written between Rabīʿ I 903/October 1497, the date of completion of copying Ithbāt al-wājib of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, and 12 Ramaḍān 903/4 May 1498, the date of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī’s death (Dharīʿa, vol.1, p. 108, no. 526; Ṭabaqāt, vol. 7, p. 244). The ownership statements of the codex, as he reports, shows that the codex was held in 989/1581–82 by Afḍal al-Din Muḥammad al-Turka al-Iṣfahānī and in 997/1588–9 by Mīr Dāmād. The works in the codex mentioned by Āghā Burzurg are as follows: 1) Ibṭāl aḥkām al-nujūm of Ibn Sīnā, in this codex attributed to Fārābī, Arabic (Dharīʿa, vol. 1, pp. 66–7, no. 326); 2) al-Nafs of Ibn Sīnā, Arabic (Dharīʿa, vol. 24, p. 260 no. 1337); 3) Ḥ udūd al-ashyā’ of Ibn Sīnā, Arabic (Dharīʿa, vol. 6, p. 300, no. 1605); 4) Lisān al-ṭayr, attributed to Ibn Sīnā, Persian (Dharīʿa, vol. 18, p. 306, no. 229); 5) Aqsām al-ḥikma of Ibn Sīnā, Arabic (Dharīʿa, vol. 2, p. 272, no. 1097);

194

appendix ii

6) Risālat al-ʿArūs of Ibn Sīnā, Arabic (Dharīʿa, vol. 15, p. 253, no. 1631); 7) Khuṭbat al-Tamjīd of Ibn Sīnā, Arabic (Dharīʿa, vol. 7, p. 184, no. 943, vol. 7, p. 202, no. 990); 8) Tafsīr-i Sūrat al-Aʿlā of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (Chapter Two of K. al-Tanbīh), attributed in this codex to Ibn Sīnā, Arabic (Dharīʿa, vol. 4, p. 336, no. 1444); 9) Sharḥ Khuṭbat al-Tamjīd of ʿUmar Khayyām, Persian (Dharīʿa, vol. 7, p. 202, no. 990, vol. 13, p. 220, no. 779); 10) Anjām nāma/ Āghāz u anjām of Afḍal al-Dīn al-Kāshānī, in this codex attributed to Nasị̄ r al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, Persian (Dharīʿa, vol. 2, p. 264, no. 1479, vol. 1, p. 36, no. 173); 11) Jāvīdān nāma of Afḍal al-Dīn al-Kāshānī, Persian (Dharīʿa, vol. 5, p. 77, no. 307); 12) Qurāḍa-i ṭabīʿiyyāt of Muḥammad Qāʾinī, in the codex attributed to Ibn Sinā (Nayrīzī is said to have doubted this attribution), Persian (Dharīʿa, vol. 17, p. 65, no. 352); 13) Risāla fī maʿnā al-ḥarf of Abū Isḥāq Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Nayrīzī, Persian, copied in 908/1502–3 (Dharīʿa, vol. 21, p. 274, no. 5030); 14) Ḥ all mughālaṭat al-jadhr al-aṣamm of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Arabic (Dharīʿa, vol. 5, p. 92); 15) Ithbāt al-wājib of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī, Arabic, copied in Rabīʿ I 903/1498 (Dharīʿa, vol. 1, p. 108, no. 384; Ṭabaqāt, vol. 7, p. 244); 16) Ḥ all mughālaṭat al-jadhr al-aṣamm/ Ḥ all mughālaṭa ‘kullu kalāmī kādhib’ (Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥall shubhat ‘kulli kalāmī kādhib’ of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, Arabic (Dharīʿa, vol. 7, pp. 76–77, n. 409); 17) Ḥ awāshi ʿalā R. Ḥ all mughālaṭat al-jadhr al-aṣamm/ Ḥ all mughālaṭat ‘kullu kalāmī kādhib’ (Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥall shubhat ‘kulli kalāmī kādhib’) of Nayrīzī, Arabic (Dharīʿa, vol. 7, pp. 76–77, no. 409); 18) Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī, Arabic (Dharīʿa, vol. 2, pp. 407–8, no. 1627); 19) Sharḥ ʿalā Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm of Nayrīzī, Arabic (Dharīʿa, vol. 2, pp. 406–7, no. 1627, vol. 6, p. 26, no.102; Ṭabaqāt, 7/244). According to Āghā Buzurg, Nayrīzī refers to himself at the end of the codex as follows:

                           [...]                 

philosophical writings copied by nayrīzī

195

2. Risāla fī al-Sayr wa-l-sulūk of Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr Dashtakī Copy completed on 2 Rabiʿ II 933/25 January 1526. Āghā Burzurg al-Ṭihrānī wrote that the manuscript in his time was preserved in al-Ṭihrānī library in Samarra (Dharīʿa, vol. 12, p. 284, no. 1910).

APPENDIX III

AN IJĀZA GIVEN TO NAYRĪZĪ BY GHIYĀTH AL-DĪN AL-DASHTAKĪ This edition is based on MS Malik 956, f. 266a.

            ،                   ، .                     ،    ،        ،       ...         ،          ،       ،                                                 ،          ،        ،                          ،   1    ،      ،              ،           ،                                         ،                ،            ،          ،                           ،       ،                                  ،        ،                                  ،          ،                                           ،   .                                         ،     ،                                                                                                              ،                                                           ،       ،                      .  ،   :    

1

an ijāza given to nayrīzī

197

       ،      ،     ،        ،                          ،                 ،         ،                                             ،        ،            ،       ،                                                        .                          ،         .    ،                            ،                                      ،   .         ،     

APPENDIX IV

QUOTATIONS FROM UNPUBLISHED SOURCES The followings are all the Arabic passages, translated and quoted previously in this book from unpublished sources, with the exception of those passages, appeared in the footnotes or in Appendix I.

    ،               ،        

.1

     ،               ،                               ،                                                              .                                                   .2                                                                  .                                      ،            :   .3                                                ،                              ،                 ،                                                                ،        ،       .           ،                                          .4                              ،                                            ،                 ،      ،      

quotations from unpublished sources

199

                            ،                              ،                                .         ،                                                                      ،                                        ،            ،                              ،         .                                            ‫؛‬        .5                    ،                                                  ،                                   ،                                               ،                                               ،      ،                                .           ،                                 ،                                           .                                      ،                                                                        ،    ،        ،           ،       .       ،                                                                                  ،       ،             ،                             ،                  ﴿            

200

appendix IV

                           ،(٤٠ ،  ) ﴾             .                                                                                                              ،     ،                                       ،                                           ،                  ،                                                                ،              .                           ،                   .6                .    ،                                                   ،                                        .7                             .  

                           .8                    

                  ،                                                    ،                                     ،                                                                                   .    ” :                                         “       .                                               ....9                                                                                 ،         

quotations from unpublished sources

                                         ،                                                  .              .                                                 ،                       .                                                ،                     .                                 ،  ،     ،                                  ،     ،                        ،               .                                  ،                       ،                     ،                                                                 ،   .                 :  :]                               [   ،                 ،               .                                          ،       ،                                     ‫؛‬          ،                      ،            ،         ،                    .  ،                                            ،                                                       .          

201

.10

.11

.12

.13

202

appendix IV

                           ، ،                                          ،          ،                                                                                                                         ،                                 .                           .                  .14                                                                                               .                              .   ،                                               ،                        .                  [              ، +]                                                                        ،    ،       .                        ،                               ،        ،    ،                               ‫؛‬                                      ‫؛‬                     .  

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Abisaab, Rula Jurdi: Converting Persia. Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire, London 2004. Abu l-Barakāt al-Baghdādī: al-Muʿtabar fī al-ḥ ikma 1–3, Haydarabad 1358/1939. al-Afandī al-Iṣbahānī, Mīrzā ʿAbd Allāh: Riyāḍ al-ʿulamā 1–7, Qum 1401/1981. Afshār, Iraj & Muḥ ammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh: Nuskhahā-yi khaṭtị̄ (Nashriyya-yi Kitābkhāna-yi Markazī wa-Markaz-i Asnād-i, Dānishgāh-i Tihrān), vol. 5, Tehran 1346/1967. Afūshtaʾī, Maḥmūd: Niqāwat al-āthār fī dhikr al-akhyār, ed. Iḥsān Ishrāqī, Tehran 1373/1994–5. ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī, Muḥ ammad Ashraf: Faḍ āʾil al-sādāt, Lithograph Edition, Tehran 1319/1901. —— ʿIlāqat al-Tajrīd, ed. Ḥ āmid Najī Isfahānī, Tehran 1381/2002. Alwishah, Ahmad & David Sanson, “The Early Arabic Liar: The Liar Paradox in the Islamic World from the Mid-Ninth to the Mid-Thirteenth Centuries CE”, Vivarium, 47 (2009), pp. 97–127. Anay, Harun: Celâleddin Devvânî hayati. eserleri. ahlâk ve siyaset, PhD Dissertation, Istanbul University, Istanbul 1994. —— “Devvânî”, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 9, Istanbul 1994, pp. 257–62. —— “Mir Giyathedden Mansur” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 30, Istanbul 2005, pp. 127–8. Anṣārī, Ḥ asan: “Fakhr-i Rāzī u mukātaba-yi ū bā yaki az ḥukamāʾ-i muʿāṣir-i khud”, Maʿārif, 18 iii (2002), pp. 10–26. Arberry, Arthur J.: The Koran Interpreted, London & New York 1955. Āṣafiyya = Āṣafiyya liberay in Hyderabad Dakan. Catalogue: Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh, Fihrist-i mashrūḥ -i baʿḍ-i kutub-i nafīsa-i qalamiyyai makhzūna-i kutubkhāna-i Āṣafiyya Ḥ aydarābād-i Dakan 1–2, Tehran 1357/1978–9. al-Baghdādī, ʿAbd al-Bāqir b. ʿUmar: Khizānat al-adab wa-lubb lubāb lisān al-ʿarab, ed. Muḥammad Hārūn, Cairo 1399/1979. Bahmanyār b. Marzubān, Abu al-Ḥ asan: al-Taḥ sīl, ed. Murtaḍā Mutạ hharī, Tehran 1349/1971. Barakat, Muḥammad: Kitāb-shināsī-i maktab-i falsafī-i Shīrāz, Shiraz 1383/2004. Barkhwāh, Insiyya: “Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām”, Dānishnāma-yi jahān-i Islām, ed. Ghulām ʿAlī Ḥ addād ʿĀdil, Tehran 1383/2004, vol. 8, pp. 703–5. Barzigar Kashtlī, Ḥ usayn: “Niẓām al-Dīn Shāh Sindī”, Dānishnāma-yi adab-i Fārsī [4] Adab-i Fārsī dar shibha qārrah (Hind, Pākistān, Banglādish) 1–3, ed. Ḥ asan Anūshah, Tehran 1380/2001, vol. 3, pp. 2561–23. Bashir, Shahzad: “After the Messiah: The Nūrbakhshiyyah in Late Timurid and Early Safavid Times”, Society and Culture in the Early Modern Middle East. Studies on Iran in the Safavid Period, ed. Andrew J. Newman, Leiden 2003, pp. 295–313. —— Messianic hopes and mystical visions: The Nurbakhshiya between medieval and modern Islam, South Carolina 2003. Bīnish, Taqī: “Ibn Zayla”, Dāʿirat al-maʾārif-i buzurg-i Islāmī, ed. Kaẓim Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, vol. 3, Tehran 1374/1995, pp. 649–52. Black, Deborah L.: “Mental Existence in Thomas Aquinas and Avicenna”, Mediaeval Studies, 61 (1999), pp. 45–79.

204

abbreviations and bibliography

al-Bukhārī, Ibn Mubārakshāh: Sharḥ Ḥ ikmat al-ʿayn, Lithograph Edition, Kazan, 1321–2/1903–4. Carullah = Carullah Collection (held at the Süleymanie Kütuphanesi), Istanbul. Chittick, William C.: “The School of Ibn ʿArabī”, History of Islamic Philosophy, eds. Seyyed Hossein Nasr & Oliver Leaman, London 1996, vol. 1, pp. 510–23. Chodkiewicz, Michel: Epître sur l’Unicité Absolue [edition and translation of Awḥad al-Dīn Balyānī’s Risālat al-Aḥ adiyya], Paris 1982. Corbin, Henry: En islam iranien. Aspects spirituels et philosophiques. II Sohrawardī et les platoniciens de Perse. Paris 1971. —— L᾽Archange empourpré, Paris 1976. —— Philosophie iranienne et philosophie comparée, Tehran 1976 [reprinted Tehran 2003]. —— La philosophie iranienne islamique aux xviie et xviiie siècles, Paris 1981. —— Histoire de la philosophie islamique, Paris 1986. Cristina D’Ancona: “Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in translation”, The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, eds. Peter Adamson & Richard C. Taylor, Cambridge 2005, pp. 10–31. Daiber, Hans: Bibliography of Islamic philosophy 1–2, Leiden 1999. Dāʾirat al-maʿārif = The Centre for the Great Islamic Encyclopaedia Collection, Tehran Catalogue: Aḥmad Munzawī, Fihrist-i nuskhahā-yi khaṭtị̄ -i Markaz-i dāʾirat al-maʿārif-i buzurg-i Islāmī, vol. 1, Tehran 1377/1998. Dānishgāh = Kitābkhāna-yi markazī u markaz-i asnād-i dānishgāh-i Tihrān collection (Central Library of the University of Tehran) Catalogue: Muḥ ammad Taqī Danishpazhūh, Fihrist-i kitābkhāna-yi ihdāyī āqā-yi Sayyid Muḥ ammad Mishkāt ( jild-i siwwum) 1–7, Tehran 1332–38/1953–9. Dānishpazhūh, Muḥammad Taqī: “Āthār ʿImād al-Dīn Maḥmūd Shīrāzī”, Majmūʿa khaṭābihā-yi Nukhustīn kungiri-yi taḥ qiqāt-i Īrānī 1–3, ed. Ghulamreza Sotude, Tehran1354/1975, vol. 3, pp. 486–95. —— [ed.] al-Manṭiq li-Ibn Muqaffaʿ. Ḥ udūd al-manṭiq li-Ibn Bihrīz, Tehran 1357/ 1978. al-Dashtakī, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr: Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Mukhtaṣar al-muntahā, MS Majlis 507, ff. 97a–138b. —— Ḥ āshiya ʿalā al-Shamsiyya, MS Majlis 507. —— “Ḥ ujjat al-kalām li-īḍāḥ maḥajjat al-Islām”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr-i Ḥ usaynī-i Dashtakī-i Shīrāzī, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, Tehran 1386/2007, vol. 1, pp. 153–204. —— Ishrāq hayākil al-nūr li-kashf ẓulumāt Shawākil al-gharūr, ed. ʿAlī Awjabī, Tehran 1382/2003. —— “Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-muḥ ammadiyya”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr-i Ḥ usaynī-i Dashtakī-i Shīrāzī, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, Tehran 1386/2007, vol. 2, pp. 735–988. —— Kashf al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-Muḥ ammadiyya, MS Majlis-i Sinā 32. —— “Lat ̣āʾif al-Ishārāt”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr-i Ḥ usaynī-i Dashtakī-i Shīrāzī, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, Tehran 1386/2007, vol. 2, pp. 489–518. —— “Maqāṣid al-Ishārāt”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr-i Ḥ usaynī-i Dashtakī-i Shīrāzī, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, Tehran 1386/2007, vol. 2, pp. 489–518. —— “Mirʾāt al-ḥaqāʾiq wa-mujlī al-daqāʾiq”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr-i Ḥ usaynī-i Dashtakī-i Shīrāzī, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, Tehran 1386/2007, vol. 1, pp. 75–132. —— “Risāla-yi ʿarūḍ u qāfiyya”, eds. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī & Pidrām Mīrzāyī, Nāme-yi Farhangestān, supplement no. 1, 1375/1996. —— “Shifāʾ al-qulūb”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr-i Ḥ usaynī-i Dashtakī-i Shīrāzī, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, Tehran 1386/2007, vol. 2, pp. 375–487.

abbreviations and bibliography

205

—— “Tajrīd al-ghawāshī” [al-muntakhab fi shubhat Jadhr al-Aṣamm], ed. Aḥ ad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī [in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā], Dawāzdah risāla dar pārādoks-i durūghgū, Tehran 1386/2007, pp. 159–261. —— “Taʿlīqāt ʿalā al-sharḥ al-jadīd li-l-Tajrīd”, Muṣannafāt-i Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr-i Ḥ usaynī-i Dashtakī-i Shīrāzī, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, Tehran 1386/2007, vol. 2, pp. 625–731. —— Tuḥ fat al-fatā fī tafsīr sūrat hal aṭā, ed. Parwīn Bahārzāda, Tehran 1381/2002. al-Dashtakī, Ṣadr al-Dīn (al-Ḥ usaynī al-Shīrazī): “Gawhar-nāma” [= Jawāhir-nāma], ed. Manūchihr Sutūdah, Farhang-i Īrān-zamīn, 4 (1335/1956), pp. 185–302. —— Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1998. —— Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Fâtih 3025. —— Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib, MS Ṣehid Ali Paṣa 2761. —— “Risāla fī shubhat Jadhr al-Aṣamm”, ed. Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī [in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā], Dawāzdah risāla dar pārādoks-i durūghgū, Tehran 1386/2007, pp. 27–62. Dawānī, ʿAlī: Sharḥ -i zindigānī-yi Mawlānā Jalāl al-Dīn Dawānī, Qum 1335/1956. al-Dawānī, Jalāl al-Dīn: Akhlāq-i Jalālī [Lawāmiʿ al-ishrāq fī makārim al-akhlāq], Lithograph Edition, Lucknow 1377/1956. —— “ ʿArḍ-i sipāh-i Uzūn Ḥ asan” [= ʿArḍ-nāma], ed. Iraj Afshār, Majalla-yi Dānishkada-yi Adabiyāt-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān 3 iii (1335/1956), pp. 26–66. —— “Dīwān-i Maẓālim”, ed. Ḥ usayn Mudarrisī Ṭ abātabāʾī, Farhang-i Īrān zamīn, 27 (Tehran 1366), pp. 98–118. —— “Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Ḥ awāshī Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī ʿalā sharḥ al-Shamsiyya”, Shurūḥ al-Shamsiyya, Āstāna 1309/1891–92, pp. 256–86. —— Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1752. —— Ḥ āshiya jadīda ʿalā l-sharḥ al-jadīd li-Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, MS Majlis 1999. —— “al-Ḥ awrāʾ” [Sharḥ al-Zawrāʾ], Sabʿ Rasāʾil, ed. Sayyid Aḥmad Tūysirkānī, Tehran 1381/2003, pp. 199–225. —— al-Ḥ ujaj al-bāhira [misattributed], ed. D. ʿAbd Allāh Ḥ ājj ʿAlī Munīb, Dubai 2000/1420. —— Ijāza li-Ibn Muʾayyad (Muʾayyadzāde), MS Esad Efendi 3733, ff. 41b–7a. —— “Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥ all shubhat ‘kullu kalāmī kādhib’ ”, ed. Aḥ ad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī, Nāma-yi mufīd 2 i (1375/1996), pp. 97–134. —— “Nihāyat al-kalām fī ḥ all shubhat ‘kullu kalāmī kādhib’ ”, ed. Aḥ ad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī [in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā], Dawāzdah risāla dar pārādoks-i durūghgū, Tehran 1386/2007, pp. 101–55. —— “Nūr al-hidāya”, Rasāʾil al-mukhtāra, ed. Sayyid Aḥ mad Tūysirkānī, Isfahan 1364/1985, pp. 109–28. —— Risāla-yi ʿadālat, Ed. Najīb Māyil Hirawī, Majmūʿ-yi rasāʾil-i khaṭtị̄ -yi fārsī, vol. 1, Mashhad 1368/1989–90. —— Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyya, Lithograph Edition, ed. Ilyās Mīrzā al-Būrāghānī al-Qarīmī, St. Petersburg 1313/1895. —— “Shawākil al-ḥ ūr fī sharḥ Hayākil al-nūr”, Thalāth rasāʾil, ed. Sayyid Aḥmad Tūysirkānī, Mashhad 1411/1991, pp. 100–261. —— “Tafsīr Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ”, al-Rasāʾil al-mukhtāra, ed. Sayyid Aḥmad Tūysirkānī, Isfahan 1364/1985, pp. 35–66. —— “Tafsīr Sūrat al-Kāfirūn”, Thalāth rasāʿil, ed. Sayyid Aḥmad Tūysirkānī, Mashhad 1411/1991, pp. 43–67. —— “Taḥqīq-i ʿadālat, Mishkāt”, ed. Najīb Māyil Hirawī, Mishkāt, 18–19 (1368/1989– 90), pp. 35–47. —— “Unmūdhaj al-ʿulūm”, Thalāth rasāʾil, ed. Sayyid Aḥmad Tūysirkānī, Mashhad 1411/1991, pp. 269–333. —— “al-Zawrāʾ”, Sabʿ Rasāʾil, ed. Sayyid Aḥ mad Tūysirkānī, Tehran 1381/2003, pp. 171–84.

206

abbreviations and bibliography

Demir, Remzi: Philosophia Ottomanica. Osmanlı İmparatorluºu Döneminde Türk Felsefesi, Ankara 2005. Dharīʿa = Āghā Buzurg al-Ṭ ihrānī, al-Dharīʿa ilā taṣānīf al-shīʿa 1–25, Beirut 1403– 6/1983–6. Dunietz, Alexandra Whelan: Qāḍī Ḥ usayn Maybudī of Yazad: Representative of the Iranian Provincial Elite in the Late Fifteenth Century, PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago 1990. Ecchellensis, Abraham: Mukhtaṣar maqāṣid ḥ ikmat falāsifat al-ʿarab al-musammā Jām-i gīti-numā. Synopsis Propositorvm sapientiæ Arabum philosophorum inscripta Speculum mundum representans, Paris 1641. Eichner, Heidrun: “al-Abharī, Athir al-Dīn”, Encyclopaedia of Islam Three, eds. Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, and Everett Rowson, forthcoming. Endress, Gerhard: “Philosophische Ein-Band-Bibliotheken aus Isfahan”, Oriens 36 (2001), pp. 10–58. Esad Efendi = Esad Efendi Collection (held at the Süleymanie Kütüphanesi), Istanbul. Escurial = Real Monasterio de EI Escurial, San Lorenzo (Spain) Catalogue: Hartwig Derrenbourg, Les manuscrits arabes de l’Escurial, décrits. Vol. 1, Paris 1884 [reprinted Hildesheim 1976]. Fakhry, Majid: Ethical Theories in Islam, Leiden 1994. Fanā, Fāṭima, “Tanāhī abʿād”, Dānishnāma-yi jahān-i Islām 1–, ed. Ghulām ʿAlī Ḥ addād ʿĀdil, vol. 8, Tehran 1383/2004, pp. 246–8. Farāmarz Qarāmalikī, Aḥad [in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā] (ed.): Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūghgū, Tehran 1386/2007. —— “Mukātabahā-yi Dawānī u Dashtakī dar ḥ all-i muʿammāyi jadhr-i aṣamm”, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 8–9 (1376/1997), pp. 95–101. Fasāyī, Ḥ ājj Mīrzā Ḥ asan: Fārs-nāma-yi Nāṣirī, ed. Manṣūr Rastigār Fasāyī, Tehran 1367/1988. Fâtih = Fâtih Collection (held at the Süleymanie Kütüphanesi), Istanbul Floor, W.: The Persian Gulf. A Political and Economic History of Five Port Cities 1500–1730, Washington 2006, pp. 7–91. —— “The Ṣadr or Head of the Safavid Religious Administration, Judiciary and Endowments and other Members of the Religious Institution”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 150 (2000), pp. 461–500. Furṣat al-Dawla Shīrāzī: Āthār al-ʿajam, Tehran 1362/1983. GAL = Carl Brockelmann: Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur. Zweite den Supplementbänden angepasste Auflage 1–2, Leiden 1943–9. GALS = Carl Brockelmann: Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur. Supplementbände 1–3, Leiden 1937–42. Gawharshād = Kitābkhāna-yi Jāmiʿ-i Gawharshād, Mashhad Catalogue: Maḥ mūd Fāḍil, Fihrist-i nuskhahā-yi khaṭtị̄ -i Kitābkhāna-yi Jāmiʿ-i Gawharshād 1–3, Mashhad, 1363–67/1984–8. al-Ghīlānī, Afḍal al-Dīn ʿUmar b. ʿAlī: Ḥ udūth al-ʿālam, ed. Mahdī Muḥaqqiq, Tehran 1377/1998. Gulpāygānī = Madrasa u-Kitābkhāna-yi Āyat Allāh Gulpāygānī, Qum Catalogue: Aḥmad al-Ḥ usaynī and Riẓā Ustādī: Fihrist-i nuskhahā-yi khaṭtị̄ -yi Kitābkhāna-yi ʿUmūmī-i Āyat Allāh Gulpāygānī 1–2, Qum 1357/1978. Gümüş, Sadreddin: Seyyid Șerîf Cürcânî ve Arap dilindeki yeri, Istanbul 1984. —— “Cürcânî, Seyyid Șerîf ”, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 8, Istanbul 1993, pp. 134–6.

abbreviations and bibliography

207

Gutas, Dimitri: “The study of Arabic philosophy in the twentieth century”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 29 i (2002), pp. 5–15. Ḥ akīm = Maktabat al-Ḥ akīm, Najaf Catalogue: Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh, Fihrist-i kitābkhānahā-yi ʿIrāq u ʿArabistān, vol. 5, Tehran 1346/1967–8. Ḥ ājjī Khalīfa: Kashf al-ẓunūn ʿan asāmī al-kutub wa-l-funūn 1–2, Tehran 1387/1967. Ibn ʿArabī: Fuṣūṣ al-ḥ ikam, ed. Abu al-ʿAlī al-ʿAfīfī, Beirut [1966]. Ibn Kammūna, ʿIzz al-Dawala: “Kalimāt wajīza mushtamila ʿalā nukat lat ̣īfa fī l-ʿilm wa-l-ʿamal”, Reza Pourjavady & Sabine Schmidtke, A Jewish Philosopher of Baghdad. ʿIzz al-Dawla Ibn Kammūna (D. 683/1284) and His works, Leiden 2006, pp. 139–85. —— “Maqāla fī anna l-nafs laysat bi-mizāj al-badan”, Azaliyyat al-nafs wa-baqāʾihā, ed. Insiyah Barkhāh, Tehran 1385/2006, pp. 149–77. —— “Maqāla fī azaliyyat al-nafs wa-baqāʾihā”, Azaliyyat al-nafs wa-baqāʾihā, ed. Insiyah Barkhāh, Tehran 1385/2006, pp. 87–138. —— “Risāla fī abadiyyat al-nafs wa-baqāʾihā wa-basāṭa tihā”, Azaliyyat al-nafs wa-baqāʾihā, ed. Insiyah Barkhāh, Tehran 1385/2006, pp. 193–208. —— al-Tanqīḥ ā t fī sharḥ al-talwīḥ ā t, ed. Sayyid Ḥ usayn Sayyid Mūsawī, PhD Dissertation: University of Tehran, Tehran 1375–76/1996–7. —— al-Tanqīḥ āt fī sharḥ al-talwīḥ āt. Refinement and Commentary on Suhrawardī’s Intimations. A Thirteenth Century Text on Natural Philosophy and Psychology, eds. Hossein Ziai & Ahmad Alwishah, Costa Mesa 2003. Ibn Khallikān: Wafayāt al-aʿyān wa-anbāʾ al-zamān 1–8, ed. Iḥ sān ʿAbbās, Beirut 1388–92/1968–72. Ibn Sīnā: The Metaphysics of the Healing: A Parallel English and Arabic text, translated introduced and annotated by Michael E. Marmura, Provo/Utah 2005. —— al-Taʿlīqāt, ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Badawī, Cairo 1975 [reprint Qum 1379/2000]. —— “al-Fann al-sādis min al-t ̣abīʿiyyāt min Kitāb al-Shifāʾ”, in Psychology d’ibn sīnā (avicenne) d’après son œuvre aš-šifāʾ 1–2, ed. & trans. Ján Bakoš, Paris 1982. —— ʿUyūn al-ḥ ikma, ed. Ḥ ilmī Ziya Ülken, Ankara 1953. Iḥ yāʾ-i mīrāth = Markaz-i iḥ yāʾ-i mīrāth-i Islāmī (The Islamic Heritage Revivale Center), Qum Catalogue: Sayyid Aḥmad Ḥ usaynī Ishkiwarī, Fihrist-i Nuskhahā-yi Markaz-i iḥ yāʾ-i mīrāth-i Islāmī, vol. 5, Qum 1382/2003. Ilāhī Ardabīlī, Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥ usayn: “Kashf al-asrār”, Majmūʿa rasāʾil-i khaṭtị̄ -i fārsī, ed. Najīb Māyil Hirawī, 1 (Mashhad 1368/1989–90), pp. 151–67. —— Sharḥ -i Gulshan-i rāz, ed. Muḥammad Riḍā Barzigar Khāliqī & ʿIffat Karbāsī, Tehran 1376/1997–8. Ilāhiyyāt = Kitābkhāna-yi Danishkadah-i Ilāhiyyāt u Maʿārif-I Islāmī Collection (held at the Central Library of the University of Tehran), Tehran Catalogue: Muḥammad Bāqir Ḥ ujjatī, Fihrist-i nuskhahā-yi khaṭtị̄ -i Kitābkhāna-yi Danishkadah-i Ilāhiyyāt u Maʿārif-I Islāmī 1–2, Tehran 1345–48/1966–9. Ilāhiyyāt-i Mashhad = Kitābkhāna-yi Danishkada-yi Ilāhiyyāt u maʿārif-i Islāmī-i Danishgāh-i Firdawsī, Mashhad. İnalcik, H.: “Filori”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 2, pp. 914–5. Ishrāq, Karīm: Buzurgān-i jahrum, Tehran 1351/1972. Izutsu, Toshihiko: “Basic Problems of Abstract Quiddity”, Manṭiq u mabāḥ ith-i alfāẓ (Collected Texts and Papers on Logic and Language), eds. M. Mohaghegh & T. Izutsu, Tehran 1974, pp. 1–25. al-Jurjānī, Mīr al-Sayyid al-Sharīf: Ḥ āshiya li-Mīr al-Sayyid Sharīf al-Jurjānī ʿalā sharḥ Shams al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī li-Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād (al-maqṣad al-awwal), ed. Shujāʿī Bāghīnī Ḥ ūriyya, MA Dissertation, University of Qum, 1379/2000.

208

abbreviations and bibliography

—— Ḥ āshiya li-Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī ʿalā sharḥ Shams al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī li-Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād (al-maqṣad al-thānī wa-l-thālith), ed. Fahīmat al-Sādāt Bihishtī, Tarbiyat Moallim University, Tehran 1379/2000. —— Kitāb al-Taʿrīfāt. Definitiones. Accedunt definitiones [istilaḥ āt] theosophy mohjied din mohammad ben ali vulgo ibn Arabi dicti. Primum ed. et adnotatione critica instruxit Gustavus Flügel. Lipsiae 1845 [reprinted 1969]. —— “Marātib al-mawjūdāt”, Naqd-i niyāzī. dar sharḥ -i du bayt u yak ghazal az khwāja Ḥ āfiẓ-i Shīrāzī, ed. Ḥ usayn Muʿallim, Tehran 1373/1994, pp. 133–40. al-Khwājagī al-Shīrāzī, Muḥ ammad: Ḥ āshiya ʿalā sharḥ al-Dawānī ʿalā Tahdhīb al-manṭiq li-l-Taftāzānī, MS British Musum Or. 8500. —— al-Niẓāmiyya fī madhhab al-Imāmiyya, ed. ʿAlī Awjabī, Tehran 1375/1996. Kākāyī, Qāsim: “Āshnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Mīr Ghiyāth al-Dīn Dashtakī (1)”, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 5–6 (1375/1996–97), pp. 83–90. —— “Āshnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Mīr Ghiyāth al-Dīn Dashtakī (2)”, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 7 (1376/1997), pp. 59–67. —— “Āshnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Muḥ aqqiq-i Khafrī”, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 4 (1375/1996), pp. 60–79. —— “Āshnāyī bā maktab-i Shīrāz: Ṣ a dr al-Dīn Dashtakī (Sayyid-i Sanad)”, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 3 (1375/1996), pp. 82–9. Kāzirūnī, Abū l-Qāsim: Marqūm-i panjum–i kitāb-i Sullam al-Samāwāt: dar sharḥ -i aḥ wāl-i shuʿarāʾ u chakāma-sarāyān u dānishmandān, ed. Yaḥ yā Qarīb, Tehran 1340/1961. al-Kāzirūnī, Naṣr al-Bayān: Risāla fī Taḥ qīq al-zāwiya, MS Marwī 877, ff. 43b–8b. al-Khafrī, Shams al-Dīn: Taʿlīqa bar sharḥ -i ilāhiyyāt-i Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād-i mullā ʿAlī Qūshchī, ed. Fīrūzah Sāʿatchiyān, Tehran 1382/2003–4. —— “Ḥ ayrat al-fuḍalāʾ fī ḥall shubhat jadhr al-aṣamm”, Dawāzdah risāla dar pārāduks-i durūghgū, ed. Farāmarz Qarāmalikī [in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā], Tehran 1386/2007, pp. 265–9. —— “ʿIbrat al-fuḍ alāʾ fī ḥ all shubhat ‘kullu kalāmī kādhib’ ”, ed. Aḥ ad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 4 (1375/1996), pp. 86–9. —— “ʿIbrat al-fuḍalāʾ fī ḥ all shubhat ‘kullu kalāmī kādhib’ ”, Dawāzdah risāla dar pārādoks-i durūghgū, ed. Farāmarz Qarāmalikī [in collaboration with Ṭ ayyiba ʿĀrif Niyā], Tehran 1386/2007, pp. 265–9. —— “Marātib al-wujūd”, ed. Reza Pourjavady, Dard-i falsafa dars-i falsafa. Jashnnāma-yi ustād duktur Karīm-i Mujtahidī, eds. Muḥammad Raʾīszādah, Bābak ʿAbbāsī, & Muḥammad Manṣūr Hāshimī, Tehran 1384/2005, pp. 239–57. —— “Risāla fī ithbāt al-wājib”, ed. Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh, Jāwīdān khirad, (Autumn 1354/1975), pp. 42–6. —— Risāla fī taḥ qīq al-hayūlā, MS Majlis 706. —— Tafsīr Āyat al-kursī, ed. ʿAlī Awjabī, Ganijīna-yi Bahāristān. ʿUlūm-i rawʾyī u Qurānī, ed. Sayyid Mahdī Jahrumī, Tehran 1380/2001, pp. 120–87. —— “Ḥ āshiya ʿalā al-Muḥākamāt bayna sharḥay al-Ishārāt”, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, Ganijīna-yi Bahāristān. Ḥ ikmat-2, ed. ʿAlī Awjabī, Tehran 1387/2008, pp. 133–99. Khwājakī Shaykh al-Shīrāzī, Mūḥammad b. Aḥmad: Sharḥ ʿalā sharḥ Tahzhīb al-manṭiq li-l-Dawānī, MS British Museum Or 8500. Khwāndamīr, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Hamām al-Dīn Ḥ usaynī: Tārīkh-i Ḥ abīb al-siyar 1–4, ed. Muḥammad Dabīr Siyāqī, Tehran 1362/1983. al-Khwānsārī, Muḥammad Bāqir al-Mūsawī: Rawḍāt al-jannāt fī aḥ wāl al-ʿulmāʾ wa-lsādāt 1–8, Qum 1390/1970. Knysh, Alexander: Ibn Arabi in the Later Islamic Tradition: The Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam, New York 1999. Köprülü = Köprülü Kütüphanesi, Istanbul Catalogues: Köprülü-zâde Mehmed Paşa’nin Kütüphanesinde mahfuz kütüb-i mevcûdenin defteri. Istanbul 1303/1886.

abbreviations and bibliography

209

Ramazan Șeşen, Cevat Izgi & Cemil Akpinar. Presented by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoǧlu: Fihris makhṭūṭāt Maktabat Kūprīlī. Catalogue of manuscripts in the Köprülü Library 1–3, Istanbul 1406/1986. Kohlberg, Etan: “al-D̠ arīʿa elā taṣānīf al-Šīʿa”, Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. Ehsan Yarshater, vol. 7, London & New York 1997, pp. 35–6. Khūr Shāh b. Qubād al-Ḥ usaynī: Tārīkh-i Ilchi Niẓām Shāh, eds. Muḥammad Riḍā Naṣīrī & Koichi Haneda, Tehran 1379/2000. Lāhījī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥ a mmad: Mafātīḥ al-iʿjāz fī sharḥ Gulshan-i rāz, eds. Muḥammad Riḍā Barzigar Khāliqī & ʿIffat Karbāsī, Tehran 1371/1992. Landolt, Hermann: “Suhrawardī’s Tale of Initiation. Review Article”, Journal of the American Oriental Society (1987), pp. 475–86. Lārī, Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Muḥ ammad: “Mirʾāt al-adwār wa mirqāt al-akhbār. Faṣl-ī dar sharḥ-i ḥāl-i buzurgān-i Khurāsān u Māwarāʾ al-nahr u Fārs”, ed. ʿĀrif Nawshāhī, Maʿārif, 13 iii (Isfand 1375/March 1997), pp. 91–113. Lâleli = Lâleli Collection (held at the Süleymanie Kütüphanesi), Istanbul Catalogues: Defter-i Kütüphane-i Lâleli. Istanbul 1311/1894. Rescher, Oskar, “Über arabische Handschriften der Lālelī-Moschee. (Nebst einigen anderen, noch unbeschriebenen Codices)”, Monde Oriental 7 (1913), pp. 97–136. Malikshāhī, Ḥ asan: Tarjuma u tafsīr-i Tahdhīb al-manṭiq, Tehran 1363/1984. Madelung, Wilferd: “Al-Taftazanī und die Philosophie”, Logik und Theologie. Das Organon im arabischen und im lateinischen Mittelalter, eds. Dominik Perler & Ulrich Rudolph, Leiden 2006, pp. 227–36. Mahamedi, Hamid: “Davān,” Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. Ehsan Yarshater, vol. 7, London & New York 1997, pp. 129–32. Mahdawī, Yaḥyā: Fihrist-i nuskhahā-yi muṣannafāt-i Ibn Sīnā. Tehran 1954/1333. Maḥmūd b. ʿUthmān: Firdaws al-murshidiyya fī l-asrār al-ṣamadiyya, ed. Iraj Afshār, Tehran 1333/1954. Majlis = Majlis-i Shūrā-yi Islāmī Library Tehran Catalogue: ʿAbd al-Ḥ usain al-Ḥ āʾirī, [et al.], Fihrist-i Kitābkhāna-yi Majlis-i Shūrā-yi Millī 1–, Tehran 1305–57/1926–78. Majlis-i Sinā = Majlis-i Sinā Collection (held in Majlis-i Shūrā-yi Islāmī Library, Tehran) Catalogue: Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh & Bahāʾ al-Dīn ʿIlmī Anwārī, Fihrist-i kitābhā-yi khaṭtị̄ -i Majlis-i Sinā, 1, Tehran 1355/1976. Malik = Kitābkhāna-yi millī-i Malik (National Library of Malik) Catalogue: Īraj Afshār & Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh, in collaboration with Muḥammad Bāqir Ḥ ujjatī & Aḥmad Munzawī, Fihrist-i nuskhahā-i khaṭtị̄ -i Kitābkāna-yi Millī-i Malik 1–8, Tehran 1352–69/1973–90. Marʿashī = Āyat Allāh Marʿashī Najafī Library, Qum Catalogue: Aḥ mad Ḥ usaynī & Maḥ mūd Marʿashī Najafī, Fihrist-i Kitābkhāna-yi ʿUmūmī-yi Haḍrat-i Āyat Allāh al-ʿuẓmā Najafī Marʿashī 1–34, Qum 1354–85/1975–2005. Marcotte, Roxanne D.: “Preliminary Notes on the Life and Work of Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Lawkarī (d. ca. 517/1123)”, Anaquel de Estudios arabes, 17 (2006), pp. 133–57. —— “Suhrawardī al-Maqtūl, the Martyr of Aleppo”, Al-Qanṭara 21 (2001), pp. 395–419. Marmura, Michael E.: “Some Aspects of Avicenna’s Theory of God’s Knowledge of Particulars”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 82, 3 (1962), pp. 299–312. Maybudī, Kamāl al-Dīn Mīr Ḥ usayn: “Jām-i gītī-numā”, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, Taḥ qīqāt-i Islāmī, 1 i (1365/1986), pp. 93–112. —— Munshaʾāt-i Maybudī, ed. Nuṣrat Allāh Furūhar, Tehran 1376/1997. —— Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, Lithograph Edition [by Karbalāyi Muḥammad Ḥ asan], Tehran 1297/1879.

210

abbreviations and bibliography

—— Sharḥ al-Shamsiyya, Lithograph Edition, Istanbul Shaʿbān 1289/October 1871. —— Sharḥ -i Dīwān-i mansūb bi Amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭ ālib, eds. Ḥ asan Raḥmānī & Sayyid Ibrāhīm Ashk Shīrīn, Tehran 1379/2000. Mayer, Toby: “Ibn Sīnā’s Burhān al-Ṣiddīqīn”, Journal of Islamic Studies, 12 i (2001), pp. 18–39. Māyil Hirawī, Najīb: “Ilāhī-i Ardabīlī”, Dāʾirat al-maʿārif-i buzurg-i Islāmī, vol. 10, pp. 111–4. Mazzaoui, Michel M.: The Origins of the Ṣafawids, Wiesbaden 1972. Menn, Stephen: “al-Fārābī’s Kitāb al-Ḥ ūrūf and His Analysis of the Senses of Being”, Arabic Science and Philosophy, 18 (2008), pp. 59–97. Michot, Yahya: “A Mamlūk Theologian’s Commentary on Avicenna’s Risāla Aḍhawiyya (Part One)”, Journal of Islamic Studies, 14 ii (2003), pp. 149–203. Millī= Kitābkhāna-yi Millī, Tihran Catalogues: ʿAbd Allāh Anwār, Fihrist Nusakh Khaṭtị Kitābkhāna-yi Millī, vol. 7, Tehran 1356/1977. ʿAlī Naqī Munzawī, Fihrist Nusakh-i Khaṭtị̄ -i Kitābkhāna-yi Millī, vol. 11, Tehran 1375/1996. Millī Fārs = Kitābkhāna-yi Millī-i Fārs, Shiraz Catalogue: ʿAlī Naqī Bihrūzī & Muḥammad Ṣādiq Faqīrī: Fihrist kutub khaṭtị̄ -i Kitābkhāna-yi Millī Fārs 1–2, Shiraz 1351/1972. Mīr, Muḥammad Taqī: Buzurgān nāmī pārs 1–2, Shiraz 1368/1989. Mīr Dāmād: “Taʿlīqa ʿalā Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq”, Muṣannafāt-i Mīr Dāmād, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī, Tehran 1381/2003, vol. 1, pp. 523–7. Mudarris Riḍawī, Muḥammad Taqī: Aḥ wāl wa-āthār-i Khwāja Naṣīr al-Dīn-i Ṭ ūsī. Tehran 1334/1955–6. Muehlethaler, Lukas: Ibn Kammūna (d. 683/1284) on the Eternity of the Human Soul. The Three Treatises on the Soul and Related Texts, PhD Dissertation, Yale 2010. Munzawī, Aḥmad: Fihristwāra-yi kitābhā-yi fārsī 1–9, Tehran 1382–3/2003–4. Munzawī, ʿAli Naqī: “Madāris-i Shīrāz dar sada-yi nuhum-i hijrī”, Chīstā, 14 ii-iii (1375/1996), pp. 161–75. Muẓaffariyān, Manūchihr: Kāzirūn dar āyīna-yi farhang-i Īrān, Shiraz 1373/1994. Nājī Iṣfahānī, Ḥ āmid (ed.): “Mukātabāt fī l-Jadhr al-aṣamm”, Rasāʾil-i falsafī-i Ṣadr al-mutaʾallihīn, Tehran 1375/1996, pp. 467–76. Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭ ūsī: al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt maʿa l-sharḥ li-l-muḥ aqqiq Naṣīr al-Dīn Muḥ ammad b. Muḥ ammad b. al-Ḥ asan al-Ṭ ūsī wa-sharḥ li-l-ʿallāma Quṭb al-Dīn Muḥ ammad b. Muḥ ammad b. Abī Jaʿfar al-Rāzī, Qum 1375/1996. —— Masāri’ al-muṣāraʿ, ed. Wilferd Madelung, Tehran 1383/2004. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein: Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present: Philosophy in the Land of Prophecy, New York 2006. Nawāyī, ʿAbd al-Ḥ usayn: Asnād u mukātabāt-i tārīkhī-yi Īrān az tīmūr tā shāh Ismāʿīl, Tehran 1341/1962. al-Nayrīzī, Najm al-Dīn Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd: Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq wa-ʿalā sharḥ ihi li-Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrazī, MS Laleli 2523. —— Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq wa-ʿalā sharḥ ihi li-Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrazī, MS Marʿashī 4266. —— Ḥ āshiya ʿalā Shawākil al-hūr fī sharḥ Hayākil al-nūr, MS Majlis 1887. —— Miṣbāḥ al-arwāḥ fī kashf ḥ aqāʾiq al-Alwāḥ , MS Ragıp 853. —— Risāla fī Taʿyīn jihāt al-ajsām wa-nihāyātihā, MS Malik 2614/1. —— Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib, MS Malik 688. —— Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Riḍawī 175-ḥ ikma. —— Sharḥ Hidāyat al-ḥ ikma, MS Carullah 1327. —— Sharḥ Risālat Ithbāt al-wājib al-jadīda, MS Șehid Ali 2761. —— Sharḥ Tahdhīb al-manṭiq, MS Șehid Ali 1780.

abbreviations and bibliography

211

—— Sharḥ Tahdhīb al-manṭiq, MS Riḍawī 1088. —— Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Majlis 3968. —— Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Millī Fārs 55. —— Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Princeton 70. —— Taḥ rīr Tajrīd al-ʿaqāʾid, MS Iḥyāʾ-i mīrāth 1849. Newman, Andrew J.: “The Myth of the Clerical Migration to Safawid Iran: Arab Shiite Opposition to ʿAlī al-Karakī and Safawid Shiism”, Die Welt des Islams, 33 (1993), pp. 66–112. —— “Towards a Reconsideration of the Isfahan School of Philosophy: Shaykh Baha’i and the Role of the Safawid Ulama”, Studia Iranica, 15 (1986), pp. 165–99. —— “Davāni”, Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. Ehsan Yarshater, vol. 7, London & New York 1997, pp. 132–3. Nūsh Ābādī, Tāj al-Dīn: “Maḥmūd Gāwān”, Dānishnāma-yi adab-i Fārsī: Adab-i Fārsī dar shibha qārrah (Hind, Pākistān, Banglādish) 1–3, ed. Ḥ asan Anūshah, Tehran 1380/2001, pp. 2306–9. Pārsādūst, Manūchihr: Shah Ismāʿīl-i awwal: Pādishāhī bā atharhā-yi dīrpāy dar Irān u Irānī, Tehran 1381/2002. Pines, Shlomo: “Ibn Sīnā et l’auteur de la Risālat al-fuṣūṣ fī ’l-ḥikma: Quelques données du problème,” The Collected Works of Shlomo Pines, iii, ed. Sara Stroumsa, Jerusalem 1996, pp. 297–300. Pohl, Stephan: Zur Theosophie im nachmongolischen Iran. Leben und Werk des Ǧ alāladdīn ad-Dawwānī (gest. 902/1502), Bochum 1997 [unpublished manuscript]. Pourjavady, Nasrollah: “Maʾākhidh-i Ghiyath al-Dīn-i Dashtakī dar Maqāmāt al-ʿarifīn”, Ishrāq u ʿirfān, Tehran 1380, pp. 248–62. —— “Shaykh-i Ishrāq u taʾlīf-i Alwāḥ-i ʿImādiyya”, Ishrāq u ʿirfān, Tehran 1380/2001, pp. 83–94. —— The Light of Sakina in Suhrawardi’s Philosophy of Illumination, Binghampton/ New York 1998. —— “Partaw-nāma u tarjuma-yi ingilīsī-i ān”, ʿIrfān u ishrāq, Tehran 1380/2001, pp. 387–407. Pourjavady, Reza: “Kitāb-shināsī-i āthār-i Jalāl al-Dīn-i Dawānī”, Maʿārif, 15 i&ii (1377/1998), pp. 81–138. —— “Baḥ th-i Mūsīqī dar kitāb-i Akhlāq-i Jalālī”, Maʿārif, 13 iii (1375/1996–7), pp. 30–43. Pourjavady, Reza & Sabine Schmidtke: A Jewish Philosopher of Baghdad. ʿIzz al-Dawla Ibn Kammūna (d. 683/1284) and His Works, Leiden 2006. —— “Some notes on a new edtion of a medieval philosophical text in Turkey: Shams al-Dīn al-Shahrazūrī’s Rasāʾil al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya”, Die Welt des Islams, 46 (2006), pp. 76–85. Princeton = Princeton University Library Catalogue: Philip K. Hitti, Nabih Amin Faris, and Buṭrus ʿAbd al-Malik, Descriptive Catalog of the Garrett Colllection of Arabic Manuscripts, Princeton 1938. Rudolf Mach & Eric L. Ormsby: Handlist of Arabic Manuscripts (new series), Princeton-New Jersey1987. Qāsimlū, Farīd: “Taqī al-Dīn Fārsī”, Dānishnāma-yi jahān-i Islām 1–, ed. Ghulām ʿAlī Ḥ addād ʿĀdil, vol. 6, Tehran 1380/2001, pp. 880–2. al-Qazwīnī, ʿAbd al-Nabī: Tatmīm Amal al-āmil, ed. Sayyid Aḥmad al-Ḥ usaynī, Qum 1407/1986–7. Qummī, Aḥmad: Khulāṣat al-tawārīkh, vol. 1, ed. Iḥsān Ishrāqī, Tehran 1359/1980–1. al-Qūshchī, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī: Sharḥ Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, Lithograph Edition by Mulla ʿAbbās ʿAlī, Tabriz 1301/1883. Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī: Sharḥ Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, eds. ʿAbd Allāh Nūrānī & Mahdī Muḥaqqiq, Tehran 1379/2000. Riḍawī = Kitābkhāna-yi Markazī-yi Āstān-i Quds-i Riḍawī/ Mashhad

212

abbreviations and bibliography

Catalogues: Fihrist-i Kitābkhāna-yi Āstān-i Quds-i Riḍawī 1–21, Mashhad 1305–64/1926–85. Muḥammad Āṣif Fikrat, Fihrist-i alifbāʾī-yi kitābkhāna-yi markazī-yi Āstān-i Quds-i Riḍawī, Mashhad 1369/1990. Ragıp = Ragıp Paşa Collection (held at the Süleymanie Kütüphanesi), Istanbul Catalogues: Abdurrahman Necim Efendi, Koskada kâin Sadr-ı Esbak Râgıp Paşa Kütüphanesinde mevcûd olan kütüb-i şerifenin defteridir. Istanbul 1285/1868. Defter-i Kütüphane-i Râgıp Paşa. Istanbul 1310/1893. Rahim, Ahmed H.: “The Twelver-šīʿī Reception of Avicenna in the Mongol Period”, Before and after Avicenna. Proceeding of the First Conference of the Avicenna Study Group, ed. David C. Reisman with the assistance of Ahmed H. Al-Rahim, Leiden 2003, pp. 219–31. Rahman, Fazlur: The Philosophy of Mullā Ṣadrā (Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī), Albany 1975. Rasūlī, Ruqayya: “Taqawī”, Dānishnāma-yi jahān-i Islām 1–, ed. Ghulām ʿAlī Ḥ addād ʿĀdil, vol. 7, Tehran 1382/2003, pp. 806–7. Rāzī, Amīn Aḥmad: Tadhkira-yi haft iqlīm, ed. Sayyid Muḥammad Riḍā Ṭ āhirī “Ḥ asrat”, Tehran 1378/1998. al-Rāzī, Quṭb al-Dīn: Sharḥ Maṭāliʿ al-anwār, Lithograph Edition, Istanbul 1277/1860. —— Sharḥ Maṭāliʿ al-anwār, Lithograph Edition, Istanbul 1303/1885. al-Rāzī, Quṭb al-Dīn: Taḥ rīr al-qawāʿid al-manṭiqiyya. Sharḥ al-risāla al-Shamsiyya liNajm al-Dīn ʿUmar b. ʿAlī b. Kātibī al-Qazwīnī, Cairo [n.d.] [repr. Qum 1363/1984]. Reza library = Rampur Reza Library Catalogue: Moḥammad Ajmal Khān, Fihrist-i kutub-i ʿArabī-i mawjūda-yi kitābkhāna-i riyāsat-i Rāmpūr 1–2, Rampur 1902–28. Riḍawī = Āstān-i Quds-i Riḍawī Catalogue: Fihrist-i kitābkhāna-yi Āstān-i Quds-i Riḍawī, vol. 4, Mashhad 1325/1946. Ritter = Hellmut Ritter, “Philologika IX. Die vier Suhrawardī. Ihre Werke in Stambuler Handschriften”, Der Islam, 24 (1937), pp. 270–86. Ritter/Uppsala = Hellmut Ritter Microfilm Collection of Uppsala University Library Catalogue: Berhard Lewin & Oscar Löfgren, Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in the Hellmut Ritter Microfilm Collection of Uppsala University Library, including later accessions, ed. Mikael Persenius. Uppsala 1992. Rizvi, Sajjad H.: Mulla Sadra Shīrāzī: His Life and Works and the Sources for Safavid Philosophy, Oxford 2007. Rosenthal, E. I. J.: Political Thought in Medieval Islam, Cambridge 1985. Rūmlū, Ḥ asan-Bay: Aḥ san al-tawārīkh, Tehran 1357/1978. Sabzawārī, Ḥ ājjī Mullā Hādī: Sharḥ Ghurar al-farāʾid or Sharḥ Manẓuma (Part One: Metaphysics), eds. M. Muḥaqqiq & T. Izutsu, Tehran 1348/1969. Sāʿatchiyān, Fīrūzah: “Muʿarrifī-yi panj risāla-yi Khafrī dar elāhiyyāt u ithbāt-i wājib”, Maʿārif, 20 ii (1382/2003), pp. 98–111. —— “Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Khafrī. Faylasūf u munajjim-i nāmdār-i maktab-i Shirāz”, Kitāb-i māh-i falsafa, 13 (1387/2008), pp. 69–103. Ṣadr al-Dīn Maḥallāt ̣ī = Kitābkhāna-yi Āqā-yi Ṣadr al-Dīn-i Maḥallāṭī, Shiraz Catalogue: Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh: “Fihrist-i kitābkhāna-hā-yi ʿumūmī wa khuṣūṣī-yi Shīrāz”, Nuskhahā-yi khaṭtị̄ (Nashriyya-yi Kitābkhāna-yi Markazī wa-Markaz-i Asnād-i, Dānishgāh-i Tihrān) 5 (1346/1967), pp. 271–4. Ṣadrāyī Khūyī, ʿAlī: Kitāb-shināsī-i Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād, Qum 1424/2003. Saliba, George: “A Redevelopment of Mathematics in a Sixteenth-Century Arabic Critique of Ptolemaic Astronomy”, Perspectives arabes et médiévales sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque, Actes du colloque de la SIHSPAI (Société internationale d’histoire des sciences et de la philosophie arabes et islamiques), Paris,

abbreviations and bibliography

213

31 mars–3 avril 1993, eds. Ahmad Hasnawi, Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal & Maroun Aouad, Leuven/Paris 1997, pp. 105–22. —— “The Ultimate Challenge to Greek Astronomy. Ḥ all mā lā yanḥ all of Shams al-Khafrī (d. 1550)”, Sic itur ad astra. Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften. Festschrift für den Arabisten Paul Kunitzsch zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. Menso Folkerts & Richard Lorch, Wiesbaden 2000, pp. 490–505. —— “Writing the History of Arabic Astronomy: Problems and Different Perspectives”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 116 (1996), pp. 709–18. —— “A Sixteenth-Century Arabic Critique of Ptolemaic Astronomy: The Work of Shams al-Din al-Khafrī”, Journal for the History of Astronomy, 25 (1994), pp. 15–38. Sām Mīrzā Ṣafawī: Tadhkira-yi Tuḥ fa-yi Sāmī, ed. Rukn al-Dīn Humāyūn Farrukh, Tehran 1384/2005. al-Sanandajī al-Kurdistānī, ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muḥammad: Taqrīb al-marām fī sharḥ Tahdhīb al-kalām, Lithograph Edition, Bulāq 1318/1900. Savory, Roger: Iran under the Safavids, Cambridge 1980. Sayyid Bāghjawānī, Sayyid Ḥ usayn: Ibn Kamāl Bāshā wa-ārāʾuhu al-iʿtiqādiyya, PhD Dissertation, Umm Al-Qura University, Mecca 1414/1993. Schmidtke, Sabine: “The Doctrine of the Transmigration of the Soul according to Shihāb al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī (killed 587/1191) and his followers”, Studia Iranica, 28 (1999), pp. 237–54. —— “The Influence of Šams al-Dīn Šahrazūrī (7th/13th century) on Ibn Abī Ǧ umhūr al-Aḥsāʾī (d. after 904/1499) – A Preliminary Note”, Encounters of Words and Texts. Intercultural Studies on Honour of Stefan Wild on the Occaion of His 60th Birthday, eds. Lutz Edzard & Christian Szyska, Hildesheim 1997, pp. 23–32. —— Theologie, Philosophie und Mystik im zwölferschiitischen Islam des 9./15. Jahrhunderts. Die Gedankenwelten des Ibn Abī Ǧ umhūr al-Aḥ sāʾī (um 838/1434–35 – nach 906/1501). Leiden 2000. Șehid Ali = Șehid Ali Paşa Collection (held at the Süleymanie Kütüphanesi), Istanbul Șeyhî Efendi, Mehmed: Șekaik-i Nu’maniye ve zeyilleri. Vakayi ül-fuzalâ, ed. Abdülkadir Özcan, Istanbul 1989. al-Shahrazūrī, Shams al-Dīn: Nuzhat al-arwāḥ wa- rawḍat al-afrāḥ fī tārīkh al-ḥ ukamāʾ 1–2, ed. Sayyid Khurshīd Aḥmad, Hyderabad 1396/1976. —— Sharḥ Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, ed. Ḥ usayn Úiyāʾī, Tehran 1372/1993. —— al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya fī ʿulūm al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-rabbāniyya, ed. Muḥammad Najīb Kūrkūn [Necip Görgün], PhD Dissertation, Marmara University, Istanbul 1996. —— al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya fī ʿulūm al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-rabbāniyya 1–3, ed. Muḥammad Najīb Kūrkūn [Necip Görgün], Istanbul 2004. —— al-Shajara al-ilāhiyya fī ʿulūm al-ḥ aqāʾiq al-rabbāniyya 1–3, Najaf-Qulī Ḥ abībī, Tehran 1384–5/2005–6. Shakībā, ʿAbd Allāh: Barrasī-yi āthār u afkār-i falsafī-i Mīr Ṣadr al-Dīn-i Dashtakī, PhD Dissertation, University of Tehran, Tehran 1355/1976. —— “Shinākht az dīdgāh-i Ṣadr al-mutaʾallihīn, Khiradnāma-yi Ṣadrā, 3 (1375/1996), pp. 61–7. Shakībāniyā, Mahdī & Reza Pourjavady: “Kitāb-shināsī-i Mīr Sayyid Sharīf-i Jurjānī”, Maʿārif, 19iii (1381/2003), pp. 134–92. Shams Nayrīzī, Muḥammad Jawād: “Balyānī, Amīn al-Dīn”, Dāʾirat al-maʿārif-i buzurg-i islāmī, ed. Kāẓim Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, vol. 12, p. 542. —— “Balyānī, Awḥad al-Dīn”, Dāʾirat al-maʿārif-i buzurg-i islāmī, ed. Kāẓim Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, vol. 12, pp. 543–4. —— Tarīkh u farhang-i Nayrīz, Tehran 1379/2000. Shaykh al-Ḥ ukamāyī, ʿImād al-Dīn: “Balyānī, Amīn al-Dīn”, Dānishnāma-yi Jahān-i Islām, ed. Ghulām ʿAlī Ḥ addād ʿĀdil, vol. 4, Tehran 1377/1998, pp. 184–5. Shūshtarī, Nūr Allāh: Majālis al-muʾminīn 1–2, Tehran 1334/1955. Spade, Paul Vincent: ‘The Origins of the Mediaeval Insolubilia-Literature’, Franciscan Studies, 33 (1973), 292–309.

214

abbreviations and bibliography

—— Lies, Language and Logic in the Later Middle Ages, London, 1988. —— ‘Insolubles’, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Stanford, 2005 (URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2005/entries/insolubles/). Stewart, Devin J.: “Notes on the Migration of ʿĀmilī Scholars to Safavid Iran”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 55 ii (1996), pp. 81–103. al-Suhrawardī, Shihāb al-Dīn Yaḥyā: “al-Alwāḥ al-ʿImādiyya”, Œuvres philosophiques et mystiques iv, ed. Najaf-Qulī Ḥ abībī, Tehran 1380/2001, pp. 1–78. —— “Āwāz-i par-i Jibraʾīl”, Œuvres philosophiques et mystiques iii, ed. Sayyid Ḥ usayn Naṣr, Tehran 1355/1976, pp. 209–23. —— “Partaw-nāma”, in Œuvres philosophiques et mystiques iii, ed. Sayyid Ḥ usayn Naṣr, Tehran 1355/1976, pp. 1–81. —— The Book of Radiance, ed. & trans. Hossein Ziai, Costa Mesa 1998. —— The Philosophy of Illumination. A new Critical Edition of the Text of Ḥ ikmat al-ishrāq, ed. & trans. John Walbridge & Hossein Ziai, Provo/Utah 1999. Ṭ abaqāt = Āghā Burzug al-Ṭ ihrānī & Alī Naqī Munzawī, Ṭ abaqāt a‘lām al-shi‘a, vol. 7. Tehran 1366/1987. Ṭ abāt ̣abāʾī, Sayyid Jawād: Zawāl-i andīsha-yi sīyāsī dar Īrān, Tehran 1373/1994. Ṭ abāt ̣abāʾī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz: Maktabat al-ʿAllāma al-Ḥ illī, Qum 1416/1995–6. Tāşköprüzâde, Mustafa: Eš-Šaqâʾiq En-Noʿmânijje, Verbesserungen und Anmerkungen aus dem Arabischen uebersetzt von O. Rescher, Konstantinopel – Galata 1927. Thompson, W.F.: Practical Philosophy of the Muhammadan People [English translation of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī’s Akhlāq-i Jalālī], London 1839 [repr. London 1890, Karachi 1977]. Thubūt, Akbar: “Ḥ āfiẓ u pīr-i gul-rang”, Dar ḥ aram-i dūst. Yādwāra-yi ustād Sādāt Nāṣirī, ed. Ibrāhīm Zāriʿī, Tehran 1370/1991, pp. 79–88. —— “Hidāyat al-ḥikma u Shurūḥ-i ān”, Khirad-i jāwidān: Jashnnāma-yi ustād sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn Āshtiyānī, ed. ʿAlī Aṣghar Muḥ ammadkhānī & Ḥ asan Sayyid ʿArab, Tehran 1378/1999, pp. 135–50. Thurayyā, Muḥammad: Sijill-i Uthmānī yākhūd Tadhkira-i mashāhīr-i Uthmāniyya 1–5, Istanbul 1311/1893–4. Van Ess, J.: “ ʿAżod al-Din Iji”, Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. Ehsan Yarshater, vol. 3, London & New York 1989, pp. 269–71. —— Die Erkenntnislehre des ʿAḍudaddīn al-Īcī. Übersetzung und Kommentar des ersten Buches seiner Mawāqif, Wiesbaden 1966. —— “Neue Materialien zur Biographie des ʿAḍudaddīn al-Īǧ ī,” Welt des Orients, 9 (1978), pp. 270ff. —— “Jorjāni, Zayn al-Din Abu’l-Hasan ʿAli b. Mohammad b. ʿAli al-Hosayni”, Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 15, pp. 21–9. —— Der Eine und das Andere. Beobachtungen an islamischen häresiographischen Texten, Berlin 2011. Walbridge, John: “Al-Suhrawardī on Body as Extension: An Alternative to Hylomorphism from Plato to Leibniz”, Reason and Inspiration in Islam. Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim thought. Essays in Honour of Hermann Landolt, ed. Todd Lawson. London 2005, pp. 235–47. Wisnovsky, Robert: Avicenna’s Metaphysics in Context, London 2003. —— “Avicenna and Avicennian Tradition”, The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, eds. Peter Adamson and Richard Taylor, Cambridge 2005, pp. 92–136. Woods, John E.: The Aqquyunlu: Clan, Confederation, Empire. Revised and Expanded Edition, Salt Lake City 1999. Al-Yāfiʿī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh: Mirʾāt al-jinān wa-ʿibrat al-yaqẓān 1–4, Lithograph Edition, Hydarabad (Deccan) 1338/1919–20. Yale University = Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University. Catalogue: Nemoy, L., Arabic Manuscripts in the Yale University Library, New Haven 1956.

abbreviations and bibliography

215

Yazdī Muṭlaq, Maḥ mūd: “Iskandariyya taʾlīf-i ʿAllāma Mīr Sayyid Sharīf Gurgānī”, Muḥ aqqiqnāma: maqālāt-i taqdīm shuda bi ustād duktur Mahdī Muḥ aqqiq, eds. Baḥāʾ al-Dīn Khurramshāhī & Jūyā Jahānbakhsh, Tehran 1380/2001, vol. 2, pp. 1389–447. Yeni Cami = Yeni Cami Collection (held at the Süleymanie Kütüphanesi), Istanbul Zarkūb, Aḥmad: Shīrāz-nāma, ed. Ismāʿīl Wāʿiẓ Jawādī, Tehran 1350/1971. Zarrīnkūb, A. H.: “Lahīdjī”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), vol. 5, Leiden 1986, pp. 603–5. Ziai, Hossein: Knowledge and Illumination. A Study of Suhrawardī’s Ḥ ikmat al-Ishrāq, Altanta 1990. —— “The Illuminationist Tradition”, History of Islamic Philosophy, eds. Seyyed Hossein Nasr & Oliver Leaman, London 1996, vol. 1, pp. 465–96. —— “The Source and Nature of Authority: a Study of al-Suhrawardī’s Illuminationist Political Doctrine”, The Political Aspects of Islamic Philosophy. Essays in Honor of Muhsin S. Mahdi, ed. C. E. Butterworth, Cambridge 1992, pp. 294–334.

INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS Canada Osler OL 478 (McGill University) 6 n.29 India Ās ̣afiyya 58 manṭiq 51, 125 n.75, 178–9 Raza ḥikmat 112 23 n.144 Iran Dāʾirat al-maʿārif 359 75 n.10 Dāʾirat al-maʿārif 387 75 n.10 Dānishgāh 1147 26 n.159 Dānishgāh 1257 78 n.25 Dānishgāh 2591 39 n.237 Dānishgāh 3430 33 n.206 Dānishgāh 4559 51 n.33 Dānishgāh 5637 69 n.117 Dānishgāh 6616 78 n.25 Dānishgāh 6802 81 n.33 Dānishgāh 7051 166 Gulpāygānī 293 167 Iḥyāʾ-i mīrāth 1849 65 n.97, n.99, 123 n.67–n.69, 157–60, 163 Ilāhiyyāt 360d 32 n.204 Ilāhiyyāt 749d 190 Ilāhiyyāt-i Mashhad 614 55 n.51 Mahdawī 282 51 n.32 Majlis 184 107 n.6 Majlis 507 30 n.182, n.184, 55 n.54 Majlis 706 39 n.238, 40 n.241 Majlis 1736 85 n.44 Majlis 1752 92 n.64, n.65, n.66, n.68, 93 n.69, 94 n.72 Majlis 1762 43 n.270, 86 n.51 Majlis 1763 43 n.270 Majlis 1834 127 n.87 Majlis 1836 89 n.58 Majlis 1840 130 n.99 Majlis 1841 86 n.51, 116 n.43, 128 n.89, 130 n.101, 167–9 Majlis 1842 168 Majlis 1887 61 n.82, 108 n.11, 189 Majlis 1918 34 n.209 Majlis 1937 51 n.33 Majlis 1998 94 n.73, n.75, 95 n.76, n.77, n.78, 96 n.79, 97 n.83, 98 n.87, n.88, 101 n.94–n.96

Majlis 1999 80 n.30, 81 n.31, 100 n.92, n.93 Majlis 3423 3 n.17, 29 n.179 Majlis 3728 75 n.10, 81 n.34, n.35 Majlis 3908 3 n.17, 81 n.32 Majlis 3914 76 n.15 Majlis 3944 24 n.146 Majlis 3968 24 n.145, 58 n.70, 63 n.89, 68 n.110, 99 n.89, 106 n.2, 120 n.53, 123 n.65, n.66, 124 n.70–n.72, 161 Majlis 4001 51 n.33 Majlis 6320 55 n.51 Majlis-i Sinā 32 19 n.122, 24 n.150, 28 n.174, 29 n.179 Malik 688 70, 108 n.8, 116 n.44, n.46, 117 n.47, 124 n.72, 129, 155–6, 187, 188 Malik 956 55 n.47, 56, 196–7 Malik 965 127 n.88 Malik 1830 42 n.257 Malik 2614 51, 57 n.64, 108 n.8, 114 n.33, 115 n.37–n.42, 153–4 Marʿashī 1707 121 n.55 Marʿashī 2564 51 n.33 Marʿashī 3844 75 n.10 Marʿashī 4266 53 n.40, 108 n.11, 109, 132 n.109, 144 n.24, 181, 185 Marʿashī 5007 43 n.270 Marʿashī 5471 69 n.116 Marʿashī 5596 51 n.33 Marʿashī 6025 78 n.25 Marʿashī 7312 81 n.33 Marʿashī 8459 75 n.10 Marʿashī 9698 26 n.158 Marʿashī 9705 169 Marʿashī 11773 42 n.257 Marʿashī 12388 4 n.23, 5 n.24 Marʿashī 13793 59 n.73, 166–7 Marwī 877 69 n.120, 154 Mashhad I 12 48 Mashhad II 35 48 Millī 193 191 Millī 813 76 n.15 Millī 2005 73 Millī Fārs 55 107 n.6, 161, 162 Riḍawī 80 43 n.270 Riḍawī 144 167, 169

218

index of manuscripts

Riḍawī 175 54 n.41, 56 n.60, 157, 172 Riḍawī 799 7 n.42 Riḍawī 866 9 n.51 Riḍawī 877 78 n.24, 78 n.25 Riḍawī 990 81 n.33 Riḍawī 1027 75 n.10 Riḍawī 1088 106 n.2, 120 n.52, n.53, 121 n.57, n.60, 124 n.73, 125 n.77, 126, 127 n.83, n.84, 157, 165, 166–7, 179 Riḍawī 8914 191 Riḍawī 12297 51 n.32 Riḍawī 13953 76 n.15 Riḍawī 18410 59 n.73, 166 Riḍawī 19827 79 n.28, 80 n.30 Sipahsālār 4505 8 n.49 Iraq Awqāf Baghdād 13529 51 n.33 Ḥ akīm 59 121, 156–7 Spain Escorial 684

81 n.33

Turkey Ahmed III 3197 187 Ahmed III 3212 187 Ali Emiri Arapça 1451 187 Carullah 1327 59 n.71, 61 n.86, 63 n.90, 107 n.6, 108 n.8, 111 n.14, 112 n.21–n.23, 113 n.24–n.26, n.28–n.30, 114 n.32, 121 n.57, 140 n.12, 146 n.30, 170–2 Esad Efendi 3733 5 n.25, 15 n.90, 16 n.97

Fâtih 3025 77 n.16 Köprülü 825 169 Laleli 2523 46, 70–1, 108 n.8, 108 n.11, 119, 129, 138 n.4, 140 n.12, 179–81, 181–4, 188 Laleli 2592 127 n.83, n.86 Ragıp 853 46, 49, 131 n.105, 157, 177 Ragıp 854 119, 184–5 Ragıp 1457 11 n.65 Revan Köşkü 1773 187 Şehid Ali Paşa 1739 60 n.80, 61 n.84, 64 n.93, n.94, 108 n.8, n.9, 134 n.111–n.115, 135 n.118, n.120, 139 n.7, n.8, 140 n.13, 141 n.15, n.16, 142 n.18, 143 n.20–n.22, 145 n.26, 146 n.34, 147 n.35–n.38, 148 n.39–n.41, 149 n.43–47, 151 n.53–n.55, 172–7 Şehid Ali Paşa 1780 57 n.63, 107, 108 n.10, 109, 127 n.81, 163–165, 166 Şehid Ali Paşa 2761 22 n.139, 25 n.156, 68 n.112, 71 n.127, 86 n.50, 103 n.101, 154–155, 169 Yeni Cami 1181 166 United Kingdom British Museum OR 8500 British Museum OR 9443

70 n.121 112 n.19

United States Princeton 70 72, 108 n.9, 122 n.62, 160–161, 162 Princeton 853 69 n.115 Yale L-265 4 n.19

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES al-Abarqūhī, Abū l-Qāsim 6 n.30 ʿAbbās I (shah) 66 n.102 ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ b. Mīrzā Muqīm 157 ʿAbd al-Jabbār al-Hamadānī 78 n.23 al-Abharī, Athīr al-Dīn 2, 4, 32, 36, 47, 54, 56, 59, 70, 71, 85, 106 n.1, 107, 110, 111–4, 115, 127, 135, 140, 169 Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq 4, 20 Abū l-Barakāt al-Baghdādī 114, 139 n.5 Abū Saʿīd (sultan) 9 al-Afandī al-Iṣbahānī, Mīrzā ʿAbd Allāh 14 n.85, 43 n.268 Afrīdūn see Firiydūn Afshār, Iraj 169 Āghā Buzurg al-Ṭihrānī 5 n.30, 39 n.236, 47–8, 50, 52, 54 n.43, 56, 58 n.68, 60 n.76, 71, 108, 120–1, 128, 129, 154, 187, 193, 194, 195 Aḥmad b. ʿAlī b. Saʿāda, Abū Jaʿfar 124 Aḥmad Göwde b. Ughurlu Muḥammad (sultan) 19, 25, 56, 179 n.1 Aḥmad Khān Kārkiyā (ruler) 39 n.238, 46–7, 57–8, 116, 179 Ahmadnegar 70 n.121 al-ʿAlawī al-ʿĀmilī, Mīr Sayyid Aḥmad ix, 71 al-ʿAlawī al-ʿĀmilī, Mīr Sayyid Muḥammad Ashraf al-Ḥ usaynī 71–2, 162 ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 8, 26, 34, 42, 123 al-Āmidī, Sayf al-Dīn 144 ʿĀmil, Jabal ix al-ʿĀmilī, Bahāʾ al-Dīn ix al-Āmulī, ʿAlī 41 Anaxagoras 148 Arberry, A.J. 65 n.98 Ardabīl 42, 43 al-Ardabīlī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Muqaddas 51 n.33 Aristotle 37, 62, 113 al-Astarābādī, Jalāl al-Dīn 15, 128 Awjabī, ʿAlī 74 al-Badawī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 95 n.77 Baghdad 27 al-Baghdādī, ʿAbd al-Qāhir 78 n.23

al-Bāghnawī al-Shīrāzī, Mīrzā Jān Ḥ abīb Allāh 52 n.33 Bahārzādeh, Parwīn 31 n.195 Bahmanyār b. Marzubān 6 n.30, 56, 92, 113, 127, 135 al-Balyānī, Amīn al-Dīn 7 al-Balyānī, Awḥad al-Dīn 7 al-Balyānī, Jamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd Allāh al-As ̣amm 6–7 Baqqāl, Ḥ asan Shāh see Ḥ asan Shāh Baqqāl, Sharaf al-Dīn Barakat, Muḥammad 53, 74, 76 n.13 al-Bast ̣āmī, Abū Yazīd 64 Bāyazīd II (sultan) 11–2, 16 n.103, 19, 76 n.13 al-Bayḍāwī, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar 2, 7, 41, 178 Bihishtī, Fahīmat al-Sādāt 3 n.11 al-Bihishtī al-Isfarāyinī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad 121 n.58, 122, 124 Biya Pīsh (region) 57, 58 Biygum madrasa (Dār al-Aytām) 9 Brockelmann, Carl 47 n.9, 48–9 al-Bukhārī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Mubārakshāh 2, 5 n.25, 55, 112 Burhān Niẓām Shāh (ruler) 70 n.121 Chaghmīnī, Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad 15 Chodkiewicz, Michel 7 n.40 Corbin, Henry 49–50, 64, 74, 135 n.119, 152 Daiber, Hans 35 n.216 Dāmād, Muḥammad Bāqir see Mīr Dāmād Dānishpazhūh, Muḥammad Taqī 50–3, 121, 169 Dār al-Aytām madrasa see Biygum madrasa Dār al-Shifāʾ madrasa 1 al-Dashtakī, Ghīyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr 3 n.17, 17–8, 20, 21–2, 23, 24–32, 41, 51 n.33, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 62 n.88, 69, 75 n.9, n.10, 77, 81, 83–4, 86, 97 n.83, 105, 110, 122, 125, 132, 136, 165, 166, 195, 196

220

index of names and places

al-Dashtakī, Majd al-Dīn Ḥ abīb Allāh 17 al-Dashtakī, Niẓām al-Dīn 28 n.174 al-Dashtakī, Ṣadr al-Dīn ix, x, 3 n.16, 4, 16–25, 26, 29–30, 32, 36, 38, 40, 44, 48, 52, 54–5, 56, 61, 64, 69, 75–83, 84, 85, 86–8, 94–8, 99, 100–4, 105, 106, 110, 111, 114, 116–7, 120–1, 122, 123, 124, 125, 129, 130, 169, 188, 193, 194 al-Dashtakī, Ṣadr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ghīyāth al-Dīn (Ṣadr al-Dīn II) 17 n.109, 19 n.122, 23 n.144, 28, 29 n.175 al-Dashtakī, Sayyid Manṣūr 17 al-Dashtakī, Sayyid Niẓām al-Dīn Aḥmad 17 Dawān (village) 4, 14 al-Dawānī, Jalāl al-Dīn ix, x, 3 n.17, 4–16, 20, 25, 29, 32, 33 n.205, 36, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45–6, 47, 48, 51 n.33, 55, 58 n.65, 59, 60, 61, 68 n.113, 69–70, 71, 75, 76, 77–84, 85–7, 88–94, 96, 97–8, 99, 100, 101–2, 104–5, 107, 108, 111 n.16, 114, 115–6, 117, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127–31, 132, 135, 136, 145–6, 154, 167, 187–8, 191, 194 al-Dawānī, Saʿd al-Dīn Asʿad 5, 6 al-Daylamī, Shāh Mīr see Shāh Mīr b. Malik Maḥmūd Democritus 148 Descartes, René 138 Diyār Bakr 8 Dunietz, Whelan 33 n.205, n.207 Ecchellensis, Abraham see al-Ḥ aqilānī al-Mārūnī, Ibrāhīm Empedocles 148, 152 Eubulides of Miletus 78 n.22 Fārābī 23, 25, 37, 61, 62, 78 n.23, 91 n.62, 94, 98, 99, 128, 193 Farāmarz Qarāmalikī, Aḥad 38 n.231, 74, 78 n.23, n.24, n.25, 79 n.26 Fārs (province) 11 al-Fārsī, Sayyid Muslim 17–8 al-Fārsī, Taqī al-Dīn 24, 26 Fasāyī, Mīrzā Ḥ asan 83–4 al-Fattāl, Sharaf al-Dīn 8 Firdawsī 135 Firiydūn 135, 142–3 al-Fīrūzābādī, Majd al-Dīn 6 n.34, 106 n.2, 123 Ghazālī 61 n.85, 62 n.88 Gīlān (province) 57, 58, 116, 118

Glassen, Erika 66 n.104 Gutas, Dimitri 36 Ḥ abībī, Najf Qulī 145 n.27 Ḥ āfiẓ 7 Ḥ āʾirī, ʿAbd al-Ḥ usayn 59 n.73, 81 n.34, n.35, 85 n.44, 86 n.51 Ḥ ājjī Khalīfa (Kātib Čelebi) 45–6 al-Ḥ allāj, Ḥ usayn b. Manṣūr 64 Hamadānī, Sayyid ʿAlī 34 al-Ḥ amawī, Sharaf al-Dīn Ibn al-Bārizī 22, 56 al-Ḥ anafī al-Tabrīzī, Muḥammad Amīn 191 al-Ḥ aqilānī al-Mārūnī, Ibrāhīm (Abraham Ecchellensis) 35 al-Hirawī, Mawlānāzāde 112 Ḥ asan Shāh Baqqāl, Sharaf al-Dīn 3, 127 Herat 15 n.96, 41 Hibat Allāh al-Ḥ usaynī see Shāh Mīr b. Malik Maḥmūd al-Daylamī al-Ḥ illī, Ḥ asan b. Yūsuf 59, 87 n.52, 121 n.58, 122, 124, 128, 178 al-Ḥ illī, Sayyid Niʿmat Allāh 28 Hirawī, Najīb Māyil 42 n.258 Ḥ usayn Khān Mubāriz al-Dawla 40 Ḥ usayn Mīrzā b. Manṣūr b. Bāyqarā (sultan) 41 al-Ḥ usaynī, Jamāl al-Dīn ʿAṭāʾ Allāh 41 al-Ḥ usaynī, Khūr Shāh b. Qubād 38 al-Ḥ usaynī, Muḥammad Ḥ usayn 187 Ibn Abī Jumhūr al-Aḥ sāʾī 8 n.44, 146 Ibn ʿArabī 8, 25, 34, 40, 64, 89 n.56 Ibn Bihrīz 50 Ibn al-Ḥ ājib (Jamāl al-Dīn Uthmān b. ʿUmar) 6 n.36, 23, 30, 75, 82 Ibn Kamāl see Kamāl Pāshāzāde Ibn Kammūna 9, 87, 93, 116 n.46, 132, 135, 149–51 Ibn Khallikān 144 Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ 50 Ibn Sīnā 5, 14, 18, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 55, 56, 61, 62, 64, 89 n.57, 91–2, 94–8, 99–103, 104, 106, 113, 115, 117, 118, 123–4, 126, 127, 128, 131, 135, 137, 140, 141, 148, 150, 193–4 Ibn Turka al-Iṣfahānī, Ṣāʿin al-Dīn 34 Ibn Zayla 113 al-Ījī, ʿAḍud al-Dīn 1, 2, 13, 15, 23, 30, 43–4, 75, 82, 117, 119–20, 127, 179 al-Ījī, Ṣafī al-Dīn 6

index of names and places Ikhlāṣiyya madrasa 41 al-Ilāhī al-Ardabīlī, Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥ usayn 14 n.85, 16, 26, 32, 41–4, 86, 122, 128, 130 ʿImād al-Dīn Abū Bakr b. Qarā Arsalān (ruler) 131 India 12, 13, 70 n.121 ʿIrāqī, Fakhr al-Dīn 34 Isfahan 56–7 al-Iṣfahānī, Sayyid Muḥammad Bāqir 157 al-Iṣfahānī, Sayyid Riḍā 154, 169 al-Iṣfahānī, Shams al-Dīn Maḥmūd 2, 3 n.11, 76 n.15, 93, 121 n.58, 122, 123, 124, 178 al-Isfarāyinī, ʿIsạ̄ m 70 n.121 Iskandar Mīrzā (ruler) 2 n.3, 3 Ismāʿīl I (Shah) ix–x, 5 n.24, 14, 15 n.96, 26, 27, 36, 38, 39, 42, 56–7, 58 n.66, 65–6, 68 Istanbul x, 12 n.66, 15 n.95, 70 Izutso, Toshihiko 97 n.83 Jahān Shāh (ruler) 8 Jāmiʿ al-Murshidī 5 al-Jandī, Muʾayyid al-Dīn 34 al-Jazāʾirī, Mīr Niʿmat Allāh (vizier) 43 n.266 Jirūn (Hormuz, province) 13 al-Jurjānī, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad (Mīr Sayyid al-Sharīf) 1–3, 5, 15, 17, 30, 39, 43, 51 n.33, 55, 75, 80–1, 82, 83, 87, 117, 119–20, 122, 123, 124–5, 179 al-Jurjānī, Mīr Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad 13 al-Jurjānī, Shams/Nūr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. al-Sharīf 3–4, 12 n.70, 87 n.52, 112 al-Juwaynī, Shams al-Dīn 116 n.46 al-Kāfiyajī, Muḥyī al-Dīn 127 Kākāyī, Qāsim 3 n.16, 17 n.107, 22 n.135, 30 n.189, 52, 74 Kamāl Pāshāzāde 12 n.66, 61 n.85 al-Karakī, ʿAlī b. Ḥ asan (al-Muḥaqqiq) ix, 28, 43, 58 n.70, 66, 68 al-Karakī al-ʿĀmilī, Ḥ usayn b. Ḥ aydar (scribe) 156 Kāshān 39 al-Kāshānī, Afḍal al-Dīn 194 al-Kāshānī, Maḥmūd b. ʿAlī 23 al-Kāshī/Kāshānī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq 34

221

al-Kātibī, Najm al-Dīn 2, 15, 18, 21, 30, 33, 42, 55, 75, 87, 124–5, 127, 179 Kay Khusraw 135, 142–3 Kāzirūn 5, 6 al-Kāzirūnī, Abū Isḥāq 5 n.25, 6 al-Kāzirūnī, Abū al-Qāsim 77 al-Kāzirūnī, ʿAfīf al-Dīn Muḥammad 6 n.33 al-Kāzirūnī, Maẓhar al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Murshidī 5, 6 al-Kāzirūnī, Naṣr al-Bayān b. Nūr al-ʿAyān 69, 154 Khafr (village) 38 al-Khafrī, Shams al-Din Muḥammad 16, 24, 32, 37–40, 54, 59 n.73, 69, 84–5, 122, 139 n.8, 154 al-Khwājagī al-Shīrāzī, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad 69–70 Khwāja Jahān, Maḥmūd (vizier) 9 Khalīl Ibn Uzun Ḥ asan (ruler) 9, 10–1, 18 Khayyām, ʿUmar 194 Khwāndmīr, Ghiyāth al-Dīn 77 al-Khwānsārī, Bāqir al-Mūsawī 17 n.109 al-Khūnajī, Afḍal al-Dīn 87 n.52 al-Kirmānī al-Jīlī (al-Gīlī), ʿAbd Allāh b. Maymūn 6 Kohlberg, Etan 47 n.9 al-Kurbālī/al-Kulbārī, Qawām al-Dīn 3–4, 17 Kūrkūn, Muḥammad Najīb (Necip Görgün) 145 n.27 al-Kūshkinārī al-Anṣārī, Muḥyī al-Dīn 6 Lāhījān (town) 57 al-Lāhījī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq 97 n.83 al-Lāhījī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad 36, 42 Lār 13–4 al-Lārī, Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥ usayn 15, 76, 77, 122 al-Lārī, Muḥyī al-Dīn 16 al-Lārī, Muṣliḥ al-Dīn 9 n.53 al-Lawkarī, ʿAbū l-Abbās 5–6 n.30, 30 n.186, 135 Maḥmūd, Mullā Ḥ ājjī 166 Maḥmūd I (sultan) 12 Mans ̣ūriyya madrasa (Shiraz) 26, 28, 54 n.43 Marāgha observatory 27 Mashhad x

18, 19,

222

index of names and places

al-Māwardī, Abū al-Ḥ asan 14 al-Maybudī, Kamāl al-Dīn Mīr Ḥ usayn 11, 15, 32–7, 43, 47 n.8, 62 n.88, 86, 112, 113 al-Maybudī, Khwāja Muʿīn al-Dīn 32 Michot, Yahya 62 n.88 Mīr ʿAbd al-Wahhāb 35 Mīr Dāmād (Muḥammad Bāqir al-Astarābādī) ix, 71, 72, 118 n.48, 187, 193 Mīr Muḥibb Allāh 13 Mīr Muʿīn al-Dīn 13 Moses 143 Muʾayyadzāde ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Efendi (Ibn Muʾayyad) 11, 15 n.90, n.95, 16, 19, 61 n.85, 76 n.13 Mudarris Riḍawī, Muḥammad Taqī 51 n.30, 157, 161 Muḥammad Shāh III (sultan) 9 Mullā Ṣadrā (Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī) 78 n.25, 118 n.48, 152 n.152 al-Mult ̣ānī, Muḥammad b. Ḥ abīb Allāh 191 Munzawī, ʿAlī Naqī 73 n.133, 74 Mūsh (plain) 8 Muẓaffariyya madrasa 9 al-Nāʾīnī, Sharaf al-Dīn b. Zayn al-Dīn 162 Najaf 8 n.44, 121 Nājī Iṣfahānī, Ḥ āmid 78 n.25 Nakhjawānī, Muḥammad 33 al-Nasafī, Najm al-Dīn ʿUmar 191 al-Nasị̄ bī, Abū Saʿīd ʿAlī 17 n.107 Nasị̄ r al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī 2, 5–6 n.30, 10, 14, 15, 23, 24 n.145, 27, 29, 33, 39, 42, 43, 44, 47, 50–1, 56, 58, 59, 62–3, 64–5, 66–7, 69, 72, 75, 76, 81 n.31, 82, 86, 87, 92–93, 95–6, 97, 106, 107, 110–1, 113, 115, 120–4, 127, 135, 156, 157, 194 Nāsị r al-Dīn (vizier) 57, 58, 116, 118, 154, 179 Nasr, Seyyid Hossein 74 Nawāʾī, Amīr ʿAlī Shīr (vizier) 41, 42 Nayrīz (town) 53 al-Nayrīzī, Abū Isḥāq Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh 33 n.205, 52, 194 al-Nayrīzī, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd 61, 70, 169 al-Nayrīzī, Muḥammad b. Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd 60–1, 70, 169, 177, 186, 188

al-Nayrīzī, Najm al-Dīn Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd x, 24, 26, 44, 45–73, 84, 85–6, 98–9, 106–201 Newman, Andrew J. 68 Nimrūd 143 Niẓām al-Dīn Maḥmūd, Amīr 58, 120, 156 Niẓām al-Dīn Shāh-i Sindī (ruler) 13 Noah 143 Nūrānī, ʿAbd Allāh 27 n.170, 30 n.189, 31–2 n.193, n.196, n.198, n.199, 35 n.216 Nūrbakhsh, Sayyid Muḥammad 36 Nūrbakhsh, Sayyid Qāsim 36 Ottoman Empire

70–1

Plato 37, 62, 64 Pourjavady, Nasrollah Princeton x Pythagoras 152

30 n.189

Qāʾinī, Muḥammad 194 Qāsim-Bay Purnāk (ruler) 13, 19 al-Qayṣarī, Sharaf al-Dīn Dāwūd 34 Qazwīn 43 al-Qazwīnī, Ḥ akīm Shāh Muḥammad b. Mubārak 16 al-Qazwīnī, Najm al-Dīn 22, 56 al-Qirt ̣āsī, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn 6 Qum x al-Qūnawī, Ṣadr al-Dīn 34 al-Qūshchī, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī 10, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 29, 40, 43, 56, 59 n.73, 61, 66–7, 69, 75–6, 79, 81 n.31, 82, 85, 86, 90, 94, 106 n.1, 110, 115, 117, 122, 123, 124, 129, 130 Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī 9, 14, 24, 25, 38, 46, 53, 108 n.8, 109, 118, 129, 132, 133, 135, 151–2, 179, 181, 184, 185, 187 Rahim, Ahmed H. 6 n.30 Rāzī, Amīn Aḥmad 51–2 n.33 al-Rāzī, Fakhr al-Dīn 106, 113, 115, 123, 124, 127, 135, 145, 194 al-Rāzī, Quṭb al-Dīn 2, 3 n.17, 14, 15, 18, 21, 30, 39, 42, 51 n.33, 55, 56, 69, 75, 80, 82, 113, 124–5, 127, 178, 179 al-Riḍawī, Khalīl b. Muḥammad 42 Ritter, Hellmut 46–7, 48, 49–50, 52–3, 179 n.1, 187 Rizvi, Sajjad H. 23 n.144

index of names and places Rūmī, Qāḍīzāde 15 Rūmlū, Ḥ asan-Bay 16 n.96 al-Sabzawārī, Ḥ ājjī Mullā Hādī 94 n.73 Ṣadr, Sayyid Mahdī 169 Ṣadrāyī Khūyī, ʿAlī 76 n.13, n.15, 161 al-Ṣafawī, ʿAfīf al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 5 n.30, 16 al-Ṣafawī, Kamāl al-Dīn Ibrāhīm 43 Sahand (Mount) 27 al-Sakkākī, Sirāj al-Dīn 55 Salghur Shah (sultan) 13, 40 Saliba, George 38 n.233, 106 n.3 Salīm (sultan) 15 n.95 Sām Mīrzā Ṣafawī 69 Samarqand 2 n.3 al-Samarqandī, Shams al-Dīn 42, 87 al-Samāwī, Muḥammad 157 al-Sammākī, Fakhr al-Dīn 52 n.33 al-Sāwajī, Qāḍī Ṣafī al-Dīn ʿĪsā (vizier) 32–3, 35 Schmidtke, Sabine x Shabistarī, Maḥmūd 42 Shaddād 143 Shāh Mīr b. Malik Maḥmūd al-Daylamī (Hibat Allāh al-Ḥ usaynī) 57, 60, 69 Shāh Muḥammad b. Ḥ asan (scribe) 162 Shāh Ṭāhir Dakanī 39 Shahrastānī 106 n.4, 124 al-Shahrazūrī, Shams al-Dīn 9, 113, 118, 127, 132, 135, 145–6, 147 n.35, 148, 151 Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Mubārakshāh al-Bukhārī see al-Bukhārī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Mubārakshāh Shams Nayrīzī, Muḥammad Jawād 52 Shanb Ghāzānī, Ismāʿīl 15 Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥ aqq 41 al-Sharīf al-Raḍīy 123 Shihāb al-Dīn b. ʿUmar b. Muḥammad 133 Shiraz x, 1, 3–4, 9, 11, 13, 16–7, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 38–9, 41, 43, 53, 54, 56, 74–5, 77, 111 al-Shīrāzī, Amīr Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Sharīf (vizier) 38 al-Shīrāzī, Fatḥ Allāh 23 n.144, 52 n.33 al-Shīrāzī, ʿImād al-Dīn Maḥmūd 52 al-Shīrāzī, Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd 16, 51, 52–3

223

al-Shīrāzī, Muẓaffar al-Dīn ʿAlī 15, 24 al-Shīrāzī, Quṭb al-Dīn see Qut ̣b al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī al-Shīrāzī, Ṣadr al-Dīn see Mullā Ṣadrā al-Shīrāzī, Shāh Abū Muḥammad 52 n.33 al-Shīrāzī, Taqī al-Dīn 112 n.20 al-Shīrwānī, Muḥammad Amīn 70, 181 al-Shīrwānī, Ṣadr al-Dīn Zāde Muḥammad Ṣādiq b. Fayḍ Allāh 70–1, 181 Shujāʿī Bāghīnī, Ḥ ūriyya 3 n.11 al-Shūshtarī, ʿAbd al-Wāḥid 52 n.33 al-Shūshtarī, Nūr Allāh 9 n.51, 12 n.70, 13 n.72, 22, 27, 33 n.205 Socrates 64 Solomon 143 Sūdī Busnawī, Aḥmad Efendi 7 n.39 al-Suhrawardī, Abū al-Najīb ʿAbd al-Qāhir 7 n.38 al-Suhrawardī, Shihāb al-Dīn Yaḥyā b. Ḥ abash 9, 14, 25, 29, 36–7, 40, 46, 48, 50, 53, 55, 58, 59–60, 61, 63–4, 70, 106, 107, 109, 110, 113, 115, 118–9, 127, 131–6, 133, 137–45, 147, 149, 151, 172, 179, 187, 188 Sult ̣ān Ḥ aydar (Sufi master) 41 Ṭabarī 123 Tabriz 8–9, 11, 33 n.205, 50, 56 al-Tabrīzī, Jaʿfar b. Bābā b. Muḥammad Bāqir (scribe) 168 al-Tabrīzī, Rajab ʿAlī 50 “al-Tabrīzī”/“Tibrīzī”, “Wadūd”/ Najm al-Dīn Maḥmūd/ Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd 46, 47, 48–50, 162 see also al-Nayrīzī, Najm al-Dīn Ḥ ājjī Maḥmūd Taftāzānī, Saʿd al-Dīn 29, 47, 48, 51 n.33, 53 n.39, 54 n.42, 59, 69, 70, 87, 106 n.2, 107, 109, 113, 115, 117, 121, 123, 125–8, 163, 191 Taftāzānī, Sayf al-Dīn 127 al-Ṭāhir al-Badakhshī, Muḥammad (scribe) 177 Ṭahmāsp (shah) 15 n.96, 28, 42, 43 Ṭālishī, Muḥammad 35 n.215 Taqawī, Riḍā 187, 188, 193 Taqawī, Sayyid Naṣr Allāh 47–8 Ṭāram (region) 26 Taşköprüzâde 24 n.147 Tehran x

224

index of names and places

Thompson, W. F. 10 n.5 al-Ṭihrānī, Mīrzā ʿAbd Allāh 154 Tīmūr Lang 1 al-Turka al-Iṣfahānī, Afḍal al-Dīn Muḥammad 52 n.33, 71, 193 al-Ṭūsī see Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī Tūysirkānī, Sayyid Aḥmad 11 n.65, 89 n.58 Ulugh Bey (ruler) 24 al-Urmawī, Sirāj al-Dīn 2, 3 n.17, 18, 21, 30, 51 n.33, 55, 75, 80, 82, 125, 127, 178 Uzun Ḥ asan (ruler) 8, 9, 10, 20 Van Ess, Joseph

4 n.18, 120 n.50

al-Wāʿiẓ al-ʿAmrī, Rukn al-Dīn Rūzbahān 6 Wājid, Muḥammad Jawād 169 Walbridge, John 138 n.5 al-Yāfiʿī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh 144 n.24 Yaʿqūb b. Uzun Ḥ asan (sultan) 11, 18–9, 33 Yazd 32–3, 59 al-Yazdī, ʿAbd Allāh al-Bahābādī 51 n.33 Yūsuf b. Jahān Shāh (ruler) 8 al-Zamakhsharī, Jār Allāh

55