You are on page 1of 236

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-Dn Mahmd al-Nayrz and
His Writings

By

Reza Pourjavady

LEIDEN BOSTON
2011
Cover illustration: A Learned Discourse in a Garden by Qsim Al under the
supervision of Kaml al-Dn Bihzd (d. 942/15356), taken from a manuscript of
Mr Al Shr Nawys Sadd-i Iskandar, 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 philosophyIranHistory. I. Title. II. Series.

B753.N394P68 2011
181.5dc22

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 .................................................................... 1
I. Background ...................................................................... 1
II. Jall al-Dn al-Dawn .................................................... 4
III. Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak .................................................. 16
IV. Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak ........................................... 24
V. Mr H usayn al-Maybud ................................................ 32
VI. Shams al-Dn al-Khafr .................................................. 37
VII. Kaml al-Dn al-Ilh al-Ardabl ................................. 41

Chapter One: The Philosopher al-Nayrz and General


Aspects of His Thought ........................................................... 45
I. Review of Previous Scholarship .................................... 45
II. Notes on Nayrzs Biography ........................................ 53
III. Nayrzs Approach to Philosophy and
Theology ........................................................................... 61
IV. The Reception of Nayrz in the Later Period ............ 68

Chapter Two: Nayrz and the Two Strands of Philosophy


in Shiraz ..................................................................................... 74
I. The Two Strands of Philosophy in Shiraz ................... 74
II. The Main Subjects of the Dispute between the Two
Strands of Philosophy .................................................... 86
II.i. The Liar Paradox ............................................... 87
II.ii. The Distinction between Wujd and
Mawjd ................................................................ 88
II.iii. Mental Existence ................................................ 99
II.iv. Gods Knowledge ............................................... 101
II.v. The Human Body and the Soul ....................... 103

Chapter Three: Works of Nayrz .............................................. 106


I. Glosses on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-itiqd ... 110
II. Commentary on Athr al-Dn al-Abhars Hidyat
al-h ikma ........................................................................... 111
vi contents

III. Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm wa-nihytih


wa-tabyn maqsid al-h arakt wa-ghytih .......... 114
IV. Rislat Ithbt al-wjib ................................................. 115
V. Glosses on Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq and on
Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs Commentary on this
Work .............................................................................. 118
VI. Glosses on Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjns Commentary
on Adud al-Dn al-js al-Mawqif f ilm al-kalm 119
VII. Commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd
al-mantiq ....................................................................... 120
VIII. Commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd
al-itiqd: Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid ............................. 121
IX. Superglosses on Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjns Glosses
on Qtb al-Dn al-Rzs Commentary on Ktibs
al-Risla al-Shamsiyya ................................................. 124
X. Superglosses on Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs Commentary
on Sirj al-Dn al-Urmaws Matli al-anwr and
on Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjns Glosses on the same
Commentary ................................................................. 125
XI. Commentary on Sad al-Dn al-Taftzns Tahdhb
al-mantiq wa-l-kalm .................................................. 125
XII. Commentary on H asan b. Ysuf al-H illsTahdhb
al-ah km ........................................................................ 128
XIII. Glosses on Jall al-Dn al-Dawns Unmdhaj
al-ulm .......................................................................... 128
XIV. Glosses on Jall al-Dn al-Dawns Nihyat
al-kalm f h all-i shubha kulli kalm kdhib ....... 129
XV. Commentary on Jall al-Dn al-Dawns Rislat
Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda ............................................. 129
XVI. Commentary on Suhrawards al-Alwh
al-Imdiyya: Misbh al-arwh f kashf haqiq
al-Alwh ......................................................................... 131
XVII. Glosses on Jall al-Dn al-Dawns Commentary
on Suhrawards Haykil al-nr ................................ 136

Chapter Four: Nayrz and the Suhrawardian Philosophy .... 137


I. Nayrz as a Critic of Suhraward .............................. 137
I.i. Prime Matter ........................................................ 137
I.ii. The Theory of Vision .......................................... 140
contents vii

I.iii. The Imaginary World ............................................ 141


I.iv. The Nature of Sound ............................................. 141
I.v. Political Thought .................................................... 142
I.vi. Bodily Resurrection ............................................... 145
II. Nayrz and the Commentators of Suhraward ............. 145
II.i. Shams al-Din al-Shahrazr ................................. 145
II.ii. Izz al-Dawla Ibn Kammna ................................ 149
II.iii. Qutb al-Dn al-Shraz .......................................... 151

Appendix I: Inventory of His Writings .................................... 153


Appendix II: Philosophical Writings Copied by Nayrz ....... 193
Appendix III: An Ijza Given to Nayrz by Ghiyth al-Dn
al-Dashtak ................................................................................. 196
Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources ........... 198

Abbreviations and Bibliography ................................................ 203


Index of Manuscripts ................................................................... 217
Index of Names and Places ......................................................... 219
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,
Jall al-Dn al-Dawn (d. 908/1502) and Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak
(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 discus-
sions 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 (kalm) and, in particular,
the re-emergence of Sh theology in Iran in this period, that has been
in need of further study. At the beginning of the tenth/sixteenth cen-
tury, the Safavids took power in Iran and imposed Shism 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 mil in Lebanon and especially on Al al-Karak (d. 940/1534),
a pioneering figure who was associated with the Safavid government.
Karak was a scholar of fiqh and throughout his career never showed
any particular interest in kalm and philosophy. Hence the picture
of the early Safavids drawn by modern scholarship shows a fiqh-
centred period which lasted till the time of the Safavid Shah Abbs I
(r. 995/15871038/1629). This gives the impression that it was only
in the time of Shah Abbs that Sh theological discourse flourished,
and that theologians such as Bah al-Dn al-mil (d. 1030/1621),
Mr Dmd (1041/16312), and Sayyid Ah mad al-Alaw al-mil
(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 Isml (r. 907/1501930/1524), who


eagerly enforced conversion to Shism, made any direct effort to sup-
port Sh dogma.
The present study, which is based on my PhD dissertation submitted
to Freie Universitt Berlin, is an attempt to shed light on both of the
above obscurities. It aims to show the vitality of theological and philo-
sophical exchanges in the late ninth/fifteenth century which extended in
the early tenth/sixteenth, i.e., the early Safavid era. Najm al-Dn H jj
Mahmd al-Nayrz, the philosopher and theologian whose life and
works are the subject of the present study, was one of the outstanding
students of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak and was deeply involved in the
debates that took place between his master and Dawn. Moreover,
Nayrz was evidently among the first scholars associated with the
court of the Safavids to have composed theological works supporting
Sh dogma. A prolific writer on theology and philosophy, Nayrz
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 Nayrzs 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 Nayrzs thought,
I have tried to avoid attributing ideas to him which were originally his
teachers. However, since almost all the philosophical works of Dashtak
are likewise still unedited, it is often difficult to distinguish Nayrzs
additions from the arguments of his teacher. Therefore, I have decided
to explain some of the issues debated by Dashtak and Dawn on the
basis of their own works, and have, in addition, provided a survey of
the development of their debate, exploring the standpoint of Nayrz
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 supervi-
sor, 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 proof-
reading 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 Kl, and Prof. Osman G. zgdenli 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 disserta-
tion, 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. (Nachwuchsfrderungsgesellschaft)
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 Institutes 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 Mahmd Marash Najaf, the director
of H adrat yat Allh al-Uzm Marash Najaf Library in Qum, gen-
erously permitted me to reproduce any visual material of the librarys
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, how-
ever. 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 Ashar theologian of the time, Adud al-Dn
al-j (d. 756/1356), was based mainly in Shiraz.1 js profound knowl-
edge 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 779/13778 when the philosopher/theologian Al
b. Muhammad al-Jurjn, known as Mr Sayyid Sharf (d. 816/1414),
moved to Shiraz and started teaching at the Dr al-Shif madrasa.2
He taught there till 789/1387, when Tmr (r. 771/1369 to 807/1405)
ordered him to attend his court at Samarqand. Some years after Tmrs

1
See J. van Ess, Aod al-Din Iji, Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 3, pp. 26971; idem,
Die Erkenntnislehre des Adudaddn al-c. bersetzung und Kommentar des ersten
Buches seiner Mawqif, Wiesbaden 1966; idem, Neue Materialien zur Biographie des
Adudaddn al-g, Welt des Orients, 9 (1978), pp. 270ff.
2
On Jurjns life and his writings, see J. van Ess, Jorjni, Zayn al-Din Abul-Hasan
Ali b. Mohammad b. Ali al-Hosayni, Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 15, pp. 219; Mahd
Shakbniy and Reza Pourjavady, Kitb-shins-i Mr Sayyid Sharf-i Jurjn, Marif,
19iii (1381/2003), pp. 13492; Sadreddin Gm, Seyyid erf Crcn ve Arap Dilin-
deki Yeri, Istanbul 1984; idem, Crcn, Seyyid erf , Trkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islam
Ansiklopedisi, vol. 8, Istanbul 1993, pp. 1346.
2 introduction

death in 807/1405, Jurjn went back to Shiraz and stayed there until
his death in 816/141314.3
Jurjn is well known mainly for his commentary on Adud al-Dn
al-js Mawqif 4 and for his book of definitions, Kitb al-Tarft.5 In
these two works, as well as in numerous other writings, Jurjn showed
a great interest in kalm, philosophy and logic. He wrote glosses on
a number of theological, philosophical and logical texts by his older
contemporaries, such on Shams al-Dn Muhammad b. Mubrakshh
al-Bukhrs (fl. 733/1332) commentary on Athr al-Dn al-Abhars
Hidyat al-h ikma,6 on Shams al-Dn al-Bukhrs commentary on
Najm al-Dn al-Ktibs (d. 675/1277) H ikmat al-ayn,7 on Qutb al-Dn
al-Rzs (d. 766/1365) commentary on the section of logic of Sirj al-Dn
al-Urmaws (d. 682/1283) Matli al-anwr,8 on Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs
commentary on Najm al-Dn al-Ktibs al-Shamsiyya,9 on Shams
al-Dn al-Isfahns commentary on Abd Allh b. Umar al-Baydws
(d. c. 685/1286) T awli al-anwr,10 and on Shams al-Dn al-Isfahns
(d. 749/1348) commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss (d. 672/1274) Tajrd

3
Jurjn replied to the questions of Iskandar Mrz (r. 811/1408818/1415) when
he was back in Shiraz. See Mahmd Yazd Mutl aq, Iskandariyya talf-i Allma Mr
Sayyid Sharf Gurgn, Muh aqqiqnma: maqlt-i taqdm shuda bi ustd duktur
Mahd Muh aqqiq, eds. Bah al-Dn Khurramshh & Jy Jahnbakhsh, Tehran
1380/2001, vol. 2, pp. 1389447. It is not clear when he left Samarqand. He issued an
ijza for a certain Muhammad b. H jj b. Shaykh Umar b. Muhammad in Samarqand
in 812/1409, which shows that at that time he was still in Samarqand. See Abd Bqir
b. Umar al-Baghdd, Khiznat al-adab wa-lubb lubb lisn al-arab, ed. Muhammad
Hrn, Cairo 1399/1979, pp. 2930.
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 Kitb al-Tarft. Definitiones. Acce-
dunt Definitiones [Istilah t] theosophy Mohji-ed Din Mohammad Ben Ali Vulgo Ibn
Arabi dicti. Primum ed. et adnotatione critica instruxit Gustavus Flgel. Lipsiae 1845
[reprinted 1969].
6
For the extant manuscripts of this work, see Shakbniy/Pourjavady, Kitb-
shins-i Mr Sayyid Sharf-i Jurjn, p. 153; Gm, Seyyid erf Crcn ve Arap
dilindeki yeri, p. 146.
7
Published on the margin of Ibn Mubrakshh al-Bukhrs Sharh H ikmat al-ayn,
Lithograph Edition, Kazan: al-Matbaat al-Mryya, 1321/19031322/1904.
8
Published twice as a lithograph edition on the margin of Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs
Sharh Matli al-anwr, Istanbul 1277/1860; Istanbul 1303/1885.
9
See Qut b al-Dn al-Rz, Tah rr qawid al-mantiqiyya. Sharh al-risla al-Shamsiyya
li-Najm al-Dn Umar b. Al b. Ktib al-Qazwn, 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. 51920.
10
For the extant manuscripts of this work, see Shakbniy/Pourjavady, Kitb-
shins-i Mr Sayyid Sharf-i Jurjn, p. 143.
introduction 3

al-itiqd.11 It is likely that some of these glosses originated in a teaching


context. While all the above-mentioned works were written in Arabic,
Jurjn also wrote some works in Persian, including a short treatise,
entitled Martib al-mawjdt,12 a response to philosophical-theological
questions of the grandson of Tmr, Iskandar Mrz (r. 811/1408 to
818/1415),13 and several short handbooks on logic, intended for teach-
ing in madrasas, among them al-Kubr f l-mantiq and al-Sughr f
l-mantiq.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 Jurjn are known to have been active in Shiraz
during the first half of the 9th/15th century: 1) Qawm al-Dn al-Kurbl
(or al-Kulbr),16 2) Sharaf al-Dn H asan Shh Baqql,17 and 3) Jurjns

11
Jurjns glosses on the first chapter (maqsad) of Isfahns commentary were
edited as an MA dissertation by H riyya Shuj Bghn at the University of Qum, Qum
1379/2000. Glosses on the second and the third chapter were edited as an MA disserta-
tion by Fahmat al-Sdt Bihisht at Tarbiyat Moallim University, Tehran 1379/2000.
For the extant manuscripts of this work, see Shakbniy/Pourjavady, Kitb-shins-i
Mr Sayyid Sharf-i Jurjn, p. 140.
12
This work has been edited several times, most recently by H usayn Muallim in
Naqd-i niyz, Tehran 1373/1994, pp. 13340). See Shakbniy/Pourjavady, Kitb-
shins-i Mr Sayyid Sharf-i Jurjn, 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 Shakbniy/Pourjavady, Kitb-shins-i Mr Sayyid Sharf-i Jurjn, pp.
15561.
15
For Jurjns known students, see Shakbniy/Pourjavady, Kitb-shins-i Mr
Sayyid Sharf-i Jurjn, pp. 1835 (Appendix).
16
Qawm al-Dn al-Kurbl was among the teachers of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak. See
below, p. 17. His name appears in the bibliographical works both as al-Kurbl and
al-Kulbr. Yet it seems that the correct form is Kurbl. According to Qsim Kky,
Kurbl is a village near the town of Zarqn in the north-east of Shiraz. See Qsim
Kky, Ashny b maktab-i Shrz: Mr Sadr al-Dn Dashtak (Sayyid-i Sanad),
Khiradnma-yi Sadr, 3 (1375/1996), p. 83.
17
The extant works of Sharaf al-Dn H asan Shh are (i) a Persian treatise on db
al-bah th (MSS Ilhiyyt 749 D (Cat., p. 378), Dnishgh 339 (Cat., vol. 3 (1), p. 4)), and
(ii) H shiyat al-fayyd, containing his remarks on the notion of fayyd (= overflowing)
used as an attribute for God in the beginning of Qut b al-Dn al-Rzs commentary
on Sirj al-Dn al-Urmaws Matli al-anwr (MS Majlis 3908/1 (Cat., vol. 10 (4),
pp. 19345)). Ghiyth al-Dn attributes to H asan Shh a commentary on Taftzns
Tahdhb al-mantiq and accuses Dawn of plagiarizing H asan Shhs introduction to
that commentary while writing his own commentary on the same text. Ghiyth al-Dn
moreover asserts that H asan Shh was the teacher of Dawn. See MS Majlis 3423/2
(Cat., vol. 10 (3), p. 1283).
4 introduction

son, Muhammad (d. 838/1434).18 While the first two were evidently
teaching philosophy in the schools of Shiraz, Muhammad b. al-Sharf
al-Jurjn, who wrote a commentary on Athr al-Dn al-Abhars Hidyat
al-h ikma19 as well as some short treatises on logic, is not known to
have actually taught philosophy.20 One generation later, Jall al-Dn
al-Dawn and Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak brought the philosophical
activity in the city to its height and actively engaged in promoting the
interest in philosophy.

II. Jall al-Dn al-Dawn21

Jall al-Dn Muh ammad al-Dawn was born around 830/1426 in


Dawn, a village near Kzirn in the southwest of the Iranian plateau.22
He was a descendent of a family that traced its genealogy back to the
first caliph, Ab Bakr al-Siddq,23 and because of that he sometimes

18
The honorific title of Muhammad b. al-Sharf al-Jurjn has been reported as Shams
al-Dn by some sources and Nr al-Dn by some others. See J. van Ess, Jorjni, Zayn
al-Din Abul-Hasan Ali b. Mohammad b. Ali al-Hosayni, p. 24. Van Esss speculative
solution that al-Sharf al-Jurjn might have had two sons of two marriages with both
of them named Muhammad is doubtful.
19
This commentary is entitled Tah rr al-qawid wa-taqrr al-fawid (known also
as H all al-Hidya) 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 Gm, Seyyid erf Crcn ve Arap dilindeki yeri, pp. 1134.
21
On Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, see Reza Pourjavady, Kitb-shins-i thr-i Jall
al-Dn-i Dawn, Marif, 15 i&ii (1377/1998), pp. 81138; Harun Anay, Celleddin
Devvn Hayati. Eserleri. Ahlk ve siyaset, PhD dissertation, Istanbul University, Istanbul
1994; idem, Devvn, Trkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islam ansiklopedisi, vol. 9, Istanbul 1994,
pp. 25762; Andrew J. Newman, Davni, Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 7, pp. 1323;
Stephan Pohl, Zur Theosophie im nachmongolischen Iran. Leben und Werk des alladdn
ad-Dawwn ( gest. 902/1502), Bochum 1997 [unpublished manuscript].
22
On the village of Dawn, see Hamid Mahamedi, Davn, Encyclopaedia Iranica,
vol. 7, pp. 12932. Hence, his name is Dawn (or Davn) and not Dawwn as has
sometimes been erroneously written.
23
In the colophon of a manuscript of Ab l-Abbs al-Lawkars Aws al-masil,
copied by Dawn (MS Marash 12388/7, f. 168), the latter presents his own geneal-
ogy as follows: Muhammad b. Asad b. Muhammad b. Abd al-Rahm b. Al b. Abd
al-Salm b. Ah mad b. Abd al-Samad b. Al b. Abd al-Salm b. Al b. Ah mad b.
Bihrist b. Majd b. Zakariy b. Atiyya b. Bakiyya (?) b. Ab l-Faraj b. Abd al-Qdir
b. Nasr b. Ab Zayd b. Jbir b. Muhammad b. Abd al-Rahmn b. Ab Bakr (cf. Cat.,
vol. 31, pp. 308, 840).
introduction 5

added the title al-Siddq to his name.24 His first teacher was his father,
Sad al-Dn Asad, who was qd of Kzirn and a scholar of h adth
and tafsr in the Jmi al-Murshid of Kzirn.25 Another early teacher
of his was Mazhar al-Dn Muhammad al-Murshid al-Kzirn. These
two introduced him to h adth literature, fiqh, tafsr, and the rational
sciences (aqliyyt).26 Through these two intermediaries, who were both
students of al-Sharf al-Jurjn, Dawn regarded himself as Jurjns
student and linked himself to the latters chain of transmission of phi-
losophy, which goes back to Ibn Sn:
Jall al-Dn al-Dawn his father, Sad al-Dn al-Dawn & Mazhar
al-Dn Muhammad al-Murshid al-Kzirn al Sharf Jurjn Qutb
al-Dn al-Rz Qutb al-Dn al-Shrz (d. 710/1311) Nasr al-Dn
al-T s Fard al-Dn al-Damd al-Nshbr Sadr al-Dn al-Sarakhs27
Afdal a-Dn al-Ghln28 Ab l-Abbs al-Lawkar29 Ibn Sn.30

24
For instance, in the colophon of Rislat Jawbt Ab Sad Ah mad b. Al, which
he himself copied (MS Marash 12388, f. 185), Dawn writes his name as Muhammad
b. Asad b. Muhammad al-Siddq al-Dawn. Cf. the image of the colophon in the
catalogue of the Marash Library, vol. 31, p. 841. In his Nr al-hidya Dawn writes
that his title Siddiq is to affirm the principles and branches of Muhammads religion
(tasdq bi usl u fur-i dn-i Muh ammad) and has nothing to do with Ab Bakr. See
Nr al-hidya, Rasil al-mukhtra, ed. Sayyid Ahmad Tysirkn, Isfahan 1364/1985,
p. 109. However, it should be noticed that Nur al-hidya was most likely written when
Shh Isml was approaching Shiraz. More than anything else, the statement above
shows how much he was afraid of the Sh qizilbsh.
25
See Dawns ijza to Muayyadzde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 44a; Dawn,
Unmdhaj al-ulm, Thalth rasil, ed. Sayyid Ahmad Tysirkn, Mashhad 1411/1991,
pp. 275, 2778. Dawn specifies that with his father he studied al-Jmi al-sah h of
Muhammad al-Bukhr. Al-Jmi al-Murshid seems to have been the mosque in which
Ab Ishq al-Kzirn (d. 426/1035), the famous mystic of the 4th-5th/11th century,
was buried. Nowadays it is known as aywn-i Murshid. See Manchehr Muzaffariyn,
Kzirn dar yna-yi farhang-i rn, Shiraz 1373/1994, pp. 1115.
26
See Dawns ijza to Muayyadzde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 44a; Dawn,
Unmdhaj al-ulm, pp. 275, 2778.
27
On Sadr al-Dn al-Sarakhs and his place in this chain of transmission, see H asan
Ansr, Fakhr-i Rz u muktiba-yi b yaki az hukam-i musir-i khud, Marif,
18 iii (2002), pp. 1026.
28
Afdal al-Dn Umar b. Al al-Ghln is the author of H udth al-lam (ed. Mahd
Muhaqqiq, Tehran 1377/1998).
29
On Ab al-Abbs al-Lawkar (d. ca. 517/1123), see Roxanne D. Marcotte, Pre-
liminary Notes on the Life and Work of Ab al-Abbs al-Lawkar (d. ca. 517/1123),
Anaquel de Estudios rabes, 17 (2006), pp. 13357.
30
See gh Buzurg al-T ihrn, T abaqt, vol. 4, pp. 134, whose source, as he him-
self mentions, is Dawns ijza to Aff al-Dn Abd al-Rahmn al-Safaw (issued in
893/1488). The credibility of this chain is doubtful, particularly when it comes to Lawkar
being a direct student of Ibn Sn. Since Lawkars date of death falls almost ninety
years after Ibn Sns. Evidently the part of this chain between Nasr al-Dn al-T s
and Ibn Sna has been invented prior to Dawn. It occurred in a copy of Nasr al-Dn
6 introduction

Moreover, Mazhar al-Dn and Dawns father both studied with a


certain Al al-Dn al-Qirts,31 through whom Dawn established
another chain of transmission to Ibn Sn:
Jall al-Dn al-Dawn his father, Sad al-Dn al-Dawn & Mazhar
al-Dn al-Murshid Al al-Dn al-Qirts his father, Tj al-Dn
al-Qirts Shihb al-Dn Ab Bakr Nasr al-Dn al-T s Fard
al-Dn al-Dmd al-Nayshbr al-Sayyid Sadr al-Dn al-Sarakhs
Afdal al-Dn al-Ghln Ab l-Abbs al-Lawkar Ibn Sn.32
Dawni completed his studies with some other scholars after he moved
to Shiraz, namely Abd Allh b. Maymn al-Jl (al-Gl) al-Kirmn,33
Rukn al-Dn Rzbahn al-Wiz al-Amr, 34 S a f al-Dn al-j
(d. 864/1450) (his teachers in h adth),35 and Muhy al-Dn al-Kshkinr
al-Ansr (his teacher in h adth and kalm),36 who are mentioned in one
of his ijzas and also in the introduction to his Unmdhaj al-ulm.
In addition to his studies in the madrasa, Dawns interest in Sufism
attracted him to the circles of dervishes of the Murshidiyya silsila of
Kzirn, who were followers of Ab Ishq al-Kzirn (d. 426/1035).
He received a khirqa from the shaykh of this order, Jaml al-Dn Abd
Allh al-Balyn, known as al-Asamm, a pupil of the well-known Sufi

al-T ss H all mushkilt al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht completed in 761/1360 by Ab l-Qsim


al-Abarqh (MS Osler Library of the History of Medicine, McGill University, OL 478,
f. 82a). However, there Lawkar and Ibn Sn are connected through Ibn Sns student,
Bahmanyr (d. 458/1066). Generally on the chain of transmission of philosophy from
Ibn Sn to Nasr al-Dn al-T s, see Ahmed H. Rahim, The Twelver- 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. 21931. Among others, Al-Rahim refers to this
version of Dawn (pp. 2212, fn. 10).
31
As Dawn mentions, Qirt s was the author of Rislat al-Srat al-mustarshidiyya
(see Dawns Ijza to Muayyadzde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 45a).
32
See Dawns ijza to Muayyadzde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 45a.
33
Dawn mentions that he received an ijza for the transmission of h adth from
Jl (Unmdhaj al-ulm, p. 277). Jl himself was a student of Aff al-Dn Muhammad
al-Kzirn (see Dawns Ijza to Muayyadzde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 44a).
34
Dawn mentions that he studied al-Arban al-nabawiyya with Rukn al-Dn, who
himself had studied the text with Majd al-Dn al-Frzbd (d. 817/1414) and received
an ijza from the latter. See Dawns ijza to Muayyadzde, MS Esad Efendi 3733,
f. 44b; Unmdhaj al-ulm, p. 278.
35
Unmdhaj al-ulm, p. 276.
36
Dawn mentions in his Unmdhaj al-ulm (p. 278) two texts he had studied
with Muhy al-Dn al-Kshkinr al-Ansr, namely some no further identified glosses
on Tajrd al-itiqd (presumably those by al-Sharf al-Jurjn) and Sharh al-Mukhtasar
f l-usl of Jaml al-Dn Uthmn b. Umar known as Ibn al-H jib (d. 646/12489) with
al-Sharf al-Jurjns glosses on them.
introduction 7

of Shiraz, Amn al-Dn al-Balyn (d. 745/13445).37 Dawn presents


his Sufi silsila as follows:
Jall al-Dn al-Dawn Jaml al-Dn Abd Allh al-Balyn al-Asamm
Amn al-Dn al-Balyn Al b. Isml al-Bn Jaml al-Dn Ab
H mid Mah md al-Mah md al-Sbn Sadr al-Dn Ab l-H asan
al-H r (he was also a pupil of Shihb al-Dn Umar al-Suhraward and
Fakhr al-Dn Ab Ubayd Allh Muhammad) his father, Ab Ishq
Ibrhm al-H r Ab l-Fath al-Bayd w Ab Ish q Ibrhm b.
Shahriyr al-Kzirn (d. 426/1035).38
In his commentary on a poem of H fiz (d. 792/1390),39 while quoting
from Rislat al-Dira of Awhad al-Dn Balyn (d. 686/12878), who
was another Shaykh of the Balyn family,40 Dawn calls him Sultn
al-rifn wa-l-shiqn min al-sbiqn wa-l-lh iqn.41
The first known work of his is a short commentary on the introduc-
tion of Baydws T awli al-anwr, completed on 30 Rab II 853/25 May
1449.42 Another early composition is a Persian commentary on L ilha

37
On Amn al-Dn al-Balyn see the relavant entries in Dnishnma-yi Jahn-i Islm,
vol. 4, pp. 1845 (by Imd al-Dn Shaykh al-H ukamy), and in Dirat al-marif-i
buzurg-i Islm, vol. 12, p. 542 (by Muhammad Jawd Shams Nayrz). Amn al-Dn
is said to have died in 745/13445. This seems to contradict Dawns statement that
he was a pupil of Amn al-Dn through only one intermediary.
38
See Dawns ijza to Muayyadzde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, ff. 45b6a. Most of the
names mentioned in this silsila are unknown to modern scholarship. Unlike Dawn,
Amn al-Dn al-Balyns direct students usually linked the silsila of their master to
Ab al-Najb Abd al-Qhir al-Suhraward (d. 563/1168). See Mahmd b. Uthman,
Firdaws al-murshidiyya f asrr al-samadiyya, ed. Iraj Afshr, Tehran 1333/1954, p. 8;
Ahmad Zarkb, Shrznma, ed. Isml Wiz Jawd, Tehran 1350/1971, p. 86. The
shaykhs mentioned in Dawns silsila are exclusively from the region of Kzirn and
it seems that they were deliberately arranged so.
39
Dawn was the first commentator of H fiz. Two ghazals and three lines (bayt) of
H fiz have been commented on by Dawn in five treatises. See Jall al-Dn al-Dawn,
Naqd-i Niyz. dar sharh -i du bayt u yak ghazal az khwja H fiz-i Shrz. He also wrote
a preface to the Dwn of H fiz (see Pourjavady, Kitb-shins-i thr-i Jall al-Dn-i
Dawn, pp. 904; There are some indications that his commentaries were used by
some later commentators of H fiz such as Ahmad Efendi, known as Sd Busnaw
(d. 1005/15967). See Akbar Thubt, H fiz u pr-i gul-rang, Dar h aram-i dst.
Ydwra-yi ustd Sdt Nsir, ed. Ibrhm Zri, Tehran 1370/1991, pp. 7988.
40
Awh ad al-Dn Balyns Rislat al-Ah adiyya has been edited, translated and
studied by Michel Chodkiewicz (Eptre sur lUnicit Absolue, Paris 1982). On Awhad
al-Dn Balyn see also Muhammad Jawd Shams, Balyn, Awhad al-Dn, Dirat
al-marif-i buzurg-i Islm, vol. 12, pp. 5434.
41
See Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, Sharh-i ghazal az H fiz bi mat la-i: Dar hami dayr-i
mughn nst chu man shaydy . . ., Naqd-i Niyz, p. 186.
42
This is according to the colophon to be found in one of its manuscripts, MS
Radaw 799 h ikmat (Cat., vol. 4, p. 177).
8 introduction

ill Allh, entitled al-Tahlliyya, composed in 862/145758.43 Al-Zawr,


is also a relatively early work of his, was written at the request of the
keeper (khdim) of Al b. Ab T libs shrine in Najaf, Sharaf al-Dn
al-Fattl in 870/1466.44 In it he reveals the significant impact of Sufism
and particularly Ibn Arabs school on his thought. In the autocom-
mentary to this work, entitled al-H awr, Dawn reveals his reason for
choosing the title al-Zawr, namely an extended vision (mubashshira
tawla) of Al b. Ab T lib he had experienced beside the river Tigris
(Zawr) in Baghdad shortly before composing the work.45
Dawn had already established himself as a religious scholar
in his thirties, when he was appointed sadr (head of the religious
administration)46 by Qaraquyunlu Ysuf (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 Ysuf s father, Qaraquyunlu
Jahn Shh (r. ca. 841/1438872/1468). This is indicated by the fact that
Dawn accompanied the Qaraquyunlu army in the battle between Jahn
Shh and Aqquyunlu Uzun H asan (r. 872/1467882/1477), which took
place in the plain of Msh in Diyr Bakr on 12 or 13 Rabi II 872/10
or 11 November 1467. In the course of this battle, Jahn Shhs army
was defeated and Jahn Shh himself killed. In the subsequent escape
of the Qaraquyunlu army to Tabriz, Dawn lost some of his books.49

43
The date of authorship of this work is mentioned by Dawn in his Tafsr Srat
al-Ikhls. See Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, al-Rasil al-mukhtra, ed. Sayyid Ah mad
Tysirkn, Isfahan 1364/1985, p. 52.
44
Dawn stayed for a while in Najaf and taught Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq
to Sharaf al-Dn Fattl. The two established a close friendship. Sharaf al-Dn Fattl
received the original copy of al-Zawr and its commentary. Fattl is known to have
been one of the teachers of Ibn Ab Jumhr al-Ahs (d. after 906/1501). See Sabine
Schmidtke, Theologie, Philosophie und Mystik im zwlferschiitischen Islam des 9./15.
Jahrhunderts, p. 17.
45
See Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, al-H awr [Sharh al-Zawr], Sab Rasil, ed. Sayyid
Ahmad Tysirkn, Tehran 1381/2003, pp. 199225, esp. 2024.
46
On the position of sadr, see W. Floor, The Sadr or Head of the Safavid Religious
Administration, Judiciary and Endowments and other Members of the Religious
Institution, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft, 150 (2000), pp.
461500.
47
Ysuf was appointed as the ruler of Shiraz in 867/14623. See Ghiyth al-Dn
Khwndamr, Trkh-i H abb al-siyar, ed. Muhammad Dabr Siyq, Tehran 1362/1983,
vol. 4, p. 85. Therefore, the period that Dawn served as sadr must have been between
867/1462 and 872/1468.
48
See H asan-Bay Rml, Ah san al-tawrkh, Tehran 1357/1978, p. 99.
49
The colophon of a manuscript of al-Zawr (MS Sipahslr 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-Zawr. See Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, al-Zawr ,
Sab Rasil, p. 184, fn. 3.
introduction 9

He then spent some time at the Muzaffariyya madrasa in Tabriz and


there completed on 11 Sawwl 872/4 May 1468 his commentary on
Suhrawards Haykil al-nr, entitled Shawkil al-h r f sharh Haykil
al-nr.50 The commentary is dedicated to Mah md Khwja Jahn
(d. 886/14812), the Persian vizier of the Bahmanid king, Shams al-Dn
Muh ammad Shh III (r. 867/1463887/1482).51 In this commentary
Dawn demonstrates his comprehensive knowledge of Suhrawards
works, as well as those of Suhrawards earliest commentators, namely
Ibn Kammna (d. 683/1284), Shams al-Dn al-Shahrazr (d. after
687/1288) and Qutb al-Dn al-Shrz. Dawn was still in Tabriz the
following year when the Timurid Ab Sad was defeated by Uzun H asan
and was finally killed on 22 Rajab 873/6 February 1469, an event for
which Dawn hastened to express his sorrow.52
Some years after these civil wars, Dawn settled in Shiraz and started
a long-term teaching post in the Biygum madrasa (known later as Dr
al-Aytm).53 Gradually he established relations with the Aqquyunlu
rulers. Among them, he seems to have been most closely connected
to Uzun H asans son, Khall (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). Dawn dedicated his ethical
work, entitled Lawmi al-ishrq f makrim al-akhlq (known also as

50
Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, Shawkil al-hr f sharh Haykil al-nr, Thalth rasil,
ed. Sayyid Ahmad Tysirkn, Mashhad 1411/1991, pp. 100261.
51
See Dawn, Shawkil al-hr f sharh Haykil al-nr, p. 109; for more infor-
mation on Mahmd Khwja Jahn (known also as Mahmd Gwn) (d. 886/14812),
see Tj al-Dn Nsh bd, Mahmd Gwn, Dnishnma-yi adab-i Frs: Adab-i
Frs dar shibha qrrah (Hind, Pkistn, Bangildish), ed. H asan Anshah, Tehran
1380/2001, pp. 23069. The extent of Dawns contact with Mahmd Khwja Jahn
is not clear. Apart from Shawkil al-h r, Dawns Risla Ithbt al-wjib al-qadma
is also dedicated to Mah md Khwja Jahn. See below, p. 11, fn. 65. According to
Nr Allh al-Shshtar, this work once has been dedicated to an Indian authority
and another time to an Iranian one (vol. 2, 22526). The Iranian authority to whom
Dawn dedicated the work seems to have been Timurid Ab Sad (d. 873/1496); cf.
the description of MS Ridaw 866 in Fihrist-i Kitbkhna-yi stn-i Quds-i Ridaw 4,
Mashhad 1325/1947, pp. 1978.
52
Dawn wrote a poem in which he presented the date of his Ab Sads death
according to the abjad system. See Sm Mrz Safaw, Tadhkira-yi Tuhfa-yi Sm, ed.
Rukn al-Dn Humyn Farrukh, Tehran 1384/2005, p. 77.
53
Muslih al-Dn al-Lr in his Mirt al-adwr mentioned the name of the madrasa
in which Dawn had been teaching. See Muslih al-Dn Muhammad al-Lr, Mirt
al-adwr wa-mirqt al-akhbr. Fasl- dar sharh-i hl-i buzurgn-i Khursn u Mwar
al-nahr u Frs, ed. rif Nawshh, Marif, 13 iii (1997), pp. 91113, esp. p. 104;
Rml, Ah san al-tawrkh, p. 98.
10 introduction

Akhlq-i Jall), written around 879/1474,54 to Uzun H asan and his son
Khall.55 As the title of this work suggests the author sought to apply
the Illuminationist (ishrq) approach to the realm of ethics. However,
more evident in the text are frequent allusions to the Qurn and the
sunna of the Prophet, as well as the utterances of Muslim shaykhs and
philosophers.56
In the month of Mizn (Jumd II-Rajab) 881/September-October
1476, Dawn wrote down an eyewitness account of the review of
Khalls provincial army of Fars.57 In the introduction to this work, as
well as in the introduction to his Lawmi al-ishrq, Dawn refers to
the promise in the Qurn (30:24) of a victory at Rm in bid sinn
(literally, in a few years), and by taking the word bid according to
the abjad system to represent the year 872[/1467], he interprets this
Qurnic promise as an allusion to the victory of Uzun H asan in that
year.58
In 882/1477 or early 883/1478, Dawn dedicated to Khall another
of his works, namely his first set of glosses on Al al-Dn al-Qshchs
(d. 879/1474) commentary on Nasr al-Dn T ss Tajrd al-itiqd. By

54
At the end of this work there is a reference to a civil war in Shiraz, which corre-
sponds to the events in this year. See Pourjavady, Kitb-shins-i thr-i Jall al-Dn-i
Dawn, p. 95; John E. Woods, The Aqquyunlu Clan: Clan, Confederation, Empire.
Revised and Expanded Edition, Salt Lake City 1999, p. 105.
55
See Jll al-Dn al-Dawn, Akhlq-i Jall, Lithograph Edition, Lucknow
1377/1956, pp. 317; Woods, The Aqquyunlu Clan, pp. 37, 101, 1158.
56
In the introduction to this work Dawn clarifies his intention by stating: pas
mimr-i tab-i n naqsh bar lawh -i khiyl kashd ki tadwn rawad ki b nki bar usl-i
h ikmat-i amal mushtamil bshad, dar shawhid u dalil iqtibsi az anwr yt-i
Qurn u mishkt-i ah dth h adrat khatmt manqabat wa- masbh sukhann sah bi
u tbin u mashikh u aimma-yi dn u lamat ishrt astn h ukam-i ilhiyyn
rawad. See Dawn, Akhlq-i Jall, 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 Kitb-shins-i thr-i Jall al-Dn-i Dawn, pp. 957). 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. 21024;
Majid Fakhry, Ethical Theories in Islam, Leiden 1994, pp. 1436; Sayyid Jawd T abtab,
Zawl-i andsha-yi sys dar rn, Tehran 1373/1994, pp. 231253; Reza Pourjavady,
Bahth-i Msq dar kitb-i Akhlq-i Jall, Marif, 13 iii (1375/19967), pp. 3043;
Harun Anay, Celleddin Devvn Hayati. Eserleri. Ahlk ve siyaset.
57
This work, entitled Ardnma, has been edited by Iraj Afshr (Ard-i siph-i Uzn
H asan, Majalla-yi Dnishkada-yi Adabiyt-i Dnishgh-i Tihrn, 3 iii (1335/1956),
pp. 2666). Cf. Reza Pourjavady, Kitb-shins-i thr-i Jall al-Dn-i Dawn, pp.
1289.
58
See Dawn, Akhlq-i Jall, pp. 910.
introduction 11

that time Khall had already succeeded his father as ruler following the
latters death in 882/1477.59
When, following Khalls premature death in Jumd I 883/August
1478, Uzun H asans other son, Yaqb, took power (r. 883/1478
896/1490), Dawn was appointed as chief judge (aqd al-qudt) of the
province of Frs.60 He also accepted the sultans invitation to his court
and travelled together with one of his students, Mr H usayn al-Maybud
(d. 909/15034), to Tabriz.61 Later on, however, his relations with the
sultan deteriorated, as Dawn opposed the sultans centralization policy
during the last years of his reign.62
Most of the works that Dawn wrote during Yaqbs reign are
dedicated to authorities outside Iran.63 A close friend of the young
Ottoman Sultan Byazd II (r. 886/1481918/1512), Muayyadzde
Abd al-Rah mn Efendi (d. 922/1516), came in 884/1479 to Shiraz,
where he studied with Jall al-Dn al-Dawn until 888/1483.64 With
Muayyadzde as a student, Dawn established a connection with
Byazd II. At least three of his writings are therefore dedicated to
the Ottoman ruler, namely his Sharh al-Rubiyyt, his Rislat Ithbt
al-wjib al-qadma,65 and his second set of glosses (al-H shiya al-jadda)

59
The khutba of Dawn to this work, containing his dedication to Sultn Khall, is
extant in MS Gawharshd 851 (Cat., vol. 3, p. 1155).
60
See Muslih al-Dn Muh ammad al-Lr, Mirt al-adwr wa mirqt al-akhbr:
fasl dar . . ., p. 104; Nur Allh al-Shushtar, Majlis al-muminn, Tehran 1334/1955,
vol. 2, p. 221.
61
See Nur Allh al-Shushtar, Majlis al-muminn, vol. 2, pp. 2212.
62
Central policies of Sultan Yaqb 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, Davn, p. 132.
63
To our knowledge none of Dawns significant works are dedicated primarily to
Sultan Yaqb. However, it is said that his H shiya qadma al sharh jadd li-Tajrd
is dedicated also to Sultn Yaqb (after being dedicated to Sult n Khall). The same
work is dedicated later to Byazd II. See Al Sadry Khy, Kitb-shins-i Tajrd
al-itiqd, Qm1424/2003, p. 65.
64
He received an ijza from Dawn on 11 Jumd I 888/17 June 1483. See Dawns
ijza to Muayyadzde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 47a; Muslih al-Dn Muh ammad
al-Lr, Mirt al-adwr wa-mirqt al-akhbr . . ., p. 104; Harun Anay, Devani, pp.
257, 261.
65
According to the colophon of MS Ragp 1457 (ff. 176b90a), f. 190a, this work
is dedicated to Byazd II in 894/1489. However, it seems to have been written years
earlier as in some manuscripts it is dedicated to Mahmd Khwja Jahn. See Tysirkns
introduction to Sab rasil, pp. 413. Tysirkn, however, thought that the work
apart from Mahmd Khwja Jahn is dedicated to Sult n Muhammad Ftih (instead
of his son Byazid II). Surprisingly, in his editing of this work he omitted either of
12 introduction

on Qshchs commentary on T ss Tajrd al-itiqad.66 In acknowl-


edgment for having written Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-qadma, Dawn
received from Byazd II a letter together with five hundred filori (gold
coins).67 As an expression of his appreciation of the Sultans generosity,
Dawn composed in turn a Mathnaw in his praise.68
Dawn also enjoyed the patronage of some authorities in India.
Unmdhaj al-ulm and Tah qq-i adlat (or Risla dar bayn mhiyyat-i
adlat u ah km-i n)69 are dedicated to Sultan Mahmd I of Gujarat
(r. 863/1458917/1511), who subsequently awarded him the sum of one
thousand dirhams.70 In the opening section of his Unmdhaj al-ulm,
Dawn first praises Sultan Mahmd I and then introduces himself by
mentioning his teachers. In order to demonstrate his comprehensive
knowledge, Dawn discusses in this work ten issues relating to ten
different subjects, namely the methodological principles of h adth and
of fiqh (usl al-h adth wa-l-fiqh), fiqh, a controversial issue [of fiqh]
(bad al-khilfiyt), theology (usl al-dn), medicine (tibb), exegesis

these two dedicating notes, because he believed they do not have any scientific and
historical relevance.
66
The works of Dawn were enormously popular in Istanbul, particularly during
the late 9th/15th and early 10th/16th century. Apart from his student Muayyadzde
Abd al-Rahmn Efendi, Kaml Pshzde (d. 940/1533) evidently showed interest in
the works of Dawn. Kaml Pshzde wrote a commentary on Dawns Rislat Ithbt
al-wjib al-qadma. See Sayyid H usayn Sayyid Bghjawn, Ibn Kaml Bsh wa-ruhu
al-itiqdiyya, Phd Dissertation, Umm Al-Qura University, Mecca 1414/1993, p. 194.
The popularity of Dawns 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. nalcik in The Encyclopaedia of Islam.
New Edition, vol. 2, pp. 9145.
68
The letter sent by the Ottoman Sultan Byazd II to Dawn, together with the
Mathnaw that Dawn wrote, are edited by Abd al-H usayn Nawy in Asnd u
muktabt-i trkh-yi rn az tmr t shh Isml, Tehran 1341/1962, pp. 44855.
69
Dawn wrote two Persian treatises on the notion of justice: Risla-yi adlat (ed.
Najb Myil Hiraw, Majm-yi rasil-i khatt -yi frs, vol. 1, Mashhad 1368/198990,
p. 6072) and Tah qq-i adlat (ed. Najb Myil Hiraw), Mishkt, vols. 1819
(1368/198990), pp. 3547. The latter is dedicated to Sultan Mahmd I of Gujarat.
70
Nr Allh Shshtar explains that Dawns Unmdhaj al-ulm was given to Sult n
Mahmd I of Gujarat by Dawns student, Shams al-Dn Muhammad al-Jurjn. The
Sultan sent back to Dawn one thousand dirham, but nothing of that award reached
Dawn as the ship in which the money was conveyed sank. Dawn then dedicated
his Risla dar bayn mhiyyat-i adlat u ah km-i n to the Sultan and in its intro-
duction implied that he did not receive the first award. Again the Sultan sent Dawn
the same amount along with some other presents. See Shshtar, Majlis al-muminn,
vol. 2, p. 226. Shshtars narration corresponds with the introduction of Dawn to
his Tah qq-i adlat (ed. Najb Myil Hiraw, Mishkt, vols. 1819 (1368/198990), pp.
3547), where praising the sultan, the author says kaf-i dary nawlash iqtid-i thr-i
mathir shar-i ilw farmda (p. 39).
introduction 13

(tafsr), geometry (handasa), astronomy (haya), logic and arithmetic.


Dawns Nubadh min kalm f tarf ilm al-kalm, which was com-
pleted in 893/1488,71 is also dedicated to a certain Indian authority,
Mr Muhibb Allh.72
Because of the gifts bestowed upon him by these patrons Dawn
gradually became rich. However, this wealth was short-lived, as
Qsim-Bay Purnk, the Aqquyunlu ruler of Shiraz in 903/149899,
confiscated most of his possessions.73 Shortly afterwards, Dawn left
Shiraz and spent the following years in various small cities to the south
of Shiraz. According to some biographical sources, Dawn intended
to go to India, as he had received an invitation from Nizm al-Dn
Shah Sind (r. 866/1461914/1508).74 Two of Dawns students, Mr
Shams al-Dn Muh ammad al-Jurjn, who was the great-grandson
of al- Sharf al-Jurjn, and a certain Mr Mun al-Dn, were pres-
ent at Nizm al-Dns court.75 It was perhaps with this intention that
he went to Jirn (an island in the Persian Gulf nowadays known as
Hormuz).76 There, he completed his commentary on Adud al-Dn
al-js al-Aqid al-Adudiyya in the year 905/14991500, which he
presumably composed for Salghur Shah (r. 880/1475910/1505), the
king of that region.77 In that same year, he wrote his short treatise on
Srat al-Kfirn in Jirn or an island near to it.78 Dawn also spent
some time in Lr, 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 Ragp 1457, ff. 20914, esp. f. 214.
72
Nr Allh Shshtar identifies Mr Muhibb Allh as the grandson of a certain
Amr Nam al-Dn Nimat Allh al-Md. See Shshtar, Majlis al-muminn, vol. 2,
pp. 2267.
73
See Rml, Ah san al-tawrikh, p. 99.
74
On Nizm al-Dn Shh see H usayn Barzigar Kashtl, Nizm al-Dn Shh-i Sind,
Dnishnma-yi adab-i Frs [4]. Adab-i Frs dar shibha qrrah (Hind, Pkistn,
Bangldish), ed. H asan Anshah, Tehran 1380/2001, vol. 3, pp. 25613.
75
It is said that his intention was to go to the court of Nizm al-Dn Shh-i Sind.
A possible motivation may have been that the two students named above were pres-
ent at Nizm al-Dn Shh Sinds court, See Barzigar, Nizm al-Dn Shh-i Sind,
pp. 25613.
76
Jirn at the time was the capital of the kingdom of Hormuz. On Jirn and the
kingdom of Hormuz, see William Floor, The Persian Gulf. A Political and Economic
History of Five Port Cities 15001730, Washington 2006, pp. 791.
77
Jall al-Dn Muhmmad al-Dawn, Sharh al-Aqid al-Adudiyya, Lithograph
Edition, ed. Ilys Mrz al-Brghn al-Qarm, St. Petersburg 1313/1895, pp. 56.
On Salghur Shh, see Floor, The Persian Gulf, p. 89.
78
In its introduction, he refers to the location where he authored the work as fol-
lows: allaqtuh f bad jazir Jirn. See Dawn, Tafsr Srat al-Kfirn, Thalth
rasil, p. 43.
14 introduction

Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda79 as well as his Diwn-i Mazlim. The


latter work, written in Persian, deals with the temporary courts of the
kings, the so-called Diwn-i Mazlim, and is based on Chapter Seven
( f wilyat al-mazlim) of Ab al-H asan al-Mwards (d. 448/1058)
al-Ah km al-Sultniyya.80
Dawn is reported to have rejected Safavid Shh Ismls
(r. 907/1501930/1524) messianic claims.81 Nonetheless, it was presum-
ably when Shah Isml was advancing towards Fars that Dawn wrote
his Nr al-hidya, in which he diluted his Sunni beliefs, hoping to be
tolerated by the Sh qizilbsh.82 On 9 Rab II 908/11 October 1502,
one year before Frs was captured by Shah Isml in 909/1504, Dawn
died and was buried in his home village, Dawn.83
Dawn wrote numerous works in various fields, namely logic, phi-
losophy, theology, ethics, exegesis, legal methodology (usl al-fiqh), law,
prophetic tradition (h adth), 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
Nasr al-Dn T s and Qutb al-Dn al-Rz on Ibn Sns al-Ishrt
wa-l-tanbht;84 (ii) Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq together with Qutb
al-Dn al-Shrzs commentary on the text;85 (iii) his own commentary

79
Shshtar, Majlis al-muminn, vol. 2, p. 225.
80
Jall al-Dn Dawn, Dwn-i Mazlim, ed. H usayn Mudarris T abtab,
Farhang-i rn zamn, 27 (Tehran 1366), pp. 98118.
81
Muhammad Bqir al-Msaw al-Khwnsr, Rawdt al-jannt, Qum 1390/1970,
vol. 7, pp. 1945, vol. 8, p. 71; Newman, Davni, p. 133.
82
See above, p. 5, fn. 24. For Dawns position in this work concerning the suc-
cessors of the Prophet, see Pourjavady, Kitb-shins-i thr-i Jall al-Dn-i Dawn,
p. 116. It is noteworthy here that a refutation of Shsm, entitled al-H ujaj al-bhira,
is attributed to Dawn. See Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, al-H ujaj al-bhira, ed. Abd Allh
H jj Al Munb, 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 differ-
ent from those of Dawn in his known authentic works, there is no textual evidence
supporting this attribution.
83
See Shshtar, Majlis al-muminn, vol. 2, p. 225; Rml, Ah san al-tawrikh,
p. 99.
84
Dawn taught a large section from the beginning of the T abiiyyt part of Ishrt
together with the commentaries of Nasr al-Dn al-T s and Qutb al-Dn al-Rz to
Muayyadzde. See his ijza to Muayyadzde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 46b.
85
Dawn mentioned that he was teaching this commentary in his ijza to Kaml
al-Dn H usayn al-Ilh, al-Ardabl. This ijza is quoted by al-Afand al-Isbahn in
Riyd al-ulam, Qum 1401/1981, vol. 2, pp. 1034.
introduction 15

on Haykil al-nr, entitled Shawkil al-h r f Sharh haykil al-nr;86


(iv) al-Sharf al-Jurjns commentary on the Mawqif of Adud al-Dn
al-Ij;87 (v) Qshchs commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd
al-itiqd together with his own glosses (H shiya qadma and presum-
ably his H shiya jadda) on it;88 (vi) Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tah rr Iqldis;89
(vii) Qdzde Rms (d. c. 844/1440) commentary on Mah md b.
Muh ammad Chaghmns (d. 745/1344) al-Mulakhkhas f l-haya;90
(viii) Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on Najm al-Dn al-Ktibs
al-Shamsiyya, together with Sharf Jurjns glosses on it.91
The following men are known to have been students of Dawn: Mr
H usayn al-Maybud;92 Kaml al-Dn al-Lr (d. after 918/1512);93 Isml
Shanb Ghzn (d. 920/15134);94 Muzaffar al-Dn Al al-Shrz
(d. 922/1516); 95 Jall al-Dn al-Astarbd (d. 931/152425); 96

86
See Dawns ijza to Kaml al-Dn H usayn Ilh Ardabl in Riyd al-ulam,
vol. 2, pp. 1034.
87
Dawn taught this commentary from the beginning up to the discussion on
existence (wujd) to Muayyadzde. See his ijza to Muayyadzde, MS Esad Efendi
3733, f. 46b.
88
In his introduction to his H shiya al-jadda, Dawn implies that he was teaching
his previous glosses, see below, pp. 7980.
89
Dawn taught the first nine maqlt of this commentary to Muayyadzde. See
his ijza to Muayyadzde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 46b. He also wrote glosses on the
Tah rr Iqldus. See Al Dawn, Sharh -i zindign-yi Mawln Jall al-Dn Dawn,
Qum 1335/1956, p. 167.
90
Dawn taught this commentary to Muayyadzde. See Dawns ijza to
Muayyadzde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, f. 46b. Dawn also wrote glosses on this commen-
tary. See Pourjavady, Kitb-shins-yi thr-i Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, pp. 1234.
91
In his introduction to the glosses on H awsh Mr Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjn al
sharh al-Shamsiyya, Dawn indicates that he was teaching these glosses. See Jall al-Dn
al-Dawn, H shiya al H awsh Mr Sayyid Sharf al-Jurjn al sharh al-Shamsiyya,
Shurh al-Shamsiyya, stna 1309/189192, (pp. 25686), p. 256.
92
See below, pp. 327.
93
See below, p. 76.
94
See Rml, Ah san al-tawrkh, p. 186.
95
Muzaffar al-Dn Al al-Shrz is said to be a son-in-law of Dawn. He taught
instead of Dawn during the latters lengthy illness. Muzaffar al-Dn later went to Istan-
bul and with the help of Muayyadzde started teaching there. Later in his life he went
blind and received sixty dirhams retirement pay from Sultan Salm. See Tshkuprzde
(Tkprzde), E-aqiq En-Nomnijje, mit Zusaetzen, Verbesserungen und Anmer-
kungen aus dem Arabischen uebersetzt von O. Rescher, Konstantinopel Galata 1927,
p. 215; Muhammad Taq Mr, Buzurgn-i nm-yi prs, Shiraz 1368/1989, vol. 2, pp.
6701; Alexandra Whelan Dunietz, Qd H usayn Maybud of Yazad: Representative of
the Iranian Provincial Elite in the Late Fifteenth Century, PhD dissertation, University
of Chicago, Chicago 1990, pp. 5960.
96
After studying with Dawn, Jall al-Dn al-Astarbd went to Herat and studied
with a certain Shaykh H usayn. Astarbd was appointed as sadr by Shah Isml in
920/1514 and kept this position during the rest the Shahs reign and even the first
year of his successors, Shah T ahmsb, until he died. See Ahmad Qumm, Khulsat
16 introduction

Muayyadzde Abd al-Rah mn Efendi;97 Shams al-Dn Muh ammad


al-Khafr;98 Aff al-Dn Abd al-Rah mn al-Safaw;99 Kaml al-Dn
H usayn al-Ilh al-Ardabl (d. 950/1543);100 Muhy al-Dn al-Lr (d.
927/1521);101 Jaml al-Dn Mahmd al-Shrz (962/155455);102 and
H akm Shh Muhammad b. Mubrak al-Qazwn (d. 966/1559).103
Dawn conducted several written and oral disputes with his con-
temporary, Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak. These exchanges stretched over
a period of more than two decades and, as will be discussed later,104
significantly influenced his thought.

III. Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak105

Sayyid Muhammad b. Mansr al-H usayn al-Dashtak al-Shrz was


born on 2 Shabn 828/19 June 1425 in Shiraz.106 He belonged to a

al-tawrkh, ed. Ih sn Ishrq, Tehran 1359/19801, vol. 1, pp. 156, 160; Rml,
Ah san al-tawrkh, p. 248. He authored among other works glosses on Dawns
al-H shiya al-qadma al sharh Qshj li-l-Tajrd. See Al Sadry Khy, Kitb-
shins-i Tajrd al-itiqd, pp. 756. Rml also attributed to him a commentary on
H ills Tahdhb al-usl. See Ah san al-tawrkh, p. 248.
97
See Dawns Ijza to Muayyadzde, MS Esad Efendi 3733, ff. 41b7a.
98
See below, pp. 3740.
99
According to gh Buzurg al-T ihrn, Aff al-Dn al-Safaw received an ijza
from Dawn in 893/1488. See T abaqt, vol. 4, pp. 134.
100
See below, pp. 414.
101
See Dawn, Sab rasil, (introduction), p. 27; Qumm, Khulsat al-tawrkh,
vol. 1, p. 149.
102
See below, p. 51, fn. 33.
103
H akm Shh 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 Byazds court in Istanbul on Muayyadzdes recommendation.
He wrote a work on tafsr, glosses on Dawns Sharh Aqid al-adudiyya, and a com-
mentary on Jaml al-Dn Ibn H jibs Kfiyya (dealing with grammar). Tshkprzde,
E-aqiq En-Nomnijje, p. 216. Whelan Dunietz, Qd H usayn Maybud of Yazad,
p. 60; Dawn, Sab rasil, (introduction), pp. 278.
104
See below, pp. 74105 (Chapter Two).
105
On Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, see Dashtak, Kashf al-haqiq al-Muhammadiyya,
Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr-i H usayn-i Dashtak-i Shrz, vol. 2, pp. 735988;
Abd Allh Shakb, Barras-yi thr u afkr-i falsaf-i Mr Sadr al-Dn-i Dashtak, PhD
Dissertation, University of Tehran, Tehran 1355/1976; Kky, Ashny b maktab-i
Shrz: Mr Sadr al-Dn Dashtak, pp. 829; Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr al-Dashtak,
Tuh fat al-fat f tafsr srat hal at, ed. Parwn Bahrzda, Tehran 1381/2002, pp.
3450 (introduction); Muhammad Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz,
Shiraz 1383/2004, pp. 1732.
106
See Dashtak, Kashf al-h aqiq al-Muh ammadiyya, Musannaft-i Ghiyth
al-Dn, vol. 2, p. 982.
introduction 17

prominent Zayd family that had been living in Shiraz since the 5th/11th
century.107 Dashtak learned Arabic and studied Islamic law with his
cousin, Majd al-Dn H abb Allh al-Dashtak, and he studied h adth
literature with his father Sayyid Mansr and with another cousin of his,
Sayyid Nizm al-Dn Ahmad al-Dashtak.108 Sadr al-Dns son, Ghyth
al-Dn, presents his fathers chain of transmission of h adith as follows:
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak his father, Sadr al-Shar Mansr & his
cousin, Nizm al-Dn Ah mad b. Ish q b. Ibrhm b. Muh ammad
Sadr al-Shar Mansrs father Muh ammad his father Ibrhim
his father Muh ammad his father Ish q his father Al his
father Arabshh his father Amrn his father Amr his father
al-H asan his father al-H usayn al-Shir al-Arr his father his
father Al al-Nasb (or Nasnn) al-Shir his father Zayd al-Asam
his father Muhammad his father Al his father Jafar his father
Ahmad al-Sakkn his father Muhammad al-Sayyid his father Zayd
al-Shahd al-h arq (d. 122/740) his father al-Imam Zayn al-bidn Al
(d. 94/71213) his father al-Imam al-H usayn (d. 61/680) his father
Al b. Ab T lib Prophet Muhammad.109
As for the rational sciences, he studied with Qawm al-Dn al-Kurbl,110
who was a student of Sharf Jurjn. It was Kurbl who introduced
Dashtak to contemporary theological and philosophical discussions,
and, in particular, to the writings of Jurjn.111 However, according to
his son, Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr, his main teacher in logic and philoso-
phy was a certain Sayyid Muslim al-Frs, with whom Dashtak read

107
According to Kky the first member of the family who moved to Shiraz was
Ab Sad Al al-Nasb (fl. ca. 400/1010). See Kky, Ashny b maktab-i Shrz:
Mr Sadr al-Dn Dashtak, p. 83.
108
See Dashtak, Kashf al-h aqiq al-Muh ammadiyya, Musannaft-i Ghiyth
al-Dn, vol. 2, pp. 9823.
109
Khwnsr quoted this isnd from an unspecified work by Sadr al-Dn Muhammad
b. Ghiyth al-Dn. See Muhammad Bqir al-Msaw al-Khwnsr, Rawdt al-jannt,
vol. 7, pp. 2412. This isnd is also mentioned by Sadr al-Dns grandson, known as
Sadr al-Dn II, in his ijza to one of his students. Prior to Khwnsr this ijza is quoted
by Majlis in his Bih r al-anwr (Beirut 1412/1992, vol. 105, pp. 803).
110
See Dashtak, Kashf al-haqiq al-Muhammadiyya, Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn,
p. 983. On Kurbl, see above, p. 3, fn. 16.
111
Ghiyth al-Dn does not consider his father as Kurbls student, but rather as
a colleague with whom he had some discussions and debates. See Dashtak, Kashf
al-h aqiq al-Muh ammadiyya, MS Majlis-i Sin 32, ff. 113b4a In the edition of this
text in Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn (vol. 2, p. 983), Kurbls name appears wrongly
as Kirmn. However, Sadr al-Dn was too young at that time to be considered as
Kurbls colleague.
18 introduction

al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht of Ibn Sn.112 Ghiyth al-Dn thus further


links his fathers chain of transmission of philosophy through Sayyid
Muslim al-Frs to Ibn Sn:
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak Sayyid Muslim al-Frs his father [ano-
nymous] his father [anonymous] Nizm al-Dn al-Nshbr
(d. c. 729/1329) Qutb al-Dn al-Shrz Nasr al-Dn al-T s
Fard al-Dn al-Dmd Sayyid Sadr al-Dn al-Sarakhs Afdal al-Dn
al-Ghln Abu l-Abbs al-Lawkar Bahmanyr (d. 458/1066)
Ibn Sn.113
Dashtaks main occupation according to his son was farming, building
houses and reactivating qanawt (underground water channels).114 In
883/147879, which seems to have been a turning point in his life, he
built a madrasa, which he named Mansriyya after his then seventeen-
year-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, Dashtak wrote his Gawhar-nma
(or Jawhir-nma) on gemmology at the request of Uzun H asans son
Khall, who was at the time the provincial ruler of Shiraz.116 During the
880s/147585, Dashtak gradually established himself as a philosopher
by teaching and writing. He wrote glosses on Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs
commentary on Najm al-Dn al-Ktibs al-Shamsiyya, glosses on
Qut b al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on Sirj al-Dn al-Urmaws Matli
al-anwr, and his first glosses on Qshchs commentary on Tajrd
al-itiqd, which became known later on as al-H shiya al-qadma. An
indication of the fame that Dashtak had earned as a philosopher was
the edict ( farmn) issued on 8 Dhu al-Qada 893/13 October 1488 by
Sultn Yaqb, in which Sadr al-Dn is referred to as qudwat al-h ukam
al-mutaallihn bi-l-istih qq. The mandate states that the endowment
(waqf ) income of the Mansriyya madrasa, which appears to have

112
See Dashtak, Kashf al-h aqiq al-Muh ammadiyya, Musannaft-i Ghiyth
al-Dn, vol. 2, p. 983.
113
Dashtak, Kashf al-haqiq al-Muhammadiyya, Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn,
vol. 2, p. 983.
114
Dashtak, Kashf al-haqiq al-Muhammadiyya, Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn,
vol. 2, pp. 9845.
115
Ibid., f. 113a. Cf. Fursat al-Dawla Shrz, thr al-ajam, 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 Kky, Ashny b maktab-i Shrz: Mr
Sadr al-Dn Dashtak, p. 83.
116
Edited by Manchihr Sutdah, Farhang-i rn-zamn, 4 (1335/1956), pp.
185302.
introduction 19

been considerable, should be exempted from tax and that Sadr al-Dn
should be free to use it for whatever purpose he chose.117
Despite the support he received from Sultn Yaqb, Dashtak dedi-
cated his most significant writings to the Ottoman Sultan Byazd II.
While still a prince, the latter wrote to Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, rec-
ommending his friend Muayyadzde to him as a student.118 However,
during his subsequent stay in Shiraz, Muayyadzde studied primarily
with Dawn, though he also had a period of study with Sadr al-Dn
al-Dashtak. Two years after Byazd II took power in 886/1481,
Muayyadzde returned to Istanbul. Dashtak dedicated his first set of
glosses on Qshchs commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd (completed by
888/1483) to Byazd II and asked Muayyadzde 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

Dashtak dedicated his last work, Risla f Ithbt al-wjib wa-siftih,


which he completed in Muharram 903/August-September 1497, to the
Aqquyunlu Sultan Ahmad Gwde b. Ughurlu Muhammad (d. Rab II
903/December 1497). The provincial ruler of Shiraz, Qsim-Bay Purnk,
who revolted against Sultan Ahmad, abolished the tax exemption origi-
nally accorded to the endowment income of the Mansuriyya madrasa,
and this caused Sadr al-Dn a severe financial loss.121 Between Rab II
903/December 1497 and Ramadn 903/ May 1498, Sadr al-Dn led an
uprising against Qsim Bey in Shiraz. The latter did not tolerate this
action and on his order a group of Turkemans killed Sadr al-Dn on
17 Ramadn 903/9 May 1498.122

117
See H jj Mrz H asan Fasy, Frs-nma-yi Nsir, ed. Mansr Rastigr Fasy,
Tehran 1367/1988, pp. 3514; Kky, Ashny b maktab-i Shrz: Mr Sadr al-Dn
Dashtak, p. 84.
118
Muslih al-Dn Muhammad al-Lr, Mirt al-adwr wa-mirqt al-akhbr . . .,
p. 104.
119
See Muslih al-Dn Muhammad al-Lr, Mirt al-adwr wa mirqt al-akhbr . . .,
p. 104; See Al Sadry Khy, Kitb-shins-i Tajrd al-itiqd, p. 85.
120
See H shiya al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Ftih 3025, f. 2a.
121
Rml, Ah san al-tawrkh, p. 28.
122
Dashtak, Kashf al-haqiq al-Muhammadiyya, Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn,
vol. 2, p. 985; in MS Majlis-i Sin 32, which contains this work and was copied by
the authors son, Sadr al-Dn II, the date of death is recorded as 12 Ramadn 903 and
corrected in the margin as 17 Ramadn 903 (f. 115a). The former date is mentioned
by other bibliographical sources, such as Fasys Frs-nma-yi Nsir (p. 359) and
Rmls Ah san al-tawrkh (p. 33).
20 introduction

Sadr al-Dns son Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr wrote a commentary on


his fathers last work, Ithbt al-wjib, which he entitled Kashf al-h aqiq
al-Muh ammadiyya (Revealing the true words of Muhammad [i.e., his
father]).123 At the end of this work, Ghiyth al-Dn explains some of
his fathers characteristic theological and philosophical views and gives
a brief account of his life. As a record written by his own son, Ghiyth
al-Dns account is the most accurate source of information about Sadr
al-Dns 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 Sadr al-Dn Dashtaks family, gen-
eration after generation, used to practice taqiyya for their Zayd beliefs,
even to the extent of teaching the h adth literature produced by Sunn
scholars. Sadr al-Dn was, according to this account, the first member
of the family to have been open about his Shite beliefs. The reason for
this is said to have been a dream Sadr al-Dn had, in which the Prophet
pointed out the falsehood of Sunn h adith literature.125 There is, however,
no corroboration of this story in the account given by Ghiyth al-Dn,
who remained silent about his fathers religious affiliation. Whilst his
ancestors had been Zayds, and a possible Shite 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 H asan in the introduction to his Gawhar-nma as the renewer
(mujaddid) of the practices of the H anaf religion and faith, the reviver
(muh y) of the achievements of the Abbasid state, the promised one of
the ninth century (mawd al-mia tisa).126 The Sunn connotations of
this statement are too strong to be explained as taqiyya. If he did have
some Sh tendencies, he must have concealed them to the extent that
even his colleague, Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, was unaware of them. The
latter even criticizes Sadr al-Dn for having regarded Ab Bakr more
highly than Al.127

123
This work is completed in Muh arram 947/May-June 1540. See below, pp.
289.
124
See Dashtaks prologue of Kashf al-haqiq al-Muhammadiyya, Musannaft-i
Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 2, pp. 9808.
125
See Shshtar, 2/229; Khwnsr, Rawdt al-Jannt, vol. 5, p. 189; Kky, shny
b maktab-i Shrz: Mr Sadr al-Dn Dashtak, p. 83.
126
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, Gawhar-nma (or Jawhirnma), ed. Manchihr
Sutdah, Farhang-i rn-zamn 4 (1335/1956), p. 186; cf. Woods, The Aqquyunlu
Clan, p.105.
127
See Dawn, H shiya al Sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1999, f. 5b; cf.
Shshtar, Majlis al-muminn, vol. 2, p. 223.
introduction 21

During his later life, Sadr al-Dn often consulted with his son, Ghiyth
al-Dn Mansr, on philosophical issues. Evidence for this is given in
the introduction to his second set of glosses on Qshchs commentary
on T ss Tajrd al-itiqd (al-H shiya al-jadda), where he explicitly
mentions that some achievements (nubadhan min tawfqt) of his
son Mansr are included in the work.128 Moreover, Ghiyth al-Dn
explains in his Kashf al-h aqiq al-Muh ammadiyya that his father
believed that human souls are free from matter, although his discussion
of that issue in his al-H shiya al-jadda al sharh al-Tajrd may be
understood to point to the contrary this, at least, is what one of the
people (a reference to Dawn) understood from it. The explanation
that Ghiyth al-Dn puts forward for the shortcomings of his fathers
discussion regarding this issue is the fact that he, Ghiyth al-Dn, was
in Azerbaijan (presumably Tabriz) and not with his father while the
latter was writing this section of the H shiya.129 This seems to imply
that, with the exception of the time when he was in Azerbaijan, Ghiyth
al-Dn used to be consulted by his father, whenever the latter composed
the glosses (and possibly other writings).
According to his son, Sadr al-Dn composed fourteen works, for ten
of which Ghiyth al-Dn gives the title:130

1) Glosses on Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commentary and Sharf Jurjns


glosses on the Risla al-Shamsiyya of Najm al-Dn al-Ktib;131
2) Glosses on Qut b al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on the Mat li
al-anwr of Sirj al-Dn al-Urmaw. This work in fact consists of
two sets of glosses, the second one having been written in reply to
Dawns criticism on his first glosses;132

128
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtaks H shiya al Sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Ftih 3025,
f. 1b.
129
Ghyth al-Dn writes: wa-bi-l-jumla kna f tajarrud al-nafs muwfiqan
li-jumhr al-h ukam, ill annah inda ghaybat an khidmatih fi al-zamn alladh
kuntu f bild dharbyjn kataba f h awshhi al al-tajrd kalman fahama minh
bad al-ns annah yunkir al-tajarrud wa-l-baq. See Dashtak, Kashf al-h aqiq
al-Muhammadiyya, Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 2, p. 984.
130
See Dashtak, Kashf al-h aqiq al-Muh ammadiyya, Musannaft-i Ghiyth
al-Dn, 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, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i
falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 245.
22 introduction

3) Risla f tah qq al-h urf, which, according to Ghiyth al-Dn, was


lost;
4) Risla f l-fayyd, which, according to Nr Allh Shshtar, discusses
the notion of fayyd (overflowing) used as an attribute for God
at the beginning of Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on Sirj
al-Dn al-Urmaws Matli al-anwr;133
5) a treatise on the liar paradox, entitled Risla f h all al-mughlata
al-mashhra bi-jadhr al-asamm;134
6) Glosses on Sharaf al-Dn Ibn al-Briz al-H amaws (d. 738/133738)
commentary on Najm al-Dn al-Qazwns al-H w (d. 665/1266
67), entitled Taysr al-H w f tah rr al-fatw;135
7) Glosses on Al al-Dn al-Qshchs commentary on Nas r
al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-itiqd, consisting of two sets known as
al-H shiya al-qadma and al-H shiya al-jadda;136
8) a treatise on the formation of rainbows entitled F qaws quzah
(Persian);137
9) a treatise on the natural dispositions of the stones entitled Gawhar-
nma (or Jawhirnma/ F l-jawhir) (Persian);138
10) Risla f Ithbt al-wjib wa-siftihi.139

133
See Shshtar, Majlis al-muminn, vol. 2, p. 230. This work has not yet been
identified.
134
See below, p. 79, fn. 26.
135
Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak did not specify the author of this work, referring
to it as Taysr al-fiqh. Shshtar specifies that this work is on Shfi school of fiqh
(referring to it as Talqt bar Taysr fiqh-i Shfi). See Shshtar, Majlis al-muminn,
vol. 2, p. 230. Kky describes the work as glosses on Taysr al-wusl il jam al-usl
[by Ibn Dba al-Shaybn (d. 944/1537)]. See Kky, Ashny b maktab-i Shrz:
Mr Sadr al-Dn Dashtak, p. 86. However, this cannot be correct as Taysr al-wusl
is completed in 916/15101, thirteen years after Sadr al-Dns death. Taysr al-H w f
tah rr al-fatw by Sharaf al-Dn Ibn al-Briz al-H amaw 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 Al
Sadry Khu, Kitb-shins-i Tajrd al-itiqd, pp. 857, 902.
137
For the location of two extant manuscripts of the text, see Barakat, Kitb-shins-i
maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, 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, Kitb-shins-i
maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 178. To this list should be added MS ehid Ali Paa
2761, ff. 89b106a.
introduction 23

To this list should be added the glosses that Sadr al-Dn wrote on Adud
al-Dn al-Ijs commentary on Ibn H jibs Mukhtasar al-usl.140
The list provided by Ghiyth al-Dn shows that Sadr al-Dn wrote
much less than his contemporary Dawn. Ghiyth al-Dn 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 Ghiyth al-Dns primary aim in making this remark was to
explain why his father wrote less than other scholars of the time, includ-
ing Dawn, his remark also implies that on many issues Dashtak did
not have a specific view. Unlike Dawn, Dashtak was a mainstream
philosopher who held some distinctive views in response to the philo-
sophical challenges raised by contemporary thinkers. In most issues,
however, he relied on the works of Ibn Sn and Frb. Whereas in his
Ithbt al-wjib, he used the Fuss al-h ikam attributed to Frb,142 he
explicitly refers to Ibn Sns al-Shif as his main source in his most
extensive work, namely his H shiya al-jadda on Qshchs commentary
on T ss Tajrd al-itiqd.143 It is evident that Sadr al-Dn owned an
exquisite copy of al-Shif (containing its books of logic, physics and
metaphysics), copied by Mahmd b. Al al-Kshn in 718/13189.144

140
Ghiyth al-Dn in his own glosses on this commentary alludes to this work of
his father. See Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, p. 133.
141
Dashtak, Kashf al-haqiq al-Muhammadiyya, Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn,
vol. 2, p. 984.
142
The attribution of this work to Frb is doubted by some modern scholars; see
Shlomo Pines, Ibn Sn et lauteur de la Rislat al-fuss f l-hikma: Quelques donnes
du problme, The Collected Works of Shlomo Pines, iii (ed. Sarah Stroumsa), Jerusalem
1996, pp. 297300. Dashtak, however, regards the work as Frbs.
143
See Dashtaks H shiya al Sharh Jadd Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Ftih 3025, f. 1b,
where he says that apart from his own contribution, his glosses contain m wujida
min kutub al-qawm l siyyam Kitb al-Shif.
144
The manuscript is preserved nowadays in the Raza library of Rampur (MS Raza
h ikmat 112); see Cat., vol. 1, p. 397. After Sadr al-Dns death, his son Ghiyth al-Dn,
followed by his grandson Sadr al-Dn II, and eventually another member of the family,
Fath Allh al-Shrz, 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-Dn Mah m d al-Nayrz, who was one of Sa dr al-Dns


students, also indicated that the latter had been using a particular
recension of Ibn Sns Shif.145 Sadr al-Dn also owned a precious
copy of Qutb al-Dn al-Shirzs astronomical work, Faalta fa-l talum,
which had been copied in 826/1423 for the Timurid ruler, Ulugh Bey
(r. 812/1409853/1449).146
The following scholars are known to have studied with Sadr al-Dn
al-Dashtak: his son Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr al-Dashtak; Najm al-Dn
Mah md al-Nayrz; Shams al-Dn Muh ammad al-Khafr; Muzaffar
al-Dn al-Shraz;147 and Taq al-Dn al-Frs (d. after 957/1550).148

IV. Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak149

Ab Al Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr al-Dashtak, the son of Sadr al-Dn,


was born in 966/146162 in Shiraz.150 Ghiyth al-Dn was taught by
his father who, as was stated above, named the madrasa he had built
after him. In his writings, Ghiyth al-Dn refers to his father as ustdh.
Sadr al-Dn is not known to have been well-versed in medicine, and
Ghiyth al-Dns writings in this field contain indications that he had
attended courses given by some other teachers of Shiraz on this subject.151
Moreover, whereas Sadr al-Dn tried to stick to the philosophy of Ibn

145
In one occasion in his commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-Itiqd,
Nayrz refers to this specific recension of Ibn Sns Shif by saying what is known
to us from al-Shif on the basis of the manuscript of my teacher (m ulima min
al-Shif wa-nuskhat ustdhin); see MS Majlis 3968, f. 205a:24.
146
MS Majlis 3944. The ownership statement of Sadr al-Dn can be found in the
front page of the manuscript.
147
According to Takprzde, Muzaffar al-Dn studied the Geometry of Euclid
with Sadr al-Dn. See his E-aqiq En-Nomnijje, p. 215.
148
See Taq al-Dn Frs, Fard Qsiml, Dnishnma-yi jahn-i Islm, vol. 6,
pp. 8802, esp. p. 881.
149
On Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr al-Dashtak, see Harun Anay, Mir Giyathedden
Mansur Trkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 30, Istanbul 2005, pp. 1278;
Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 11370; Kky, shiny b
maktab-i Shrz: Mr Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr Dashtak Shrz (1), Khiradnma-yi
Sadra, 5&6 (19978), pp. 8390; Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Musannaft-i Ghiyth
al-Dn.
150
The date of birth is reported from Sadr al-Dn II, the son of Ghiyth al-Dn
al-Dashtak. See MS Majlis-i Sin 32 (front page, f. 3a).
151
Ghiyth al-Dn composed at least four works on medicine: 1) Malim al-Shif;
2) al-Shfiyya; 3) H shiya al-Shfiyya; 4) Tarjumat al-Shfiyya. See Barakat, Kitb-
shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 137, 1523, 167.
introduction 25

Sn152 while distancing himself from the thought of Suhraward and


Ibn Arab, Ghiyth al-Dns writings contain some clear adoptions of
Suhrawards and Ibn Arabs thought and terminology.153 These indi-
cate that his philosophical thought was influenced also by some other
scholars of his time.
Ghiyth al-Dn started his career as an author when he was only eigh-
teen. He wrote a treatise on astronomy, entitled al-Marij, which is said
to have been written following the pattern of Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs
al-Tuh fat al-Shhiyya.154 Among his early writings is a supercommen-
tary on Dawns commentary on Suhrawards Haykil al-nr, entitled
Ishrq haykil al-nr li-kashf zulumt Shawkil al-gharr. This work
seems to have been completed before 895/14909.155 Another of his early
works is Mirt al-h aqiq wa-mujl al-daqiq, which he dedicated to
Aqquyunlu Sultan Ahmad in 902/1497.156 In this work, Ghiyth al-Dn
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 895/149091, as a
result of which solutions to some philosophical problems became clear
to him. Thus his explanations in this work are based not on demonstra-
tive proof (burhn) but rather on the evidence of a spritual unveiling

152
As mentioned earlier, apart from the writings of Ibn Sn, Fuss al-h ikam attrib-
uted to Frb is also one of the prominent sources of Sadr al-Dn, particularly in his
Ithbt al-wjib. See above, p. 23, fn. 142.
153
The impact of Suhraward on Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtaks thought is evi-
dent from the latters supercommentary on Dawns commentary on Suhrawards
Haykil al-nr, entitled Ishrq Haykil al-nr li-kashf zulumt Shawkil al-gharr.
Ghiyth al-Dn also adopts some Suhrawardian terminology in his Mirt al-h aqiq
wa-mujl al-daqiq. See Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Mirt al-h aqiq wa-mujl
al-daqiq, Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 1, pp. 75132. The impact of Ibn Arabs
thought on Ghiyth al-Dn is evident from his commentary on Dawns al-Zawr .
On this work see below, p. 29, fn. 180.
154
Shshtar, Majlis al-muminn, vol. 2, p. 231. Unfortunately this work of Ghiyth
al-Dn al-Dashtak seems to be lost.
155
Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Ishrq haykil al-nr li-kashf zulumt Shawkil
al-gharr, ed. Al Awjab, Tehran 1382/2003. In his Mirt al-h aqiq wa-mujl
al-daqiq Ghiyth al-Dn refers to this work. See Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol.
1, p. 99. This shows that it had been completed before Mirt al-haqiq which was
completed in 895/14951.
156
In the edition of Mirt al-haqiq (Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 1, p. 76),
the name of the patron is mentioned in the introduction as al-sultn b. sultn Ghiyth
al-saltana wa-l-duny wa-l-dn, Ab l-Muzaffar Bahdur khn. These are the titles used
for Sultn Ahmad at that time. See for instance Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtaks introduction
to his Ithbt al-wjib, dedicated to the same Sultan (MS ehid Ali Paa 2761, f. 89b).
26 introduction

(kashf ).157 Two works on logic, Tadl al-mzn al al-mantiq158 and


Miyr al-afkr,159 both completed before his fathers death in 903/1498,
also belong to the earlier period of his life.
Aside from writing, the young Ghiyth al-Dn started teaching in
the Mansriyya madrasa quite early in his life. Kaml al-Dn Ilh
al-Ardabl, who was in Shiraz sometime between 890/1485 and
897/1492, is said to have studied with Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak,
among other scholars.160 Taq al-Dn al-Frs indicates in his writings
that while he was studying philosophy with Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, he
also studied astronomy with Ghiyth al-Dn.161 Najm al-Dn Mahmd
al-Nayrz also studied with both Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak and his son.162
It is not clear whether Ghiyth al-Dn stayed in Shiraz after his
fathers 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 Shabn 906/10 March 1501, Ghiyth al-Dn was
in T ram, a region to the southeast of Shiraz, where he completed a
treatise on astronomy, entitled Safr f al-ghabr wa-l-khadr.163
When Shah Isml captured Shiraz in 909/1504, an edict ( farmn)
was issued by the Shah exempting the endowment income of the
Mansriyya Madrasa from tax, which then went to Ghiyth al-Dn
al-Dashtak.164 The fact that Ghiyth al-Dn was the desendent of a Zayd
family, whose genealogy went back to Al b. Ab T lib, was perhaps the
reason that the Shah and his qizilbsh respected him. However, thus
far his writings could not be said to represent Sh beliefs. In his Usl
al-aqid, he states that, although it is necessary to recognize (marifa)
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 Mirt al-haqiq wa-mujl al-daqiq, Musannaft-i
Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 1, p. 97.
158
MS Marash 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,
Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 1256.
159
MS Dnishgh 1147, ff. 35b62a (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, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 1689.
160
See below, p. 41.
161
See Fard Qsiml, Taq al-Dn Frs, p. 881.
162
See below, pp. 546.
163
See Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 1502.
164
See Fasy, Frs-nma, p. 370.
introduction 27

to elect (nasb) a caliph, or an amr or a malik in order to observe the


laws of shara.165 This clearly contradicts the principles of Twelver
Shism. In theory, he would have been obliged to endorse Shism
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 Sh theological doctrines. Shah
Isml seems thus to have been indifferent towards Ghiyth al-Dns
theological positions, since the latter was highly esteemed throughout
Shah Ismls reign.
At this time Ghiyth al-Dn 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, Ghiyth al-Dn
seems to have accompanied the army of the Shah during the latters
invasion of Baghdad. Shshtar mentions that in Ghiyth al-Dns
Qnn al-Saltana there is an allusion to his preparation of prayers and
talismans (adiya u tilismt) designed to bring about the death of the
ruler of Baghdad.166 Shshtar also indicates that Ghiyth al-Dn once
was asked by Shah Isml to reply to a letter submitted by an unspeci-
fied Ottoman emperor.167 In the summer of 927/1521, Ghiyth al-Dn
was again in the camp of Shah Isml at the foot of Mount Sahand
(south of Tabrz), where he was requested by the Shah to advise on the
reconstruction of the Margha observatory, built by Nasr al-Dn al-T s
in 658/1259. Ghiyth al-Dn is reported to have suggested that carry-
ing 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 Ghiyth al-Dn
dedicated two Persian treatises, his Tarjumat al-shfiya (in medicine)169
and his Risla-yi qawid, to Shh Isml.170

165
See Abd al-H usayn H ir, Fihrist-i kitbkhna-yi Majlis-i shr-yi Islm, vol.
10 (4), Tehran 1352/1973, pp. 17589 (MS Majlis 3774/2).
166
See Shshtar, Majlis al-muminn, vol. 2, p. 232. This work seems to be lost.
167
See Shshtar, Majlis al-muminn, vol. 2, p. 233.
168
See Qumm, Khulsat al-tawrkh, vol. 1, pp. 149, 296. Rml, Ah san al-tawrkh,
p. 392.
169
See Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, p. 152.
170
Part of the introduction to this work is quoted by Nrn in the introduction to
his collection of Ghiyth al-Dn Mansrs writings. See Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak,
Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 1, pp. 1434. However, Nrn provides no infor-
mation 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.
28 introduction

During the reign of Shah T ahmsp (r. 93084/152476), Ghiyth


al-Dn was first in and later out of favour at court. In 936/1529 he was
appointed sadr (head of the religious administration), sharing the post
with Sayyid Nimat Allh al-H ill (d. 940/1533). One year later, Nimat
Allh al-H ill was dismissed by the Shah because of his conflict with the
jurisconsult of the court, Al al-Karak (d. 940/1534).171 Shortly after,
Ghiyth al-Dn also engaged in a dispute with Karak on the calcula-
tion of the direction of prayer (qibla). Karak, who had the qibla of the
mosques in the region of Iraq and Khursn altered, wanted to do the
same in other regions of the Safavid territory. Resisting this decision,
Ghiyth al-Dn 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, Ghiyth al-Dn wrote a treatise entitled
F marifat al-qibla.172 Eventually, in 939/153233, Ghiyth al-Dn and
Karak 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 Karak, Ghiyth al-Dn had to leave the court.173
Ghiyth al-Dn thereupon returned to Shiraz and continued teach-
ing there at the Mansriyya madrasa till his death on 6 Jumd
I 949/18 August 1542.174 His last work, entitled Kashf al-h aqiq
al-Muh ammadiyya, is a commentary on his fathers Ithbt al-wjib.
This work was completed with the assistance of his son, Sadr al-Dn
Muhammad (d. after 962/1555), in Muharram 947/May-June 1540, as

171
See Fasy, Frs-nma-yi Nsir, pp. 1901. On Sayyid Nimat Allh al-H ill and
his disputes with Al al-Karak (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, Kitb-
shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 1678.
173
On the conflict between Ghiyth al-Dn and Karak, see Fasy, Frs-nma-yi
Nsir, pp. 1901; see also Andrew Newman, Towards a Reconsideration of the Isfahan
School of Philosophy: Shaykh Bahai and the Role of the Safawid Ulama, Studia Iranica,
15 ii (1986), pp. 16599, esp. pp. 1815; idem, The Myth of the Clerical Migration
to the Safawid Iran. Arab Sh Opposition to Al al-Karak and Safawid Shiism, Die
Welt des Islams, 33 (1993), pp. 66112, esp. pp. 99101; Abisaab, Converting Persia,
pp. 179.
174
Fasy, Frs-nma-yi Nsir, pp. 1901. The exact date of his death is based
on a note written by one of his family members, Nizm al-Dn al-Dashtak, in the
front page of MS Majlis Sin 32 (containing a copy of Dashtaks Kashf al-h aqiq
al-Muh ammadiyya). Nizm al-Dn specifies that his source was Ghiyth al-Dns son
Sadr al-Dn Muhammad.
introduction 29

the by then eighty-year-old Ghiyth al-Dn was apparently unable to


complete it alone.175
Ghiyth al-Dns philosophical writings reflect his harsh opposition
to Dawns 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 Dawn had argued, regardless of its being
rationally sound or not. The works of Dawn that he most heavily
criticized are: (i) Dawns Unmdhaj al-ulm (particularly the section
on philosophy) for which he wrote two refutations, in the first one,
responding to all ten issues discussed by Dawn in this work,176 and
in the second one, he focussed on criticizing Dawns position on the
temporal origination of the world (h udth al-lam);177 (ii) Dawns
commentary on Suhrawards Haykil al-nr: Ghiyth al-Dns refuta-
tion taking in this case the form of a supercommentary, entitled Ishrq
haykil al-nr li-kashf zulumt Shawkil al-gharr;178 (iii) Dawns
commentary on Taftzns (d. 792/1390) Tahdhb al-mantiq;179 and
(iv) Dawns Rislat al-Zawr.180
He also wrote a number of works in which he evaluates the arguments
employed by his father, Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, and Dawn in their
debates, namely: (i) a comparative evaluation of their respective glosses
on Qchshs commentary on T ss Tajrd al-itiqd, entitled Tajrd
al-ghawsh wa-tashydt al-h awsh;181 (ii) a comparative evaluation

175
At the end of a copy of Kashf al-h aqiq al-Muh ammadiyya (MS Majlis Sin 32,
f. 115b), there is a note written by Ghiyth al-Dns son Sadr al-Dn Muhammad, which
states that his father was dictating (amlaa) the commentary to him.
176
H shiya al Unmdhaj al-ulm , MS Yeni Cami 1188, ff. 234a41b.
177
Talqa al h shya al Unmdhaj al-ulm, MS Yeni Cami 1188, ff. 241b7b. For
the location of other manuscripts of this work, see Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i
falsaf-i Shrz, 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 Ftih 5329). See Harun
Anay, Mir Giyatheddin Mansur, p. 127; Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i
Shrz, p. 144.
181
Part of this commentary, dealing with the liar paradox, has been edited; see
Dawzdah risla dar prduks-i durghg, ed. Ahad Farmarz Qarmalik with colabo-
ration of T ayyiba rif Niy, Tehran 1386/2007, pp. 159261. For the manuscripts of
this work, see Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 1223. He also
wrote an evaluation of the views of his father and Dawn concerning soul and mat-
ter in their respective glosses on Qshchs commentary on Nasr al-Dn T ss Tajrd
al-itiqd. This set of glosses has been edited by Abd Allh Nrn in Musannaft-i
Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 2, pp. 625731. Without specifying, Nurn mentions four sets of
glosses on Qshchs commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-aqid among
30 introduction

of their respective superglosses on Jurjns glosses on Adud al-Dn


al-Ijs commentary on Ibn H jibs Mukhtasar al-muntah;182 (iii) a
comparative evaluation of their respective glosses on Qutb al-Dn
al-Rzs commentary on Sirj al-Dn al-Urmaws Matli al-anwr;183
and (iv) a comparative evaluation of their respective glosses on Najm
al-Dn al-Ktb al-Qazwns al-Shamsiyya.184
Like his father, Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr was particularly interested
in Ibn Sns thought and works. He wrote a commentary on the sec-
tion on metaphysics of Ibn Sns Shif, entitled Shif al-qulb,185 a
short treatise on logic based on the logic of the Shif, entitled Tadl
al-mzn,186 a treatise on the intentions of Ibn Sn in his Ishrt with
respect to the origins of the theoretical sciences, entitled Maqsid
al-Ishrt,187 a treatise on various issues discussed in the Ishrt and
the later commentaries on it, entitled Latif al-Ishrt;188 and finally
a treatise based on the last two chapters of Ibn Sns Ishrt, entitled
Maqmt al-rifn.189
Some of Ghiyth al-Dn Mansrs works took the form of a collection
of several treatises composed over a period of time: i) Jm-i Jahn-num,
which, according to the authors introduction, comprises a collection of

the writings of Ghiyth al-Dn. See his introduction to Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn,
vol. 1, pp. 1045.
182
Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, H shiya al Mukhtasar al-muntah, MS Majlis 507,
ff. 97a138b (Cat., vol. 22, pp. 2001).
183
Harun Anay, Mir Giyatheddin Mansur, p. 127.
184
Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, H shiya al al-Shamsiyya, MS Majlis 507, ff. 82b3b
(Cat., vol. 22, pp. 2001).
185
Ed. Abd Allh Nrn in Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 2, pp. 375487.
186
In the introduction to this work, Ghiyth al-Dn asserts that apart from al-Shif,
he used the comments of Abu al-Abbs al-Lawkar. See the introduction to this work in
Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 1, p. 135 (introduction).
Tadl al-mzn is the first part of a collection of treatises by Ghiyth al-Dn entitled
Riyd al-Ridwn. See below, pp. 301.
187
Edited by Nrn in Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr, vol. 2, pp. 489518.
188
Edited by Nrn in Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr, vol. 2, pp. 51990
(under the title H shiyat al-Ishrt).
189
This work has been edited twice: First by Qsim Kky (Maqmt al-rifn,
Andsha-yi dn, 1, 2 (Winter 19956), pp. 83144) and secondly by Abd Allh Nrn
in Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 1, pp. 20538. In the introduction to this work,
Ghiyth al-Dn states wa-hiya risla kammaltu bih arkn Riyd al-ridwn. See
Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 2, p. 208. On the sources used by Ghiyth al-Dn
in this work, see Nasrollah Pourjavady, Makhidh-i Ghiyth al-Dn-i Dashtak dar
Maqmt al-arifn, Ishrq u irfn, Tehran 1380, pp. 24862. According to N. Pourja-
vady, the type of mysticism presented in this treatise is Avicennan mysticism. Apart
from the Ishrt, Ghiyth al-Dn consulted Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Awsf al-Ashrf and
Suhrawards Kalimat al-tasawwuf while writing the Maqmt.
introduction 31

treatises on several sciences,190 although the extant parts consist only of


a treatise on ethics, entitled Akhlq-i Mansr,191 a treatise on astronomy
(haya),192 and a treatise on prosody and rhyme (ard u qfiya);193 ii)
H ujjat al-kalm li-dh mah ajjat al-Islm, a rejection of Ghazzls criti-
cisms of Ibn Sn in his Tahfut al-falsifa, of which the extant part
covers only Chapter Nine (al-juz al-tsi) on bodily resurrection (indeed
it is possible that the work was never completely written down).194 iii)
Matla al-irfn li-bayn marif al-tibyn, a work of Qurnic exegesis,
of which only four sections are extant, viz., iii.a) Tuh fat al-fat f tafsr
srat hal at (being an interpretation of Srat al-Insn), iii.b) a treatise
on disconnected letters (al-h urf al-muajjama), iii.c) F Tafsr qawlih
tal afal yatadabbarn al-Qurn (Q 4:82); iii.d) a treatise on the
Prophets ascension with an interpretation of the first verse of Surat
al-Isr;195 iv) Riyd al-ridwn of which the following sections can be
identified, viz., iv.a) a treatise on logic entitled Tadl al-mzn f ilm
al-mizn; 196 iv.b) Maqmt al-rifn;197 iv.c) Takmilat al-majist;198 and
iv.d) Tah rr Uthljy.199

190
See Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 12930.
191
See M. Taq Danishpazhh, Fihrist-i kitbkhna-yi ihdy q-yi Sayyid
Muh ammad Mishkt, Tehran 2535/1976, vol. iii/i, pp. 2189.
192
See Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 12930.
193
Eds. Abd Allh Nrn & Pidrm Mrzy, Risla-yi Ard u qfiyya, Nme-yi
Farhangestn, supplement no. 1, 1375/1996. In his bibliography of Ghiyth al-Dn
al-Dashtak, Nrn mentions three more subjects discussed in this work: logic (mantiq),
arithmetic (h isb), and geometry (handasa). However, Nrn does not provide any
further information about the location of the extant manuscripts of these parts. See
Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 1, p. 106.
194
Ed. Abd Allh Nrn in Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 1, pp. 153204. For
the extant manuscripts of this work, see Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i
Shrz, pp. 13941.
195
The four extant parts of Matla al-irfn li-bayn marif al-tibyn have been
edited by Abd Allh Nrn in Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 1, pp. 297374. The
chapter on tafsr Srat al-Insn has also been edited by Parwn Bahrzda under the
title Tuh fat al-fat f tafsr Sra Hal At, Tehran 1381/2002.
196
According to Nrn, this work is the first part (rukn) of Riyd al-Ridwn. See
his introduction to Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 1,
p. 106.
197
See above, p. 30.
198
See Abd Allh Nrns introduction to Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Musannaft-i
Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 1, p. 106. Takmilat al-Majist is al-manzar al-thlith min rukn
al-thlith min Riyd al-Ridwn. This shows that the corpus of this work consists of
several parts (arkn) each containing several chapters (manzir).
199
See Abd Allh Nrns introduction to Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Musannaft-i
Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 1, pp. 106, 13940. Without adducing any evidence, Nrn identi-
fies three more treatises of Ghiyth al-Dn as part of Riyd al-Ridwn: 1) Miyara l-irfn
32 introduction

Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, and Ghiyth al-Dn


al-Dashtak are the three best-known scholars who were teaching phi-
losophy and theology in late 9th/15th century Shiraz. Of their numer-
ous 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 Kaml al-Dn Mr H usayn
al-Maybud, Shams al-Dn al-Khafr and Kaml al-Dn H usayn Ilh
al-Ardabl.

V. Mr H usayn al-Maybud200

Born around 853/1449,201 Mr H usayn al-Maybud was the son of Khwja


Mun al-Dn, the amr of Yazd during the reign of Qaraquyunlu Jahn
Shh (r. 84172/143767).202 He was a student of Jall al-Dn al-Dawn.203
By 880/1475 Maybuds knowledge was advanced enough to enable him
to comment upon Athr al-Dn al-Abhars Hidyat al-h ikma.204 Some
time between 885/1480 and 890/1485, Qd Saf al-Dn s al-Swaj

f ilm al-mzn, 2) al-Shawriq, 3) Tahdhb al-akhlq. Apart from the philosophical


works of Ghiyth al-Dn mentioned above, the latter mentions some otherwise unknown
philosophical works of his in his ijza issued to Nayrz. See below, pp. 556.
200
On Kaml al-Dn Mr H usayn al-Maybud, see Whelan Dunietz, Qd H usayn
Maybud of Yazd; H asan Rahmn & Sayyid Ibrhm Ashk Shrns introduction to
their edition of Maybuds Sharh -i Dwn-i mansb bi Amr al-muminn Al b. Ab
T lib, Tehran 1379/2000.
201
In a letter to Sharaf al-Dn Mahmd al-Daylam, he states that he is forty years
old. In the same letter he indicates that he has been charged with kufr. In another let-
ter to Saf al-Dn s, Maybud 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 Mr H usayn Maybud, Munshat-i Maybud, ed. Nusrat
Allh Furhar, Tehran 1376/1997, pp. 131, 16970. Dunietz estimates his date of birth
sometime between 853/1449 to 858/1454. See Whelan Dunietz, Qd H usayn Maybud
of Yazd, p. 43.
202
On Mun al-Dn-i Maybud, see Whelan Dunietz, Qd H usayn Maybud of
Yazd, pp. 3543.
203
In his Sharh Dwn Al, Maybud himself refers to Dawn as ustdhun
al-allma. In the biographical sources he is invariably associated with Dawn. See
Whelan Dunietz, Qd H usayn Maybud of Yazd, p. 44.
204
This date of completion is mentioned in the colophon of MS Ilhiyyt 360d (Cat.,
p. 596). This was Maybuds first work. Evidence for this is the commentators own
statement in the introduction to this work, This is the first work I have written in the
prime of youth (wa-hdh awwal m sannaftuh f unfuwn al-shabb). See Maybud,
Sharh Hidyt al-h ikma, Lithograph Edition [by Karbalyi Muhammad H asan], Tehran
1297/1879. Later on, Maybud revised this work. The revised version was completed
in 886/14812. See Maybud, Sharh -i Dwn-i mansb bi Amr al-muminn Al b. Ab
T lib, p. s-u hasht.
introduction 33

(d. 896/1491), the sadr of Sultan Yaqb, appointed Maybud the chief
judge of Yazd and made him responsible for matters relating to endow-
ment (waqf ) in that city.205
Aside from his occupation as qd, Maybud was during this period
teaching various subjects, including logic and geometry. That he was
teaching logic is indicated by one of the students of Maybud who com-
posed a treatise on the subject.206 Among the texts on logic that he may
have taught is the Risla al-Shamsiyya of Ktib, since he wrote a com-
mentary on this text.207 Moreover, in his Munshat Maybud explicitly
states that he taught geometry. He mentions that he was teaching most
of Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tah rr usl al-handasa li-Iqldis to a certain
Muhammad Nakhjawn, and that at the request of the latter he wrote
glosses on this text.208 Sometime before Shabn 888/September 1483,

205
Dawn is said to have recommended Maybud to Qd s for that position.
Shshtar narrates a story which suggests the accidental nature of this appointment.
Maybud accordingly accompanied Dawn on his journey from Shiraz to the court of
Sultan Yaqb in Tabriz, which took place sometime after 883/1478. There, Maybud
found an opportunity to display his mastery in scientific debate. Once, in a majlis of
Sultan Yaqb, a dispute occured between Dawn and a gifted scholar by the name of
Ab Ishq al-Nayrz. Dawn was rightly rejecting his arguments but his opponent was
a master of rhetoric and by violating the rules of disputation, he nearly defeated Dawn.
Sitting at the lower side of the majlis, Maybud could not bear to see the humiliation of
his master and asked permission to take part in the disputation on behalf of Dawn.
From that moment, whenever Ab Ish q violated any of the rules of disputation,
Maybud drew attention to it and prevented him from changing the subject. Eventually,
Maybuds arguments convinced everyone in the majlis. The vizier of Sultan Yaqb,
Qd Saf al-Dn s, asked Dawn about Maybud. Dawn introduced him as one of
the notables of Yazd (az buzurg-zda-h-yi Yazd ast). Subsequently, following Dawns
request, Maybud was appointed judge of Yazd and became responsible for the issues
related to endowment (waqf ) in that city. See Shshtar, Majlis al-Muminn, vol. 2,
pp. 2212. Dunietz has rightly doubted the correctness of this account. See Whelan
Dunietz, Qd H usayn Maybud of Yazd, pp. 1135.
206
The author of Risla fi Tah qq slibat al-mah ml preserved in MS Dnishgh 3430
mentions that he studied logic with Maybud. See H asan Rahmn & Sayyid Ibrhm
Ashk Shrns introduction to their editions of Maybuds Sharh -i Dwn-i mansb bi
Amr al-muminn Al b. Ab T lib, p. 45.
207
See Mr H usayn al-Maybud, Sharh al-Shamsiyya, Lithograph Edition, Istanbul
Shabn 1289/October 1871. Without referring to her source, Dunietz mentions the
date of completion of this commentary as 886/14812. See Whelan Dunietz, Qd
H usayn Maybud of Yazd, p. 55.
208
See Munshat-i Maybud, ed. Nusrat Allh Furhar, Tehran 1376/1997, pp. 723.
For the extant manuscripts of this work, see H asan Rahmn & Sayyid Ibrhm Ashk
Shrns introduction to their edition of Maybuds Sharh -i Dwn-i mansb bi Amr
al-muminn Al b. Ab T lib, pp. 412.
34 introduction

Maybud wrote a treatise dealing with the shadow, entitled Risla F


ruyat shabah al-shay f al-m.209
In Safar 890/February-March 1485, Maybud completed his Sharh -i
Dwn-i Al b. Ab T lib, a commentary on the poems attributed to
Al b. Ab T lib.210 The long introduction to this work consists of seven
chapters ( fawtih ), in which the author treats the following subjects:
the true path of the pure (asfiy; Gods essence (dht-i Khud), Gods
names and attributes; the greater man or macrocosm (insn-i kabr);
the lesser man or microcosm (insn-i saghr); prophecy and sainthood
(wilyat); and finally the virtues ( fadil ) and history of Al.
In the first chapter Maybud explains that to obtain profound knowl-
edge in practical philosophy, mathematics, and in most issues of physics,
one needs compatibility with the philosophers, whereas for metaphysics
(ilhiyyt) one should follow the Sufis, as [the intellectual] opening
(gushd) 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 Arabs thought. Maybuds Sharh -i Dwn-i Al
contains numerous quotations from Ibn Arabs writings, particularly
from his Futh t al-makkiyya and his Fuss al-h ikam, as well as from
the works of his commentators and followers, such as Sadr al-Dn
al-Qnaw (d. 673/1274), Fakhr al-Dn-i Irq (d. 688/1289), Abd
al-Razzq al-Ksh (al-Kshn) (d. 736/1335), Muayyid al-Dn al-Jand
(d. ca. 700/1300), Sharaf al-Dn Dwd al-Qaysar (d. 751/1350), Sayyid
Al Hamadn (d. 786/1384) and Sin al-Dn Ibn Turka Isfahn
(d. 830/1437).212

209
This work must have been written before 5 Shabn 888/8 September 1483, the
date on which one of its manuscripts was completed (MS Majlis 1918, pp. 20513; Cat.,
vol. 5, pp. 4101). See H asan Rahmn & Sayyid Ibrhm Ashk Shrns introduction
to their editions of Maybuds Sharh -i Dwn-i mansb bi Amr al-muminn Al b.
Ab T lib, pp. 434.
210
Eds. H asan Rah mn & Sayyid Ibrhm Ashk Shrn, under the title Sharh -i
Dwn-i mansb bi Amr al-muminn Al b. Ab T lib. For the study of this work see
Whelan Dunietz, Qd H usayn Maybud of Yazd, pp. 65112.
211
Maybud, Sharh -i Dwn-i mansb bi Amr al-muminn Al b. Ab T lib,
pp. 1314, 268.
212
On Ibn Arabs school of thought, see William C. Chittick, The School of Ibn
Arab, in History of Islamic Philosophy, eds. Seyyed Hossein Nasr & Oliver Leaman,
London 1996, vol. 1, pp. 51023; 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 Maybud. Three of these accusations were
mentioned by Maybud himself: (1) professing unsound belief on prime
matter (hayl); (2) having belittled the Prophet Muh ammad; and
(3) being hard-hearted in his performance as judge.213 These accusations
are listed in Maybuds letters of vindication to Qd Saf al-Dn s,
in which he strongly denies them.214 In another letter to a certain Mr
Abd al-Wahhb, however, Maybud explains the reason for the accu-
sations 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 Maybud and as a consequence he
lost his position.215
In 897/149192, Maybud composed a short treatise on philosophy
according to the view of the later philosophers (mutaakhkhirn-i
h ukam), entitled Jm-i gt-num. An Arabic version of this work,
together with a translation into Latin by Ibrhm al-H aqiln al-Mrn
(Abraham Ecchellensis, 160564), was published in 1641 in Paris.216
It is likely that Maybud was affiliated with a group of Sufis, to whom
he refers as silsila muqaddasa-yi Nrbahkshiyya,217 i.e., the followers of

213
See Maybud, Munsht-i Maybud, pp. 1357; cf. Whelan Dunietz, Qd H usayn
Maybud of Yazd, p. 125.
214
Whelan Dunietz, Qd H usayn Maybud of Yazd, pp. 136175.
215
In his correspondence with a certain Muhammad T lish, he implied that he no
longer holds a position. See Maybud, Munshat-i Maybud, pp. 1212.
216
Originally in Persian, this work has been edited by Abd Allh Nrn, Tah qqt-i
Islm, 1 I (1365/1986), pp. 93112. In 1641, it was published as a bilinqual text (Arabic-
Latin) under the title: Mukhtasar maqsid h ikmat falsifat al-arab al-musamm Jm-i
gti-num. Synopsis Propositorvm sapienti 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. 6289, no. 6147. The editior of the original Persian text, Abd Allh
Nrn, 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 Nrns edition had some significant lacunae throughout the text.
For the manuscripts of this work which are preserved in Iran, see Ahmad Munzaw,
Fihristwra-yi kitbh-yi frs, 6, Tehran 1381/2002, pp. 1201. Jm-i gt-num seems
to be the last philosophical work of Maybud. For other works of his, see Maybud,
Sharh -i Dwn-i mansb bi Amr al-muminn Al b. Ab T lib, pp. s u hasht-chihil
u panj (introduction).
217
See Mr H usayn Maybud, Munshat-i Maybud, p. 119; On the Nrbahkshiyya,
see Shahzad Bashir, After the Messiah: The Nrbakhshiyyeh 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. 295313; idem,
Messianic hopes and mystical visions: The Nurbakhshiya between medieval and modern
Islam, South Carolina 2003.
36 introduction

Sayyid Muhammad Nrbakhsh (d. 869/1464). Jm-i gt-num is


dedicated to an unspecified Qsim, who according to a marginal note
in one of its manuscripts was Nrbakhshs son and successor Sayyid
Qsim (d. 919/15134).218 Maybud, moreover, had corresponded with
a number of Nrbakhsh Sufis, including the well-known Shams al-Dn
Muhammad al-Lhj (d. 912/15067), the author of Mafth al-ijz f
sharh -i Gulshan-i rz.219
In his Sharh -i Dwn-i Al, Maybud criticizes those who curse the
Sunn caliphs.220 It is therefore not surprising that he did not approve
of the Sh extremism of the early Safavid period. On 29 Shbn 909/16
February 1504, Maybud was executed at the order of Shah Isml I.221
In his classification of the post-Avicennan philosophers, Dimitri
Gutas distinguishes Maybuds thought from that of Dawn and
Dashtak due to its mainstream Avicennism.222 The reason for this
distinction is perhaps Maybuds renowned commentary on Athr
al-Dn al-Abhars Hidyat al-h ikma. However, this work hardly reflects
Maybuds own philosophical positions, as his intention in it was mainly
to explain and clarify Abhars arguments. Maybuds Sharh -i Dwn-i
Al and to some extent his Jm-i gt-num are much more representa-
tive of his philosophical thought. In these writings he is outspoken in
his criticism of Ibn Sns rejection of Gods knowledge of particulars223
and of the latters rejection of bodily resurrection.224 He blames the
Aristotelian philosophers for having restricted the sources of knowledge
to the intellect (aql ),225 and shows his sympathy with Suhrawards

218
See Maybud, Jm-i gt-num, ed. Abd Allh Nrn, pp. 9596. Referring to
Qsim as prince (shhzdah), Maybud in the introduction to this work implied that
he would attend the majlis of Qsim from time to time. Ibid., p. 95.
219
Mr H usayn Maybud, Munshat-i Maybud, pp. 823. On Shams al-Dn al-Lhj
see A. H. Zarrnkb, Lahdj, The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), vol. 5, pp.
6035.
220
Maybud, Sharh -i Dwn-i mansb bi Amr al-muminn Al b. Ab T lib,
p. 30.
221
Qumm, Khulsat al-tawrkh, 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. 515, p. 7. Gutas does not
specify to which Dashtak he is referring.
223
Maybud, Sharh -i Dwn-i mansb bi Amr al-muminn Al b. Ab T lib,
p. 12.
224
See Maybud, Jm-i gt-num, ed. Abd Allh Nrn, p. 111; On Maybuds
discussion of Ibn Sns view on bodily resurrection, see below, p. 62, fn. 88.
225
See Maybuds Sharh -i Dwn-i mansb bi Amr al-muminn Al b. Ab T lib,
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 (tasawwuf ). The ancient [Greek] philosophers who were all
Illuminationists undertook noble investigations (tah qqt-i sharfa),
delicate scrutinies (tadqqt-i latfa), as well as imaginative inner expe-
riences (mukshaft-i sr) and spiritual observations (mushhadt-i
manaw). Some of them were prophets and others were sages. They
established the branches of philosophy through revelation (wah y) and
intuition (ilhm). Plato was the last among them. His student, Aristo-
tle, set off on the theoretical path and philosophers after him followed
him on this path. After this philosophy has suffered from distortion
(tah rf ) due mainly to inaccuracies in translations from Greek to Ara-
bic. Frb, who wrote numerous works, was an ascetic and Ibn Sn
was a follower of his desires. Then Suhraward came who revived the
Illuminationist path.226

VI. Shams al-Dn al-Khafr227

Muhammad b. Nr al-Dn Ahmad al-Khafr (d. 942/15356) is another


scholar of the time who was educated in Shiraz, having studied under

226
Maybud, Sharh -i Dwn-i mansb bi Amr al-muminn Al b. Ab T lib,
p. 23.
227
On Shams al-Dn Muhammad al-Khafr, see George Saliba, A Redevelopment
of Mathematics in a Sixteenth-Century Arabic Critique of Ptolemaic Astronomy, in
Perspectives arabes et mdivales sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque,
Actes du colloque de la SIHSPAI (Socit internationale dhistoire 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. 10522; idem,
The Ultimate Challenge to Greek Astronomy. Hall m l yanh all of Shams al-Khafr
(d. 1550), in Sic itur ad astra. Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik und Natur-
wissenschaften. Festschrift fr den Arabisten Paul Kunitzsch zum 70. Geburtstag, eds.
Menso Folkerts and Richard Lorch, Wiesbaden 2000, pp. 490505; Kky, shny
b maktab-i Shrz: Muh aqqiq-i Khafr, Khiradnma-yi Sadr, 4 (1375/1996),
pp. 719; Frzah Satchiyn, Shams al-Dn Muhammad ibn Ahmad Khafr. Faylasf
u munajjim-i nmdr-i maktab-i Shirz, Kitb-i mh-i falsafa, 13 (1387/2008),
pp. 69103; eadem, Muarrif-yi panj risla-yi Khafr dar elhiyyt u ithbt-i wjib,
Marif, 20 ii (1382/2003), pp. 98111; Shams al-Dn al-Khafr, Talqa bar sharh -i
ilhiyyt-i Tajrd al-itiqd-i mull Al Qshch, ed. Frzah Satchiyn, Tehran
1382/20034; idem, Martib al-wujd, ed. Reza Pourjavady, Dard-i falsafa dars-i
falsafa. Jashn-nma-yi ustd duktur Karm-i Mujtahid, eds. Muhammad Raszdah,
Bbak Abbs, Muhammad Mansr Hshim, Tehran 1384/2005, pp. 23957.
38 introduction

Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak.228 He hailed from Khafr, a small village to the


south west of Shiraz.229
Among his early writings are his commentary on Qutb al-Dn
al-Shirzs al-Tuh fat al-Shhiyya, entitled Muntah al-idrk f madrak
al-aflk, which was completed in 901/1496;230 his treatise on the liar
paradox, entitled Ibrat al-fudal, in which he criticized Dawns
position on this issue while the latter was still alive;231 and his Risla F
muhimmt masil al-kalm, dedicated to Salghur Shah. It must thus
have been completed before the latters death in 910/1505.232 According
to some biographical sources, Khafr converted to Shism immediately
following Shah Ismls invasion of Shiraz in 909/1504.233 Khafr evi-
dently entertained good relations with Shah Isml I and his court.
One of his contacts at the court was Amr Sharaf al-Dn Al al-Sharf
al-Shirz (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. Khafr is said to have played a significant role in
the reappointment of Amr Sharaf al-Dn as vizier by persuading the
Shah to reinstate him. According to Khr Shh b. Qubd al-H usayn,
the author of Trkh-i Ilchi Nizm Shh, Khafr was sent to the camp
of the Shah, near Rayy, as the agent (wakl ) of Amr Sharaf al-Dn in
order to persuade the Shah to reappoint the Amr. Subsequently he
returned to Shiraz informing the latter about the positive outcome.234

228
Shshtar, Majlis al-muminn, vol. 2, p. 233.
229
In his Martib al-wujd (p. 247), Khafr describes himself as al-Khafr mawli-
dan.
230
On the date of completion of this work, see Muhammad Karm Ishrq, Buzurgn-i
Jahrum, Tehran 1351/1972, p. 285. For a study of this work, see George Saliba, The
Ultimate Challenge to Greek Astronomy. Hall m l yanh all of Shams al-Khafr
(d. 1550), pp. 4912.
231
See below, p. 84. Ibrat al-fudal has been edited by Ahad Farmarz Qarmalik,
Khiradnma-yi Sadr, 1, 4 pp. 869. The edition is reprinted in Dawzdah risla dar
prduks-i durghg, ed. Farmarz Qarmalik in collaboration with T ayyiba rif
Niy, pp. 2659. Khafr later wrote another treatise on the same issue entitled H ayrat
al-fudal f h all shubhat jadhr al-asamm. This work has also been edited by Ahad
Farmarz Qarmalik in collaboration with T ayyiba rif Niy in Dawzdah risla dar
prduks-i durghg, pp. 265309.
232
On this work, see Frzah Satchiyn, Muarrif-yi panj risla-yi Khafr dar
elhiyyt u ithbt-i wjib, pp. 1057.
233
See Shshtar, Majlis al-muminn, vol. 2, p. 234; Khwnsr, Rawdt al-jannt,
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 Math-
ematics in a Sixteen-Century Arabic Critique of Ptolemaic Astronomy, pp. 1134.
234
See Khr Shh b. Qubd al-H usayn, Trkh-i Ilchi Nizm Shh, eds. Muhammad
Rid Nasr & Koichi Haneda, Tehran 1379/2000, p. 60. Amr Sayyid Sharf al-Shraz
introduction 39

In a Persian treatise that he wrote on the hierarchical stages of


existence, entitled Martib al-wujd, Khafr 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
Khafr resided in Kshn. He must have moved to Kshn sometime
between 919/1513 and 926/1520 and stayed there until his death, which
seems to have occurred on 28 Safar 942/27 August 1535.236
In Kshn, Khafr got aquainted with Shh T hir (known later as
Shh T hir Dakan) (d. 952/154546), a religious figure with a group
of followers, who resided at the time in this city. In 926/1520, Shh
T hir was forced to escape to India as he was accused of having Isml
leanings, but he maintained contact with Khafr. In an extant letter
he wrote to the latter, Shh T hir consulted with him about some
philosophical issues raised in Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on
Ibn Sns al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht.237
During his stay in Kshn, Khafr composed several works. Tafsr
Ftih at al-Kitb, an exegetical treatise on the Surat al-Ftih a, and his
Arbaniyyt (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 Shh Isml who was at the time in Herat.238
On 4 Muharram 932/21 October 1525, Khafr wrote a supercommentary
on Sharf Jurjns commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tadhkira f
ilm al-haya, entitled Takmila f sharh al-Tadhkira.239

was one of the grandsons of Mr Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjn. He was killed in the battle
of Chldirn on 2 Rajab 920/23 August 1514. See Rml, pp. 145, 167, 195, 199200.
235
Khafr, Martib al-wujd, p. 247.
236
The date of his death is given in one of the manuscripts of Khafrs Muntah
l-idrk f madrak al-aflk (see Ishrq, pp. 275, 2856). However, gh Buzurg al-T ihrn
(and following him Saliba) gives as his date of death 28 Safar 957/17 March 1550. That
date would extend Khafrs career to sixty years and therefore is unlikely to be correct.
237
The letter of Shah T hir to Khafr is preserved in MS Danishgh 2591; cf. Ishrq,
Buzurgn-i Jahrum, p. 276; Kky, shny b maktab-i Shrz: Muhaqqiq-i Khafr,
pp. 719, esp. p. 78.
238
Khwndamr, Trkh-i H abb al-siyar, vol 4, p. 611. If this report is correct, it
must be assumed that the Arbaniyyt had been dedicated at different occasions to
both Shh Isml and Ahmad Khn Krkiy, the ruler of Gln, as the extant version
of Arbaniyyt preserved in MS Majlis 706 (6b80a, 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-Khafr, Journal for the History
of Astronomy, 25 (1994), pp. 1538.
40 introduction

Being primarily an astronomer, Khafrs philosophical thought is a


holistic system in which the universe must be explained in its totality.
For this purpose, he relies heavily on Ibn Arabs stages of existence
(martib al-wujd).240 In this respect his thought differs in outlook from
his teacher, Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak. 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 mat-
ter against the criticisms of Suhraward.241 Many of his writings reflect
the controversies between Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak and Jall al-Dn
al-Dawn. He wrote several short treatises on rational theology, among
them: (i) Risla f l-ilhiyyt (consisting of ten maqsads);242 (ii) Risla f
muhimmt masil al-kalm, dedicated to Salghur Shah;243 (iii) another
Risla f l-ilhiyyt, dedicated to H usayn Khn Mubriz al-Dawla (con-
sisting of an introduction, three maqsads and an epilogue);244 (iv) Risla
f Ithbt al-wjib (a short treatise consisting of three lamh as and three
lamas);245 and (v) Risla f Ithbt al-wjib bi-l-dht (consisting of an
introduction and four maqsads).246
He also wrote two sets of glosses on Qshchs commentary on Tajrd
al-itiqd, one on the first chapter ( f l-umr al-mma) and another
on the third chapter ( f l-ilhiyyt).247

240
This idea has been explored in Khafrs Risla dar Martib al-wujd, and in his
Tafsr yat al-kurs. For his discussion in the latter work, see Shams al-Dn al-Khafr,
Tafsr yat al-kurs, ed. Al Awjab, Ganijna-yi Bahristn. Ulm-i riwy u Qurn-1,
ed. Sayyid Mahd Jahrum, Tehran 1380/2001, pp. 12087.
241
Khafr wrote an independent treatise on the issue entitled Risla f tah qq
al-hayl. See MS Majlis 706. He also discussed this issue in his glosses on
Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on Ibn Sns al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht. See Shams
al-Dn al-Khafr, H shiya al al-Muh kamt bayna sharh ay al-Ishrt, ed. Abd
Allh Nrn, Ganijna-yi Bahristn. H ikmat-2, ed. Al Awjab, Tehran 1387/2008,
pp. 13399, esp. pp. 18693.
242
See Satchiyn, Muarrif-yi panj risla-yi Khafr dar elhiyyt u ithbt-i wjib,
pp. 1025.
243
See above, p. 38, fn. 232.
244
See Satchiyn, Muarrif-yi panj risla-yi Khafr dar ilhiyyt wa ithbt al-wjib,
pp. 108110.
245
Ed. Muhammad Taq Dnishpazhh, Risla f ithbt al-wjib, Jwdn khirad,
(Autumn 1354/1975), pp. 426.
246
See Satchiyn, Muarrif-yi panj risla-yi Khafr dar ilhiyyt wa ithbt al-wjib,
pp. 100102.
247
Ed. Satchiyn, under the title: Talqa bar sharh -i ilhiyyt-i Tajrd al-itiqd-i
mull Al Qshch. For other works of Khafr and the location of their extant manus-
cipts, see Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 17297.
introduction 41

VII. Kaml al-Dn al-Ilh al-Ardabl248

Kaml al-Dn H usayn al-Ilh al-Ardabl was born in Ardabl in the


second half of the 9th/16th century. His father Sharaf al-Dn Abd
al-H aqq was apparently a state official, as he was referred to as al-sh ib
al-muazza m wa-l-sadr al-mukarram.249 H usayn al-Ilh began his edu-
cation in Ardabl with Al al-mul,250 who taught him some of the
disciplines based on revelation (ulm shariyya).
While he was still dwelling in his hometown, he became a follower
of the master of the Safavid order, Sultn H aydar (d. 892/1487).251 The
latter is said to have been the one who encouraged Ilh to continue his
education.252 Ilh then moved to Shiraz and studied with Jall al-Dn
al-Dawn. One of the texts he read with him was the latters Shawkil
al-h r f sharh Haykil al-nr, for which Dawn on 14 Jumd I 892/8
May 1487 granted him an ijza.253 He also studied with Ghiyth al-Dn
al-Dashtak for some time.254 Next, he went to Herat and studied in
the Ikhlsiyya Madrasa. His teacher there was Jaml al-Dn At Allh
al-H usayn, with whom he studied some h adth literature as well as
exegesis (concentrating on some parts of Baydws Anwr al-tanzl).
In 899/149394, he received an ijza from At Allh al-H usayn.255
During his stay in Herat, Ilh came under the patronage of the
vizier of the Timurid Sultan H usayn Mrz b. Mansr b. Byqar, Amr
Al-Shr Naw (d. 902/14967). Two of his writings, namely his

248
On Kaml al-Dn H usayn al-Ilh al-Ardabl, see Najb Myil Hiraw, Ilh-i
Ardabl, Dirat al-marif-i buzurg-i Islm, vol. 10, pp. 1114; Barakat, Kitb-
shins-yi maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 2346; Mrz Abd Allh al-Afand al-Isbahn,
Riyd al-ulam, vol. 2, pp. 98108. Ilh Ardabl, Sharh - i Gulshan-i rz, ed.
Muhammad Rid Barzigar Khliq & Iffat Karbs, Tehran 1376/199798, (introduc-
tion) pp. bist u shash-s u nuh.
249
In his ijza to Ilh, At Allh al-H usayn refers to his father with these titles
(see Mrz Abd Allh al-Afand al-Isbahn, Riyd al-ulam, vol. 2, pp. 1045).
250
See al-Afand al-Isbahn, Riyd al-ulam, vol. 2, p. 98.
251
Sultn H aydar was active in the rawda of Saf al-Dn in Ardabl. On Sult n
H aydar, see Michel M. Mazzaoui, The Origins of the Safawids, Wiesbaden 1972, pp.
7182.
252
See al-Afand al-Isbahn, Riyd al-ulam, vol. 2, p. 99; Sm Mrz Safaw,
Tadhkira-yi Tuh fa-yi Sm, pp. 778.
253
See al-Afand al-Isbahn, Riyd al-ulam, vol. 2, pp. 1034; Jall al-Dn
al-Dawn & Isml al-Khwjy al-Isfahn, Sab rasil, ed. Sayyid Ahmad Tysirkn,
introduction of the editor, pp. 224.
254
See al-Afand al-Isbahn, Riyd al-ulam, vol. 2, p. 99; Sm Mrz Safaw,
Tadhkira-yi Tuh fa-yi Sm, pp. 778.
255
See al-Afand al-Isbahn, Riyd al-ulam, vol. 2, pp. 1047.
42 introduction

commentary on Shams al-Dn al-Samarqands (fl. ca. 690/1291) Ashkl


al-tass and his Talkhs of Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tah rr al-Iqldis, are
dedicated to Naw.256
In 902/149697, Ilh returned to his hometown Ardabl, where he
started teaching at the Saf al-Dn shrine. Among the texts he taught
was Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on Ktibs al-Shamsiyya, entitled
Tah rr al-qawid al-mantiqiyya f sharh al-Shamsiyya. One of Ilhs
students, Khall b. Muhammad al-Ridaw, collected his teachers glosses
on this commentary.257
In 908/15023, Ilh completed his commentary on Gulshan-i rz,
a mystical mathnaw by Mah md Shabistar.258 This commentary is
based on the commentary of Shams al-Din al-Lhjs commentary on
the same mathnaw. 259
During the reigns of the Safavid Shahs Isml I and T ahmsb, Ilh
was a respected figure at court. In 911/15056, Ilh dedicated to Shah
Isml a Persian treatise on Sh law, entitled Khulsa-yi fiqh.260 Ilh
also dedicated some other Sh works to Shah Isml I, namely a com-
mentary on Nahj al-balgha (collection of sermons attributed to Al
b. Ab T lib), entitled Manhaj al-fasha f sharh Nahj al-balgha;261 a
treatise on the virtues of the Twelve Imams, entitled Tj al-manqib
f fadil al-aimma al-ithn ashar;262 and a treatise on the imamate,

256
See al-Afand al-Isbahn, Riyd al-ulam, vol. 2, p. 102.
257
These glosses are preserved in MSS Malik 1830 (Cat., vol. 5, p. 375), Dnishgh
4111 (Cat., vol. 13, p. 309), Marash 11773 (Cat., vol. 29, pp. 5746). Cf. also Kashf
al-zunn, vol. 2, p. 1064.
258
On the date of the completion of this work, see Ilh Ardabl, Sharh -i Gulshan-i
rz, the editors introduction, p. 21. Ilh Ardabls introduction to his Sharh -i Gulshan-
i rz was later transmitted as an independent work with the title Kashf al-asrr. See
the editors introduction to Sharh -i Gulshan-i rz, p. 29. Najb Myil Hiraw edited
this introduction independently. See Majma rasil-i khatt -yi frs, 1, Mashhad
1368/198990, pp. 15167. On the manuscripts of Kashf al-asrr see Ahmad Munzaw,
Fihristwra-yi kitbh-yi frs, Tehran 1382/2003, vol. 7, p. 745.
259
Lhj must have completed his sharh , entitled Mafth al-ijz f sharh Gulshan-i
rz, by 882/14778, since the oldest known manuscript of this work (MS Gawharshd
351) is completed in this year. See Shams al-Dn Muhammad Lhj, Mafth al-ijz f
sharh Gulshan-i rz, eds. Muhammad Rid Barzigar Khliq & Iffat Karbs, Tehran
1371/1992, pp. hafd-u yak (introduction), 603.
260
See al-Afand al-Isbahn, Riyd al-ulam, vol. 2, pp. 1023. The date of author-
ship of this work is said to be the numerical value of Khulsa fiqh, which is 911; In
his entry on Ilh-i Ardabl to Dirat al-marif-i buzurg-i Islm (vol. 10, p. 111),
Najb Myil Hiraw calculates this date as 942, which cannot be correct, as the work
is dedicated to Shah Isml.
261
See Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, p. 236.
262
See al-Dhara, vol. 9, p. 92.
introduction 43

which he composed first in Turkish and then translated into Persian.263


Because of these works and some other Sh Persian writings, Ilh was
said to be the first scholar of the time to have promulgated knowledge
of Twelver Shiism (marif-i Jafar) in Persian.264
During the early reign of Shah T ahmsb, Ilh spent some time in
Qazwn, where he had the opportunity to meet the new king.265 It was
during the same period that Ilh issued a fatw, in which he forbade the
Friday congregational prayer (juma) during the occultation ( ghayba)
of the Mahd. This was a controversial issue, and Ilhs legal opinion
contradicted the fatw issued in 921/1515 by the chief cleric of the
court, al-Muhaqqiq al-Karak.266 Ilh spent the last years of his life in
Ardabl, where he died in 950/1543.267
In his ijza to a certain Kaml al-Dn Ibrhm al-Safaw, Ilh 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
Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, completed in 916/151011;269
(ii) glosses on Qshchs commentary on T ss Tajrd al-itiqd;270 (iii)
superglosses on Dawns glosses on Qshchs commentary on T ss
Tajrd; (iv) glosses on Maybuds commentary on Hidyat al-h ikma;
(v) glosses on al-Sharf al-Jurjns commentary on Adud al-Dn al-js
Mawqif; (vi) glosses on Dawns commentary on Adud al-Dn al-js

263
See al-Dhara, vol. 2, p. 324.
264
See al-Afand Isbahn, Riyd al-ulam, vol. 2, p. 103.
265
See Mahmd Afshta, Niqwat al-thr f dhikr al-akhyr, ed. Ihsn Ishrq,
Tehran 1373/19945, p. 183.
266
It is said that Mr Nimat Allh al-Jazir, the vizier of Shah T ahmsb, who
was against the view of Karak on that issue, collected fatws of several scholars,
among them Ilh, to support his own view. See Qumm, Khulsat al-tawrkh, vol. 1,
p. 237; Rml, Ah san al-tawrkh, ed. Abd al-H usay Nawy, Tehran 1357/19789,
pp. 3334. Generally on the Friday congregational prayer, see Abisaab, Converting
Persia, pp. 202.
267
See al-Afand Isfahn, Riyd al-ulam, vol. 2, pp. 99, 101; Sm Mrza Safaw,
Tuh fa-yi Sm, pp. 778.
268
This ijza was available to al-Afand al-Isbahn, who incorporated the list of Ilhs
writings in his bibliographical dictionary. See his Riyd al-ulam, vol. 2, pp. 1012.
269
See Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 235; H jj Khalfa, Kashf
al-zunn an asm al-kutub wa-l-funn, vol. 1, p. 253.
270
Four manuscripts of this work have been so far identified: MSS Marash 5007
(Cat., vol. 13, p. 203), Ridaw 80 (Cat., vol. 1, p. 92), Majlis 1762 (Cat., vol. 5, p. 141),
Majlis 1763 (Cat., vol. 5, p. 142). See Barakat, Kitb-shins-i Maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz,
pp. 23435.
44 introduction

al-Aqid al-Adudiyya, entitled Jawhir al-tah qq; and (vii) glosses on


Dawns commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Ithbt al-aql.
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-Dn al-Nayrz, whose works reflect the debate
between Dawn and Dashtak and their respective partisans and con-
stitute the main topic of the present book.
CHAPTER ONE

THE PHILOSOPHER AL-NAYRZ AND


GENERAL ASPECTS OF HIS THOUGHT

I. Review of Previous Scholarship

The earliest bibliographical source that provides some scant information


of Nayrzs works is Kashf al-zunn an asm al-kutub wa-l-funn of
H jj Khalfa (or Ktib elebi, 160957 ce). Under the entry on Risla
f ithbt al-wjib, H jj Khalfa mentions Jall al-Dn al-Dawn as the
author of two works with the title Ithbt al-wjib: al-Risla al-qadma
and al-Risla al-jadda. Among the commentators on these two works
to which he refers is H jj Mahmd al-Tabrz, which is clearly a mis-
reading of al-Nayrz.1 In order to determine the approximate date of
authorship of Dawns al-Risla al-qadma, H jj Khalfa also adduces
a brief quotation allegedly taken from Dawns al-Risla al-jadda in
which the latter explains that he wrote the older treatise some ten years
before at the request of an outstanding personality of Gln (who is not
further identified). A comparision between H jj Khalfas quotation
and both Dawns al-Risla al-jadda and Nayrzs commentary on it
shows, however, that H jj Khalfa has conflated Dawns wording in
his al-Risla al-jadda with some elements taken from Nayrzs com-
mentary on this tract.2 It was presumably on the basis of the same phrase
that H jj Khalfa erroneously assumed that Nayrz had also written

1
H jj Khalfa, Kashf al-zunn an asm al-kutub wa-l-funn, Tehran 1387/1967,
vol. 1, p. 842.
2
H jj Khalfas quotation runs as follows:



.

Only the first part (here in color) is taken from Dawns al-Risla al-jadda, whereas
the remainder of the sentence is an abbreviation taken from the commentary of
Nayrz. The exact wording in Dawns and Nayrzs original is as follows:

[: ]

[: ] .







46 chapter one

a commentary on Dawns al-Risla al-qadma. In his commentary


on the Risla al-jadda, Nayrz refers to a work he wrote concerning
the arguments that Dawn had employed in his al-Risla al-qadma.
However, Nayrz is in fact referring here to an independent work of
his that he had written on the issue (Risla f ithbt al-wjib).3
Two other works of Nayrz, namely his commentary on Suhrawards
al-Alwh al-Imdiyya and his glosses on the latters H ikmat al-ishrq,
were first discovered by Hellmut Ritter (d. 1971). In his study
Philologika IX. Die vier Suhraward, Ihre Werke in Stambuler Hand-
schriften, published in 1937, Ritter refers to a commentary on the
al-Alwh al-Imdiyya, entitled Misbh al-arwh f kashf h aqiq
al-Alwh and composed by a certain al-Wadd b. M. al-Tibrz 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 authors colophon.5
In the same article,6 Ritter also refers to glosses on Suhrawards
H ikmat al-ishrq written by a certain Najm al-Dn al-H jj Mahmd
al-Tibrz, of which a copy is preserved in the margin of MS Laleli
2523 (the main text being Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs commentary on
H ikmat al-ishrq). The work, Ritter explains, is dedicated to the min-
ister of al-Sultn Ahmad Bahdur Khn by the name of Nasr al-Dn
al-Sadd. He tentatively identifies the Sultan named as qquyunlu
Sultan Ahmad, who reigned for the short period of a few months
before he died in Rab II 903/December 1497.7 As will be shown later,
Ritters identification is not correct. The Sultan Ahmad referred to







.



3
See Nayrz, Sharh Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, MS ehid Ali 2761, ff. 4b-5a.
4
See Hellmut Ritter, Philologika IX. Die vier Suhraward, 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:134), stating yaql al-rj
rah mat rabbihi al-ghan al-wadd, Ibn Muh ammad al-Nayrz, H jj Mah md . . ..
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. Rab II 930 beendete, standen Jupiter und
Venus in Konjunktion in den Fischen. Spter fand er in einer anderen Handschrift
des Werkes noch Zustze des Autors und verfasste auch dazu einen Kommentar (arh
dayl al-kitb). Als er diesen beendete, im Jahre 932h, standen die beiden Glcksplane-
ten nummehr in den Zwillingen. Ritter, Philologika IX. Die vier Suhraward, p. 271.
6
Ibid., pp. 2778 no. 16.
7
Ibid., p. 277, fn. 1: Vielleicht ist der 903 umgekommene Herrscher der Wei-
Schafe gemeint.
the philosopher al-nayrz 47

here is Ahmad Khn Krkiy (r. 911/1506940/1533), who was the


ruler of Biya Psh (the Eastern part of Gln). The glosses were there-
fore written some years later than Ritter had assumed, namely shortly
after Ahmad Khn took power in 911/1506.8 Ritter is evidently unable
to identify both al-Wadd b. M. al-Tibrz and Najm al-Dn al-H jj
Mahmd al-Tibrz and seems to consider these names as referring to
two different persons.
The first scholar who correctly rendered Nayrzs name as H jj
Mahmd al-Nayrz was gh Buzurg al-T ihrn (d. 1970). In the
first volume of the latters al-Dhara il tasnf al-sha (published
in Najaf in 1355/1936), Nayrz is identified as the author of Rislat
Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda.9 Throughout the Dhara, gh Buzurg
lists other works of Nayrz that he had seen, namely a commen-
tary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-mantiq,10 a commentary on
Taftzns Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm,11 a commentary on Athr
al-Dn al-Abhars Hidyat al-h ikma,12 glosses on Dawns Unmdhaj
al-ulm,13 and glosses on Dawns Nihyat al-kalm f sharh kullu
kalm kdhib.14 Moreover, he repeatedly refers to a precious codex
copied by the hand of Nayrz that he had seen in the private library of
Sayyid Nasr Allh Taqaw (d. 1326/1947) in Tehran.15 The codex was
executed by Nayrz between 903/1497 and 919/151213 and contains
fifty-seven philosophical and theological writings, twenty of which are
described by gh Buzurg in his al-Dhara (the remaining thirty-seven

8
Ritter also mentions that the scribe attributes to the author of the commentary
glosses on Qd Mr H usayn al-Maybuds commentary on Athr al-Dn al-Abhars
Hidyat al-h ikma. This information is incorrect. Nayrz did not write glosses on
Maybuds commentary on Hidyat al-h ikma, but rather a commentary on Abhars
Hidyat al-h ikma. On this work see below, pp. 1114.
9
Due to technical problems, the 25 volumes of al-Dhara il tasnf al-sha 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-D ara el tasnf al-a, Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 7, pp. 356.).
However, Brockelmann dates the first volume in 1355/1936, which seems to be more
plausible, as gh Buzurg there refers to the first volume of the catalogue of the library
of the shrine of Imam Rid, published in 1926. See below, p. 48.
10
See gh Burzug al-T ihrn, al-Dhara il tasnf al-sha 125, Beirut 1403
6/19836, vol. 3, p. 354 (no. 1278), vol. 13, pp. 1401 (no. 469).
11
Dhara, vol. 6, p. 54 (no. 271), vol. 13, p. 163 (no. 555).
12
Dhara, vol. 14, pp. 1756 (no. 2059).
13
Dhara, vol. 2, pp. 4067 (no. 1627), vol. 6, p. 26 (no. 102).
14
Dhara, vol. 7, pp. 767 (no. 409).
15
On Sayyid Nasr Allh Taqaw, see Ruqayya Rasl, Taqaw, Dnishnma-yi
jahn-i Islm, vol. 7, pp. 8067.
48 chapter one

writings are passed over in silence).16 gh Buzurg also encountered


in the codex an ijza which Nayrz had received in 903/1498 from
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak. As Nayrz is addressed in this ijza as Najm
al-Dn, this honorific title may be attributed to Nayrz with certainty.
Later on, gh Buzurg dedicated an entry to Nayrz in his T abaqt
alm al-sha providing a list of his writings and quoting the ijza in
full.17
In his Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, Carl Brockelmann (d. 1956)
refers to the works of Nayrz on several occasions but neglects to devote
a separate entry to him. In the first supplementary volume (published in
1937), Brockelmann refers to al-Wadd b. M. at-Tibrz as the commenta-
tor of Suhrawards al-Alwh al-Imdiyya on the basis of the information
provided by Ritter.18 In the second supplementary volume (published in
1938), in the entry on Sad al-Dn al-Taftzn, he mentions Mahmd
an-Nairz a-rz as the author of a set of superglosses to Taftzns
Tahdhb al-mantiq, referring to a manuscript kept in Mashhad (Meh.
II 35), and identifies him as a contemporary of Jall al-Dn al-Dawn.19
In the same volume, in the entry on Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, Brockel-
mann states that Hgg Moll Mahmd at-Tibrz wrote a commen-
tary on Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wujd [sic] al-jadda in 970/1568 and
refers to MS Mashhad I, 12.20 In his entry on Jall al-Dn al-Dawn in
Volume Two of the second edition (published in 1949), Brockelmann
correctly gives Mahmd b. M. b. Mahmd al-Nayrz, a student of
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, as the commentator of Dawns Rislat Ithbt
al-wjib al-jadda (Brockelmann renders the title again as Rislat Ithbt
al-wujd al-jadda). This identification is based on gh Buzurgs note in
the first volume of his al-Dhara. Brockelman adds that the name of the
commentator of Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda in one cata-
logue was given as al-Tibrz.21 However, he does not acknowledge his

16
On the works of the codex specified by gh Burzurg, see below, pp. 1934
(Appendix II: Philosophical Writings Copied by Nayrz).
17
See also below, p. 54, fn. 45.
18
See Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, Leiden 19439,
vol. 1, p. 782.
19
See Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur. Supplementbnde,
Leiden 193742, vol. 1, p. 303. By Mashhad is meant the library of the shrine of Imam
Rid, nowadays known as stn-i Quds-i Radaw.
20
See Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur. Supplementbnde, vol. 1,
p. 307. This information is taken from the first volume of the catalogue of the library
of the shrine of Imam Rid, published in 1305/1926.
21
The original note by Brockelmann is as follows: Dhara I, 103/4, 509, 108,
527, wo Mahmd b. M. b. Mahmd an-Nairz (statt Tibrz des Cat.), Schler des
the philosopher al-nayrz 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 Averros jusqu nos jours), first published in 1974,
Henry Corbin (d. 1978) writes as follows:
Deux personnages de Tabrz, peu connus, sont nommer ici. Wadd
Tabrz crit, en 930/1524, un commentaire systmatique sur louvrage
de Sohravard intitul Livre des Tablettes ddies Imdoddn (mir
seldjoukide dAnatolie). Un contemporain de Wadd, moins connu
encore, Najmoddn Mahmd Tabrz, crit des gloses sur le Livre de la
Thosophie 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 Nayrzs commentary on al-Alwh
that had been described by Ritter (MS Ragp 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 Lumire de Gloire) in Nayrzs com-
mentary on the Alwh .24 In his L Archange empourpr, 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-Alwh al-Imdiyya refers to glosses he wrote
on H ikmat al-ishrq, yet he failed to correct Ritters misidentification

Sadraddn ad-Datak, verf. 921/1515. See Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen


Literatur, vol. 2, pp. 2178. This note seems to be entirely based on gh Buzurgs
note concerning Nayrzs commentary on Dawns Ithbt al-wjib in the first vol-
ume of his Dhara, which runs as follows: Sharh Ithbt al-wjib al-jadd li-l-Dawn
li-l-muh aqqiq al-Nayrz . . . huwa al-H jj Mah md al-Nayrz musir al-muh aqqiq
al-Khafr wa-l-mujz min ustdhih Mr Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak sanat 903 . . . tjad f
al-khizna al-Ridawiyya nuskha trkh kitbatih sana 970, wa-m f fihris khizna
al-Tabrz badal al-Nayrz . . . (see Dhara , vol. 1, pp. 1089).
22
Henry Corbin, Histoire de la philosophie islamique, Paris 1986, p. 451.
23
As he states: Dans le seul manuscrit connu, Ragb 853 (LArchange empourpr,
Paris 1976, p. 94).
24
He writes (En islam iranien: Aspects spirituels et philosophiques, Paris 1971, vol. 2,
pp. 35253): Deux personnages de Tabrz sont encore nommer: Wadd Tabrz
crit un commentaire systmatique sur le Livre des Tablettes ddies Imdoddn
mir seldjouqide dAnatolie. Nous nous sommes rfr ici aux pages de cet ouvrage
concernant le Xvarnah. Quant au commentaire, il fut achev en 930/1524. Un certain
Najmoddn Mahmd Tabrz, contemporain de Wadd, crit des Gloses sur le Livre
de la Thosophie orientale.
25
See Corbin, LArchange empourpr, pp. 9496, 117131.
50 chapter one

of the two names as referring to two different persons and to glean the
relevant missing links from gh Burzurgs Dhara that could have
enabled him to draw the correct conclusions.26
In 1976 Corbin delivered a lecture in Tehran entitled Trois philos-
ophes dAzerbajan. The text of this lecture became one of the chapters
of his Philosophie iranienne et philosophie compare, which he pub-
lished in the same year.27 By trois philosophes dAzerbajan Corbin
meant Shihb al-Dn al-Suhraward, Vadd Tabrz, and Rajab Al
al-Tabrz (1080/166970). On the basis of the passages of the com-
mentary which he had translated earlier in his LArchange empour-
pr, Corbin tried to establish Wadd al-Tabrz as a follower of
Suhraward and in so doing reminded his readers that Wadd came
from Tabriz in Azerbaijan, the region that had produced Suhraward
himself.28
The next scholar to whom reference should be made is Muhammad
Taq Dnishpazhh (d. 1375/1996). In the introduction to his edi-
tion of Ibn al-Muqaffas (d. ca. 142/759) al-Mantiq and Ibn Bihrzs
(fl. 200/816) H udd al-mantiq, published in 1978, Dnishpazhh pro-
vides a list of Arab and Persian logicians and their works in which ref-
erence is made to Jaml al-Dn Mahmd b. Muhammad b. Mahmd
al-Nayrz.29 The works of Nayrz he mentions are those that had
been listed by gh Buzurg, yet Dnishpazhh provides more detailed
information on the location of some of the manuscripts. In addition,
he lists four additional titles, namely: (i) a commentary on Nasr al-Dn

26
In LArchange empourpr (p. 94), Corbin writes: Wadd Tabrz, inconnu par
ailleurs, nous apprend quil avait lui-mme galement comment le Livre de la
Thosophie orientale; cf. Philosophie iranienne et philosophie compare, Tehran 1977
[reprinted Tehran 2003], p. 95. Moreover, here it is clear that he assumes Nayrzs
glosses on H ikmat al-ishrq to be lost.
27
See Corbin, Philosophie iranienne et philosophie compare, Paris 1976, p. 84
(footnote).
28
Corbin states: Mais il faut nous limiter ce soir au bref rendez-vous que nous
avons donn un autre Ishrq de lAzerbadjan, rendez-vous dautant plus impor-
tant que notre interlocuteur est rest peu prs inconnu jusquici. Son nom: Vadd
Tabrz. (Philosophie iranienne et philosophie compare, p. 94). Corbins emphasis
on Wadd being originally from Azerbaijan can be traced in his LArchange empour-
pr, where he says: Il est fort plausible que des hommes dAzerbadjan comme
notre Shaykh al-Ishrq et son commentateur Wadd Tabrz, aient eu sur place des
entretiens avec des thologiens chrtiens, et lon sait laffinit du nestorianisme avec
le christianisme judo-chrtien primitif (pp. 9596).
29
See Muhammad Taq Dnishpazhh (ed.), al-Mantiq li-Ibn Muqaffa. H udd
al-mantiq li-Ibn Bihrz, Tehran 1357/1978, pp. panjh u sa-panjh u panj.
the philosopher al-nayrz 51

al-T ss Tajrd al-itiqd, preserved in the Majlis Library in Tehran;30


(ii) a treatise entitled Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm wa-nihytih
wa-tabyn maqsid al-h arakt wa-ghytih (MS Malik 2614/1); (iii)
superglosses on Mr Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjns glosses on Shams
al-Dn Mahmd al-Isfahns commentary on al-Baydws T awli
al-anwr, entitled Matli al-anzr f sharh T awli al-anwr (MS
safiyya 58 mantiq); and (iv) a Persian treatise entitled Risla dar qidam
u h udth-i ajsm.31 Dnishpazhh correctly attributes the first three
works to Nayrz, yet he is mistaken with regard to the last-mentioned
treatise. According to the extant manuscripts of this text, it was writ-
ten by Jaml al-Dn Mahmd al-Shrz, whom Dnishpazhh errone-
ously assumed to be identical with Najm al-Dn Mahmd al-Nayrz.32
The information we possess on the life of Jaml al-Dn Mahmd b.
Yaqb al-Shrz (d. 962/15545) indicates that Jaml al-Dn Mahmd
was evidently a younger contemporary of Nayrz.33

30
Nayrzs commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-itiqd was first men-
tioned by Muhammad Taq Mudarris Ridaw in his Ah wl u thr-i Khwja Nasr
al-Dn-i T s (Tehran 1334/195556, p. 430). Dnishpazhh refers to Abd al-H usayn
H ir, Fihrist-i Kitbkhna-yi Majlis-i Shr-yi Mill, Tehran 1352/1973, vol. 10 iv,
pp. 21069.
31
See Dnishpazhh (ed.), al-Mantiq li-Ibn Muqaffa. H udd al-mantiq li-Ibn
Bihrz, pp. panjh u sa-panjh u chahr. Dnishpazhh also suggested that Risla f
Bayn man al-qadiyya wa-l-tasdq, a work which is included in MS Malik 2614 and
copied by the same scribe as Nayrzs Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm, might also be by
Nayrz. I examined this manuscript and found no reason to justify this attribution.
32
The only two extant manuscripts of this work are MSS Ridaw 12297 and
Mahdaw 282. See the introduction to my critical edition of this treatise (Marif 19
iii (Isfand 1381/March 2003), pp. 88106), p. 99.
33
In the colophon of MS Dnishgh 4559, which is a copy of Dawns second
set of glosses on Jurjns glosses on Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on Urmaws
Matli al-anwr transcribed from a copy written by the hand of Khwja Jaml al-Dn
Mahmd, the full name of the latter is given as Mahmd b. Yaqb b. Muhammad b.
Yaqb b. Sayf al-Dn Yahy al-Salmn al-Slihn (Cat., vol. 13, pp. 349899). Jaml
al-Dn Mahmd al-Shrz is said to have studied with Jall al-Dn al-Dawn and
Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr al-Dashtak. He then taught in Isfahan and later on in Shiraz
(see Abd al-Nab al-Qazwn, Tatmm Amal al-mil, ed. Sayyid Ahmad al-H usayn,
Qum 1407/198687, pp. 100101). His extant works are: (1) glosses on Dawns
Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda (MS Majlis 4001 (Cat., vol. 11, p. 1)), (2) glosses on
Dawns al-H shya al-qadma al l-sharh al-jadd li-Tajrd al-itiqd (MS Marash
5596 (Cat., vol. 14, p. 363)), (3) Khalq al-aml (MS Marash 2564/13 (Cat., vol. 7, p.
155)), (4) glosses on Dawns al-H shya al sharh al-Matli (MS Awqf Baghdd
13529/2 (Cat., vol. 2, pp. 13233)), (5) glosses on Dawns commentary on Taftzns
Tahdhb al-mantiq (MS Majlis 1937/4 (Cat., vol. 10 (4), p. 1936), and (6) Risla dar
Qidam u h udth-i ajsm (cf. Muhammad Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i
Shrz, pp. 206207). In his Tadhkira-yi haft iqlm, Amn Ahmad Rz mentions
the following as being among his students: Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Muqaddas
al-Ardabl (d. 993/15856), Abd Allh al-Bahbd al-Yazd (d. 981/15734), Fakhr
52 chapter one

Dnishpazhh also discusses the identity of H jj Mahmd al-Nayrz


in an article devoted to the works of Imd al-Dn Mahmd al-Shrz
(d. ca. 990/1582), published in 1996.34 There, he suggests that Nayrzs
father may have been Ab Ishq Muhammad b. Abd Allh al-Nayrz,
the author of a treatise on prepositions, Risla f Man al-h arf.
Dnishpazhhs suggestion is perhaps due to the fact that the name of
Ab Ishq was Muhammad, the same name as Mahmd al-Nayrzs
father. However, Nayrz gives his full name as Mahmd b. Muhammad
b. Mahmd, suggesting that the name of his grandfather was Mahmd,
whereas Ab Ishqs father was named Abd Allh. Thus, Dnishpazhhs
suggestion has to be ruled out.
In recent years, Nayrzs name and his writings have also been dis-
cussed in a number of studies published by Iranian scholars. Qsim
Kky mentions H jj/Hjj Mahmd Nayrz in an article on the
Philosophical School of Shiraz as having been one of the students of
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, and he relies in his account of Nayrzs works
on gh Buzurg al-T ihrns al-Dhara.35 Muhammad Jawd Shams
Nayrz has devoted an extensive section to Jaml al-Dn Mahmd-i
Nayrz in his book on the history of Nayrz and its scholars. He relies
on the data provided by gh Buzurg and Dnishpazhh. Under
the influence of the latter, however, Shams Nayrz has conflated
the names of Jaml al-Dn Mahmd al-Shrz and H jj Mahmd
al-Nayrz and refers to Jaml al-Dn Mahmd-i Nayrz.36 The pres-
ent author has included a brief discussion on Nayrz in the introduc-
tion to his edition of Risla dar qidam u h udth-i ajsm by Nayrzs
younger contemporary, Jaml al-Dn Mahmd, showing for the first
time that H jj Mahmd al-Nayrz was the author of the commen-
tary and the glosses mentioned by Ritter. He was incorrect, however,
in supporting Dnishpazhhs suggestion that Jaml al-Dn Mahmd

al-Dn al-Sammk (d. 984/15767), H abb Allh al-Bghnaw al-Shrz, known as


Mrz Jn (d. 995/1587), Fath Allh al-Shrz (d. 993/158586), Afdal al-Dn al-Turka
al-Isfahn (d. 991/15834), Shh Ab Muhammad al-Shrz, and Abd al-Whid
al-Shshtar; see Amn Ahmad Rz, Tadhkira-yi haft iqlm, ed. Sayyid Muhammad
Rid T hir H asrat, Tehran 1378/1998, vol. 1, p. 227.
34
See Muhammad Taq Dnishpazhh, thr-i Imd al-Dn Mahmd-i Shrz,
Majma khatbh-yi nukhustn kungira-yi tah qiqt-i rn, 13, ed. Ghulm Rid
Sotude, Tehran 1354/1975, vol. 3, pp. 48695, esp. pp. 4878.
35
See Qsim Kky, shny b maktab-i Shrz: Muhaqqiq-i Khafr, Kherad-
nameh-e Sadra, 4 (Summer 1375/1996), p. 79.
36
See Muhammad Jawd Shams Nayrz, Trkh u farhang-i Nayrz, Tehran
1379/2000, pp. 24353.
the philosopher al-nayrz 53

al-Shrz and H jj Mahmd al-Nayrz are the same person.37 In his


bibliography of the philosophers of the school of Shiraz, published in
2004, Muhammad Barakat included headings for both Jaml al-Dn
Mahmd al-Shrz and H jj Mahmd al-Nayrz, 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 Nayrzs 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-Dn Mahmd b. Muhammad b. Mahmd al-Nayrz, known as Hjj
Mahmd. The only data with the help of which his biography can at
least partially be reconstructed are Nayrzs 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 Nayrz, a town 230 km east
of Shiraz. Whether his family resided in Nayrz 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 Nayrzs life comes from
14 Safar 897/16 December 1491 when he completed copying Qutb
al-Dn al-Shrzs commentary on Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq.40
In the colophon of this commentary, Nayrz refers to himself with
the honorific title H jj, which indicates that he must have gone to

37
See Jaml al-Dn Mahmd Nayrz [Shrz], Risla dar Qidam u hudth-i
ajsm, ed. Reza Pourjavady, Marif, 19 iii (Isfand 1381/March 2003), pp. 8894.
38
See Barakat, Kitb-shins-yi maktab-i falsaf-yi Shrz, pp. 198208. Barakat
attributes Jaml al-Dn Mahmds Risla dar qidam u h udth-i ajsm and his glosses
on Dawns glosses on Sharh al-Matli to H jj Mahmd al-Nayrz.
39
In the introduction to his commentary on Taftzns Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-
kalm, after explaining about his studies during his youth, Nayrz writes about mov-
ing out of the city in which he studied as follows: ittafaqa al-khurj an al-awtn.
Nayrzs usage of the plural form of watan (awtn) 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. 1635 (Appendix I: Inventory
of Nayrzs Writings).
40
This is on the basis of Nayrzs colophon at the end of MS Marash 4266
(f. 200a). For more information on this manuscript see below, pp. 1856 (Appendix
I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
54 chapter one

Mecca sometime before 897/1491. At this date the place of his resi-
dence is unknown. Three years later he was certainly in Shiraz. The
evidence for this is his remark in his commentary on Abhars Hidyat
al-h ikma that he saw a rainbow in Shiraz in 900/149495.41 This must
have been around the time that he was studying in that city with Sadr
al-Dn al-Dashtak. He also tells us in one of his writings that ratio-
nal theology (kalm) was his favourite subject.42 Indeed, in contrast
to some other scholars of Shiraz who studied in the same school,
namely Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak and Shams al-Dn al-Khafr,43 he
showed little interest in mathematics and astronomy, although he
was to some extent concerned with astrology.44 Nayrz was granted
an ijza by his teacher Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak that the latter issued
some few months before his murder on 12 Ramadn 903/4 May 1498.
In this ijza Dashtak shows great respect for Nayrz, as is indicated
by the honorific titles he employs when addressing him. This suggests
that Nayrz must have reached a certain age by that time. Dashtak
also mentions here that Nayrz studied with him his Ithbt al-wjib
and several glosses that he had written on different texts.45 Nayrzs

41
See Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Ridaw 175-h ikma, f. 97b.
42
In the introduction to his commentary on Taftzns Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-
kalm, explaining about his studies during his youth, Nayrz states: Then I found
that the science of kalm, 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. 1634 (Appendix I:
Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
43
Presumably Nayrz and other students of Sadr al-Dn, including Ghiyth al-Dn
al-Dashtak and Shams al-Dn al-Khafr, studied in the Mansriyya madrasa estab-
lished by Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak in 883/14789. On this madrasa see above, p. 18.
44
At the end of his Misbh al-arwh f sharh h aqiq al-Alwh and Tah rr Tajrd
al-aqid, Nayrz mentions the astrological coincidence with the completion of
the respective works, see below, pp. 161, 1756 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs
Writings).
45
The original copy of the ijza is included in a philosophical codex copied by
Nayrz. gh Buzurg quotes this ijza in his T abaqt alm al-sha (vol. 7, pp. 243
4). According to gh Buzurg, the ijza is located in the codex following Sadr al-Dn
al-Dashtaks Rislat Ithbt al-wjib. The ijza runs as follows:
.































=]

[

the philosopher al-nayrz 55

familiarity with the works of his teacher is evident, as he frequently


refers to them throughout his own writings.46 Sadr al-Dn is in fact the
only person that Nayrz refers to as his teacher in his writings. How-
ever, Nayrz also attended the courses of Sadr al-Dns son Ghiyth
al-Dn for a long period of time and ultimately received an ijza from
the latter.47 According to this ijza, which sheds light on an important
part of Nayrzs education, Ghiyth al-Dn taught Nayrz some of
his own writings, namely his Mirt al-h aqiq,48 his supercommen-
tary on Dawns commentary on Suhrawards Ishrq Haykil al-nr
(entitled Ishrq Haykil al-nr li-kashf zulumt Shawkil al-gharr),49
a part of his al-Marij together with its supplement (on astronomy),50
and a part of al-Lawmi51 (on astronomy), as well as some pieces of
his commentary on Suhrawards H ikmat al-Ishrq,52 several of his
glosses on Ibn Sns al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht,53 and some passages
from his commentary on Sirj al-Dn al-Sakkks (d. 626/12289)
al-Mifth al-ulm (on semantics).54 With Ghiyth al-Dn, Nayrz
also studied Jr Allh al-Zamakhshars al-Kashshf (Qurnic
exegesis), al-Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjns commentary on Sirj al-Dn
al-Sakkks Mifth al-ulm, Shams al-Dn al-Bukhrs commentary
on Najm al-Dn al-Ktibs H ikmat al-ayn together with the glosses
by al-Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjn, Jurjns glosses on Qutb al-Dn
al-Rzs commentary on Sirj al-Dn al-Urmaws Matli al-anwr,




.

.

46

See below, pp. 117, 1201, 123, 129.
47
A unique manuscript of this ijza has been preserved in MS Malik 956, f. 266a.
For the edition of this ijza, see below, pp. 1967 (Appendix III: An Ijza Given to
Nayrz by Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak).
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 Ilhiyyt-i Mashhad 614/1 (Cat., vol. 1, p. 372). Cf. Barakat, Kitb-
shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 1623.
52
It has been unknown until now that Ghiyth al-Dn wrote a commentary on
H ikmat al-Ishrq. 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 Ghiyth al-Dn is referring to a work he wrote on Sakkks Mifth
al-ulm and Jurjns commentary on it, of which a manuscript is preserved in Majlis
507 (Cat., vol. 22, p. 201). Cf. Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp.
1389.
56 chapter one

Al al-Dn al-Qshchs commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd


al-itiqd, Nasr al-Dn al-T s and Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commen-
taries on al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht, Bahmanyrs al-Tah s l, Ibn Sns
al-Shif, and Ibn Brz al-H amaws commentary on Najm al-Dn
al-Qazwns al-H w, enttitled al-Taysr al-h w f tah rr al-fatw (on
the Shfi school of fiqh).55 Unfortunately the unique manuscript of
this ijza (MS Malik 956) is undated. But since Ghiyth al-Dns Mirt
al-h aqiq, mentioned in this ijza, is known to have been dedicated
to Aqquyunlu Sultan Ahmad in 902/1497,56 the ijza must have been
written at some time around this date or within the next couple of
years (i.e., before Nayrz left Shiraz).
Nayrz 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 Nayrz copied are part of the Nayrz codex, containing fifty-seven
philosophical and theological texts that partly identified and described
by gh Buzurg al-T ihrn.58
In 904/149899, Nayrz completed his commentary on Athr al-Dn
al-Abhars Hidyat al-h 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 Dashtak only a year earlier. In
the introductions to some of his later works he expresses his home-
sickness 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 Abhars Hidyat al-h ikma (completed in 916/1510)
that he observed a rainbow in Ramadn 909/FebruaryMarch 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 Isml I. After brutally forcing the people of Tabriz

55
On this work see above, p. 22.
56
See above, p. 25, fn. 156.
57
In the introduction to his commentary on Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm, Nayrz
writes: rqiman f dhlika l-awn al l-kutub al-kathra raqaman yufd al-makhlqn
lahu l-basra, see below, p. 164 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
58
See below, pp. 1934 (Appendix II: Philosophical writings copied by Nayrz).
59
Namely in his commentaries on Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm and al-Alwh
al-Imdiyya; see below, pp. 164, 173 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
60
See Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Ridaw 175-h ikma, f. 98b.
the philosopher al-nayrz 57

to accept Shism in 907/1501, the Shah and his qizilbsh 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 Shism publicly. There is no indication that Nayrz
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 Shh Mr, the son
of Malik Mahmd Jn, who had studied with Nayrz for a while and
was later on appointed by the Shah as vizier.62 Despite these favourable
conditions, Nayrzs 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 (ilm al-usl ) nor about
mysticism.63
On 24 Rab II 911/23 September 1505, Nayrz completed a treatise
entitled F tayn jiht al-ajsm and dedicated it to someone referred to
as al-malik al-majd D iy al-milla wa-l-duny wa-l-dn Sadd.64 Some
time later but before 913/1507 Nayrz was in Biya Psh, the eastern
part of the province of Gln (in the north of Iran bounded by the
Caspian Sea), and it is likely that he sojourned in Lhjn, the urban
centre of Biya Psh. There, Nayrz was patronized by Nsir al-Dn,
who was presumably the vizier of Sultn Ahmad Khn Krkiy (r. 911/

61
See Manchihr Prsdst, Shah Isml-i awwal: Pdishh b atharh-yi drpy
dar Irn u Irn, Tehran 1381/2002, pp. 289300.
62
See Sm Mrz Safaw, Tadhkira-yi Tuh fa-yi Sm, ed. Rukn al-Dn Humyn
Farrukh, Tehran 1384/2005, p. 92.
63
Nayrzs introduction to his Sharh Tahdhb al-mantiq, MS ehid Ali 1780, f. 1b.
See below, p. 164 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
64
See MS Malik, 2614/1, ff. 1b, 22a. For a description of this work, see below, pp.
1145.
58 chapter one

1506940/1533).65 Ahmad Khn belonged to the Zayd dynasty of the


Kr-Kiys who were at that time vassals of the Safavids.66 During his
sojourn in Biya Psh, Nayrz completed his Ithbt al-wjib as well as
his glosses on Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq. Both are dedicated to
Nsir al-Dn.67
Nayrz apparently did not stay in Gln for long. He indicates in
his commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-mantiq, completed
in 913/15078, that he was travelling from Isfahan to Qazwin while
in the process of writing this commentary.68 He dedicated this work
to a certain Amr Nizm al-Din Mahmd.69 After completing it, he
commented on T ss Twelver Sh creed, Tajrd al-itiqd. This lat-
ter commentary, entitled Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, shows that Nayrz
was a fierce supporter of Twelver Shism 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 Gln (Biya Psh) 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 Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib
al-jadda, completed in 921/15156, where he indicates that some ten years earlier,
i.e., around 911/15056, he had written a work on ithbt al-wjib at the request of
an authority in Gln whom he does not identify any further. See above, p. 45, fn. 2.
66
The Kr-Kiy Sayyids ruled the area from 769/13678 onwards. Before seizing
power, Shah Isml spent six years (899/1494905/1499) 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 Ismls support, Ahmad Kr-Kiy succeeded in
seizing power in Biya Psh following his fathers death on 4 Ramadn 911/29 January
1506. In his time, Gln and particularly Biya Psh became an important cultural cen-
ter. See Khr Shh b. Qubd al-H usayn, Trkh-i Ilchi Nizm Shh, eds. Muhammad
Rid Nasr & Koichi Haneda, Tehran 1379/2000, pp. 2126.
67
Nayrzs praise of his patron Nsir al-Dn contains some indications that the lat-
ter was a physician and scholar of law. See below Nayrzs introductions to his Ithbt
al-wjib, p. 155 (Appendix I: Inventory of the Nayrzs Writings) and to his glosses on
Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs commentary on Suhrawards H ikmat al-Ishrq, pp. 17980
(Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
68
This is according to gh Buzurg al-T ihrn, who saw a copy of this work. See
Dhara, vol. 13, 141, no. 469. This work was not available to the present author.
69
Dhara, vol. 13, 141, no. 469.
70
See for eg. Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Majlis 3968, f. 294b: 20, where
he curses them with alayhim al-lana wa-l-adhb. Cursing the first three caliphs
seems to have been widely practised at the time among qizilbsh. In 916/151011,
al-Muhaqqiq al-Karak, who was the legal authority at the court of Shh Isml I,
wrote a treatise entitled Nafah t al-lht f lan al-jibt wa-l-tght, in which he legal-
ized it. See Andrew J. Newman, The Myth of the Clerical Migration to Safawid Iran.
Arab Shiite Opposition to Al al-Karak and Safawid Shiism, Die Welt des Islam,
33 (1993), pp. 66112, esp. p. 79; Abisaab, Converting Persia, pp. 267. Cf. Dhara,
vol. 24, pp. 2501 no. 1297.
the philosopher al-nayrz 59

our knowledge this commentary is the first Twelver Sh theological


work written in the Safavid period, and for this reason it is particularly
significant.
On 12 Safar 916/20 May 1510, Nayrz completed copying and revis-
ing his commentary on Abhars Hidyat al-h ikma in Isfahan. At the
end of the commentary he adds a note mentioning five of his previ-
ous works, namely his commentaries on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd
al-itiqd and his Tajrd al-mantiq, his commentary on Taftzns
Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm, his commentary on Allma al-H ills
Tahdhb al-ah km, and his commentary on Dawns Rislat Ithbt
al-wjib al-jadda.71
On 2 Rab I 919/8 May 1513 Nayrz was in Yazd, for he completed
copying and revising his commentary on T ss Tajrd al-itiqd 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 copy-
ing and revising his commentary on Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib
al-jadda, again in the same mosque.
Nayrz seems to have kept in contact with his colleague Ghiyth
al-Dn Mansr al-Dashtak, the son of his teacher. This is indicated
by an approbation note written around 921/1515 by Ghiyth al-Dn
on Nayrzs commentary on T ss Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm, in
which he praises this work and acknowledges Nayrzs commentary
on T ss Tajrd al-itiqd.73
On 5 Rab II 930/10 February 1524, Nayrz was still in Yazd, com-
pleting his commentary on the Alwh al-Imdiyya of Suhraward,

71
See Nayrzs colophon at the end of MS Carullah 1327 (f. 218b) as quoted below,
p. 171 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
72
See below, p. 193 (Appendix II: Philosophical Writings Copied by Nayrz).
73
This approbation note (taqrz) is to be found in MSS Marash 13793/8 and Ridaw
18410. See below, p. 165 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings). There is also a
brief note on the last leaf of Shams al-Dn al-Khafrs glosses on Qshchs commen-
tary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-Itiqd in MS Majlis 1761, which runs as fol-
lows: al-Fdil al-Nayrz H jj Mah md shrih Tajrd tilmdh Sadr al-mudaqqiqn.
Abd al-H usayn H ir, the compiler of Volume Ten of the manuscript catalogue of
the Majlis Library, suggests that the note is written by Khafr (Cat., vol. 10 (4), pp.
21068). There is, however, no clear evidence to prove his assumption.
60 chapter one

entitled Misbh al-arwh f sharh h aqiq al-alwh .74 Later on, he


found another manuscript of the Alwh which had an additional sec-
tion not contained in the manuscript(s) that had been available to
him before. He therefore expanded his commentary two years later in
Jawz (Rajab-Shabn) 932/MayJune 1526.75
On 2 Rab II 933/25 January 1526, Nayrz completed copying
Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr al-Dashtaks Risla f l-Sayr wa-l-sulk.76
Three days later, on 5 Rab II 933/9 January 1526, he completed
another copy of his own commentary on al-Alwh al-Imdiyya. This
is the latest extant dated note of Nayrz. It is not clear how much lon-
ger he lived, but he was apparently still alive on 2 Rabi I 943/10 Sep-
tember 1536, when his son produced another copy of the commentary
of al-Alwh al-Imdiyya. 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 Nayrzs death, there is reason to believe that his decease
was not due to natural causes, since Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak refers
in one his late writings to Nayrz as the very learned martyred
(al-allma al-shahd).78
The only student of Nayrz who is known by name is Shh Mr
b. Malik Mahmd Jn al-Daylam, one of Shah Ismils viziers.79
Nayrzs son, Muhammad, 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. Muhammad cop-
ied his fathers commentaries on Suhrawards al-Alwh al-Imdiyya80
and on Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda,81 as well as the

74
Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh f sharh h aqiq al-Alwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff.
208b-209a; cf. below, p. 177 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
75
Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh f sharh h aqiq al-Alwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 213a.
76
gh Buzurg states that the manuscript was preserved in a private library in
Samarra. See Dhara, vol. 12, p. 284, no. 1910. The current location of this manuscript
is unknown.
77
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh f sharh h aqiq al-Alwh , MS ehid Ali 1739,
f. 213a.
78
Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Talqt al al-Sharh al-jadd li-l-Tajrd, in
Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 2, p. 643. There are two versions of this work, the
earlier version can be found in MS Ridaw 444 (Cat., vol. 4, p. 117) and the later ver-
sion in MS Majis (Sin) 32 (Cat., vol. 1, p. 16).
79
See above, p. 57.
80
See the colophon of MS ehid Ali1739, f. 213a. The copy was completed on 2
Rab I 943/10 September 1536.
81
According to Muhammad Taq Dnishpazhh and Iraj Afshr the manuscript
(completed on 5 Rajab 940/20 January 1534) was preserved in the private library of
Muhammad Jawd Wjid. Its present location is unknown (Nuskhah-yi khatt , vol. 5,
Tehran 1346/1967, p. 285).
the philosopher al-nayrz 61

latters commentary on Suhrawards Haykil al-nr.82 As he indicates


in his commentary on al-Alwh al-Imdyya, Nayrz had a very close
relationship with his son. His grandson, Al b. Muhammad b. H jj
Mahmd, was also involved in copying philosophical and scientific
writings. An extant codex copied by him contains Nayrzs commen-
tary on Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda as well as some writ-
ings of Qshch, Dawn and Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak.83

III. Nayrzs Approach to Philosophy and Theology

Nayrz was one of the few scholars of his time who dealt with philoso-
phy and who also regarded themselves as philosophers. He admired the
authoritative Muslim philosophers, namely Frb and Ibn Sn, in all
respects.84 To him to use his words rationalism (aql ) corresponds
fully with the religious tradition (naql), while philosophy is the Qurnic
hikma, which conveys enormous good (khayran kathran). 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).
83
The scribe refers to his name in the colophon of this manuscript (f.106a) as
follows: qad tamma kitbatuhu al yad al-abd al-daf Al b. Muh ammad b. H jj
Mah md al-Nayrz. The codex contains (i) Nayrzs commentary on Dawns Rislat
Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, (ii) Risla f tadd al-thawbit al-rasadiyya wa-mash at
al-ard wa-l-aflk wa-l-kawkib (anonymous), (iii) Al Qshchs F bayn istilh t
waqaa f l-ilm al-riyd, (iv) Dawns Risla f kalimat al-tawh d (or Tahlliyya)
(Persian), (v) Dawns commentary on a ghazal of H fiz (Persian), (vi) Sadr al-Dn
al-Dashtaks Ithbt al-wjib. The entire codex was written by two hands. The first
work in the codex (until f. 29b:3) was apparently copied by Nayrzs son, as is sug-
gested by the similarity of the handwriting with MS ehid Ali 1739, which we know
was copied by him. Al b. Muhammad b. H jj Mahmd thus persumably completed
the codex that had been started by his father.
84
Ottoman thinkers who were his contemporaries, such as Muayyadzde (Ibn
Muayyad) and Kaml Pshzde (Ibn Kaml ), under the influence of Ghazl, 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. Osmanl Imparatorluu Dneminde Trk Felsefesi, Ankara
2005, pp. 4573. Even Dawn, who regarded himself as a philosopher, tried to detach
himself from Ibn Sn and Frbs path. In his Unmdhaj al-ulm, Dawn criticized
Ibn Sn and Frb for their idea of the eternity of the world and their disagreement
with the Islamic belief on bodily resurrection (see Dawn, Unmdhaj al-ulm, in
Thalth rasil, pp. 284319, esp. 3189).
85
See Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 1b. Alluding to
the Qurnic usages of the word h ikma, Nayrz asserts: wa-ishrah il annah
(= al-h ikma) atqan al-turuq al-msila il sadat al-uzm al-mabth li-al-ilm bih
al-anbiy. Cf. below, p. 170 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
62 chapter one

Nayrz evidently tried to improve the negative reputation of the


philosophers. In his commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd, for example,
he attempts to justify Ibn Sns position on the issue of bodily resur-
rection. He quotes from Ibn Sns al-Shif, 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. Nayrz
then says:
This is what he [= Ibn Sn] says, which shows explicitly that they [i.e.,
Frb and Ibn Sn] 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 Aris-
totle. Because, as is apparent from a passage in Naqd al-Muhassal . . . 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 Sn, Nayrz 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 Sns
al-Adhawiyya, in which the latter explicitly opposed bodily resurrec-
tion. Nayrz bases his argument exclusively on Ibn Sns assertion in
his Shif.87
Nayrzs respect for Ibn Sn and Frb prevented him from criti-
cizing them, even when his view differed from theirs. For instance,
instead of supporting their notion of the eternity of the world he pro-
motes Nasr al-Dn al-T ss (theological ) position of the occurrence

86
Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Majlis 3968, f. 306b: 136. For the quota-
tion 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
Sns al-Adh awiyya among later Muslim scholars. See his A Mamlk Theologians
Commentary on Avicennas Risla Adhawiyya (Part One), Journal of Islamic Stud-
ies, 14 ii (2003), pp. 149203, esp. pp. 1523. Like Nayrz, Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr
al-Dashtak argues that Ibn Sn believed in bodily resurrection, but he seems to have
been referring to al-Adh awiyya as a work attributed to Ibn Sn in which the latter
argues against bodily resurrection. He rejects this attribution as being in contradiction
with works whose attribution to Ibn Sn is certain. See Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak,
H ujjat al-kalm li-dh mah ajjat al-Islm, in Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 1,
pp. 153204, esp. 179. Another colleague of Nayrz, Mr H usayn Maybud, is explicit
about not knowing the nature of Ibn Sns statement concerning resurrection for
which Ghazl accused him of heresy. He assumes that perhaps Ghazl 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 Maybud, Jm-i gt-num, p. 111.
the philosopher al-nayrz 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 T s, he argues for the eternity of the intellects (uql ).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,
Nayrz 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 under-
stand it, as they would do it an injustice. 90
Nayrzs notion of philosophy in his commentary on Suhrawards
al-Alwh al-Imdiyya, which was his last work, appears to be differ-
ent from that of his previous works. In his introduction to this com-
mentary, Nayrz explains that knowledge of the origin (mabda) and
return (mad) can be gained in two ways: the way of those who con-
template and deal with arguments (ahl al-nazar wa-l-istidll) 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 (arbb
al-riydt wa-l-mujhadt) in order to see things as they are and to
see the First Light (al-nr al-awwal, meaning God or the Necessary
Existent) and the surrounding lights (al-anwr al-muqarrabn, mean-
ing 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, Suhrawards theoretical ideas and arguments are
the subject of several criticisms by Nayrz, as will be explained below
in Chapter Four. But when it comes to Suhrawards visions of the hid-
den world, Nayrz treats him as his shaykh. Indeed, his main efforts
in his commentary on the Alwh are devoted to exploring this side of
Suhrawards philosophy. Commenting on the mystical passages of the
Alwh was like a meditation for him. He states:

88
Commenting upon Nasr al-Dn al-T ss argument for the occurrence of bod-
ies in time, Nayrz asserts: fa-lam anna al-musannif qad akhadha madhhab jumhr
al-muslimn; see Nayrzs commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 3968, f. 173b:189.
89
See Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, ff. 198a ff.
90
See Nayrzs introduction to his commentary on Abhars Hidyat al-h ikma
quoted below, pp. 16970 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
91
See Nayrzs introduction to his Misbh al-arwh f kashf h aqiq al-Alwh
quoted below, pp. 1723 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
64 chapter one

Our inadequate knowledge is too little about these spiritual wonders


(al-ajib al-rhniyya). Yet, contemplation and meditation on them
makes us experience some similar divine flashes (al-briqt al-ilhiyya)
and sacred lights (al-anwr al-qudsiyya), while all engagements of our
souls with other things diverted our attention and concentration.92
Here, Nayrz implies that one of his motivations for commenting upon
Suhrawards al-Alwh al-Imdiyya was to have illuminationist experi-
ences. This mystical tendency is hardly evident in Nayrzs earlier works,
including his glosses on Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq. It is only in this
commentary that Nayrz pays respect to the Sufi masters, particularly
Ab Yazd al-Bast m (d. ca. 261/874) and H usayn b. Mansr al-H allj
(ex. 309/922).93 Henry Corbin, who was the first modern scholar to
study Nayrzs commentary on the Alwh, points to Nayrzs positive
attitude towards the Sufis. He refers also to the significance of Nayrzs
citing Socrates and Plato in his comment on a saying of H allj, which
Corbin regards as an indication of his illuminationist approach.94
Nayrz even approved of the Sufi idea of unification with God
(ittih d), which was a controversial issue and was rejected by the
mainstream philosophers, including Ibn Sn, and also accepted the
Sufis musical ceremonies (sam). However, references to Ibn Arabs
thought and terminology are conspicuously absent from Nayrzs
works. It seems that he deliberately refrained from applying Ibn
Arabs terminology. Nayrzs teacher, Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, had
manifested the same attitude towards Ibn Arabs thought and it is
likely that Nayrz inherited this view from him. Sadr al-Dns notion
of wujd in particular, as will be explained later on, was different from
that of the school of Ibn Arab, according to which God was referred
to as wujd.95 It is therefore not surprising that Sadr al-Dn and Nayrz
distanced themselves from Ibn Arabs terminology.
Another aspect of Nayrzs thought is his adherence to Twelver
Shism. This is shown fully in his commentary on Nasr al-Dn

92
Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh f kashf h aqiq al-Alwh , MS ehid 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
Nayrz shows respect in his comments on the sayings of H allj and Ab Yazd
quoted by Suhraward in Lawh II of al-Alwh al-Imdiyya. See Misbh al-arwh f
kashf h aqiq al-Alwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff. 59a60a.
94
Corbin, Philosophie iranienne et philosophie compare, pp. 967.
95
See below, pp. 949.
the philosopher al-nayrz 65

al-T ss Tajrd al-itiqd (completed before 916/1510). In his intro-


duction to this work, Nayrz explains that for a long time he had
wanted to comment on the Tajrd 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 Nayrz overcame his feeling
of vulnerability when Shh Isml I declared Twelver Shsm to be the
state religion:
Until the lights of Truth appeared from the horizon of certainty, illu-
minated 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 cor-
responds to that of Ibrhm. 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 Ibrhm and
Isml: 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 guid-
ance of the saved sect (al-firqat al-njiyya) 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
[= Tajrd al-itiqds] benefits and its unique pearls to those who desire
[them].98
Instead of referring to Shah Isml I explicitly, Nayrz prefers here to
allude to him by quoting a Qurnic verse in which the Shahs name,
Isml, is mentioned. There is no indication that Nayrzs commentary
is dedicated to the Shah or that it was written at his request. However,
Nayrzs endorsement of the people of the Shahs court as the true
followers of Ibrhm 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 Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Ihy-i mrth 1849, f. 2b.
97
Translation of the Qurnic verses in this book is based on A. J. Arberrys The
Koran Interpreted (London & New York 1955), occasionally with some modifications.
98
See Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Ihy-i mrth 1849, f. 2b. For the com-
plete introduction of Nayrz to his Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid see below, pp. 15760
(Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
66 chapter one

al-njiyya)99 was considered by Nayrz to be the sect that Shah Isml


had endorsed, i.e., Twelver Shism.100
Nayrzs work likewise shows that the formation of Sh kalm
occurred soon after the emergence of the Safavids.101 The circle around
Shah Isml I is known to have concerned itself greatly with the prac-
tice of Sh law ( fiqh). It was for this reason that Al al-Karak was
invited to Iran as jurisconsult.102 But besides Sh law, Sh dogma
needed attention and it seems that those in power were also aware of
this gap. Therfore, any work like the one by Nayrz must have been
welcome at the time.103
Throughout his commentary Nayrzs positions are those he refers
to as the positions of Twelver Shs (al-Immiyya), which often, as
he admits, correspond with the views of the Mutazils. He supports
(among others) the Mutazil position that human actions are conse-
quent upon choice (ikhtiyr),104 and that the goodness or badness of
our actions can be recognized by human reason (h usn wa-qubh aql).105
Following the Mutazils he also rejects the Ashar and Mturd notion
that the divine attributes exist eternally.106
At the time of Nayrz, T uss Tajrd had been commonly read along
with the commentary of Al al-Dn Al al-Qshch, who explicitly

99
The saved sect (al-firqat al-njiyya) is a doctrinal term infered from a prophetic
h adth according to which among the seventy three sects of the prophets nation
(umma), only one will be rescued from hell. On this doctrine, see Joseph Van Ess,
Der Eine und das Andere. Beobachtungen an islamischen hresiographischen Texten,
Berlin 2010.
100
Nayrz 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 Abbs.
102
On Karaks migration to Iran, see A. Hourani, From Jabal Amil to Persia,
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 49 (1986), pp. 13340; Newman,
The Myth of the Clerical Migration to Safawid Iran, pp. 66112; Devin J. Stewart,
Notes on the Migration of mil Scholars to Safavid Iran, Journal of Near Eastern
Studies, 55 ii (Apr., 1996), pp. 81103; Rula Jurdi Abisaab, The Ulama of Jabal Amil
in Safavid Iran, 15011736: Marginality, Migration and Social Change, Iranian Stud-
ies, 27 (1994), pp. 10322.
103
To my knowledge the only study which deals with Sh theologians of the early
Safavid period in detail is: Erika Glassen, Shah Isml I. und die Theologen seiner
Zeit, Der Islam, 48 (1972), pp. 25468, which is however based on bibliographical
sources only.
104
See Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Princeton 70, f. 47a ff.
105
See Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Princeton 70, f. 36b ff.
106
See Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Princeton 70, f. 2a ff.
the philosopher al-nayrz 67

criticized the Twelver Sh doctrines of T s, particularly in the chap-


ter on the imamate.107 Nayrzs opposition to Sunn doctrine becomes
most evident in this chapter. He explains there that some Ashars
argue that appointing an imam is obligatory (wjib) for the mor-
ally obliged (mukallafn), since some religious obligations (wjibt),
such as inflicting punishments (h udd) and waging jihd, 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. Nayrz rejects this line of argumentation by
asserting that inflicting punishments and waging jihd do not consti-
tute religious obligations (wjibt). If they were obligatory, they would
not have been linked to a condition, namely the presence of an imam.
Nayrz maintains the Twelver Sh 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 (masm), i.e., immune from sin, a quality
that is granted to him by God. This criterion, he argues, cannot be rec-
ognized by anyone but God. Hence, only God can designate the imam.
When there is no imam, Nayrz continues to explain, there is noth-
ing that Muslims can do about it. Of course, the community needs an
all-powerful sultan (sultn qhir), 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, Nayrz reminds his readership of the difficult times they expe-
rienced before Shah Isml I seized power:
Because, I say, if the authorities become numerous in directing and han-
dling 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
(khalfa) of the Compassionate [i.e. Gods deputy on earth], to whom
I referred by name in the beginning of this book, may God perpetuate

107
See Al al-Dn Al al-Qshch, Sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, Lithograph Edition by
Mulla Abbs Al, Tabriz 1301/1883, pp. 399 ff.
108
See Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Majlis 3968, ff. 282b3a.
68 chapter one

his shade of mercy over the believers of Islam and let his rule last until
the resurrection.109
It is Shah Isml I that Nayrz refers to as the Imam of this epoch
and time, vicegerent of the Compassionate [i.e., Gods deputy on earth]
(imm hdh l-asr wa-l-awn, khalfat al-rahmn). As Newman has
pointed out, these titles were widely used at the time for Shah Isml
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 Nayrzs 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 Nayrz in the Later Period

Nayrz seems to have been quite well-known during his lifetime. That
he dedicated his Tahrr Tajrd al-aqid to Shah Isml 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 Nayrzs Tah rr
Tajrd al-aqid: MSS Majlis 3968 (f. 283a: 146) and Mill Frs 55 (f. 140b: 106).
For the quotation in Arabic, see below, pp. 1989, no. 4 (Appendix IV: Quotations
from Unpublished Sources).
110
Newman presents several pieces of evidence: 1) a farmn inscribed in Isfah-
ans Friday mosque in 911/1505, in which Shah Isml I was described as khalfat
al-zamn (the Caliph of the age), the spreader of justice and beneficence, al-imm
al-dil al-kmil (the just, the perfect Imam), al-hd (the guide), al-ghz, al-wal . . .;
2) an inscription on a coin minted in Mashhad in 924/1518 referring to the Shah as
al-imm al-dil; 3) in the introduction to his Nafah t al-lht f lan al-jibt wa-l-
tght completed in 916/1510, Al b. H asan al-Karak praised the Shah as al-imm
al-dil. See Newman, The Myth of the Clerical Migration to Safawid Iran, pp. 701.
111
Newman asserts: Although such terms as al-imm al-dil (the just Imam)
and al-sultn al-dil could have secular implications, in Twelver Shii discourse they
could also refer to the Hidden Imam himself. Given claims for Ismls identification
with other, non-Shii divinities, the use of such terms with reference to the shah only
exploited this ambiguity of meaning to bolster Ismls pretensions to the imamate.
See Newman, The Myth of the Clerical Migration to Safawid Iran, pp. 712.
112
Apart from the discussion of the imamate, Nayrz tries to apply his Twelver
Sh point of view to other issues. An example of this can be found in his com-
mentary on Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda on the issue of Gods speech,
where he supports the view of the Mutaziles that speech is not a separate attribute
of God, but simply consists in His power to create words in their appropriate places
( f mah allih). To strengthen this claim, he states that the Mutaziles were followers
of the impeccable Imams (al-aimma al-masmn) on this issue, as is evident from
the Imm theological writings. See Nayrz, Sharh Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda,
MS ehid Ali 2761, f. 49b.
the philosopher al-nayrz 69

is made to Mawln H jj Mhmd Nayrz in Sm Mrz Safaws


Tadhkira-yi Tuhfa-yi Sm, as having been the teacher of Shh Mr
(the son of Malik Mahmd Jn), one of Shah Ismls viziers.113 This
Shh Mr is likely none other than Hibat Allh al-Husayn, known as
Shh Mr, who wrote a commentary on Taftzns Tahdhb al-mantiq
(completed in 936/1529),114 glosses on Qut b al-Dn al-Rzs commentary
on al-Shamsiyya,115 and a commentary on Qshchs Risla dar Haya,
entitled Tanqih-i maqla dar tawzih-i Risla.116 Among his contemporary
philosophers, Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr al-Dashtak is known to have been
familiar with Nayrzs commentary on Taftzns Tahdhb al-mantiq
wa-l-kalm as well as with his commentary on Tss Tajrd al-itiqd.
This is known from an approbation note written around 921/1515 by
Ghiyth al-Dn on Nayrzs commentary on Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-
kalm, in which Ghiyth al-Dn praises this work and refers to Nayrz
as the commentator of Tajrd al-itiqd (shrih al-Tajrd).117 Moreover,
in one of his writings Ghiyth al-Dn quotes from Nayrzs glosses
on Tajrd al-itiqd an explanation by Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak on the
issue of the human soul, which was orally transmitted to Nayrz. Here
again Ghiyth al-Dn refers to Nayrz with great respect as lim al-ilm
al-allma al-shahd.118 Nayrzs younger contemporary, Nasr al-Bayn
al-Kzirn (fl. 950/15434), was also familiar with some of Nayrzs
philosophical views. Evidence for this is his reference to Nayrz as
al-fdil al-kmil mawln al-Hjj Mahmd al-Nayrz in his Risla
f Tahqq al-zwiya, completed in 950/154344. There Nayrz, along
with Shams al-Dn al-Khafr, is criticised for his view on the angle
(al-zwiya).119 Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Khwjag, known as al-Shaykh
al-Shrz (fl. 953/1546) was another scholar of the time who was familiar
with Nayrzs writings. Khwjag was a Twelver Sh theologian and phi-
losopher who moved in Deccan. In his supercommentary on Dawns

113
Sm Mrz Safaw, Tadhkira-yi Tuh fa-yi Sm, p. 92. Nayrzs name, however,
appears erroneously as H jj Mhmd Tayrz.
114
Preserved in MSS Princeton 853 and 854 (Cat. (1938), pp. 2767).
115
Preseved in MS Marash 5471 (Cat., vol. 14, p. 256).
116
Preseved in MSS Dnishgh 5637 (Cat., vol. 16, p. 51), Majlis 2134 (Cat., vol. 5,
pp. 10810), Gulpygn 289 (Cat., vol. 1, p. 250).
117
See below, p. 165 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
118
Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Talqt al al-Sharh al-jadd li-l-Tajrd, in
Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 2, pp. 6434. See above, p. 60, and below, pp. 1101.
119
See Nasr al-Bayn al-Kzirn, Risla f Tah qq al-zwiya, MS Marw 877, ff.
43b8b. For the contents of this work and its other extant manuscripts, see below,
p. 154 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
70 chapter one

commentary on Sad al-Dn al-Taftzns Tahdhb al-mantiq, Khwjag


addressed the objections made by Nayrz to the positions of Dawn.120
Since Nayrz 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 Rislat Ithbt al-wjib and his glosses on
Dawns Nihyat al-kalm f h all shubhat kullu kalm kdhib were
copied by an anonymous contemporary of his, who apparently knew
Nayrz personally since he offers up a prayer for the latters health (MS
Malik 688).121 As mentioned before, Nayrz himself used to produce
copies of his own works. Nayrzs son, Muhammad b. H jj Mahmd,
and his grandson, Al b. Muhammad b. H jj Mahmd, also promoted
his works by producing copies of them.122
Some of Nayrzs works made their way to the Ottoman Empire,
namely his commentary on Suhrawards al-Alwh al-Imdiyya, his
glosses on Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq, his commentary on Taftzns
Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm, his commentary on Dawns Rislat
Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, and his commentary on Abhars Hidyat
al-h ikma. Among these works, the only extant manuscripts of his com-
mentary on al-Alwh al-Imdiyya and of his glosses on Suhrawards
commentary on H ikmat al-ishrq are preserved in the libraries of Istan-
bul. One of the extant manuscripts of Nayrzs glosses on Suhrawards
H ikmat al-ishrq (MS Laleli 2523) was copied by Sadr al-Dn Zde
Muhammad Sdiq b. Fayd Allh al-Shrwn (d. 1120/1708), the grand-
son of the prominent Ottoman scholar Muhammad Amn al-Shrwn
(d. 1036/16267). Muhammad Sdiq was a teacher in several madrasas
of Istanbul and Grand Muft (shaykh al-Islam) of the Ottoman Empire
on more than one occasion.123 Among other subjects, Sadr al-Dn Zde

120
See Muhammad al-Khwjag al-Shrz, H shiya al sharh al-Dawn al Tahdhb
al-mantiq li-Taftzn, MS British Musum Or. 8500. In f. 2a the author states that
through out his work he deals with the criticisms of H ajj Mahmd al-Nayrz and Ism
al-Dn al-Isfaryin (d. 943/15367 or 951/15434) to Dawns positions. Khwjag seems
to have played a significant role in transmission of philosophical and theological discus-
sions into India. He was for a while under the patronage of the ruler of Ahmadnegar
state, Burhn Nizm Shh (r. 914/1508961/1554), who converted to Twelver Shism
in 944/1537. Another well-known work of his is a Twelver Sh creed, al-Nizmiyya f
madhhab al-Immiyya, written at the request of Burhn Nizm Shah (ed. Al Awjab,
Tehran 1375/1996). For other writings of his, see the introduction of Awjab to his edi-
tion of the latter work, pp. 4956.
121
See below, copyists colophon of MS Malik 688,6, p. 156 (Appendix I: Inventory
of Nayrzs Writings).
122
See above, pp. 601.
123
On Sadr al-Dn Zde Muhammad Sdiq b. Fayd Allhs life, see Mehmed eyh
Efendi, ekaik-i Numaniye ve zeyilleri. Vakayi l-fuzal, ed. Abdlkadir zcan,
the philosopher al-nayrz 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 Nayrzs commentary on Athr al-Dn
al-Abhars Hidyat al-h ikma, to which he refers wrongly as H shiya
al sharh H idyat al-h ikma li-l-Qd Mr H usayn al-Maybud.
Presumably the relatively early transfer of Nayrzs 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 Nayrz, containing fifty-seven philo-
sophical and theological works (executed between 903/1497 and
919/15123), together with some of his own writings, remained
in Iran. The ownership statements of this codex, as recorded by
gh Buzurg, show that it was in the hands of two philosophers of
Isfahan towards the end of the 10th/16th century. In 989/15812 the
codex belonged to Afdal al-Din Muhammad al-Turka al-Isfahn
(d. 991/15834). Thereafter it was handed over to Muhammad Bqir
Astarbd (Mr Dmd, d. 1041/1631) whose ownership statement
is dated 997/15889.124 These two renowned philosophers were thus
evidently familiar with the two (or possibly more) writings of Nayrz
contained in the codex, namely his glosses on the Unmdhaj al-ulm
of Dawn and his glosses on the latters Nihyat al-kalm f h all shub-
hat kullu kalm kdhib.125
Another scholar who was familiar with the works of Nayrz
is Mr Sayyid Muhammad Ashraf al-H usayn al-Alaw al-mil
(d. 1130/1718). Alaw mil belonged to a family hailing from Isfahan
that was known for its philosophical tendencies. His grandfather was
the philosopher and scholar Mr Sayyid Ahmad al-Alaw (d. between
1054/1644 and 1060/1650), who was the son-in-law of Mr Dmd.
As the inheritor of these philosophers books, Alaw mil seems
to have had access to a large library. In his Fadil al-sdt, Alaw
mil refers once to Nayrzs commentary on Dawns Rislat Ithbt
al-wjib al-jadda and adduces the view of Nayrz on the meaning
of l (posterity) from this work.126 The impact of Nayrz on Alaw

Istanbul 1989, pp. 3135; Muhammad Thurayy, Sijill-i Uthmn ykhd Tadhkara-i
mashhr-i Uthmniyya, Istanbul 1311/18934, vol. 3, pp. 1889.
124
See gh Buzurg al-T ihrn, T abaqt, vol. 7, p. 244.
125
See below, pp. 1934 (Appendix II: Philosophical Writings Copied by Nayrz).
126
See Muhammad Ashraf Alaw mil, Fadil al-sdt, Lithograph Edition, Teh-
ran 1319/1901, pp. 112. For its original place in Nayrzs commentary on Dawns
Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, see MS ehid Ali 2761, f. 3b: 615.
72 chapter one

mil becomes even more evident when reading the latters Persian
commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-itiqd, entitled Ilqat
al-Tajrd. In this work, Alaw mil frequently quotes from Nayrzs
commentary on T ss Tajrd al-itiqd (he refers to it as sharh instead
of tah rr), referring explicitly to H jj Mahmd Nayrz or simply
H jj Mahmd.127 Among all the earlier commentaries on the Tajrid
to which he had access, Nayrzs commentary is one of his prominent
sources, if not the most prominent. Although Alaw mils commen-
tary is written in Persian, he does not hesitate to include numerous
quotations from Nayrzs commentary in Arabic. Sometimes, how-
ever, he translates his words into, or summarizes his positions in Per-
sian.128 Reading Alaw mils Ilqat al-Tajrd sheds light on specific
views of Nayrz that are expressed in his commentary on Tajrd, since
he juxtaposes them with the views of other major commentators of
the text. Alaw mils general attitude towards Nayrz is positive.
On many occasions he expressly supports Nayrzs views and prefers
them to those of others. Moreover, he informs us that his great-grand-
father, Mr Dmd, held Nayrzs assertions in high esteem.129
The colophon of MS Princeton 70, which contains a fragment
of Nayrzs Tah rr Tajrd al-itiqd, shows that the copy was made
for Muhammad Ashraf al-H usayn, who must be identical with
Muhammad Ashraf al-Alaw al-mil.130 In his Ilqat al-Tajrd,
Alaw mil indicates that his manuscript of Nayrzs 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 Alaw mil found another manu-
script of the commentary and asked a scribe to copy it for him from
that recension.
Apart from Alaw mil, an anonymous later commentator of
Tajrd al-itiqd, who was alive in 1091/1680, also consulted the com-

127
For the locations of these quotations see Alaw mil, Ilqat al-Tajrd, ed.
H mid Naj Isfahn, Tehran 1381/2002, vol. 2, pp. 125960.
128
See, e.g., Alaw mil, Ilqat al-Tajrd, pp. 117, 130.
129
He writes: jadd-i d thlith al-muallimn h usn-i zann bi kalm-i dshti ast.
See Muhammad Ashraf Alaw mil, Ilqat al-Tajrd, vol. 1, p. 233.
130
For the colophon, see below, pp. 1623 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs
Writings).
131
He writes: n ast n-chi az nuskha-yi H jj Mah md ki nazd-i n jnib bd
mukhraj shud, in sh Allh az nuskha-yi asah h akmal shawad. See Muhammad
Ashraf Alaw mil, Ilqat al-Tajrd, vol. 1, p. 182.
the philosopher al-nayrz 73

mentary of Nayrz. A copy of this commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd is


held in the National Library of Iran (MS Mill 2005).132
The impact of Nayrz on later scholars needs to be examined on the
broader basis of the philosophical and theological works of the follow-
ing generations, most of which have not yet been studied. Certainly,
such an investigation will demonstrate that Nayrz was better known
among the scholars who came after him than is presently thought.

132
See Cat., vol. 11, pp. 6970. According to Al Naq Munzaw, the author of the
catalogue, Nayrzs commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd is referred to there on f. 115b.
This manuscript was not however examined by the present author.
CHAPTER TWO

NAYRZ 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 Qsim
Kky,2 Muh 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 Al Naq Munzaw,5 Ahad Farmarz Qarmalik,6 and Al
Awjab,7 seems to be more appropriate, as most of the philosophers of

1
Henry Corbin, Histoire de la philosophie islamique, pp. 45961.
2
Kky, shny b maktab-i Shrz: Sadr al-Dn Dashtak, pp. 829; idem,
shny b maktab-i Shrz: Muh aqqiq-i Khafr, pp. 6070; idem, shny b
maktab-i Shrz: Mr Ghiyth al-Dn Dashtak (1), pp. 8390; idem, shny b
maktab-i Shrz: Mr Ghiyth al-Dn Dashtak (2), Khiradnma-yi Sadr, 7 (1376/1998),
pp. 5967.
3
Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 912.
4
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present: Philosophy
in the Land of Prophecy, New York 2006, pp. 185208.
5
Ali Naq Munzaw, Madris-i Shirz dar sada-yi nuhum-i hijr, Chst, 14 iiiii
(1375/1996), pp. 16175.
6
Farmarz Qarmalik defines them as two competing schools (du madrasa-yi/
maktab-i raqb). See Ahad Farmarz Qarmalik, Muktabah-yi Dawn u Dashtak
dar hall-i muamm-yi jadhr-i asamm, Khiradnma-yi Sadr, 89 (1376/1997), p. 95;
the introduction to Dawzdah risla dar prduks-i durghg, ed. Ah ad Farmarz
Qarmalik in collaboration with T ayyiba rifniy, Tehran 1386/2007, pp. panjh u
chahr-panjh u panj.
7
Cf. Awjabs introduction to Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr al-Dashtaks Ishrq Haykil
al-nr li-kashf zulumt Shawkil al-gharr, pp. 8893.
nayrz and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 75

the time leaned either towards the thought of Jall al-Dn al-Dawn
or that of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak.
The two leading philosophers of Shiraz, Dawn and Dashtak,
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 Al
al-Dn Al al-Qshchs commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd
al-itiqd, ii) their superglosses on Mr Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjns
glosses (h awsh) on Qut b al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on Sirj al-Dn
al-Urmaws Matli al-anwr, entitled Lawmi al-asrr f sharh Matli
al-anwr,8 iii) their superglosses on Mr Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjns
glosses on Adud al-Dn al-js commentary on Ibn H jibs Mukhtasar
al-muntah,9 iv) their superglosses on Jurjns glosses on Qutb al-Dn
al-Rzs commentary on Najm al-Dn al-Ktibs al-Shamsiyya,10 and
v) their treatises on the proof of existence of the Necessary Existent
and His attributes ( f ithbt al-wjib wa-siftihi).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 Qshchs commentary on T ss Tajrd al-itiqd. Sadr al-Dn
al-Dashtak seems to have been the first of the two to write glosses on

8
See below, pp. 801.
9
Neither Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtaks nor Dawns superglosses on Mr Sayyid
al-Sharf al-Jurjns glosses on Ad ud al-Dn al-js commentary on Ibn H jibs
al-Mukhtasar al-muntah are known to be extant. Our knowledge of these superglosses
is based on Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtaks superglosses on Jurjns glosses, where he
rejects Dawns criticisms of the respective superglosses of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak.
See above, p. 23.
10
Of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtaks superglosses on Jurjns glosses on Qutb al-Dn
al-Rzs commentary on the Shamsiyya, at least five manuscripts are extant: MSS Ridaw
1027 (Cat. vol.1, p. 283), Marash 3844 (Cat. vol. 10, p. 229), Marash 8459 (Cat. vol.
22, p. 48), Dirat al-marif 387 (Cat. vol. 1, p. 84), Dirat al-marif 359 (Cat. vol. 1,
p. 84). See Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 234. Dawns super-
glosses on Jurjns glosses on this commentary is published in Shurh al-Shamsiyya
(Istanbul n.d., pp. 25686), where he criticises Sadr al-Shrz. Ghiyth al-Dn
al-Dashtak also wrote superglosses on the same glosses of Jurjn in which he responded
to Dawns criticisms of the respective superglosses of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak. See
Abd al-H usayn H irs description of MS Majlis 3728 (Cat. vol. 22, pp. 2023).
11
On these superglosses, see below, pp. 1167.
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 Dawns first set of glosses (al-h shya
al-qadma) on Qshchs commentary on T ss Tajrd was completed
by 882/1477 or early 883/1478.14 His glosses cover the first and half
of the second maqsad of the commentary, dealing with general issues
(al-umr al-mma) and substances and accidents (al-jawhir wa-l-
ard). In these glosses Dawn paid no particular attention to the glosses
of Dashtak. Soon after its completion, one of Dawns students, Kaml
al-Dn H usayn al-Lr, wrote supplements (mulh aqt) to them.15
After having read Dawns first set of glosses, Sadr al-Dn wrote
his second set of glosses on the same work, which he completed in
887/1482. In them he criticized the positions of both Dawn and Lr.
In the introduction to these glosses, Sadr al-Dn writes:
I had first written on al-Sharh al-jadd li-l-Tajrd (i.e., Qshchs com-
mentary on Tajrd al-itiqd) 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 Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak in the introduction to the second set
of glosses on Qshchs commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd quoted below.
13
In his Kitb-shins-i Tajrd al-itiqd, Al Sadry Khy provides a list of
manuscripts of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtaks glosses on Qshchs commentary on Tajrd
al-itiqd (pp. 847, 902). Sadry Khy distinguishes two sets of glosses, both of
which were written in response to Dawns glosses. The one he suggests as the earlier
set is the one dedicated to Sult n Byazd, a copy of which was given to the Sultan by
Muayyadzde in 887/1482. But this cannot have been the first set of glosses, as the first
set had been completed by Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak before the completion of Dawns
first set of glosses on the same commentary, in 882/1477883/1478. Thus, none of the
manuscripts presented by Sadry Khy in his bibliography contains Sadr al-Dns first
set of glosses. Barakat follows Sadry Khy in his bibliography of this work of Sadr
al-Dn al-Dashtak. See Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 1923.
14
See above, p. 10.
15
For the manuscripts of Kaml al-Dn al-Lrs supplement to this work, see
Sadry Khy, Kitb-shins-i Tajrd al-itiqd, pp. 648. Only little is known about
Lr, although he seems to have been an outstanding figure in his time. It is to him
that Sadr al-Dn refers when in his introduction to his glosses on Tajrd al-itiqd he
mentions one of the greatest and most excellent students (bad min uzam fudal
al-tullb). Lr taught later on in Shiraz. His extant works are: i) a commentary on
Dawns al-Zawr, entitled Tah qq al-Zawr, completed in 918/15123 (MSS Mill
813/ayn (Cat. vol. 8, p. 316), Majlis 3914 (Cat. vol. 10 (4), pp. 19423)); and ii) glosses
on Shams al-Dn al-Isfahns commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd, entitled Tah qq al-Tajrd
(MS Ridaw 13953). In his commentary on al-Zawr, Lr refers to another work of
his, which he completed in 913/15078 on the uniqueness of the Necessary Existence,
entitled Tah qq al-tawh d. See the note on MS Majlis 3914 in Cat. vol. 10 (4), pp.
19423. Cf. Sadry Khy, Kitb-shins-i Tajrd al-itiqd, pp. 567.
nayrz and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 77

venerable man among the people (bad ajallat al-ns) (i.e., Dawn) 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., Kaml al-Dn al-Lr), [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 phi-
losophers took place. In his Trkh-i H abb al-siyar, Ghiyth al-Dn
Khwndmr (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 Sul-
lam al-Samwt, Ab al-Qsim Kzirn (fl. 1014/1605) indicates that
one of these debates took place in the Jmi atq mosque of Shiraz.18
Kzirn also says that Dawn in his disputations used to explore
and elaborate, whereas Sadr al-Dn often based his arguments on intu-
itions (h adsiyyt), and contented himself with some concise allusions
and subtle statements (ishrt-i mjaz u ibrt-i latfa).19 As may
be seen from his introduction to his glosses on al-Sharh al-jadd li-l-
Tajrd,20 Dawn regarded himself as the victor in these disputations.
Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak likewise confirms in his Kashf al-h aqiq
al-Muh ammadiyya that Dawn was a powerful disputant.21

16
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, H shiya al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Ftih 3025, f. 1b.
For the quotation in Arabic, see below, pp. 199200, no. 5 (Appendix IV: Quotations
from Unpublished Sources).
17
Khwndmr, Trkh-i H abb al-siyar, vol. 3, p. 603.
18
Ab l-Qsim Kzirn, Marqm-i panjumi kitb-i Sullam al-Samwt: dar
sharh -i ah wl-i shuar u chakma-saryn u dnishmandn, ed. Yahy Qarb, Tehran
1340/1961, pp. 1267.
19
Kzirn, Sullam al-Samwt, vol. 5, p. 126.
20
See below, pp. 7980.
21
See Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Kashf al-h aqiq, in Musannaft-i Ghiyth
al-Dn, vol. 2, p. 986, where Ghiyth al-Dn says that the astrological sign of Dawn
supported his power of disputation (quwwat al-mujdala).
78 chapter two

In addition to these oral disputations, Dawn and Sadr al-Dn


al-Dashtak 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 phi-
losophers of Shiraz.
Their correspondence on this subject24 is extant in the form of four
fragments (without an introduction or a proper ending). The arrange-
ment of these fragments in the manuscript tradition suggests that
Dawn was the one who initiated the correspondence with his solu-
tion of the paradox (Fragment One). Thereupon Sadr al-Dn criticised
Dawns view (Fragment Two). Dawn responded to this (Fragment
Three), which was then again refuted by Dashtak (Fragment Four).25

22
The oldest known version of the liar paradox is attributed to the Greek philoso-
pher 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. 292309, 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. 97127.
23
Farmarz Qarmalik traced the discussions of this paradox in the writings of some
early Muslim philosophers and theologians, namely Frb, Abd al-Jabbr Hamadn
(d. 415/1024), and Abd al-Qhir al-Baghdd (429/1038). See Ah a d Farmarz
Qarmaliks introduction to Dawzdah risla dar prduks-i durgh-g, p. hashtd
u du.
24
According to Farmarz Qarmalik they were described as a mudhkira in the
earliest manuscript of the work, copied presumably close to the time of their composi-
tion (MS Ridaw 877). See Farmarz Qarmaliks introduction to Dawzdah risla dar
prduks-i durgh-g, pp. haftd u panj-haftd u shish.
25
These four fragments have been edited twice, first by H mid Nj Isfahn,
in Sadr al-Dn al-Shrz, Rasil-i falsaf-i Sadr al-mutaallihn, Tehran 1375/1996,
pp. 46776 (on the basis of MS Dnishgh 1257) and then by Ahad Farmarz Qarmalik
in Muktabah-yi Dawn u Dashtak dar h a ll-i muammyi jadhr-i asa mm,
Khiradnma-yi Sadr, 89 (1376/1997), pp. 95101 (on the basis of MSS Ridaw 877,
Marash 6025, Dnishgh 6616, Dnishgh 1257). The latter edition of these fragments
is again included in Dawzdah risla dar prduks-i durghg, ed. Ahad Farmarz
Qarmalik [in collaboration with T ayyiba rif Niy], pp. 1725, 93100.
nayrz 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, Dawn wrote a second set of glosses on
Qshchs commentary on the Tajrd, which he entitled The Outlines
of the Veils and Exaltations of the Glosses (Tajrdt al-ghawsh
wa-tashydt al-h awsh). In them he first quotes on each issue the
entire counter-argument of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, to whom he refers
as the opponent (al-mutarid),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 Sadr al-Dns position.
This in turn motivated Sadr al-Dn to revise his glosses on Qshchs
commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd, and to add some new glosses in
response to the new glosses of Dawn.29 A few years later, Dawn
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-Sharh al-jadd li-l-Tajrd (i.e.,
al-H shiya al-qadma), 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 conten-
tions and arguments [regarding my positions]. So I set about refuting
those sophistries and clarifying my positions, and appended treatises to
the glosses, naming them Tajrdt al-ghawsh wa-tashydt al-h awsh
(The Outlines of the Veils and Exaltations of the Glosses i.e., al-H shiya
al-jadda). These treatises became popular with students and were circu-
lated among friends. Thereupon, the two sides exchanged views several
times through which I was able to contact him in person.

26
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtaks treatise on the liar paradox, entitled Risla fi shubhat
Jadhr al-Asamm, is edited by Ahad Farmarz Qarmalik in Khiradnma-yi Sadr, 56
(1375/1997), pp. 7482. The treatise of Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, entitled Nihyat al-kalm
f h all shubhat kull-u kalm kdhib, is also edited by Ahad Farmarz Qarmalik in
Nma-yi mufd, 2, i (1375/1996), pp. 97134. Editions of both texts are again reprinted
in Dawzdah risla dar prduks-i durghg, ed. Ahad Farmarz Qarmalik [in col-
laboration with T ayyiba rif Niy], pp. 2762, 10155.
27
See Dawn, Al-muntakhab min h shiyatihi al l-sharh al-jadd li-l-tajrd,
Dawzdah risla dar prduks-i durghg, ed. Ahad Farmarz Qarmalik [in collabora-
tion with T ayyiba rif Niy], p. 121, where Sadr al-Dn is referred to as al-mutarid.
28
The date of completion of this work can be estimated roughly on the basis of the
colophon of MS Ridaw 19827 (f. 268b), which contains a copy of this work transcribed
from the autograph of Dawn in 943/1537. The scribe states that Dawn completed
this work fifty years earlier.
29
See above, pp. 767.
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 Dawn no longer shows
any respect for Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, referring to him simply as
one of the people of the region (bad ahl al-balad) and dismissing
his criticism as sophistry based on taking words used by Dawn out
of their context.
Echoes of these disputations are also to be found in their respective
superglosses on Mr Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjns glosses (h awsh) on
Qut b al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on Sirj al-Dn al-Urmaws Matli

30
The translation of this quotation is based on MSS Ridaw 19827 (f. 1b) and Majlis
1999 (f.1b). For the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 200, no. 6 (Appendix IV: Quota-
tions from Unpublished Sources).
nayrz and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 81

al-anwr, entitled Lawmi al-asrr f sharh Matli al-anwr.31 But here


Dawn was the first to write superglosses on Jurjns h awsh, entitled
Tanwr al-Matli.32 Thereupon, Sadr al-Dn wrote his superglosses, in
which he objects to the positions of Dawn.33 Dawn then wrote the
second set of superglosses, defending his positions against Sadr al-Dns
objections. Thereupon, the latter replied with another set of superglosses,
again rejecting Dawns positions. In this work, he also includes some
counter-arguments by his son, Ghiyath al-Dn. Again, Dawn did not
leave these glosses unanswered. He composed a third set of glosses,
in which he dealt with both Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtaks glosses and the
arguments formulated by his son. This set of superglosses is entitled
Tanwr al-Matli wa-tabsr al-matli (or Tawdh al-matli wa-tabsr
al-matli).34 In the introduction to this last set of superglosses, Dawn
still refers to Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak as one of the learned nobles (bad
al-fudal al-ashrf ) and to his son as his true successor (khalaf sidq).35
Dawn continued to write about these controversial issues after
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtaks death. His Nihyat al-kalm f h all shubhat
kulli kalm kdhib and his Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda were both
written after Sadr al-Dns death. However, in these writings Dawn
no longer polemicizes against Sadr al-Dn, as he had done when the
latter was alive. Instead he rather criticizes Sadr al-Dns 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
Qshchs commentary on T ss Tajrd al-itiqd and in their respective superglosses
written on Jurjns glosses on the commentary of Urmaws Matli al-anwr, is that
of mental existence (al-wujd al-dhihn). In his H shiya al l-sharh al-jadd li-Tajrd
al-itiqd (MS Majlis 1999, f. 107a), Dawn alludes to the way this discussion devel-
oped between him and Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak in their respective glosses on Jurjns
glosses on the commentary of Matli al-anwr. For detailed discussion of the views
of these two scholars on mental existence, see below, pp. 99101.
32
This set of glosses is preseved in MS Majlis 3908 (Cat. vol. 10 (4), pp. 19356).
33
MSS Ridaw 990 (Cat. 1/316), Dnishgh 6802 (Cat. vol. 16, p. 363), Marash
7312/3 (Cat. vol. 19, p. 103), Escorial 684 (Cat. vol. 1, p. 483) contain the superglosses
of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak on Jurjns glosses on Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commentary
on Urmaws Matli al-anwr. 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 Abd al-H usayn H irs description of MS Majlis 3728 (Cat. vol. 10 (4), pp.
170710). In the catalogue, however, the date of the completion of this work appears
erroneously as 986/15789, the correct date might be 896/14901.
35
I base myself here on Abd al-H usayn H irs description of MS Majlis 3728,
which contains this work (Cat. vol. 10 (4), pp. 170710).
82 chapter two

Chronological outline of the philosophical disputes between Jall al-Dn al-Dawn


and Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak
Jall al-Dn al-Dawn Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak

First set of glosses on Qshchs


commentary on Tss Tajrd al-itiqd
8823/14778 First set of glosses on Qshchs
commentary on Tss Tajrd al-itiqd
887/1487 Second set of glosses on Qshchs
commentary on Tss Tajrd al-itiqd
First set of glosses on Jurjns glosses on
Qut b al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on
Urmaws Matli al-anwr
Glosses on Jurjns glosses on Qutb al-
Dn al-Rzs commentary on Urmaws
Matli al-anwr
Second set of glosses on Jurjns glosses
on Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on
Urmaws Matli al-anwr
First set of glosses on Jurjns glosses on
js commentary on Ibn H jibs
al-Mukhtasar al-muntah
Glosses on Jurjns glosses on
js commentary on Ibn H jibs al-
Mukhtasar al-muntah
Correspondence on the liar paradox
Second set of glosses on Jurjns glosses
on js commentary on Ibn H jibs al-
Mukhtasar al-muntah
New edition of glosses on Jurjns
glosses on Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs
commentary on Urmaws Matli al-
anwr
896/14901 Second set of glosses on Qshchs
commentary of Tss Tajrd al-itiqd
Third set of glosses on Jurjns glosses
on Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on
Urmaws Matli al-anwr
New edition of the second set of glosses
on Qshchs commentary on Tss
Tajrd al-itiqd
New edition of the second set of glosses on
Qshchs commentary on Tss Tajrd al-
itiqd
Treatise on the liar paradox (Risla fi
shubhat Jadhr al-Asamm)
903/1497 Death of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak
Treatise on the liar paradox (Nihyat al-
kalm f h all shubha kullu kalm kdhib)
908/1502 Death of Jall al-Dn al-Dawn
nayrz and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 83

In the introduction to his last set of glosses on the Tajrd, Dawn


states that at that time, not only Dashtak but also some of his stu-
dents, to whom he refers as savage sectarians (hamaj al-shubiyya),
were opposing him.36 The only student of Sadr al-Dn who can safely
be assumed to have been among those to whom Dawn is referring
is Sadr al-Dns son, Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr. As mentioned before, in
the controversies between his father and Dawn on Jurjns glosses
on the commentary on the Matli al-anwr as well as those on the
glosses on the commentary on the Tajrd, Ghiyth al-Dn had suggested
to his father some criticisms of Dawns positions. Sadr al-Dn had
accepted these and incorporated them into his glosses on the Matli
and the Tajrd. Moreover, at about that time, Ghiyth al-Dn wrote
his refutations of Dawns Shawkil al-h r f sharh Haykil al-nr,
Unmdhaj al-ulm and al-Zawr in order to undermine the latters
credibility.37 After his fathers death and while Dawn was still alive,
Ghiyth al-Dn completed his H shiya al sharh al-Tajrd, in which he
justified the positions of his father against those of Dawn. Into this
H shiya, Ghiyth al-Dn incorporated a treatise on the liar paradox.38
Evidently his intention was not to suggest something new his posi-
tion on the liar paradox was no different from that of his father but
to undermine Dawns position, even if only by rhetorical means.
In his criticisms of Dawn, Ghiyth al-Dn used sarcastic and at
times even offensive language, such as when he refers to Jall al-Dn
al-Dawn as al-ajilla wa-l-dawn meaning literally the most glorious
and cheapest person.39 It seems that he was emotionally involved in the
dispute. In his Frs-nma, Mrz H asan Fasy (d. 1316/1898) narrates
an account that suggests that Dawn did not take the young Ghiyth
al-Dn seriously:
In a majlis in which many philosophers and scholars were present, Amr
Ghiyth al-Dn, who was at that time eighteen, asked Dawn some

36
See above, pp. 7980.
37
See above, p. 29.
38
This part of Ghiyth al-Dns H shiya al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd has been edited
in Dawzdah risla dar prduks-i durghg, ed. Ahad Farmarz Qarmalik [in col-
laboration with T ayyiba rif Niy], pp. 159261.
39
See Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Tajrd al-Ghawsh (section on the Liar paradox),
in Dawzdah risla dar prduks-i durghg, ed. Ahad Farmarz Qarmalik [in col-
laboration with T ayyiba rif Niy], p. 160. For his sarcastic and offensive words against
Dawn in his Ishrq Haykil al-nr, see Al Awjabs introduction to the edition of
this work, pp. 923.
84 chapter two

scientific question, with the intention of debating with him. But Dawn
refrained from answering. Amr Sadr al-Dn, the father of Mansr, became
angry and, addressing Dawn, said: My son is talking to you. Dawn
replied: You yourself answer, so that I may know what your position is.40
Following Dawns death, Ghiyth al-Dns animosity gradually sub-
sided. In his Kashf al-h aqiq al-Muh ammadiyya, written nearly forty
years after Dawns death, he refers to him respectfully as al-mawl
al-fdil:
Ab al-b [i.e., my father], Sadr al-Dn Muh ammad, [who was] the
sayyid of the greatest philosophers, and al-mawl al-fdil Jall al-Dn
Muhammad al-Dawn, 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 writ-
ings 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 (ah km al-nujm) . . . and
physiognomy ( firsa).41
Besides Ghiyth al-Dn, two other students of Sadr al-Dn contributed
to the subjects under dispute, namely Shams al-Dn al-Khafr and Najm
al-Dn al-Nayrz. In his Ibrat al-fudal f h all shubhat kullu kalm
kdhib, Khafr criticises Dawns solution of the liar paradox, though he
refers to him respectfully as al-H adrat al-Jalliyyat al-Muh ammadiyya
jallat ifdtuhu.42 In another treatise that he wrote on the subject years
later, entitled H ayrat al-fudal f h all shubhat jadhr al-asamm, he sug-
gests five solutions for the paradox, among them apparently the one
he considered the most profound that of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak.43

40
H asan Fasy, Frs-nma, vol. 1, p. 142.
41
Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Kashf al-haqiq al-Muhammadiyya, in Musannaft-i
Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 2, pp. 9857.
42
See Shams al-Dn al-Khafr, Ibrat al-fudal f hall shubhat kullu kalm kdhib,
ed. Ahad Farmarz Qarmalik, Khiradnma-yi Sadr, 4 (1375/1996), p. 87; Dawzdah
risla dar prduks-i durghg, ed. Farmarz Qarmalik [in collaboration with T ayyiba
rif Niy], p. 266.
43
This solution, which Khafr explicitly described as bi-iz al-jawb alladh mansb
il sayyid al-muh aqqiqn (i.e., Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak) is more credible according to
Khafr than the others. See Dawzdah risla dar prduks-i durghg, ed. Farmarz
Qarmalik [in collaboration with T ayyiba rif Niy], p. 304.
nayrz and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 85

Khafr also wrote critical superglosses on Dawns al-H shya al-qadma


al l-sharh al-jadd li-Tajrd al-itiqd.44
As one of the most celebrated students of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak,
Nayrz was actively involved in the disputes with Dawn. While his
teacher was still alive, Nayrz wrote his H shya al Tajrd al-itiqd, in
which he elaborated on the view of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak in response
to Dawns criticisms.45 At about the same time Nayrz wrote a com-
mentary on Athr al-Dn al-Abhars Hidyat al-h ikma (completed in
904/1498) in which he criticised Dawns view on the existence of the
Necessary Existent. But unlike Ghiyth al-Dn, Nayrz refers to Dawn
respectfully as hdh l-qil al-muh aqqiq.46 Nayrz continued comment-
ing on the issues which had been a matter of dispute between Sadr
al-Dn al-Dashtak and Dawn even after the latters death. Throughout
his commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd, Nayrz mainly deals with their
disagreements in their respective glosses on Qshchs commentary
on Tajrd al-itiqd. Nayrzs positions as a rule are close to those of
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak. In his glosses on Dawns Nihyat al-kalm
f h all shubhat kullu kalm kdhib, he defends the view of his teacher
against that of Dawn.47 In his Rislat Ithbt al-wjib he deals with
Dawns proofs of the existence of the Necessary Existent as presented
in the latters Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-qadma.48 Nayrz also wrote a
critical commentary on Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda. In
the introduction to this commentary, he writes that after reading the
Risla, he realized that in contrast to what Dawn claims, the latters
arguments in this work were not in agreement with the views of the
fair observers (dhaw l-absr al-nqida). Therefore, Nayrz opposed in
his commentary what he found in Dawns Risla to be against the
established views of the early philosophers. Nevertheless, his intention,
as he explicitly states, was not to contradict or devaluate Dawns
Risla, but to comment upon and analyze it.49 In this commentary, he

44
See Abd al-H usayn H irs description of MS Majli 1736 (Fihrist-i kitbkhna-yi
majlis-i Shr-yi mill, 5/13940), which contains these superglosses. For other manu-
scripts of this work, see Barakat, Kitb-shins-i maktab-i falsaf-i Shrz, pp. 1823.
45
Nayrzs H shiya al l-Tajrd is mentioned by Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, see
Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 2, pp. 6434. Otherwise, the H shiya al Tajrd
al-itiqd is unknown and seems to be lost. See below, pp. 1101.
46
See Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 177a:18.
47
See below, p. 129.
48
See below, pp. 1158.
49
See below, pp. 12931.
86 chapter two

again supports the views of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak on all the issues
where the latters views differed from those of Dawn. He also refers
at times to the views of Ghiyth al-Dn. Discussing the issue of Gods
knowledge, for instance, he explicitly mentions the view of Ghiyth
al-Dn by saying al m huwa madhhab al-Mansr f l-ilm.50
Many students and younger colleagues of Dawn refrained from
supporting his side in the controversies, at least in writing. Dawns
most renowned student, Mr H usayn al-Maybud, does not deal with
these issues in those works of his which have so far been identified.
Another of Dawns students, Ilh Ardabl, who refers to his master
as ustdh al-aqs wa-l-adn, does not hesitate to criticize him in his
own glosses on Qshchs commentary on T ss Tajrd al-itiqd and
in his commentary on Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda.51

II. The Main Subjects of the Dispute between the Two


Strands of Philosophy

The respective glosses of Jall al-Dn al-Dawn and Sadr al-Dn


al-Dashtak on Qshchs commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd cover only
the first two chapters of the book, i.e., those dealing with general ontol-
ogy (al-umr al-mma) and with substances and accidents (al-jawhir
wa-l-ard). 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-wujd al-dhihn), 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 Nayrz, Sharh Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, MS ehid Ali 2761, f. 34b:5.
51
Neither Sharh Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda nor H shiya al sharh al-jadd
li-Tajrd al-itiqd of Ilh Ardabl were at my disposal. I therefore relied on Abd
al-H usayn H irs descriptions of MS Majlis 1762 (H shiyat sharh Tajrd al-itiqd)
(Cat. vol. 5, pp. 1402) and MS Majlis 1841 (Sharh Ithbt al-wjib) (Cat. vol. 5,
pp. 3012). Ilh Ardabls philosophical writings have yet to be studied.
nayrz and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 87

II.i. The Liar Paradox


In their glosses on T ss Tajrd as well as in the treatises they wrote spe-
cifically on the liar paradox, Dawn and Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak both
present a survey of the solutions of the earlier scholars to this paradox.
The scholars whose views they discuss are: 1) Sad al-Dn al-Taftzn,
2) Najm al-Dn al-Ktib al-Qazwn, 3) Nasr al-Dn al-T s, 5) Mr
Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjn, 5) Ibn Kammna, and 6) Shams al-Dn
Samarqand.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 oppo-
nent and reject it extensively, adducing several arguments. Finally, they
outline their own solution of the paradox.
Dawn, who formulates the paradox as Whatever I say at this
moment is a lie (kullu kalm f hdhihi l-sa kdhib), 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-wqi) and it is false when it
doesnt. 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
Sadr al-Dn, by contrast, treats the sentence as a statement. His
formulation of the liar paradox is Whatever I say today is a lie
(kullu kalm al-yawm kdhib) and he argues that there is a difference
between first order statements and second order statements, which

52
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak and Dawn both took Taftzns solution from the
latters commentary on his own Maqsid. For Ktibs solution, both relied on his
Sharh al-Kashf, which is a commentary on Afdal al-Dn al-Khnajs (d. 646/1248)
Kashf al-asrr an ghawmid al-afkr f l-mantiq. Nasr al-Dn al-T ss solution is
taken by Dawn from T ss Tadl al-miyr f naqd tanzl al-asrr, whereas Sadr
al-Dns source for this solution was an unidentified work of Allma H ill. For Mr
Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjns solution, Dawn refers to his source as some folios (bad
al-awrq). Dashtaks source for the latters solution is an unidentified work of Shams
al-Dn Muhammad b. Al al-Jurjn. They both took Ibn Kammnas solution from
his correspondence with Ktib (which is lost). Samarqands solution is taken by both
from the latters commentary on his own Qists. See Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtaks Risla
fi shubhat jadhr al-asamm and Dawns Nihyat al-kalm, in Dawzdah risla dar
prduks-i durghg, pp. 2835, 10319.
53
See Dawn, Nihyat al-kalm, pp. 1368.
88 chapter two

are statements about statements, e.g., The statement of Zayd is true.


Sadr al-Dn 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 dont know what Zayd said, we dont know the truth value of the
statement of the statement. Likewise, Sadr al-Dn continues, What-
ever I say today is a lie is a second order statement whose truth value
depends on the truth value of whatever I say today (kalm 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 Dawn was eventu-
ally to reject Sadr al-Dns 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 Dashtak suggested. It is false because of the
nonexistence of the subject (bi-intif al-mawd). Just as if Zayd says
nothing, it is false to say the statement of Zayd is true or the state-
ment of Zayd is false. 55

II.ii. The Distinction between Wujd and Mawjd


In his al-Zawr, completed by 871/1467, Dawn uses two analogies
to explain the relation between the cause (al-illa) and the caused
(al-mall ): (1) that of the relation between a body ( jism) and the
colour black, and (2) that of the relation between cloth (qutun: cotton)
and garment (thawb):
Enlightening (tabsira):
The caused is therefore not a purely mental construction (itibriyyan
mah dan). Considering it with respect to its relation with its cause, it is real
(kna lahu tah aqquqan) and considering it as an independent essence, it
is non-existent or even impossible (kna madman bal mumtanian).
Analogy (tashbh):
If the colour black is considered with respect to its being in the body, that
is, being a disposition (haya) of a body, it is existent (mawjd), and if it
is considered as an independent essence it is non-existent (madman) or
rather impossible (mumtanian). If the garment (al-thawb) is considered
as a form of cloth (or cotton: qutun) it is existent (mawjd), and if it is
considered as something distinct (mubyin) from cloth with a separate
essence it is impossible. Take this as a criterion for all the realities. Com-

54
See Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, Risla f shubhat jadhr al-asamm, pp. 556.
55
See Dawn, Nihyat al-kalm, pp. 1368.
nayrz 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-ayn al-thbita m shammat rih at al-wujd wa-annah lam tazhir
wa-l tazhiru abadan bal innam yazhiru rasmuh).56
These two novel analogies suggest that Dawn 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-Zawr
itself it is not entirely clear what Dawn intended to say. His liken-
ing 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-H awr), 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-h aqiq)57 when con-
sidered as an independent essence apart from the essence of its cause,
as by some narrow-minded people, is impossible in respect of existence
(wujdan) and in respect of [concrete] manifestation (zuhran). First,
nothing other than the True (al-h aqq), who is necessary in Himself, can
plausibly be called existent in the true sense (mawjdan h aqqiyyan).
Secondly, appearance originates from being related to the existence of
the True (al-wujd al-h 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 (tbiatan lah) and subsisting through Him (qimatan bih), they
are existent (mawjd) in the sense that they are related to the existence
(wujd), or they are apparent (zhir).

56
Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, al-Zawr, in Sab rasil, pp. 1745. In his commentary on
al-Zawr, Dawn treats the last sentence of the above passage as a quotation, although
he does not specify from whom it derives. See Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, al-H awr
[Sharh al-Zawr], in Sab rasil, 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 Arabs Fuss
al-h ikam (ed. Abu al-Al al-Aff, Beirut [1966], p. 76:123) and the rest seems to be
a clarification by one of Ibn Arabs followers.
57
H aqqa, which is translated in the above quotation as inner reality, is here and
often in the philosophical texts after Ibn Sn interchangeable with mhiyya (quid-
dity).
58
The edition of Tysirkn has al-mawjd al-h aqq instead of al-wujd al-h aqq.
The latter, which I prefer, is the reading of MS Majlis 1836, mentioned by Tysirkn
in the critical apparatus.
90 chapter two

The fixed ideas (al-ayn al-thbita), that is to say these inner realities
(al-h aqiq), 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 (mhiyya) separate from the True (al-h aqq),
who is described by specific attributes (al-muttasif bi-l-sift al-makhssa),
does not exist at all, [nor] does any inner reality attach to its impossibility
(l h aqqata li-istih latahu). That is not in the sense that it is related to
existence, since in this respect [i.e., conceived of as a separate, indepen-
dent quiddity] it does not have any relation with existence. But it is as
if the True tinges ( yansabigh) it, in the sense that His image (rasmah)
appears in it. [Then] separate from its essence it is described as existent
(mawjd), in the sense that it belongs to the existence (yataallaqu bi-l-
wujd). The existent (al-mawjd) according to the truth-seekers is that
whose inner reality (h aqqa) is existence (wujd). 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 Dawn asserts that only the True
(al-h 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 (insabagha) them. By using the verb to tinge he wants to
say that existence is not part of the essence of a caused being. Dawn
therefore disagrees with the Avicennan notion that what is contingent
in itself (mumkin al-wujd bi-l-dht) can be necessarily existent through
another (wjib al-wujd bi-l-ghayr).60 That is presumably the reason
why he explains the relationship as one of cause and caused and as
the True (h aqq) and inner reality (h aqqa), without having recourse
to necessity.
In his later works, such as his glosses on Qshchs commentary
on Tajrd al-itiqd and in his Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, this
idea appears in a more developed and sophisticated manner. In these
works he differentiates between the concepts of existent (mawjd) and
existence (wujd) and argues that whereas contingent beings are to be
called mawjd, the Necessary Existent is to be considered as wujd.
Mawjd as a term is derived from wujd, which is infinitive in nature,
so that the meaning of mawjd is based completely on its relation with
its root w-j-d. Contingent beings originate from existence and their

59
Dawn, al-H awr, in Sab rasil, pp. 2078.
60
On this issue in Avicennas philosophy, see Robert Wisnovsky, Avicennas Meta-
physics in Context, London 2003, pp. 24563.
nayrz and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 91

being existent is based on their relation to Him. Dawn 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 h addd, which
means ironmonger. This word, Dawn explains, is derived from h add
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 mawjdt because they benefit from wujd, the Necessary Existent.
However, their existence is unreal ( ghayr h aqq), since wujd 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 (urf
al-lugha). The linguists, for instance, define the ism al-fil as something/
someone to which the word derived from the root relates. This definition
is problematic. If h addd truly relates to Zayd, for instance, it is because
h add is part of his profession, as is indicated by Ibn Sn 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 wujd the root of the derived [word] mawjd which is
something self-sufficient, to be the Necessary Existent. The existence of
others in fact lies in the relation (intisb) of others to Him. Therefore
mawjd is more general than the True (al-h aqq),61 and others are related
to Him. This general conception is something mentally constructed, which
belongs to the secondary intelligibles (al-maqlt al-thniyya) and is the
first among the self-evident conceptions (badhiyyt).62
In Dawns glosses on Qshchs commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd, the
slight difference between Ibn Sns thought and that of Dawn becomes

61
Reading h aqq for h aqqa in the edition.
62
Dawn, Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, in Sab rasil, p. 129. Although here
Dawn follows Farb in referring to mawjd as secondary intelligible, his idea that
things are mawjd through a wujd really distinct from their essences, differs from the
notion of Frb, who regarded this as a basic metaphysical error. For Farbs view on
this matter see Stephen Menn, al-Frbs Kitb al-H rf and His Analysis of the Senses
of Being, Arabic Science and Philosophy, 18 (2008), pp. 5997, esp. pp. 7584.
92 chapter two

more evident in the latters definition of the necessity of contingent


beings. According to Ibn Sn, the Necessary Existent necessitates the
existence of contingent beings, and as long as this necessity continues
contingent beings exist. Dawn, however, argues that contingent beings
do not exist in a true sense and that their relation with the Neces-
sary Existent is like heats relation to fire.63 He refers to the existence
of contingent beings as a portion of Absolute Existence (h issa min
al-wujd al-mutlaq).64
Dawn quotes from Bahmanyrs al-Tah sl that when we say
something is mawjd, we mean that wujd is external (khrij) to it.65
In other words, the existence of contingent beings is external to their
quiddities. This, according to Dawn, is a development of Ibn Sns
view, developed by later philosophers.66 For Ibn Sn, everything pos-
sesses a quiddity that is distinct from its existence, except for the Neces-
sary Existent whose quiddity is identical with his existence (inniyya).67
Commenting on this view of Ibn Sn, Nasr al-Dn al-T s in his com-
mentary on the Ishrt 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 (rid) to it.68

63
Dawn, Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, in Sab rasil, p. 129.
64
See, e.g., Dawn, H shiya al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1752,
f. 50b.
65
Idh quln kadh mawjdan, fa-l-man bihi anna l-wujd man khrij anhu.
See Dawn, al-H shiya al-qadma al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1752, f. 49b
(with some modifications). This statement in the edition of Bahmanyrs al-Tah sl (ed.
Murtad Mut ahhar, Tehran 1349/1971) appears in the footnote of p. 285 as follows:
Idh quln kadh mawjdan, fa-laysa l-man bihi anna l-wujd man khrij anhu.
This reading, which has the opposite meaning, seems to be mistaken since it contra-
dicts the argument of Bahmanyr in the lines follows. Therefore, Dawns reading
should be preferred.
66
Dawn says: muqaddamt hdh l-kalm min al-shaykh, see Dawn, al-H shiya
al-qadma al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1752, f. 50a.
67
See Dawn, al-H shiya al-qadma al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1752,
f. 50a. Dawn explains the view of Ibn Sn by quoting from the latters al-Shif:
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 Dawn, H awsh al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1752, f. 50a: 157. For
the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 200, no. 7 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpub-
lished Sources). The quotation corresponds to Nasr al-Dn al-T ss assertion in his
Sharh al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht. See al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht maa l-sharh li-l-muh aqqiq
Nasr al-Dn Muh ammad b. Muh ammad b. al-H asan al-T s wa-sharh li-l-allma Qutb
al-Dn Muh ammad b. Muh ammad b. Ab Jafar al-Rz, Qum 1375/1996, vol. 3, p. 57.
nayrz and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 93

Likewise, Shams al-Dn al-Isfahn in his commentary on Tajrd


al-itiqd says: Pure existence is not occurring to its quiddity.69
These statements, Dawn concludes, show that only the existence of
the Necessary Existent is within the concept of the quiddity, unlike
the existences of the mawjdt which are accidental to their quiddi-
ties. Hence Dawn describes the quiddities of mawjdt as something
potential:
The quiddities in themselves ( f h add dhtih) are potential. Nothing
potential can be the origin of something actual. Contingent beings are
all quiddities. Therefore, none of them is the true origin (masdar h aqq)
of actual existence. Their existence, when it is actual, i.e., when they are
caused by the agent, is something mentally constructed (itibr), related
to their quiddities which is potential. Hence, it is mixed with potential-
ity and cannot be the true origin of actual existence . . . The true origin is
therefore the assured existence (al-wujd al-mutaakkid), which is free
from quiddity.70
The distinction between wujd and mawjd is in fact the core notion
of Dawns ontology. The most direct application of this idea is to the
philosophical problem of the uniqueness of God. This problem, which
Dawn himself derived from Ibn Kammnas al-Matlib al-muhimma
and which later on became known as Ibn Kammnas sophistry on the
uniqueness of God (shubhat Ibn Kammna f l-tawh d) results from
the rational possibility of two necessary existents, each being the only
representative within its own species, that is to say two completely dis-
tinct essences both of which are necessarily existent. Dawn 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 mawjd, for mawjd is the one whose existence is accidental (rid)
to its quiddity. This, however, holds true only for contingent beings,
whereas the Necessary Existent is not mawjd but wujd, with no
essence other than his existence.71

69
Wujd al-mah d ghayr rid [an] al-mhiyya. Dawn, H shiya al sharh Tajrd
al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1752, ff. 49b50a.
70
Dawn, Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, in Saba rasil, pp. 13940.
71
See Dawn, Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, in Saba rasil, pp. 12737. On this
sophistry and the philosophical discussions raised by it see Reza Pourjavady & Sabine
Schmidtke, A Jewish Philosopher of Baghdad. Izz al-Dawla Ibn Kammna (d. 683/1284)
and His Writings, Leiden 2006, pp. 3751.
94 chapter two

In a passage in his glosses on Qshchs commentary on Tajrd


al-itiqd, Dawn ascribes the above mentioned idea as the insight of
those who became Divine-like (dhawq al-mutaallihn):
According to the insight of those who became Divine-like, wujd cannot
be truly ascribed to contingent beings, but that wujd of the Necessary
Existent has a relation with them which makes it correct to use a derived
word (al-mushtaqq) for them.72
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak and some later philosophers referred to this
idea as the insight of those who became Divine-like.73 Sadr al-Dn
also suggests that Dawn mixed up in his discussion of this issue some
paradoxical statements of the Sufis with philosophical issues (wa-kna
hdh l-qil khalat shataran min shath iyyt al-sfiyya bi-l-matlib
al-h ikmiyya). Dawn himself, however, neither identifies his source nor
does he specify whom he means by those who became Divine-like.
Nevertheless, he states that Frb and Ibn Sn 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 mawjd to the Necessary Existent
is metaphorical (majz).74
For Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, in contrast to Dawn, the Necessary
Existent is mawjd, 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
Sadr al-Dn states that in his rejection of quiddity for the Necessary
Existent he is following Ibn Sn. To prove this statement, he adduces
several quotations from the latters writings.

72
Dawn, H shiya al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1752, f. 50b: 146. For
the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 200, no. 8 (Appendix IV: Quotations from
Unpublished Sources).
73
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak refers to this idea as dhawq al-h ukama al-mutaallihn,
see, e.g., his glosses on the commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1998, f. 68b:
202. Among the later philosophers, H jj Mull Hd al-Sabzawr (d. 1289/1878)
refers to Dawns view as dhawq al-taalluh. See H jj Mull Hd Sabzawr, Sharh
Ghurar al-farid or Sharh Manzma (Part One: Metaphysics), eds. M. Muhaqqiq &_T.
Izutsu, Tehran 1348/1969, pp. 5, 567.
74
Dawn states: wa-li-hdh sarrah a al-muallim al-thn wa-l-shaykh [Ab] Al
anna m tawahhamahu urf al-lugha min itlq al-mawjd alayhi tal majz; Dawn,
Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, in Sab rasil, p. 132.
75
See Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, H shiya al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1998,
ff. 67a74b.
nayrz and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 95

From al-Shif:
Hence, everything that has a quiddity is caused. The rest of the things,
other than the Necessary Existent, have quiddities. And it is these quid-
dities 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 exis-
tence with the condition of negating privation and all other description
of Him. Moreover, the rest of the things possessing quiddities are pos-
sible, 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 descrip-
tion, 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 Talqt:
What we mean by saying that his quiddity is his existence is that he does
not have any quiddity.77
From the Talqt:
The First has no quiddity, thus the denial of any quiddity from him is
absolute.78
According to Sadr al-Dn, Nasr al-Dn al-T s seems to have been
unfamiliar (lam yatta li) with the assertions of Ibn Sn quoted above,
as in his commentary on the Ishrt he takes it to mean that He has a

76
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, H shiya al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1998, ff.
67a:1967b:3. The translation of this quotation is based on Marmuras (Ibn Sn, The
Metaphysics of the Healing, pp. 276:27277:8).
77
Wa-man qawlun: mhiyyatuhu inniyyatuhu, annahu l mhiyya lahu. Sadr
al-Dn al-Dashtak, H shiya al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1998, f. 67b:23. The
closest statement that I found in Abd al-Rahmn al-Badaws edition of Talqt (Cairo
1975 [reprinted Qum 1379/2000], p. 224) runs as follows: M h aqqatuhu inniyyatuhu
fa-l mhiyya lahu.
78
Al-awwal l mhiyya lahu fa-nafy al-mahiyya anhu mutlaqan. Sadr al-Dn
al-Dashtak, H shiya al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1998, f. 67b:23. I was unable
to find this quotation in Abd al-Rahmn al-Badaws edition of Talqt.
96 chapter two

quiddity, which is existence (inniyyatuh mhiyyatuh).79 Presumably


Sadr al-Dn is alluding here to Nasr al-Dn al-T ss comment on the
following statement of the Ishrt: 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 T s 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
Sadr al-Dn implies that Dawns argument to the effect that the quid-
dity of the Necessary Existent is its existence is based on T ss mistaken
understanding of Ibn Sns assertions in the Ishrt, whereas for the
correct understanding of Ibn Sns position on this issue, the latters
explanation in his Shif should be consulted, for there he explicitly says
that the Necessary Existent is existence without quiddity. Although it
appears that Ibn Sn held slightly different positions in the Ishrt and
the Shif on the subject,82 it is noteworthy that Sadr al-Dn regarded
Ibn Sns philosophy in all his writings as a single coherent entity.
As for the contingent beings, Sadr al-Dn argues that their existence is
not added (zid) or accidental (rid) to their quiddity, as existence and
quiddity in the extramental world are always co-implied (mulzim) 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 Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, H shiya al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1998,
f. 68a:25.
80
Kullu m l yadkhul al-wujd f mafhm dhtihi al m itabarn qablu fa-l-
wujd ghayr muqawwim lahu f mhiyyatihi. Ibn Sn, al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht maa
al-sharh li-l-muh aqqiq, vol. 3, p. 57.
81
Nasr al-Dn al-T s, al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht maa al-sharh li-l-muh aqqiq, vol.
3, p. 58.
82
In his Shif, Ibn Sn states that the Necessary Existent has no quiddity, whereas
his wording in the Ishrt seems to allow for Nasr al-Dn al-T ss interpretation that
His existence is His quiddity.
nayrz and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 97

he argues, this process is only a mental construction (itibr dhihn).83


Therefore, Nasr al-Dn al-T ss assertion in his commentary on Ibn
Sns al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht that the quiddity is essentially prior to
the existence84 should be treated with caution; otherwise it may even
contradict the latters statement on the issue in his Masri al-Musri:
Know that being existent (mawjdiyya) 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 ( f h ayyiz al-adam) is not
human. It [i.e., mawjd] is not even distinct in one way or another
and is posterior to quiddity in respect of its being a mental construct
( f l-itibr al-dhihn) . . . The philosophers assertions are sometimes for
the priority of quiddity over existence and sometimes vice versa. In his
Masri al-Musri, the author [i.e., Nasr al-Dn al-T us] says: know that
the existence of the effects in and of itself is prior to quiddity and in the
intellect (al-aql) are posterior to it. That is the priority of the one of
which accidents are predicated (mard) over the accident (rid).86
Moreover, Sadr al-Dn elucidates that existent and thing (shay) are
equally applicable (muswiq). Dawn, 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 call-
ing them mawjd is the same as calling water mushammas, calling them
mawjd in the absolute sense is not the common meaning understood
from it. For instance, the meaning of mushammas, which is in the
form of mafl, is different from madrb and mansr, as is said before.

83
See Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, H shiya al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1998,
f. 23b:623. Sadr al-Dns explanation here concerns mhiyya bi-shart l. For this notion
and the discussions about it among the philosophers after Nasr al-Dn al-T s, see
Toshihiko Izutsu, Basic Problems of Abstract Quiddity, Mantiq u mabh ith-i alfz
(Collected Texts and Papers on Logic and Language), eds. M. Mohaghegh & T. Izutsu,
Tehran 1974, pp. 125. Izutsus study covers the disputation between Sadr al-Dn
al-Dashtak and Dawn on this issue. However, relying merely on a secondary source,
namely Abd al-Razzq al-Lhjs commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd, Izutsu attributes Sadr
al-Dns investigations on this issue to the latters son, Ghiyth al-Dn (pp. 179).
84
Nasr al-Dn al-T ss exact assertion in his commentary on Ibn Sns al-Ishrt
wa-l-tanbht is as follows: wa-yalzamu taqaddum al-mhiyya al l-wujd bi-l-dht.
Nasr al-Dn al-T s, al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht maa l-sharh li-l-muh aqqiq Nasr al-Dn
Muh ammad b. Muh ammad b. al-H asan al- T s, 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
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, H shiya al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1998,
f. 24a:104. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, p. 200, no. 9 (Appendix IV: Quo-
tations from Unpublished Sources). I was unable to find Sadr al-Dns quotation in
Masri al-musra, ed. Wilferd Madelung, Tehran 1383/2004.
98 chapter two

However, mawjd in its common meaning is equally applicable (muswiq)


as thing (shay). That is what has been asserted earlier in the text of the
book [i.e., Tajrd al-itiqd] 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 mawjd, 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 mawjd
would be extremely hidden. Perhaps the divine philosophers perceive this
reason also with their taste.87
To explain why Farb and Ibn Sn stated that the use of the term
mawjd for the Necessary Existent is metaphorical, Sadr al-Dn argues
that mawjd primarily means m lahu l-wujd (that which has exis-
tence). He explains that the word m here means shay (thing) and that
Farb and Ibn Sn used shay to refer to quiddities. For them, accord-
ing to Sadr al-Dn, the Necessary Existent is not a thing (shay) because
it does not have quiddity. Nevertheless, because of the limitations of
language, mawjd is also used for the Necessary Existent. Therefore, it
is asserted that its use is metaphoric.88

Following his teacher, Nayrz criticizes Dawns notion of wujd.


He argues that Dawns understanding of wujd is applicable to the
Necessary Existent only, whereas in fact wujd is equally applicable
to every single mawjd. Moreover, according to Nayrz, Dawn uses
wujd in its infinite sense for the Necessary Existent, which makes no
sense (ikhrj al-kalm an zhirih il m laysa yufham minhu). It is, in
contrast to what Dawn argues, his own invention since none of the
former philosophers used wujd with this meaning for the Necessary
Existent. Wujd, according to Nayrz, 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 Frb and Ibn
Sn usually used wujd with this meaning, as is the case in the fol-
lowing assertions of theirs:

87
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, H shiya al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1998,
f. 68b:1621. For the quotation in Arabic, see below, pp. 2001, no. 10 (Appendix IV:
Quotations from Unpublished Sources).
88
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, H shiya al sharh Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1998,
f. 72b:156.
nayrz and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 99

Wujd is one of the intellectual predicates (al-mah mlt al-aqliyya)


as it is impossible for it to subsist in a locus (al-mah all ) [such as a
substance] or to be located (h uslihi fhi) [like an accident];
Wujd is one of the secondary intelligibles (al-maqlt al-
thniyya);
Wujd can be divided into necessary and contingent as well as into
eternal (qadm) and originated (h dith);
Wujd multiplies with the multiplicity of the subjects ( yatakaththar
bi-takaththur al-mawdt);
Wujd is modulated (maql bi-l-tashkk).

The second meaning of wujd is mawjd. It is with this meaning,


Nayrz argues, that Frb and Ibn Sn used it for the Necessary
Existent, because the Necessary Existent is mawjd like all contingent
beings. Thus Dawns argument that the Necessary Existent is absolute
existence (al-wujd al-mutlaq) disagrees with Frbs and Ibn Sns
assertions. It is based on false premises such as the idea that existence
is unique of a certain one (wh id bi-l-shakhs), and necessitates the false-
hood of the consenting idea that wujd is the most known thing (araf
al-ashy). The truth is that He is pure existent (mawjd bah t).89

II.iii. Mental Existence


Philosophers after Ibn Sn distinguished between two modes of
existence. The first is the familiar mode of existence in the concrete
individuals of the material world (al-wujd al-khrij), and the other
the existence of quiddities in the mind (al-wujd al-dhihn). The lat-
ter mode, mental existence, as Ibn Sn describes it, is on a par with
concrete existence in the external world and no less real (muh assa l) or
affirmed (muthbat) than the other.90
Dawn and Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak had a disagreement concerning
Ibn Sns description of mental forms as accidents of the soul. In his
Shif Ibn Sn states:

89
See Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Majlis 3968, ff. 33a:124b:24.
90
This parallelism is based on Ibn Sns idea of the Active Intellect (al-aql al-fal),
which assigns forms both to the sublunar bodies (ajsm) and to the rational souls. On
Ibn Sns idea of mental existence, see Deborah L. Black, Mental Existence in Thomas
Aquinas and Avicenna, Mediaeval Studies, 61 (1999), pp. 4579, esp. pp. 4761; Robert
Wisnovsky, Avicenna and Avicennian Tradition, The Cambridge Companion to Arabic
Philosophy, eds. Peter Adamson and Richard Taylor, Cambridge 2005, pp. 92136.
100 chapter two

And because these [mental forms] are influences (thr) in the soul and
are not the entities of these things, nor examples of these things subsist-
ing in either corporeal or psychological materials, these [influences] are,
hence, accidents in the soul.91
Dawn suggests that this assertion of Ibn Sn must be regarded as a
loose way of expression (al wajh al-musmah 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 Sn
to be like a quality. It would be like saying, Zayd is truely in the house,
but he is not truely Zayd (Zayd h sil f l-dr h aqqatan wa-lkinnahu
laysa Zaydan h aqqatan). This is a contradictory statement, which is
not even appropriate for poetic fantasy (al-mutakhayyil al-shir), let
alone for philosophical investigation (al-tah qq al-ilm).92 Dawn,
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
Sadr al-Dn objects to this suggestion of Dawn, supporting instead,
as was characteristic of him, the view of Ibn Sn. Sadr al-Dn quotes
a passage from Ibn Sns Shif, 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 quid-
dity 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 Marmuras (Ibn Sn, The Metaphys-
ics of the Healing, p. 110).
92
Dawn, H shiya jadda al l-sharh al-jadd li-Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1999,
f. 105b.
93
Dawn, H shiya jadda al l-sharh al-jadd li-Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis 1999,
f. 105b7a.
nayrz 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
Sadr al-Dn argues that Ibn Sn did not find this statement contradic-
tory 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 (mabda
al-thr) and the latter are not. It is, as Sadr al-Dn 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
Dawn rejects Sadr al-Dns 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 Sadr
al-Dns argument is based on his principle that existence is prior to
quiddity, which is, according to Dawn, opposed to the view of Ibn
Sn. However, even if we accept this, it does not allow us to draw the
conclusion that existence is an accident of (rid an) quiddity, given
that accident (rid) cannot cause any transformation of its subject
(mard).96

II.iv. Gods Knowledge


For Dawn and Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak the discussion of mental exis-
tence seems to have had significant implications also for their respective
conceptions of Gods knowledge. Both believed in a similarity between
human and divine knowledge. Both also adhered to Ibn Sns idea

94
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, Hshiya al l-sharh al-jadd li-Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis
1998, f. 33ab. The translation of the quotation is based on Marmuras (Ibn Sn, The
Metaphysics of the Healing, p. 109).
95
See Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, Hawsh al l-sharh al-jadd li-Tajrd al-itiqd, MS
Majlis 1998, ff. 26a35a, esp. ff. 30b-1a.
96
See Dawn, Hawsh jadda al l-sharh al-jadd li-Tajrd al-itiqd, MS Majlis
1999, ff. 106a7a. For an analysis of the view of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak and Dawn
on mental existence, see Abdullh Shakb, Shinkht az ddgh-i Sadr al-mutaallihn,
Khiradnma-yi Sadr, 3 (1375/1996), pp. 617; idem, Barras-yi thr u afkr-i falsaf-i
Mr Sadr al-Dn Dashtak, pp. 195207.
102 chapter two

that Gods knowledge does not depend upon things.97 Dawn argued
that Gods knowledge, as mental existence, is self-sustained, whereas
Sadr al-Dn maintained that as mental existence His knowledge is not
self-sustained. Dawn explains that Gods knowledge is not produced
through cognitive forms being imprinted (murtasam) upon His mind,
since this contradicts Gods being simple. Instead of cognitive forms,
Dawn explains His knowledge to be existential, which he describes as
a cognitive existence (al-wujd al-ilm). That is to say, His knowledge
is the very wujd. 98 Therefore, wujd in itself is Gods knowledge and
the origin of all differentiating forms (al-suwar al-tafsliyya) in the
external world.99
Like Dawn, Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak opposes the idea of forms being
imprinted in Gods knowledge. But instead he suggests an explanation
with the help of the notion of cause (al-muqtad). According to Sadr
al-Dn, there are two ways of distinguishing things from each other. One
is on the basis of their forms, because of the correspondence (intibq)
and attestation (ishr) 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 (mushir 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 effects essence and its attributes
(al-dht al-muqtad wa-siftih). Sadr al-Dn argues that God knows
things because He knows the requirement (al-muqtad) of the whole
world. Although Sadr al-Dns idea relies heavily on Ibn Sns theory
of Gods knowledge, he made it distinct by referring to the process of
this simple knowledge as cognitive witnessing (al-shuhd al-ilm):100
When the form of something, which makes the thing distinct from oth-
ers, is produced by the perceiver, knowledge of that thing is obtained.
Likewise, when its requirement (al-muqtad) 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 Sns theory of Gods knowledge, see Michael E. Marmura, Some Aspects
of Avicennas Theory of Gods Knowledge of Particulars, Journal of the American
Oriental Society, 82, 3 (1962), pp. 299312.
98
See Dawn, Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, in Sab rasil, p. 148.
99
Dawn, Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, in Sab rasil, p. 148.
100
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, Rislat Ithbt al-wjib, MS Sehid Ali Pasa 2761, f. 96:
126.
nayrz 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-shuhd al-ilm) which is like mental existence,
a single issue.101
It is, however, unclear why Sadr al-Dn refers to Gods 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 contro-
versial issue between the two scholars. In his discussion of this issue,
Sadr al-Dn differentiates two kinds of composition: 1) a composition in
which the parts are adjoined (al-tarkb al-indimm), and 2) a composi-
tion in which the parts are totally fused together to form a complete
unity (al-tarkb al-ittih d). According to Sadr al-Dn 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. Sadr
al-Dn explains that the exact nature of human is unknown, but that
the intellect, on the basis of a humans manifestations (thr), defines
it as a substance with the following attributes: receptive of dimensions
(qbil abd), growing (nm), sensitive (h asss), and finally perceptive
of the universals (mudrik li-l-kulliyyt). For whereas being receptive of
dimensions, growing, and being sensitive necessitate having magnitude
(miqdr), position (wad), and place (h ayyiz), being perceptive of the
universals requires being separated (mujarrad) from magnitude, posi-
tion and place. Sadr al-Dn 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
Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, Rislat Ithbt al-wjib, MS Sehid Ali Pasa 2761, ff.
96a:1797b: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 Qshchs
commentary on T ss Tajrd al-itiqd written by Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak and Dawn.
However, I was unable to trace it in these glosses. The source which was used was
Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtaks Talqt al l-sharh al-jadd li-Tajrd al-itiqd and his
Kashf al-h aqiq al-Muh ammadiyya, where the views of both Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak
and Dawn on this issue are quoted from their respective glosses on Qshchs com-
mentary on Tajrd al-itiqd.
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 Sadr al-Dn regards the human
soul as not separated before death and views the separated character
of the soul as being only potentially so during life. Sadr al-Dn 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 percep-
tive of the universals as well as being in a sitting position (jlis). 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 Sadr al-Dn, Dawn maintains that the souls task is the
management (tadbr) and control (tasarruf ) of the body. Therefore
the two are not in a state of unity; rather, the body is in possession of
the soul. To Dawn, the argument from I am in a sitting position
which is used by Sadr al-Dn is just a customary extension of a term
(itlqt urf), which cannot be used as a basis to attain philosophical
truths (h aqiq falsafiyya). Moreover, Ibn Sn and other philosophers
used I only to refer to the separated soul. Dawn further argues
that it has been well established that the perceiver of the universals is
separated. If Sadr al-Dn 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 Dawn also criticises this idea from a religious point of view:
to him this belief would lead to denial of the resurrection.106

103
Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Kashf al-h a qiq al-Muh a mmadiyya, in
Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, p. 975.
104
See Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Kashf al-h aqiq al-Muh ammadiyya, in
Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, pp. 9746.
105
See Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtaks Talqt al l-sharh al-jadd li-l-Tajrd, in
Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, pp. 65569.
106
See Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtaks Talqt al l-sharh al-jadd li-l-Tajrd, in
Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, pp. 6356.
nayrz and the two strands of philosophy in shiraz 105

It seems that Sadr al-Dn never replied to Dawns criticisms. Nor


did Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, who defended his fathers view on this
issue in his Talqt al l-sharh al-jadd l-Tajrd al-itiqd, ever allude
to any response by his father. Presumably, the sudden death of Sadr
al-Dn al-Dashtak prevented him from further clarifying his view.
CHAPTER THREE

WORKS OF NAYRZ

Nayrzs career as an author evidently started some time before Sadr


al-Dn al-Dashtaks death in 903/1498 and lasted for at least thirty years.
This is attested by his commentary upon Suhrawards postscript (dhayl)
to al-Alwh al-Imdiyya, which is dated 932/1526.1 To our knowledge,
Nayrz 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 writ-
ing of commentaries and glosses was common by the time of Nayrz,
particularly in the fields of philosophy and theology, as well as in the
sciences.3 Fakhr al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on Ibn Sns al-Ishrt
wa-l-tanbht 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 r al-Dn al-Ts.4
Nayrz seems to have had different reasons for writing each of his
commentaries, depending on the text he was dealing with. Some-
times he commented on a text in order to endorse the basic system of

1
Among the works that Nayrz wrote during the lifetime of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak
were his glosses on Qshchs commentary on T ss Tajrd al-itiqd and his com-
mentary on Abhars Hidyat al-h ikma. See below, pp. 1114.
2
In his commentary on Tahdhb al-mantiq, Nayrz included Persian quota-
tions from Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Sharh al-Thamarat li-Batlamys (MS Majlis 3968,
f. 14b:13), Ibn Sns Dnishnma-yi Aly (f. 149b:25) and Frzbds Sifr al-sada
(f. 303b:158). In his commentary on Taftzns Tahdhb al-mantiq, he quotes from
Nas r al-Dn al-T ss Persian work on logic, Ass al-iqtibs (MS Ridaw 1088, ff.
104b5a).
3
According to George Saliba, this genre has to be viewed as the functional equiva-
lent of todays periodical literature in the research, where new findings were made
public. See G. Saliba, Writing the History of Arabic Astronomy: Problems and Dif-
ferent Perspectives. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 116 (1996), p. 714.
4
Among the well-known commentaries written by T s in the field of philosophy
and theology are his al-Masri al-Musri (a commentary on Shahrastns al-Musri),
his Naqd al-Muh assa l (a commentary on Fakhr al-Dn al-Rzs al-Muh assa l other-
wise known as Talkhs al-Muhassa l ), and his commentary on Ibn Sns al-Ishrt
wa-l-tanbht. For a bibliography of Nas r al-Dn al-T ss works see Muhammad Taq
Mudarris Ridaw, Ah wl u thr-i khwja Nasr al-Dn-i T s, Tehran 1379/2000.
works of nayrz 107

thought and elaborate his preferred view on specific issues it contained


that interested him. This holds true for his commentary on Abhars
Hidyat al-h ikma, his commentary on Taftzns Tahdhb al-mantiq
wa-l-kalm, his commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-itiqd,
and his commentary on Suhrawards al-Alwh al-Imdiyya. Some-
times, however, he commented on a text mainly in order to criticise
it. This is the case with his glosses on Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq
and his commentary on Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda. 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 compre-
hend his views as a whole.5
All his commentaries by far exceed the respective texts in size.
Throughout his career Nayrz 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 Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm (MS ehid Ali 1780)
shows that he used to strike out a lot in his first drafts. In the pro-
cess of rewriting these drafts he would add references to works he had
subsequently written. His commentaries on Hidyat al-h ikma, Tajrd
al-itiqd, Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda and al-Alwh al-Imdiyya
were also evidently subjected to revisions.6
Not all of Nayrzs works are preserved in their entirety. Of his
commentary on Tajrd al-Itiqd three manuscripts are extant, none

5
The only exception is his commentary on Abhars Hidyat al-h ikma, in which he
remains silent regarding other works of Abhar, presumably because he did not have
access to any of them.
6
Nayrzs colophon at the end of his commentary on Hidyat al-h ikma (MS
Carullah 1327, f. 219a) shows that he completed the composition of this work in
904/14989 in Shiraz, and that he completed a copy of it on 12 Safar 916/20 May
1510 in Isfahan. In the same colophon he refers to his commentaries on Dawns
Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda and Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-itiqd, which
shows that these works were composed prior to the date of the completion of this
copy, i.e. 12 Safar 916/20 May 1510. However, the authors colophon of MS Mill
Frs 55 (f. 260a) indicates that he completed a copy of his commentary on Tajrd
al-itiqd on 2 Rab I 919/8 May1513. The date of authorship of his commentary on
Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda was also changed by Nayrz to the chronogram Ithbt
wjibih, i.e., 921/15156 (see MS Majlis 184, f. 156a). His commentary on al-Alwh
al-Imdiyya was first completed on 5 Rab II 930/10 February 1524. Two years later
his commentary on Suhrawards postscript (dhayl) to the Alwh was added at the
end of the commentary. Nayrz copied this commentary at least once more. MS ehid
Ali 1739, completed on 5 Rab II 943/9 January 1527, was copied from an autograph
copy; see below, p. 177 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
108 chapter three

of which contains the complete introduction of the commentator.


Of his commentary on Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm only the first
part on logic is extant. His commentary on Tahdhb al-ah km and his
glosses on Sharh al-Mawqif, to which he refers in his writings, are
completely lost. Moreover, gh Buzurg al-T ihrn informs us that
he once saw Nayrzs glosses on Dawns Unmdhaj al-ulm in the
Nayrz Codex.7 However, the present location of this codex is unfor-
tunately unknown to us. Nayrz 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 Nayrz will come to light.
Nayrz usually identifies himself in the introductions and some-
times 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


-




Nayrzs glosses may be identified by the sign: .11 It seems that
stands for intah meaning ended, while is the combination of the
first and last letters of his first name (Mahmd).

7
See Dhara, vol. 2, pp. 4067, no. 1627, vol. 6, p. 26, no. 102.
8
This is the rhyming phrase he uses in the introduction to his glosses on H ikmat
al-ishrq and on Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs commentary (MS Laleli 2523, f. 2b), in the
introduction to and in the colophon of his Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm wa-nihytih
(MS Malik 2614, ff. 2b, 22a), in the introduction to his Risla Ithbt al-wjib (MS
Malik 688, f. 115b), in the introduction and in the colophon of his commentary on
Hidyat al-h ikma (MS Carullah, ff. 1b, 218b), and in the introduction to his commen-
tary on al-Alwh al-Imdiyya (Misbh al-arwh ) (MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 2b).
9
This phrase has been used in the colophon of his commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd
(MS Princeton 70, f. 121a), and at the end of his commentary on al-Alwh al-Imdiyya
(Misbh al-arwh ) (MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 208a).
10
This phrase has been used in the introduction to his commentary Tahdhb
al-mantiq wa-l-kalm (MS ehid Ali 1780, f. 1b).
11
The authenticity of this sign is certain because of being used in his autograph
of his glosses on H ikmat al-ishrq and on its commentary (MSS Marash 4266). The
same sign is preserved in some later copies of his glosses, namely another copy of his
glosses on H ikmat al-ishrq and on its commentary (MS Laleli 2523) as well as a copy
of his glosses on Shawkil al-hr f sharh Haykil al-nr (MS Majlis 1887, copied by
the authors son).
works of nayrz 109

Two items written by the hand of Nayrz are known to have been
preserved: 1) A fragment from the beginning of his commentary on
Taftzns Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm (MS ehid Ali Paa 1780)
[Fig. 1], and 2) a copy of Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs commentary on
Suhrawards H ikmat al-Ishrq containing Nayrzs glosses on the text
and Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs commentary (MS Marash 4266) [Fig. 2].
The latter also contains an example of Nayrzs seal [Fig. 3].

Fig. 1: Nayrzs autograph commentary on Taftzns Tahdhb al-mantiq


wa-l-kalm (MS ehid Ali Paa 1780, f. 3a, line 1516)

Fig. 2: Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs commentary on Suhrawards H ikmat


al-Ishrq, copied by Nayrz (MS Marash 4266, f. 5a, line 12)

Fig. 3: Seal of Nayrz: H jj Mahmd Nayriz


(MS Marash 4266, f. 4a)
110 chapter three

It is important to establish a relative chronology of Nayrzs works, as his


philosophical thought evidently developed throughout his career. This
is clearly indicated, for example, by his attitude towards Suhraward. In
some of his early writings, such as his commentary on Abhars Hidyat
al-h ikma and his glosses on Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq, he shows
himself to be critical towards Suhraward. By contrast, in his last extant
work, that is, his commentary on Suhrawards al-Alwh al-Imdiyya,
the latters 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, Nayrzs
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 Nayrz, albeit
uncertainly, are also discussed in Appendix I.

I. Glosses on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-itiqd

Our knowledge of these glosses is based on Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtaks


Talqt al l-Sharh al-jadd li-l-Tajrd, where Nayrzs request to Sadr
al-Dn al-Dashtak that he explain his view about the human soul and
the latters oral response are quoted from Nayrzs H shiyat al-Tajrd.12
This quotation has no equivalent in Nayrzs commentary on Tajrd
al-itiqd.13 Hence his H shiyat al-Tajrd must have been different from
his Sharh al al-Tajrd. H shiyat al-Tajrd is probably an abbreviated
reference to glosses on another commentary on al-Tajrid; H shiyat al
l-Sharh al-jadd li-l-Tajrd, in other words, these glosses were presum-
ably written on Qshchs commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd, and not on
the text of the Tajrd itself. But as long as these glosses are unavailable
we cannot be certain about this.
The citation by Ghiyth al-Dn also suggests that Nayrz was writ-
ing this work while his teacher, Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, was still alive.
That is to say, he had started writing it before 17 Ramadn 903/9 May

12
See Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak, Talqt al l-sharh al-jadd li-l-Tajrd, in
Musannaft-i Ghiyth al-Dn, vol. 2, pp. 9857.
13
On this commentary see below, pp. 1214.
works of nayrz 111

1498. Thus, this work is one of his earliest writings, if not his very first
composition.

II. Commentary on Athr al-Dn al-Abhars Hidyat al-h ikma

When compared to his other philosophical works, Nayrzs commen-


tary on Athr al-Dn al-Abhars Hidyat al-h ikma stays most faithfully
within the tradition of Avicennan philosophy. Completed in 904/14989,
this work was written during Nayrzs 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 sat-
isfaction to my expectation and intention. Otherwise, I hope you might
possibly correct it or simply efface and ignore it.14
Nayrz evidently started writing this commentary before Sadr al-Dn
al-Dashtaks death on 12 Ramadn 903/4 May 1498. He quotes him on
one occasion, referring to him as sayyidun wa-sanadun wa-mawln
nsir al-shara al-h aqqa, followed by a prayer for him: ayyad dilluhu
l-l al mafriq al-adn wa-l-al.15 On 12 Safar 916/20 May 1510,
Nayrz 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 Tahdhb
al-mantiq wa-l-kalm and his commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd.16
Abhars Hidyat al-h ikma is comprised of three parts (qism):
logic, physics and metaphysics. The final two parts of the text, phys-
ics and metaphysics, were the subject of many commentaries and
glosses by philosophers of the following generations. Prior to Nayrz,

14
Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 2a. For Nayrzs whole intro-
duction to this work, see below, pp. 16970 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzz Writings).
15
See Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, ff. 87b88a.
16
See Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, f. 104b (reference to Sharh Tahdhb
al-mantiq wa-l-kalm), and ff. 104b, 108b, 132a, 154b (reference to Sharh Tajrd
al-itiqd). Apart from these two works, Nayrz makes reference to a commentary he
wrote on an unidentified epistle (sharh bad al-rasil), which may correspond to his
commentary on Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda (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-Dn Muhammad
b. Mubrakshh al-Bukhr;17 2) the commentary by Muhammad
b. Al al-Jurjn, entitled H all al-Hidya;18 3) the commentary by
Mawlnzde al-Hiraw (fl. 815/1412);19 and 4) the commentary by
Mr H usayn al-Maybud, completed in 880/1475.20
As was the case with the previous commentaries on the Hidya,
Nayrzs Sharh 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 Nayrz. 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 Hidyat
al-h ikma has yet successfully explored the intentions of its author.22
Nayrz consulted some previous commentaries when writing his
own Sharh . He refers repeatedly to most of the commentators
(akthar al-shurrh ) and presents their views.23 Maybuds commentary
seems to be among the works he used. In his introduction, Nayrz
reproduces the same reasons as to why Abhar did not include math-
ematics and practical philosophy in the Hidya that were mentioned
by Maybud. The latter had explained that mathematics was excluded
from Abhars treatise because it is based on imaginary (mawhm)
issues which have no reality in the world (l tuh aqqaqu f l-khrij),
while practical philosophy was excluded because its issues were fully
discussed in the shara. Nayrz adduces the same argument almost
verbatim, only adding with respect to mathematics that Abhars
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.
18
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
Maybuds commentary became popular soon after its composition. Another stu-
dent of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, Taq al-Dn al-Shrz, wrote glosses on it. For the
commentaries and glosses written on Hidyat al-h ikma, see Akbar Thubt, Hidyat
al-hikma u Shurh-i n, Khirad-i jwidn: Jashnnma-yi ustd sayyid Jall al-Dn
shtiyn, ed. Al As ghar Muhammadkhn & H asan Sayyid Arab, Tehran 1378/1999,
pp. 135150.
21
See Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 5a:179.
22
Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 1b:92a:8.
23
See, for example, Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 154a:13.
works of nayrz 113

it would have greatly extended the length of the book.24 Near the end
of the commentary, where Abhar refers to his more elaborate work,
Zubdat al-asrr, there is further evidence to confirm Nayrzs use of
Maybuds commentary. Maybud had recommended to his readers
to turn to the works of Ibn Sn and Suhraward rather than to the
Zubdat al-asrr. This suggestion is objected to by Nayrz, who states
that the reference is given to the authors Zubdat al-asrr and not, as
most of the commentators suggest, to the Shif, the Najt, or the
H ikmat al-Ishrq.25
In addition to Maybuds commentary (and possibly those others)
on this text, Nayrz consulted other sources, some of which are
explicitly mentioned in his commentary, such as the Uthljiy
(Theology), which he attributes in his commentary to Aristotle,26
Ibn Sns al-Shif, al-Najt and al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht, and various
commentaries written on the Ishrt by Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz, Nasr
al-Dn al-T s (to whom he refers as al-Muh aqqiq) and Qutb al-Dn
al-Rz. Nayrz also used Bahmanyrs al-Tahsl and refers on one
occasion to Ibn Zaylas Talkhs al-Shif.27 There are also references
to Shams al-Dn al-Shahrazrs Rasil al-Shajara al-ilhiyya,28 Fakhr
al-Dn al-Rzs al-Mabh ith al-mashriqiyya,29 and Taftzns Sharh
al-Maqsid.30 No reference, however, is made to any other work by
Abhar, probably because no other philosophical works of Abhar were
available to him.31

24
Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 4a:16.
25
Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 218b.
26
Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 211:18. On the so-called
Theology of Aristotle, see Cristina DAncona, Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in
translation, in The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, eds. Peter Adamson
& Richard C. Taylor, Cambridge 2005, pp. 1031, esp. pp. 246.
27
See Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 143b:21. In
Shahrazrs Nuzhat al-arwh wa- rawdat al-afrh f trkh al-h ukam (ed. Sayyid
Khurshd Ahmad, Hyderabad 1396/1976, vol. 2, p. 59) this work is referred to as
Ikhtisr T abiyt al-Shif. On Ibn Zayla and his works see Taq Bnish, Ibn Zayla, in
Dirat al-marif-i buzurg-i islm, vol. 3, Tehran 1374/1995, pp. 64952. According
to Bnish (p. 650) this work is lost.
28
See Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, ff. 173a:7; 140a:7;
143b:21; 144a:11; 146b:19; 149b:3; 215a:13.
29
Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 164b:8.
30
Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 166b:19.
31
On Athir al-Dn al-Abhars writings, see Heidrun Eichner, Athir al-Dn
al-Abhar Encyclopaedia of Islam Three, ed. Gudrun Krmer, Denis Matringe, John
Nawas, and Everett Rowson, forthcoming.
114 chapter three

The commentary also reflects some of the disputes between Sadr


al-Dn al-Dashtak and Dawn. On the issue of the existence of the
Necessary Existent, for instance, Nayrz explains and criticizes at
length the view of Dawn. He refrains, however, from mentioning
Dawns name and refers to the latter as hdh l-qil al-muh aqqiq
(qaddasa sirruh).32

III. Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm wa-nihytih wa-tabyn maqsid


al-h arakt wa-ghytih

This work, which is one of the two independent works of Nayrz, was
completed on 24 Rab II 911/23 September 1505. It was dedicated to
someone referred to as al-malik al-majd iy al-milla wa-l-duny wa-l-
dn Sadd,33 who apart from being a ruler, must have been a scholar since
Nayrz praises him as mawl al-fdil and allmat al-asr.34 Nevertheless,
the scant reference does not allow for his identification.
This treatise, which discusses the finitude of dimensions, consists
of three chapters ( fusl): 1) On the finitude of the dimensions ( f
bayn tanh al-abd); 2) On the limits of the two directions ( f
bayn muh addid htayn al-jihatayn); 3) Resolution of the doubt that
has been expressed on the existence of the limits ( f h all shakk aw
radd al wujd al-muh addid). In the beginning of the first chapter,
Nayrz explains that some early Greek and Indian philosophers, as
well as Ab l-Barakt al-Baghdd (d. 552/1157) among the later phi-
losophers, believed that dimensions were unlimited. Without iden-
tifying his source, Nayrz presents some of their arguments for the
infinitude of dimensions,35 followed by several arguments supporting

32
Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, f. 177a:18. Dawn was still
alive in 904/14989 when Nayrz 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 Nayrz himself in his revised version of the com-
mentary, completed in 916/1510.
33
See Nayrz, Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm wa-nihytih, MS Malik 2614, f. 1b:12.
34
Nayrz, Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm, f. 1b.
35
See Nayrz, Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm, ff. 2ab. The arguments he presents
here are different from those of Ab l-Barakt in his Mutabar and it seems unlikely
that he used this work as a source. For Ab l-Barakt al-Baghdds discussion of
the issue, see his al-Mutabar f l-h ikma, Lithograph Edition, Hyderabad 1357/1938,
[reprinted Isfahan 1373/1994], vol. 2, pp. 807. Generally speaking, no evidence has
been found in Nayrzs writings which would indicate that Ab l-Barakt al-Baghdds
al-Mutabar was available to him.
works of nayrz 115

their finitude.36 He refers to some of the sources he used, namely Ibn


Sns al-Shif,37 an unspecified work of Suhraward (sh ib al-Ishrq
f bad tasnfih),38 Fakhr al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on al-Ishrt
wa-l-tanbht,39 Sad al-Dn al-Taftzns commentary on his own
al-Maqsid,40 and Al al-Dn al-Qshchs commentary on Tajrd
al-Itiqd.41
Nayrz discusses the issue of the finitude of dimensions in his
other major works, namely in his commentary on Abhars Hidyat
al-h ikma, his glosses on Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq, his commen-
tary on Taftzns Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm, his commentary
on Nas r al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-itiqd, and in his commentary on
Suhrawards al-Alwh al-Imdiyya. In the last-mentioned work, he
presents some arguments for the finitude of dimensions, and refers to
his glosses on Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq and to his commentary
on Taftzns Tahdhb al-kalm, in which he had elaborated on this
topic more extensively.42 Surprisingly, he does not refer to the inde-
pendent work he had written on the topic; perhaps later on he became
dissatisfied with this treatise and his argumentation in it.

IV. Rislat Ithbt al-wjib

In his commentary on Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, com-


pleted in 921/15156, Nayrz 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 Gln (bad al-azim f l-Jln), 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 [Gods] oneness (wh idiyya)
and unity (wah 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 Nayrz, Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm, ff. 4a9a. For these arguments, see
Ft ima Fan, Tanh abd, Dnishnma-yi jahn-i Islm, vol. 8, Tehran 1383/2004,
pp. 2468.
37
Nayrz, Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm, MS Malik 2614, f. 5b.
38
See Nayrz, Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm, MS Malik 2614, f. 7a.
39
Nayrz, Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm, MS Malik 2614, f. 6a.
40
Nayrz, Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm, MS Malik 2614, ff. 2b, 8b,15a.
41
Nayrz, Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm, MS Malik 2614, f. 16b.
42
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f 25a.
116 chapter three

Dawn] on most of these proofs and abstracted the arguments from the
irrelevant remarks.43
In his introduction to Rislat Ithbt al-wjib, Nayrzs patron is
referred to ambiguously as Nsiran li-l-haqq Sadd and Nsi r riyd
al-mulk.44 Nayrz also dedicated to the same patron his glosses on
H ikmat al-ishrq. There, he refers to him once as Nsir li-l-h aqq rayuhu
l-Sadd and another time as Nsir li-l-islm Nasran li-l-Dn Sadd.45
Nayrz, moreover, praises him as sh ib al-sayf wa-l-qalam, a title
that was usually used for viziers.46 In the dedication of his glosses on
H ikmat al-ishrq, he praises, apart from the above mentioned patron,
a so-called Sult n b. Sultn Ahmad Bahdur Khn, who can safely
be identified as Sultan Ah mad Krkiy, the ruler of the eastern part of
Gln (Biya Psh) since 911/1505. Therefore, it can be concluded that
Nayrz wrote this work in 911/1505 or shortly after, while staying in
Gln, and dedicated it to Nsir or Nsi r al-Dn, who was presumably
the vizier of Ahmad Khn Krkiy.
Ithbt al-wjib (or Ithbt al-mabda) was a title given to a philo-
sophical genre dealing with the proofs for the existence of the Nec-
essary Existent. Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-qadma, which
was completed in 894/1489, was the first contribution by a philoso-
pher from Shiraz to this genre. In this work, Dawn 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 Dawn, Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak wrote a
treatise in 903/1497 with the title Ithbt al-wjib. Dashtak presents
in it only one proof for the existence of the Necessary Existent and,
compared to Dawn, his discussion of this subject is much briefer.
Instead, he elaborates on the issue of Gods unity (ah adiyya) and His

43
Nayrz, Sharh Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, MS Majlis 1841, f. 20a. For
the quotation in Arabic, see below, pp. 1545 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs
Writings).
44
See Nayrz, Rislat Ithbt al-wjib, MS Malik 688, f. 159a.
45
See below, pp. 17980 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
46
For instance, this title is used by Ibn Kammna for sah ib dwn Shams al-Dn
al-Juwayn (d. 683/1284). See his Kalimt wajza mushtamila al nukat latfa f l-ilm
wa-l-amal, edited by Reza Pourjavady and Sabine Schmidtke, in A Jewish Philoso-
pher of Baghdad, p. 140. Nayrz furthermore describes his patron as a metaphysician
knowledgeable in religious law and politics (ilh lahu ilm al-shari wa-l-mulk wa-l-
siysa). See Nayrz, Rislat Ithbt al-wjib, MS Malik 688, f. 159a.
works of nayrz 117

attributes (sift). Dashtaks treatise motivated Jall al-Dn al-Dawn


to devote another epistle to this subject, entitled Rislat Ithbt al-wjib
al-jadda, in which he follows the same structure as Dashtaks treatise.
The above-quoted remark made by Nayrz in his commentary on
the Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda clearly shows that he was con-
cerned in his independent tract on this subject with Dawns Rislat
Ithbt al-wjib al-qadma. Nayrz divided his work into two chapters
(maqsadayn). Chapter One, on the principles ( f l-mabdi), is divided
into two sections ( faslayn): 1) the concepts of the necessary, the con-
tingent and the impossible ( f tah s l man al-wjib wa-l-mumkin
wa-l-mumtani); and 2) the definition of cause and its divisions ( f
tarf al-illa wa taqsmuh). Nayrzs incorporation of these subjects
in his Ithbt al-wjib is likely a result of the influence of Dawns epi-
logue to his own Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-qadma, in which the latter
discussed contingency and its conditions. In his introduction Nayrz
broadens the subject by addressing other issues as well. Without a dis-
cussion 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 Ithbt al-wjib. Chapter Two, On
the intentions ( f l-maqsid), is again divided into two sections: 1)
on proving that beings have a principle that is necessarily existent and
does not have any cause ( f ithbt anna li-l-mawjdt mabda wjib
wujdihi min ghayr an yakna lahu illa); and 2) on His uniqueness
( f wah dniyyat dhtih).
In the first section of this chapter, Nayrz adduces some passages
from Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-qadma.47 Nayrz, how-
ever, does not directly refer here or anywhere else in this work either
to Dawn or to his Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-qadma. The sources
to which he explicitly refers are Ibn Sns Shif, Taftzns Sharh
al-Maqsid, Jurjns commentary on js Mawqif, and Sadr al-Dn
al-Dashtaks glosses on Qshchs commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd.
This section ends with Dashtaks proof for the existence of the Nec-
essary Existent, which Nayrz quotes from Dashtaks Rislat Ithbt
al-wjib. It is also under the influence of the latters work that Nayrz
devoted the second section of this chapter to the discussion of the

47
For instance, he quotes Dawns comment on the argument of tadyuf for the
finitude of causes. See Nayrz, Risalat Ithbt al-wjib, MS Malik 688, f. 178a. Instead
of explicitly referring to Dawn, Nayrz structured the sentence in the passive (wa-
qad yuqlu . . . ).
118 chapter three

oneness (ah adiyya) and uniqueness (wah dniyya) of the Necessary


Existent.

V. Glosses on Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq and on Qutb al-Dn


Shrzs Commentary on this Work

Nayrzs collection of glosses on Suhrawards H ikmat al-Ishrq is


another work dedicated to Nsir or Nsir al-Dn (see above, pp. 1156).
It was presumably composed around the same time as his Rislat Ithbt
al-wjib during his stay in Gln.
In his H ikmat al-ishrq, Suhraward criticizes Ibn Sns philosophy
on the one hand, and proposes his own Philosophy of Illumination
with its peculiar language on the other. This work, despite its signifi-
cance, 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-Dn al-Shahrazr (d. after 687/1288) and Qutb al-Dn al-Shrz,
both tried to render the text more coherent. Whereas Shahrazrs
commentary was not widely received, that of Qutb al-Dn Shrz was
popular, so that later on Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq was usually
copied and studied together with this commentary.48
In the extant manuscripts, Nayrzs glosses are found written on
the margin of Qutb al-Dn Shrzs commentary. These are concerned
primarily with Suhrawards text, but at times also with Qutb al-Dn
al-Shrzs commentary. In his introduction, Nayrz explains his
intention in writing the glosses as follows:
Part of the book called al-Ishrq is an evaluation of the two groups of phi-
losophers, 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 Qutb al-Dn al-Shrz, who consulted Shahrazrs com-
mentary on H ikmat al-ishrq for his own commentary on the same text, no later phi-
losopher is known to have used the commentary of Shahrazr. Apart from Nayrz,
Mr Dmd and Mull Sadr (d. 1050/1640) wrote glosses on Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs
commentary. For the glosses of Mr Dmd on Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs commentary,
see Mr Dmd, Musannaft-i Mr Dmd, ed. Abd Allh Nrn, Tehran 1381/2003,
vol. 1, pp. 5237. For the glosses of Mull Sadr, see Qut b al-Dn al-Shrz, Sharh
H ikmat al-ishrq, lithograph edition, 1313/18956; cf. Sajjad H. Rizvi, Mull Sadr
Shrz: His Life and Works and the Sources for Safavid Philosophy, Oxford 2007, p. 76.
works of nayrz 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
Nayrz is referring to the evaluation Suhraward made of Peripatetic
views on some particular issues, distinguishing them from what he
calls the Ishrq views on the same matters. Chapter Three (al-maqla
al-thlitha) of the first part (al-qism al-awwal ) of H ikmat al-ishrq is
entitled On the falsifications and some judgments between the Ishrq
expressions and the expressions of philosophers. Nayrzs glosses, which
include this chapter, start with his remark on causal and assertoric dem-
onstrations (burhn lima wa-burhn inna) near the end of the second
chapter of the first part, and continue with a discussion on the transmi-
gration of the soul in the fifth chapter of the second part, where his last
remark can be found. The number of Nayrzs marginal remarks differs
in the two extant manuscripts of this work: MS Laleli 2523 contains

889 remarks with the signature of Nayrz ( ), whereas MS Ragp

854 contains 840 of his remarks with his signature (). Most of these
remarks are brief, explaining the text of Suhraward.

VI. Glosses on Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjns Commentary on Adud


al-Dn al-js al-Mawqif f ilm al-kalm

Al-Mawqif f ilm al-kalm is a theological-philosophical work by Adud


al-Dn al-j consisting of six chapters (mawqif ). Chapter One contains
some epistemological preliminaries ( f l-muqaddamt), while Chapter
Two is devoted to some general ontology (al-umr al-mma). Chapter
Three is entitled On accidents ( f l-ard), Chapter Four, On substances
( f l-jawhir), Chapter Five, On Metaphysics (ilhiyyt), and Chapter Six,

49
Nayrz, H shya al H ikmat al-ishrq, MS Laleli 2523, f.2b. For the whole intro-
duction of Nayrz to this work, see below, pp. 17980 (Appendix I: Inventory of
Nayrzs Writings).
120 chapter three

On the knowledge that is based on revelation ( f l-samiyyt).50 Com-


pleted in Shawwl 807/April 1405, Mr Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjns
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 Nayrzs set of glosses on this commentary is probably one of his
relatively early writings. There are references to it in his commentary
on Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm and in his Tah rr Tajrd al-itiqd.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
Nayrz refers to these glosses, which are to be found in his Tahrr Tajrd
al-aqid and his Sharh Tahdhb al-mantiq, are both on the issue of the
definition of knowledge (ilm). This topic is discussed in the second sec-
tion (marsad) of Chapter One of al-Mawqif. It is possible that Nayrz
may only have written glosses on this section of the commentary.53

VII. Commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-mantiq

In his Dhara il tasnf al-sha and his Tabaqt alm al-sha, gh


Buzurg al-T ihrn states that he had seen a manuscript of Nayrzs
commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-Tss Tajrd al-mantiq in a library in
Smarr.54 According to gh Buzurg, Nayrz started the commentary
in Isfahan, completed it in Qazvin on 23 Dhu l-H ijja 913/24 April 1508
and dedicated it to a certain Amr Nizm al-Din Mahmd. He further
informs us that the commentary is long, consisting of about ten thou-
sand lines, and that in its introduction Nayrz explicitly mentions that
he made use of the glosses of his teacher, Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, on

50
In his study on j, Josef van Ess translates and analyzes the first chapter of this
book into German; see Die Erkenntnislehre des Adud al-Dn al-c: bersetzung und
Kommentar des ersten Buches seiner Mawqif.
51
For the extant glosses on this text, see Shakbny/Pourjavady, Kitb-shins-i
Mr Sayyid Sharf-i Jurjn, pp. 1456.
52
For his reference to this work in his commentary on Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-
kalm, see MS Ridaw 1088, f. 31a. For the reference in Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, see
MS Majlis 3968, f. 221a.
53
For the reference to this work in his Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, see MS Majlis 3968,
f. 221b:9, and in his Sharh Tahdhb al-Mantiq, see MS Ridaw 1088, f. 30a.
54
See al-Dhara, vol. 13, pp. 1401, no. 469, and vol. 3, p. 354, no. 1278; T abaqt,
vol. 7, p. 244.
works of nayrz 121

Tss Tajrd al-mantiq.55 The manuscript described by gh Buzurg later


on became part of the H akm Library of Najaf (MS H akm 59), and
is mentioned in the manuscript catalogue of the library published by
Muhammad Taq Dnishpazhh in 1967.56 It is on the basis of several
references to this commentary in Nayrzs other writings that the cor-
rectness of the attribution of this commentary to him is established.57

VIII. Commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-T ss Tajrd al-itiqd: Tah rr


Tajrd al-aqid

Nayrzs commentary on Nasr al-Dn al-Tss Tajrd al-itiqd, entitled


Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, 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 Safar 916/20 May 1510,
since in a note he wrote on this date at the end of the revised copy of
his commentary on Hidyat al-h ikma, he mentions this work as one of
his earlier writings.59 There is also a reference to this work in his com-
mentary on Taftzns Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm, which may be
an indication that he wrote his commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd prior
to his commentary on Tahdhb al-mantiq.60 Later on he copied it, prob-
ably with some revisions.61 The revised commentary was completed on
2 Rab I 919/8 May 1513. Nayrz writes at the end of the work:

55
T abaqt, vol. 7, p. 244. The glosses of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak on the text are
extant in MS Marash 1707 (cat. 95/5). Cf. Al Sadry Khy, Kitbshinsi-yi Tajrd
al-itiqd, Qum 1382/2003, p. 16.
56
See Muhammad Taq Dnishpazhh, Fihrist-i kitbkhnah-yi Irq u Arabistn,
vol. 5, Tehran 1346/19678, p. 425. Dnishpazhhs entry to this manuscript in the
catalogue does not contain any additional information but its location.
57
Reference is given to this work in Nayrzs commentary on Taftzns Tahdhb
al-mantiq wa-l-kalm (MS Ridaw 1088, f. 117a), and in his note at the end of the
revised version of his commentary on Hidyat al-h ikma (MS Carullah 1327, f. 218b).
58
Instead of Tajrd al-itiqd, Nayrz calls the work Tajrd al-aqid. The latter
title seems to have become popular after Shams al-Dn Mahmd al-Isf ahn called his
commentary Tasdd al-qawid f sharh Tajrd al-aqid. However, earlier commenta-
tors such as H ill and Isfaryin refer to the text as Tajrd al-itiqd. See Al Sadry
Khy, Kitbshinsi-yi Tajrd al-itiqd, pp. 910.
59
For this note see below, p. 171 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
60
For the reference to this work in his commentary on Taftzns Tahdhb
al-mantiq wa-l-kalm, see MS Ridaw 1088, f. 108.
61
There is no particular evidence indicating that Nayrz revised the commentary in
the copy completed on 2 Rab I 919/8 May 1513. However, his wording in the colo-
phon 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 Tajrd al-aqid,


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 Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, consisting of a selection of kalm
disputations, based on the beliefs of the Imm Sha, the sect which will
attain salvation.62
Tajrd al-itiqd a work written by Nasr al-Dn al-Ts in his late carreer,
consists of six chapters (maqsid): Chapter One: On general ontology
(al-umr al-mma); Chapter Two: On substances and accidents ( f
l-jawhir wa-l-ard); Chapter Three: On metaphysics ( f l-ilhiyyt);
Chapter Four: On prophecy ( f l-nubuwwa); Chapter Five: On the imam-
ate; Chapter Six: On eschatology ( f l-mad). 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 Nayrz, the following commentaries had been writ-
ten on this text: 1) Kashf al-murd f sharh Tajrd al-itiqd by H asan
b. Ysuf al-H ill (d. 726/1326); 2) Tard al-itimd f sharh Tajrd
al-itiqd by Shams al-Dn Muhammad al-Bihisht al-Isfaryin (fl.
741/1340); 3) Tasdd al-qawid f sharh Tajrd al-aqid by Shams
al-Dn Mahmd al-Isfahn, also known as al-Sharh al-qadm, on
which significant glosses had been written by al-Sharf al-Jurjn; and
4) al-Sharh al-Jadd by Al al-Dn Al al-Qshch.63 The only Twelver
Sh among these commentators was Allma al-H ill. The rest, all
Sunns, criticized and rejected T ss Twelver Sh doctrines.
The scholars of Shiraz showed special interest in Qshchs com-
mentary. As discussed in Chapter Three, the controversy between Jall
al-Dn al-Dawn and Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak was developed mostly
through the glosses they wrote on Qshchs commentary. Some of
Dashtaks and Dawns students also wrote glosses on Qshchs
commentary, namely Kaml al-Dn H usayn al-Lr, Ghiyth al-Dn
Mansr al-Dashtak, Shams al-Dn al-Khafr, and Kaml al-Dn H usan
al-Ilh al-Ardabl.64 The glosses written by the above-mentioned
scholars all dealt with the first three chapters of the text, meaning that

62
Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Princeton 70, f. 121a. For the quotation in
Arabic, see below, p. 160 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
63
For the locations of the manuscripts of these commentaries, see Al Sadry
Khy, Kitbshinsi-yi Tajrd al-itiqd, pp. 3538, 424, 5962, 1724.
64
For the glosses and superglosses written on Qshchs commentary on Tajrd
al-itiqd, see Al Sadry Khy, Kitbshinsi-yi Tajrd al-itiqd, pp. 63160.
works of nayrz 123

none of them covered the chapter on the imamate. Nayrzs com-


mentary is different from those of his Shirazian contemporaries in that
he comments on the text of Tajrd al-itiqd directly and covers the
entire text, including the chapter on the imamate. Nayrz explicitly
follows Nasr al-Dn al-T s on the latter issue and elaborates on it
with reference to T abars Trkh and the Nahj al-balgha, the collec-
tion of sermons attributed to Al b. Ab T lib compiled by al-Sharf
al-Rady (d. 406/1015), as well as some other Sh sources, like Majd
al-Dn al-Frzbds (d. 817/141415) Sifr al-sada.65 He also dealt
with the critical positions of Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz and Taftzn on
the imamate.66
In the introduction to the commentary, Nayrz acknowledged
three works as the most significant studies that had been done on
Tajrd al-itiqd: (1) al-Sharf al-Jurjns glosses on Shams al-Dn
al-Isfahns commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd, (2) Qshchs com-
mentary, and (3) Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtaks glosses on Qshchs
commentary.67 But he maintained that despite all this scholarship
on the text, many of its precious ideas still awaited proper explana-
tion. Some of the commentators, he believed, were too suspicious and
raised superfluous doubts regarding the authors arguments. Others
assumed that the author was completely misled and that his contri-
bution 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. Nayrz seems to have included Jall
al-Dn al-Dawn among the latter group with an allusion to one of
the well-known persons (bad al-alm).68
Nayrzs method of commenting the text, as he explains it, was to
elaborate the authors ideas and then paraphrase some of the rich-
est expositions of the commentators.69 To elaborate T ss ideas, the
latters other works are frequently cited by Nayrz. He explicitly
refers to T ss commentary on Ibn Sns al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht,

65
Nayrz adduces a quotation from Frzbds Sifr al-sada. See Tah rr Tajrd
al-aqid, MS Majlis 3968, f. 303b:158. On Majd al-Dn al-Frzbd, see Muhammad
Taq Mr, Buzurgn-i nm-yi prs, vol. 1, pp. 497503.
66
For Nayrzs discussion on this issue, see his Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Majlis
3968, f. 283a ff.
67
See Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Ihy-i mrth 1849, f. 2a.
68
See Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Ihy-i mrth 1849, f. 2a.
69
See Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Ihy-i mrth 1849, ff. 2b3a.
124 chapter three

his critical commentary on Fakhr al-Dn al-Rzs Muh assa l entitled


Naqd al-Muh assa l, Sharh al-Thamarat li-Batlamys, Ass al-iqtibs,
Tajrd al-mantiq, his commentary on Shahrastns al-Musri entitled
Masri al-Musra, and his commentary on Rislat al-ilm by Ab
Jafar Ahmad b. Al b. Sada (fl. early 7th/13th). Of the previous
commentaries, he adduced mainly the ones by Allma al-H ill and
Qshch. But he also used Shams al-Dn al-Isfahns commentary
together with its glosses by al-Sharf al-Jurjn and on one occasion
the commentary of al-Bihisht al-Isfaryin.70 Nayrz also covers the
philosophical disputes between Jall al-Dn al-Dawn and Sadr al-Dn
al-Dashtak in their respective glosses on Qshchs commentary on
Tajrd al-itiqd. He criticizes the views of Dawn, to whom he exclu-
sively referred as bad al-muh aqqiqn or bad al-shurrh . Most of these
criticisms are based on Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtaks counter-arguments.
Nayrz, however, usually wrote them in his own words; references
to his teacher only appear occasionally, i.e., when he cited the latters
argumentation verbatim.71
Among Nayrzs previous works, his Rislat Ithbt al-wjib 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,
Nayrz partly paraphrases and partly quotes verbatim some passages
from the latter work.72

IX. Superglosses on Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjns Glosses on Qtb


al-Dn al-Rzs Commentary on Ktibs al-Risla al-Shamsiyya

In his commentary on Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm, Nayrz refers


to one of his earlier works on logic as h awshn al h awsh al-risla
al-Shamsiyya, and m allaqnhu al h awsh al-sharfa al-Sharfiyya
al sharh al-risla al-Shamsiyya.73 From the latter reference, it is clear
that he wrote superglosses on Mr Sayyid Sharf Jurjns glosses on
Qut b al-Dn al-Rzs Tah rr al-qawid al-mantiqiyya, which is itself a

70
See Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Majlis 3968, f. 212a:12.
71
See, e.g., Nayrz, Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid, MS Majlis 3968, f. 212a:12.
72
Compare the argument in Nayrzs Rislat Ithbt al-wjib (MS Malik 688, ff.
179b:2183b:2, 185b:9186a:8) with his Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid (MS Majlis 3968, ff.
121a:20122a:23, 122a:26b:7). Cf. also his proofs for the existence of the Necessary
Existent in his Rislat Ithbt al-wjib (ff. 175b:56b:3) with Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid
(MS Majlis 3968, f. 264b:1328).
73
See MS Ridaw 1088, ff. 71a:910, 163b:56.
works of nayrz 125

commentary on Najm al-Din al-Ktibs al-Risla al-Shamsiyya.74 The


reference also indicates that Nayrz wrote this work prior to his com-
mentary on Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm. No manuscript of this work
has yet been found.

X. Superglosses on Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs Commentary on Sirj al-Dn


al-Urmaws Mat li al-anwr and on Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjns
Glosses on the Same Commentary

In the introduction to this work, Nayrz writes:


These are glosses that I wrote partly on the commentary on Matli and
partly on the commentary of al-Sharf 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 Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on Sirj
al-Dn al-Urmaws Matli al-anwr (entitled Lawmi al-asrr f sharh
Matli al-anwr), together with Mr Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjns glosses
on it, were among the texts debated by Jall al-Dn al-Dawn and Sadr
al-Dn and Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak. Presumably Nayrz addressed
these disputed issues in his glosses. Reference to this work is given in
his commentary on Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm.77

XI. Commentary on Sad al-Dn al-Taftzns


Tahdhb al-mant iq wa-l-kalm

Sad al-Dn al-Taftzns Ghyat tahdhb al-kalm f tah rr al-mantiq


wa-l-kalm, which later on became known as Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-
kalm, consists of two parts dealing with logic and kalm. The part on

74
Ktibs Shamsiyya, together with Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commentary (Tah rr
al-qawid al-mantiqiyya f sharh al-Shamsiyya) and Sharf Jurjns glosses, have been
published repeatedly. See Daiber, Bibliography of Islamic Philosophy, vol. 1, pp. 266,
51920.
75
The only identified manuscript of this work (MS safiyya mantiq 58) was not
available to me. The quotation is according to the description of the manuscript of this
work in the Catalogue of s afiyya library (vol. 2, p. 519). For the quotation in Arabic,
see below, p. 178 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
76
See above, pp. 801.
77
See Nayrz, Sharh Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm, MS Ridaw 1088, f. 108a:5.
126 chapter three

logic, following the logical system of Ibn Sns al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbht,


is arranged in two sections: 1) On concepts (al-tasawwurt) and 2) on
assertions (tasdqt). This part of the work was more popular than the
second part dealing with kalm.78 The extant manuscripts of Nayrzs
commentary contain the first part on logic only. However, there are sev-
eral reasons for believing that Nayrzs commentary originally covered
the second part of the text on kalm as well (or that at least he intended
to cover the second part). First, the commentators wording in the colo-
phon at the end of the logic part, as well as a remark on one occasion
in the commentary, suggest that it was the commentators intention to
extend the commentary to the second part.79 Secondly, in his Misbh
al-arwh f kashf h aqiq al-Alwh , Nayrz refers to the elaborations on
the issue of the finitude of dimensions in his commentary on Tahdhb
al-mantiq wa-l-kalm.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 kalm.
In the introduction to this commentary, Nayrz 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 kalm, 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.,
H asan Malikshhs Tarjuma u tafsr-i Tahdhb al-mantiq, Tehran 1363/1984. The
second part on kalm is only available in a lithograph edition, together with its com-
mentary by Abd al-Qdir b. Muhammad al-Sanandaj al-Kurdistn (d. 1304/1887).
See Abd al-Qdir b. Muhammad al-Sanandaj al-Kurdistn, Taqrb al-marm f sharh
Tahdhb al-kalm, Lithograph Edition, Bulq 1318/1900. On Taftzns logical works,
see Wilferd Madelung, Al-Taftazan und die Philosophie, Logik und Theologie. Das
Organon im arabischen und im lateinischen Mittelalter, eds. Dominik Perler and
Ulrich Rudolph, Leiden 2006, pp. 22736.
79
This colophon is preserved in MS Ridaw 1088 (261b) where Nayrz writes:
[. . .]


[. . .]

Elsewhere in the commentary (MS Ridaw, f. 108a), he states:

.





80
See above, p. 115.
works of nayrz 127

the truth (tullb al-h 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
Taftzn had refuted the Sh position.82
For the first part, Nayrz uses Taftzns commentaries on Ktibs
Shamsiyya and on js al-Mukhtasar f l-usl.83 Other sources that
he refers to are Ibn Sns al-Shif and his al-Ishrt wa-l-tabht,
Bahmanyrs al-Tahsl, Suhrawards al-Talwh t, Nas r al-Dn al-T ss
Tajrd al-mantiq as well as his commentary on the Ishrt, his Ass
al-iqtibs, Ktibs Shamsiyya, Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on
Sirj al-Dn al-Urmaws Matli al-anwr, Shahrazrs al-Shajara
al-ilhiyya, and some unspecified works of Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz and
Athr al-Dn al-Abhar.
Nayrz moreover mentions that he had access to other commentar-
ies that had been written on the text, yet he refrains from identifying
them.84 We are aware of four commentaries on Tahdhb al-mantiq
that were written prior to Nayrzs, namely by H asan Shh Baqql,85
by Muhy al-Dn al-Kfiyaj (d. 879/1474) (entitled al-Tajrb f kashf
al-rumz al-Tahdhb) completed in 876/147172,86 by Jall al-Dn
al-Dawn,87 and by Sayf al-Dn al-Taftzn (d. 916/1510), completed
in 882/147778.88 Although Nayrz does not refer to Dawns com-
mentary, it is evident that he knew and presumably used it. This is

81
Nayrz, Sharh Tahdhb al-mantiq, MS ehid Ali 1780, f. 2a. For the quotation in
Arabic, see below, p. 164 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
82
See Insiyya Barkhwh, Tahdhb al-mant iq wa-l-kalm, in Dnishnma-yi
jahn-i Islm, vol. 8, Tehran 1383/2004, pp. 7035.
83
See Nayrz, Sharh Tahdhb al-mantiq, MS Ridaw 1088, f. 122b (reference to
Taftzns commentary on Ktibs Shamsiyya), and f. 260a (reference to Taftzns
commentary on js al-Mukhtasar f l-usl).
84
See Nayrz, Sharh Tahdhb al-mantiq, MS Ridaw 1088, f. 240a.
85
On H asan Shh Baqql and his commentary on Tahdhb al-mantiq, see above,
p. 3, fn. 17.
86
The autograph MS of this commentary is preserved in MS Laleli 2592.
87
See Dhara, 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 Dawns


Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda.89

XII. Commentary on H asan b. Ysuf al-H ills Tahdhb al-ah km

In his note at the end of the revised copy of his commentary on Abhars
Hidyat al-h ikma (completed on 12 Safar 916/20 May 1510), Nayrz
mentions among his previous writings a commentary on H asan b.
Mut ahhar al-H ills Tahdhb al-ahkm.90 This work, which is apparently
lost, was most likely a commentary on Allma al-H ills Tahdhib tarq
al-wusl il ilm al-usl, which is a concise work on legal methodology.91
This constituted, to our knowledge, the only contribution of Nayrz in
the field of legal methodology. Besides Nayrz, two other scholars of
the early Safavid period, Kaml al-Dn H usayn al-Ilh al-Ardabl and
Jall al-Dn al-Astarbd, wrote commentaries on this text.92

XIII. Glosses on Jall al-Dn al-Dawns Unmdhaj al-ulm

gh Buzurg al-T ihrn mentions that Nayrz copied Jall al-Dn


al-Dawns Unmdhaj al-ulm 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 Unmdhaj al-ulm is the
theology section, devoted to the issue of the creation of the world
(h udth al-lam). Here, Dawn criticizes the views of Frb and
Ibn Sn on this issue. As was discussed earlier,94 Nayrz maintains
that the views of these two philosophers did not contradict religious
dogma. Therefore, the glosses may contain some critical remarks by
Nayrz with regard to Dawns view on this issue.

89
See Nayrz, Sharh Rislat ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, MS Majlis 1841, f. 190 a.
90
See below, p. 171 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
91
See Abd al-Azz T abtab, Maktabat al-Allma al-H ill, Qum 1416/19956,
pp. 10911.
92
Ilh Ardabls commentary on this text is mentioned in his ijza to Kaml
al-Dn Ibrhm al-Safaw. See al-Afand al-Isfahn, vol. 2, p. 101. On Jall al-Dn
al-Astarbds commentary on this text see above, pp. 15, fn. 96.
93
See Dhara, vol. 2, pp. 4067, no. 1627, and vol. 6, p. 26, no. 102, T abaqt,
vol. 7, p. 244.
94
See above, pp. 612.
works of nayrz 129

XIV. Glosses on Jall al-Dn al-Dawns Nihyat al-kalm f h all


shubha kulli kalm kdhib

According to Agh Buzurg al-T ihrn, the philosophical codex tran-


scribed by Nayrz contains Dawns Nihyat al-kalm f h all shubhat
kulli kalm kdhib together with Nayrzs glosses in the margin.95
Unfortunately, the codex has been missing for the last fifty years. How-
ever, the Malik library in Tehran possesses a manuscript containing
glosses on Dawns Nihyat al-kalm, which seems to be by Nayrz
(MS Malik 688/1).96 Unfortunately, the beginning of this manuscript,
which may have contained the authors name, is lost, but there are sev-
eral factors to indicate that the glosses were written by Nayrz: first, the
glossator refers to Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak as our master (ustdhun);
second, the signature used by the glossator at the end of each gloss is
MD () which might be the abbreviated form of Mahmd, Nayrzs
first name. A similar signature is also used in one of the manuscripts
of Nayrzs glosses on Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs commentary on H ikmat
al-ishrq (MS Laleli 2523).97 Third, these glosses are critical of Dawans
positions while supporting Dashtaks. The views of Dashtak were pre-
sented there on the basis of his glosses on Qshchs commentary on
Tajrd al-itiqd as well as his treatise on the liar paradox.

XV. Commentary on Jall al-Dn al-Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib


al-jadda

A commentary by Nayrz on Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda


was completed, according to the chronogram given by the author at
the end of the text (using the abjad-system), in ithbt wjibihi, which
corresponds to 921/15156. Its first draft, however, must have been
written five years or more before, since in the note he wrote on 12 Safar
916/20 May 1510 at the end of his commentary on Hidyat al-h ikma
he mentions this title as one of his previous writings.98 Nayrz may
possibly have revised the text later on in 921/15156 but this revi-
sion seems to be so substantial that he took the date of completion

95
See Dharia, vol. 7, pp. 767, no. 409.
96
See below, pp. 1878 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
97
See above, p. 181 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
98
See below, p. 171 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs 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
Kaml al-Dn H usayn Ilh Ardabl completed in ithbt al-wjib, a
chronogram corresponding to 916/150910.99 Dawns Rislat Ithbt
al-wjib al-jadda seems to be one of his later works, written after Sadr
al-Dn al-Dashtaks death in 903/1498.100 Therefore, the commentary
of Nayrz, together with the commentary of Ilh, must be regarded
as the earliest reception of this work.
In his introduction, Nayrz 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 ulam al-alm). I read it carefully
thinking to discover its [hidden] ideas. At the end I found some use-
ful remarks ( fawid), which were not mentioned by the earlier phi-
losophers 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
(anzr dhaw l-basir al-nqida), 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 hav-
ing a specific aim, may God save me from all these . . . 101
Nayrz points out that some of Dawns arguments in this work are
moderate compared to his previous works, such as his glosses on
Qshchs commentary on Tajrd al-itiqd.102 It can be assumed that
these moderations were the result of Dawns reconsiderations occa-
sioned by Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtaks criticisms. Yet, even these moderated
arguments are not acceptable for Nayrz, 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. 2979). See also
above, p. 43.
100
See above, p. 81.
101
Nayrz, Sharh Rislat ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, MS Majlis 1841, f. 2b. For
Nayrzs whole introduction, see below, pp. 1678 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs
Writings).
102
See Nayrz, Sharh Rislat ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, f. 209b.
works of nayrz 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-Siddqn [i.e. Ibn Sns 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 Suhrawards al-Alwh al-Imdiyya: Misbh


al-arwh f kashf h aqiq al-Alwh

This commentary on Suhrawards al-Alwh al-Imdiyya, entitled


Misbh al-arwh f kashf h aqiq al-Alwh , was first completed on 5
Rab II 930/10 February 1524 without including the postscript (dhayl ).
When the author found another manuscript of Suhrawards Alwh two
years later (in 932/1526), he decided to comment on the last section as
well and added this to his commentary.105
Suhrawards al-Alwh al-Imdiyya is one of his last extant works,
written after H ikmat al-ishrq during the last five years of his life.106 It
was dedicated to Imd al-Dn Ab Bakr b. Qar Arsaln, the king of
Kharput (reigned 581/1185600/1204). To suit the king, Suhraward
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 des-
tination (al-mabda wa-l-mad), enriched with numerous Qurnic
references on each issue.107 The work also includes a relatively long

103
On this proof, see Toby Mayer, Ibn Sns Burhn al-Siddqn, Journal of
Islamic Studies, 12 i (2001), pp. 1839.
104
Nayrz, Sharh Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, f. 156a. For the end of Nayrzs
commentary on Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda, see below, p. 168 (Appendix I:
Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
105
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh f kashf h aqiq al-Alwh , MS Ragp 853, ff.
271a277a.
106
In the edited version the name of the patron is erroneously given as Qar
Arsaln b. Dwd (al-Alwh al-Imdiyya, in uvres philosophiques et mystiques iv,
ed. Najaf Qul H abb, 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 Ishrq u talf-i Alwh-i Imdiyya, in Ishrq u irfn, Tehran 1380/2001,
pp. 8394.
107
Suhraward explicitly says that to structure Alwh , he used a work by one
of the latest scholars (bad fudal al-mutaakhkharn) as a model (see al-Alwh
al-Imdiyya, in uvres philosophiques et mystiques iv, p. 34).
132 chapter three

discussion of the legendary Iranian kings, their spirituality and man-


ners, which in its detail is unique among the philosophical works of
Suhraward. The work consists of an introduction and four tablets
(alwh , sg. lawh ): Tablet One: on proofs for the finitude of dimen-
sions, on the boundaries of the sky and the world, simplicity of the
elements and those that were made by them ( f ithbt tanh al-abd
wa-f taraf min al-sam wa-l-lam wa-f basit al-unsuriyyt wa-m
yah duthu minh); Tablet Two: on the Soul with reference to its facul-
ties ( f l-nafs wa-ishra il quwh); Tablet Three: on the proofs for
the existence of the Necessary Being and on His attributes of greatness
and perfection ( f ithbt wjib al-wujd wa-m yalq bih min sift
al-jall wa-nut al-kaml); Tablet Four: on the order of the world,
the destiny and eternity of souls and their happiness and wretched-
ness and pain and pleasure and the influences of souls ( f l-nizm
wa-l-qad wa-l-qadar wa-baq al-nufs wa-l-sada wa-l-shaqwa
wa-l-ladhdha wa-l-alam wa-thr al-nufs).
Nayrzs commentary on al-Alwh al-Imdiyya is to our knowledge
the only commentary ever written on this work. By the time of Nayrz,
three other philosophical works of Suhraward, namely Talwh t,
H ikmat al-ishrq and Haykil al-nr had each been commented upon
twice: al-Talwh t by Ibn Kammna and Shahrazr, H ikmat al-ishrq
by Shahrazr and Qutb al-Dn Shrz and Haykil al-nr by Jall
al-Dn Dawn and Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak. Little attention, how-
ever, was paid to Alwh . One of the reasons for this was perhaps the
assumption, voiced by Qutb al-Dn al-Shrz,108 that Alwh was among
the works that Suhraward wrote in his youth. The indication of this
statement was that it was of less value than Suhrawards more sig-
nificant philosophical works written later in his life. Nayrz correctly
rejects this assumption in his glosses on Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs com-
mentary on H ikmat al-ishrq, arguing that Alwh s content indicates
that its composition took place after H ikmat al-ishrq and hence was
a work of Suhrawards maturity.109
In the introduction to his commentary on Alwh , Nayrz explains
why he chose to comment on the work as follows:

108
See Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs Sharh H ikmat al-ishrq, ed. Abd Allh Nrn &
Mahd Muhaqqiq, Tehran 1379/2000, p. 14.
109
See H shiya al H ikmat al-ishrq wa-al sharh ihi li-Qutb al-Dn al-Shraz,
MS Marash 4266, f. 7a. Nayrz must have noticed a reference to H ikmat al-ishrq in
Alwh , which leaves no doubt that the writing of Alwh must have taken place either
sometime after the composition of H ikmat al-ishrq or at least at the same time.
works of nayrz 133

It is necessary for those complete adult Muslims (al-mukallafn) to


acquire knowledge of the origin (al-mabda) and the hereafter (al-mad).
There are two ways to reach these two: the first is the way of the theoreti-
cians (ahl al-nazar wa-l-istidllt), 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] (anwr al-muqarrabn). 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 knowl-
edge, 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, Shihb al-milla wa-l-irshd wa-l-hidya (i.e., the shooting
star of the people for direction and guidance) whose name as I heard
from one of the scholars is Al but according to the commentary of
al-Ishrq [i.e., Qut b al-Dn al-Shrzs H ikmat al-ishrq],110 is Shihb
al-Dn Umar b. Muhammad, and in the History of Yfi Shihb al-Dn
Yahy b. H abash al-Suhraward known as the executed (al-maqtl ). The
book is full of extraordinary and interesting things, a selection of the
secrets of the theoreticians (ahl al-nazar wa-l-istidll) and an abridged
explanation of experiences of the mystics (ahl al-wajd wa-l-h l). With
precious and noble issues which were concealed and out of hand . . . the
issues which should be delivered to those who deserve it (ahlih) . . . 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 (tawl) 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-anwr 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-rh niyyt), in the same way
as an image from a mirror reflects to another mirror. This can only be

110
Nayrz usually refers to H ikmat al-ishrq as al-Ishrq.
134 chapter three

achieved with the help of frequent illuminative lights (al-nr al-shriq)


and glittering flashes (wa-l-wamd al-briq) 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 mat-
ters 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 expe-
riences (ahl al-h aqq wa-arbb al-kashf wa-l-mukshifn), intending to
call it after it is completed Misbh al-arwh f kashf h aqiq al-Alwh .111
Compared to his glosses on H ikmat al-ishrq, Nayrzs attitude towards
Suhraward 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 Suhraward and his works.
He describes Suhraward as the king of the peripatetic philosophers
(malik al-h ukam al-mashshn) whose H ikmat al-ishrq should be
written in light on the wings of the angels.112
In his introduction to this work, Nayrz states his intention to
comment upon Alwh with the help of Suhrawards other works and
the comments of early and later commentators (bi-inat sir kutub
al-musannif wa-aqwl al-shrih n al-sbiqn wa-l-lh iqn).113 Through-
out the commentary, Nayrz repeatedly quotes from Suhrawards
H ikmat al-ishrq and from his Talwh t.114 There are also references to
Suhrawards al-Mashri wa-l-Mutrah t, his Haykil al-nr, as well
as to an unspecified work of his, the description of which corresponds
to wz-i par-i Jibral.115

111
Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff 1b2b. For Nayrzs whole intro-
duction to this work, see below, pp. 1725 (Appendix I: Inventory of Nayrzs Writings).
112
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 2a.
113
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 2b.
114
One of the instances of Nayrzs citing the text of H ikmat al-ishrq is his
inclusion of Suhrawards exhortation (wasiyyat al-musannif ), which is quoted in its
entirety. See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff. 203a:17204a:12.
115
Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 182b. In his narration of the
story of this work, Nayrz mentions that the author saw ten men sitting in a row, nine
works of nayrz 135

Among the works of Suhrawards commentators, Shahrazrs


Rasil al-Shajara al-ilhiyya f ulm al-h aqiq al-rabbniyya,116 Ibn
Kammnas commentary on al-Talwh t, and Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs
commentary on H ikmat al-ishrq were frequently used throughout the
commentary.117
Another source that was used by Nayrz was Firdawss (d. ca.
410/1020) Shhnma. In Tablet Four of Alwh , there is a passage in
which Suhraward refers to the Iranian mythic kings, Firiydn and Kay
Khusraw. In his comment on this passage, Nayrz introduces Firiydn
and his three sons, Salm, Tr, and Iraj on the basis of the Shhnma.118
He also mentions the name of Kay Khusraws successor Luhrsp.119
Throughout the commentary, Nayrz 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 Sns
al-Shif as well as his al-Isharat wa-l-tanbht, his Talqt, his Mabda
wa-l-mad and his Dnishnma-yi Al. References are also given
to Bahmanyrs al-Tah sl, Lawkars Bayn al-h aqq bi-dimn al-sidq,
Fakhr al-Dn al-Rzs al-Tafsr al-kabr and his commentay on Ibn
Sns Ishrt as well as to Nasr al-Dn al-T ss commentary on the
Ishrt.
Nayrz also refers to some of his own works throughout the com-
mentary, namely his commentary on Abhars Hidyat al-h ikma, on
T ss Tajrd al-itiqd, his glosses on Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq,
and his commentary on an unspecified theological work (Sharh bad
al-kutub al-kalmiyya), possibly a reference to his commentary on
Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda.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 wz-i par-i Jibral. See
the edition of this work in uvres philosophiques et mystiques iii, ed. Sayyid H usayn
Nas r, Tehran 1355/1976, pp. 20923, esp. pp. 2104.
116
Generally on Shahrazrs al-Shajara al-ilhiyya and its impact on later Muslim
philosophers, see Reza Pourjavady & Sabine Schmidtke, Some notes on a new edi-
tion of a medieval philosophical text in Turkey: Shams al-Dn al-Shahrazrs Rasil
al-Shajara al-ilhiyya, Die Welt des Islams, 46 (2006), pp. 7685.
117
For details see below, pp. 14552.
118
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 193, and compare it with
Shhnma (ed. Jule Mohl, Tehran 1369/1990), vol. 1, pp. 58 ff. (story of Firiydn and
his sons).
119
Henry Corbin was the first to notice Nayrzs usage of the Shhnma for this
passage. See LArchange empourpr, Paris 1976, pp. 1289 (endnote no. 77).
120
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 65a:67.
136 chapter three

Nayrz adduces long quotations from unspecified sources. He refers to


the authors of these sources as bad min al-uzam, bad min al-azim,
bad ajilla min al-ulam, bad al-ulam, bad al-fudal al-muawwiln,
bad al-muawwiln al-muh aqqiqn, and bad al-muh aqqiqn.121

XVII. Glosses on Jall al-Dn al-Dawns Commentary on


Suhrawards Haykil al-nr

Nayrzs last known work is the glosses he wrote on Jall al-Dn


al-Dawns Shawkil al-h r f sharh Haykil al-nr. Dawns commen-
tary on Suhrawards Haykil al-nr was itself completed on 11 Sawwl
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 Misbh al-arwh (on 5 Rab II 930/10 February 1524), he returned
to this unfinished task and in the same year completed his glosses on
Shawkil al-h r.
Nayrz was not the first scholar to comment on Dawns Shawkil
al-h r. Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtaks supercommentary on this com-
mentary entitled Ishrq haykil al-nr li-kashf zulumt Shawkil
al-gharr, had been completed decades earlier, sometime before
895/14901. Although Nayrz studied Ghiyth al-Dns supercom-
mentary with its author,122 there is no reference to this work in these
glosses. Unlike Ghiyth al-Dn whose positions are very critical of
Dawn, Nayrzs 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
Suhrawards thought, already glimpsed in his commentary on the
latters al-Alwh al-Imdiyya. Certainly, this placed him in a better
position to evaluate the correctness of Dawns understanding of
Suhrawards 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

NAYRZ AND THE SUHRAWARDIAN PHILOSOPHY

I. Nayrz as a Critic of Suhraward

It was explained in Chapter One that Nayrzs major interest in


Suhrawards philosophy was in particular the latters apprehensions
of the inner world, which he gained through an arduous course of
mystical training. But when it came to Suhrawards deductive state-
ments, Nayrz allowed himself to doubt their correctness, particularly
Suhrawards critical remarks on Ibn Sns philosophy. Nayrzs glosses
on H ikmat al-ishrq consist mainly of his critical remarks on a number
of Suhrawards deviations from the Avicennan philosophical system.
In the introduction to these glosses, he explains that Suhrawards
arguments contain a deviation from the right path and descent from
the truth.1 Nayrzs main intention in his glosses is to show all these
deviations. In his commentary on Suhrawards al-Alwh al-Imdiyya,
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 Nayrz opposes the view
of Suhraward will be discussed:

I.i. Prime Matter


In his H ikmat al-ishrq, Suhraward denies the existence of Aristotelian
prime matter. He states:
The Peripatetics argue that body ( jism) admits of connection (al-ittisl)
and division (al-infisl), 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 (miqdr) 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. 1189.
2
The translation of this quotation is based on the John Walbridge and Hossein
Ziai rendering of H ikmat al-ishrq (Suhraward, The Philosophy of Illumination. A New
Critical Edition of the Text of H ikmat al-Ishrq, Provo/Utah 1999, p. 52).
138 chapter four

Suhraward defines prime matter as a mental concept equal to the


absolute body (al-jism al-mutlaq). The role of Aristotelian prime mat-
ter in his philosophy is assigned to magnitude. He argues that the body
by itself is nothing but magnitude (miqdr), which is receptive of the
three extensions, namely length, width, and depth. These extensions of a
body may change, since they are accidents (ard). But with all changes
of extension the absolute magnitude remains the same. Therefore, mag-
nitude is not accidental to the body, it is the very substance of it:
The argument that these [= magnitudes] are accidents (ard) 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 H ikmat al-ishrq, Nayrz expresses his disagreement
with Suhrawards 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
(inidm al-abd), the body as a whole must be considered destroyed.4
Nayrz, however, does not explain why he thinks that a body can remain
undestroyed when its dimensions are destroyed. Although he rejects
this idea of Suhraward, 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 Ziais
rendering (Suhraward, The Philosophy of Illumination, p. 53).
4
Nayrz, H shiya al H ikmat al-ishrq, MS Laleli 2523, f. 88a.
5
For a detailed study of Suhrawards view on this issue and its comparison to that
of Descartes, see John Walbridge, Al-Suhraward 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. 23547. However, Walbridges efforts to connect
Suhrawards view with the Platonic idea of Receptacle are not very convincing. It is
nayrz and the suhrawardian philosophy 139

In his commentary on al-Alwh al-Imdiyya, Nayrz is much less


concerned with arguing against this view of Suhraward, since he believes
that in the Alwh , in contrast to his H ikmat al-ishrq, Suhraward main-
tains an Aristotelian view of prime matter. He specifically refers to the
following passage of the Alwh to support this judgment:
The substance on which these forms are interchangeable, is called prime
matter. Then if it is posited (ukhidha) with (maa) the extensions of length,
width, and depth, that is body.6
On the basis of the above quotation Nayrz argues that Suhraward in
this passage regards prime matter together with (maa) extensions as
equal to body. According to Nayrz, had Suhraward maintained the
same view as he did in his H ikmat al-ishrq, 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 Nayrz results from a mistake
in the manuscript of the Alwh 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 (maa itibr) the extensions of length,
width, and depth, that is body.7
Nayrzs argument holds true only if Suhraward had written in the
passage with the extensions (maa imtiddt), whereas his statement
according to several early manuscripts of the text is with regard to
extensions (maa itibr imtiddt), a formulation which fully agrees
with Suhrawards idea of prime matter as stated in his H ikmat al-ishrq.
Since the word itibr was missing in the manuscript of the Alwh
available to Nayrz, it was inevitable that he would misunderstand the
text and draw the wrong conclusion.8

noteworthy that before Suhraward, Abu l-Barakt al-Baghdd (547/1152) held this
view. See his al-Mutabar f al-h ikma, Haydarabad 1358/1939, vol. 3, pp. 196202.
6
Wa-l-jawhar alladh yatabaddal alayhi hdhihi l-suwar, huwa l-musamm bi-l-
hayl, fa-huwa idh ukhidha maa imtiddt tliyya wa-ardiyya wa-umqiyya, fa-huwa
l-jism. Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 50.
7
Suhraward, al-Alwh al-Imdiyya, in uvres philosophiques et mystiques iv.,
p. 46.
8
It is notable that about the same time as Nayrz, Shams al-Dn al-Khafr criti-
cized Suhrawards view on prime matter in his Risla f tah qq al-hayl. See Shams
al-Dn al-Khafr, Tah qq al-hayl, MS Majlis 706, p. 80 ff. Whether or not the two
were aware of each others criticism is as yet unclear.
140 chapter four

I.ii. The Theory of Vision


In his H ikmat al-ishrq Suhraward suggests a new theory of vision
which differs from that of Ibn Sn. According to Ibn Sn, vision occurs
when the forms of things (suwar al-ashy) are imprinted (muntaba
or munsabah ) in the crystalline humor of the eye.9 Suhraward 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 (muallaq) without being in a place
or receptacle (mah all). Vision, according to Suhraward, 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 (ash b al-urj 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-nr al-
mudabbir) does.11
In his glosses on H ikmat al-ishrq, his commentary on Abhars Hidyat
al-h ikma and in his commentary on al-Alwh al-Imdiyya, Nayrz
argues against Suhrawards above-mentioned theory.12 He explains that
according to Suhraward 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 Suhraward explains it, are perceived by the immaterial soul. But
why should a material faculty intervene at all?13 In other words, Nayrz
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
Suhrawards theory for not addressing this problem properly. Nayrz

9
Ibn Sn,Uyn al-h ikma, ed. H ilm Ziya lken, Ankara 1953, p. 32.
10
Suhraward, The Philosophy of Illumination, pp. 13840.
11
The translation of this quotation is based on that of John Walbridge and Hossein
Ziai (Suhraward, The Philosophy of Illumination, p. 139) with some modifications.
12
Nayrz, Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, ff. 103a104b; idem, H shiya
al H ikmat al-ishrq, MS Laleli 2523, ff. 108b ff.; idem, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid
Ali 1739, ff. 68b70b.
13
Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 70b.
nayrz and the suhrawardian philosophy 141

supports instead Ibn Sns theory, in which this materialization of the


forms is explained by the notion of imprint (intib).

I.iii. The Imaginary World


Suhrawards idea of the imaginary world (lam al-mithl) to some
extent depended on his theory of vision, at least in its explanation.
According to him, the suspended forms (al-suwar al-muallaqa) 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 Nayrz was fully aware that the
rejection of Suhrawards theory of vision implied the denial of sensory
perception of the imaginary world. He nevertheless qualified his criti-
cism 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-lam al-thn)] [= the imaginary world], suggested by the author in
his [H ikmat] al-Ishrq and his other writings, cannot be rejected.15
Nayrz further argues that the existence of the imaginary world is not
plausible in the way suggested by Suhraward, overlapping in some occa-
sions with the sensible world. Instead he suggested a barrier (muh 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 (muh 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 H ikmat al-ishrq, Suhraward rejects the common belief that
sound is caused by vibration of the air. He explains:

14
Suhraward, The Philosophy of Illumination, pp. 723, 967, 13840.
15
Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 70b. For the quotation in Ara-
bic, see below, p. 201, no. 11 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources).
16
Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 29b. For the quotation in Ara-
bic, see below, p. 201, no. 12 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources).
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-aswt al-hila) heard by the mystics cannot be said
to be the vibration of air in the brain. Instead, it is an image (mithl) of
sound which is a sound. Thus, there may be sounds and music in the
spheres not conditioned on air or ringing.17
Nayrz argues against Suhraward that to make a sound requires the
vibration of a body ( jism), which is tender (ratb) and flowing (sayyl)
like water or air. This is the necessitating cause (al-sabab al-muqtad)
for having sound, and not simply, as Suhraward 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-Alwh al-Imdyya, there is a passage where Suhraward uses
an Old Persian term, Kiyn khurrah, for two mythical Iranian kings,
Afrdn (i.e. Firiydn) and Kay Khusraw. Kiyn khurrah is a royal divine
light, vouchsafed to just kings, which brings them strength, superiority,
and dominion. Suhraward refers in this passage to Afrdn and Kay
Khusraw as two sainted kings who ascended with their soul to the higher
world (al-lam al-al), where they experienced Kiyn khurrah among
other divine lights, and because of that experience prevailed over their
enemies.19 Commenting on this passage Nayrz shows that he is not in
full agreement with Suhrawards political view. To him, Suhrawards
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 (lam al-ansir wa-l-unsuriyyt) 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 Ziais
translation of H ikmat al-ishrq (Suhraward, The Philosophy of Illumination, p. 154)
with some modifications.
18
Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 66b.
19
Suhraward, al-Alwh al-Imdiyya, pp. 923. On Kiyn khurrah in Suhrawards
political thought, see Nasrollah Pourjavady, The Light of Sakina in Suhrawardis Phi-
losophy of Illumination, Binghamton/New York 1998.
nayrz 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
Nayrz further explains that Suhrawards 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
Nayrz continues his remark by criticizing what he believed to be the
core of Suhrawards political thought. According to Nayrz, Suhraward
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 (awliy), 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 Shaddd
and Nimrd 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- h ukma). The truth is that both are in the
hand of God.22
Nayrz 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 philosophers
kingdom may only be realized when a harmonious astrological and

20
Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 194b. For the quotation in Ara-
bic, see below, p. 201, no. 13 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources).
21
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 194b.
22
Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 195a. For the quotation in Ara-
bic, see below, p. 201, no. 14 (Appendix IV: Quotations from Unpublished Sources).
144 chapter four

astronomical coincidence occurs. Nayrz presumes that Suhraward


was ambitious to get hold of a throne and that he was killed by the
authorities for having entertained this ambition. Although Suhraward
in his al-Alwh al-Imdiyya and in his Partaw-nma 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, Nayrz alludes in the above-quoted passage
to an account of Suhrawards death. In Ibn Khallikns well-known
biographical notes on Suhraward, a meeting between Sayf al-Dn
al-mid (d. 631/1233) and Suhraward is described, which seems to
be the account Nayrz had in mind:
Sayf al-Dn al-mid says: I met Suhraward 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-nma he states: Every King who knows philosophy,
and continues to thank and sanctify the Light of Lights, will be bestowed with kiyn
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. 845) with some modifications. For the original
Persian, see Suhraward, The Book of Radiance, pp. 8485; idem, uvres philosophiques
et mystiques iii., ed. Sayyid Hossein Nasr, p. 81. For detailed analyses of this passage
and the various versions of it in the manuscript traditions, see Nasrollah Pourja-
vady, Partaw-nma u tarjuma-yi ingils-i n, in Irfn u ishrq, Tehran 1380/2001,
pp. 387407, esp. pp. 4012.
24
Ibn Khallikn, Wafayt al-ayn wa-anb al-zamn, ed. Ihsn Abbs, Beirut
138892/196872, vol. 6, p. 272. This account was quoted from Wafayt al-ayn by
some later bibliographical sources including Ab Abd Allh al-Yfis (d. 768/1367)
Mirt al-jann wa-ibrat al-yaqz n (Lithograph Edition, Hydarabad (Deccan)
1338/191920, vol. 3, p.437). The account given by Yfi was evidently known to
Nayrz and he quotes it at the beginning of his copy of Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs
commentary on H ikmat al-ishrq (MS Marash 4266, f. 4b). For various hypotheses
on the reason for which the authorities executed Suhraward, see Hermann Landolt,
Suhrawards Tale of Initiation. Review Article, Journal of the American Oriental
Society (1987), pp. 47586; Hossein Ziai, The Source and Nature of Authority: a Study
of al-Suhrawards Illuminationist Political Doctrine, The Political Aspects of Islamic
Philosophy. Essays in Honor of Muhsen S. Mahdi, ed. C. E. Butterworth, Cambridge
1992, pp. 294334; Roxanne D. Marcotte, Suhraward al-Maqtl, the Martyr of Aleppo,
Al-Qantara 21 ii (2001), pp. 395419.
nayrz and the suhrawardian philosophy 145

It is likely that Nayrzs assumption about the political ambitions of


Suhraward was based on this account. Regardless of being right or
wrong in this judgment, Nayrzs criticism of Suhraward reveals that
he was also doubtful about Suhrawards idea of Kiyn 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-Alwh al-Imdiyya, Nayrz asserts that
Suhraward 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 mta fa-qad qmat
qiymatahu).25 Nayrz, as was stated earlier, believed in bodily resur-
rection and in his commentary on the Alwh consistently maintains
this position, listing the relevant Qurnic affirmations, adducing a
long quotation from Fakhr al-Dn al-Rzs al-Tafsr al-kabr, and
summarizing what an unspecified scholar, to whom he refers to as bad
al-muawwiln al-muh aqqiqn, wrote on this issue.26

II. Nayrz and the Commentators of Suhraward

II.i. Shams al-Dn al-Shahrazr


Nayrzs major source for his commentary on the Alwh was Shah-
razrs magnum opus, Rasil al-Shajara al-ilhiyya f ulm al-h aqiq
al-rabbniyya.27 This work of Shahrazr seems to have become popu-
lar only during the late 9th/15th and early 10th/16th centuries. In his
Unmdhaj al-ulm, Dawn refers to it under the title Thamarat al-
Shajara al-ilhiyya presumably some kind of summary or extract of

25
Suhraward seems to employ this saying in the sense that separation from the
body through death is the first step towards spiritual resurrection.
26
Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff. 183a187b.
27
This work has been edited twice, first by Muh ammad Najb Krkn [Necip
Grgn] (PhD Dissertation, Marmara University, Istanbul 1996) published with revi-
sions in Istanbul 2004, and then by Najaf-Qul H abb (Tehran 20056). 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 Ab Jumhr (d. after 906/1501) used the Shajara extensively in his
Kitb al-Mujl quoting entire chapters from it throughout the book.29
Nayrz, the younger contemporary of both Dawn and Ibn Ab Jumhr,
used the Shajara in his commentary on Hidayat al-h ikma,30 and more
extensively in his commentary on Alwh .
Of the five epistles (rasil) of the Shajara, only the last two deal-
ing with physics and metaphysics were consulted by Nayrz in his
commentary.31 Their impact is significant throughout Nayrzs entire
commentary on the Alwh . There are nineteen explicit references to
al-Shajara al-ilhiyya in the work, yet the number of quotations from
the Shajara therein exceeds these by far, since Nayrz 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 illu-
minationists (kalm bad min al-Ishrqyn).33
There seem to be various reasons why the Shajara was used so promi-
nently in this work. For Nayrz, 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 Nayrzs
quotations from the Shajara particularly those taken from the epistle

28
Dawn, Unmdhaj al-ulm, in Thalth rasil, p. 302.
29
See Sabine Schmidtke, The Influence of ams al-Dn ahrazr (7th/13th century)
on Ibn Ab G umhr al-Ahs (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. 2332; eadem,
Theologie, Philosophie und Mystik im zwlferschiitischen Islam des 9./15. Jahrhunderts.
Die Gedankenwelten des Ibn Ab G umhr al-Ah s (um 838/143435nach 906/1501),
Leiden 2000, pp. 27981. Ibn Ab Jumhr, however, did not explicitly mention Shajara
as his source. On the impact of Shahrazr 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-Dn al-Shahrazrs Rasil al-Shajara al-ilhiyya, Die Welt
des Islams 46 (2006), pp. 7685.
30
See, e.g., Nayrz, Sharh al-Hidyat al-h ikma, MS Carullah 1327, ff. 140a, and
173a, where he refers to Shajarat al-ilhiyyaa.
31
The first three epistles of the Shajara are on methodology and the divisions
of the sciences ( f l-muqaddimt wa-taqsm al-ulm), logic ( f mhiyyat al-shajara
wa-tafsl al-ulm al-liya al-mantiqiyya), and practical philosophy ( f l-akhlq wa-l-
tadbr wa-l-siyst).
32
See, e.g., ff. 155b156b, in which Nayrz used Shajara, ed. Najaf-Qul H abb,
vol. 3, pp. 5936.
33
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 141a. Before and after this
reference the major part of Shahrazrs explanation of the hierarchy of existents (al-
Shajara, vol. 3, pp. 4515) is quoted verbatim by Nayrz.
nayrz 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, Nayrz 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 Suhrawards philosophy; as in many philosophical
discussions of this work, the author elaborates on Suhrawards opinions.
Nayrz was presumably unfamiliar with Shahrazrs commentaries on
Suhrawards Talwh t and his H ikmat al-ishrq. However, the Shajara,
with the exception of its third epistle on practical philosophy, serves
equally as a commentary on Suhrawards thought. It is evident that
Nayrz 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 (riydt),35 and the state of the soul after its separation from
the body36 are two examples of the issues for which Nayrz relied on
the Shajara as a commentary on Suhrawards thought.37

34
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff. 45b46b, and compare it
with Shahrazr, Shajara, vol. 2, pp. 2756, 278. Some other instances in which the
epistle on physics of the Shajara has been used by Nayrz, are as follows: 1) Com-
menting on a passage of introduction of Alwh , where indivisible parts are rejected,
Shahrazrs rejection of the indivisible parts in Fasl One of Qism One of Risla Four
of Shajara, entitled On the rejection of the indivisible parts and the arguments of its
adherents ( f nafy al-juz alladh l yatajazza wa-h ujaj ash bih, vol. 2, pp. 279) is
adopted (MS ehid Ali Paa 1739, f. 22a22b). Reference to al-Shajara al-ilhiyya is
given explicitly in the respective passage of the commentary; 2) One of the arguments of
Shahrazr on the finitude of dimensions (tanh abd) is included by Nayrz among
his arguments in Lawh One of Alwh (MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 23a). This argument is
the fifth argument presented by Shahrazr on the issue in Fasl Five of Qism One of
Risla Four of the Shajara (vol. 2, p. 97); 3) Shahrazrs speculation on time in Fasl
Ten, Qism One, Risla 4 (vol. 2, pp. 1856, 18990, 1934) is adopted by Nayrz to
elaborate on Suhrawards discussion of the issue in Lawh One of Alwh (MS ehid
Ali 1739, ff. 32a35a); 4) In Lawh Two, where Suhraward explains the common fac-
ulties of human and plant, Nayrz quotes in his commentary (MS ehid Ali 1739, ff.
77a79b) several passages from Fasl One of Qism Six of Risla Four of the Shajara
(vol. 2, pp. 32832, 336).
35
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 195a197b, and compare
it to the Shajara, ed. Najaf-Qul H abb, vol. 3, pp. 6323, 64252.
36
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff. 161a165a, quoted from
the Shajara, ed. Najaf-Qul H abb, vol. 3, pp. 598607.
37
Another issue discussed by Shahrazr in the Epistle on Metaphysics of the
Shajara and adduced by Nayrz is the existence of evil in the world, for which he
offers an explanation. See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 146a ff., and
compare it with the Shajara, ed. Najaf-Qul H abb, vol. 3, p. 6117.
148 chapter four

In addition, the Shajara seems to have attracted Nayrzs attention


due to some of the extraordinary ideas expressed in it. An example of
this category is Shahrazrs explanation of predictions of the future
on the basis of periodic circles (al-adwr) of the universe, an account
adopted by Nayrz. According to Shahrazr, 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, Shahrazr 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 Nayrz 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
Nayrz, however, did not follow Shahrazr in the latters controver-
sial belief in the transmigration of the soul. He cites some of Shahrazrs
arguments in this regard and refutes them one by one. He also quotes
what Shahrazr presented as Qurnic affirmations of the transmigra-
tion of the soul, which he refutes altogether.39 Another disagreement
concerns Shahrazrs 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 Sn. Nayrz
rejects Shahrazrs interpretation and maintains that there was no rea-
son 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.
Nayrz further blames Shahrazr because he believes that Shahrazrs
statement implies that they did not really mean what they said.40

38
See Nayrz, Misbh al-Arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff. 180a181a, and compare
it with the Shajara, ed. Najaf-Qul H abb, vol. 3, pp. 5103, 5202.
39
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff. 155b156b, and compare it
with the Shajara, vol. 3, ed. Najafqul H abb, pp. 593596. For the views of Suhraward
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 Shihb al-Dn
al-Suhraward (killed 587/1191) and his followers, Studia Iranica, 28 (1999), pp. 23754.
40
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff.79 ab. On the discussion
of this issue in the Shajara, see al-Shajara al-ilhiyya, ed. Najaf-Qul H abb, vol. 2,
pp. 3378.
nayrz and the suhrawardian philosophy 149

II.ii. Izz al-Dawla Ibn Kammna


Ibn Kammnas commentary on Suhrawards Talwh t, known as
al-Tanqh t f sharh al-talwh t, is another source for Nayrz for com-
menting on al-Alwh al-Imdiyya.41 Although there are references
to the commentary on al-Talwh t throughout Nayrzs entire com-
mentary, it is in particular with regard to the following issues related
to the soul that Ibn Kammnas commentary on al-Talwh t was used
prominently: (1) Ibn Kammnas argument for the continuity of the
existence of the soul after the destruction of the body (baq al-nafs
bad kharb al-badan) is adopted by Nayrz with explicit reference to
the source, stating that he completed the argument (maa tatmmt).42
(2) The arguments of the adherents of transmigration of the soul
(tansukh) are quoted by Nayrz with some slight changes and with-
out 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 Kammnas Sharh
al-Talwh t again without naming his source.44 Similarly he quotes from
Sharh al-Talwh t (4) Ibn Kammnas explanation of the perception
of the rational facultys being nobler to the perception of the sensory
faculties,45 and (5) the latters six possible forms of connection of the
soul to the spiritual world.46

41
This work has been edited by Sayyid H usayn Sayyid Msaw under the title
al-Tanqh t f sharh al-talwh t (PhD Dissertation: University of Tehran, Tehran
137576/19967). The part on physics has also been edited by Hossein Ziai and
Ahmad Alwishah (Al-Tanqh t f sharh al-talwh t. Refinement and Commentary
on Suhrawards Intimations. A Thirteenth Century Text on Natural Philosophy and
Psychology, Costa Mesa 2003).
42
See Nayrz, Misbh al-Arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff. 149b150b, and compare
it with Sharh al-Talwh t [al-Tanqh t f Sharh al-Talwh t], ed. Sayyid Msaw, vol. 3,
pp. 9036.
43
See Nayrz, Misbh al-Arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff. 154a156b, and compare
it with Sharh al-Talwh t [al-Tanqh t f Sharh al-Talwh t], ed. Sayyid Msaw, vol.
3, pp. 91625. Nayrz elaborated on Ibn Kammnas brief discussion on the Qurnic
arguments of the adherents of tansukh with the help of Shahrazrs al-Shajara
al-ilhiyya. See above, p. 148, fn. 40.
44
See Nayrz, Misbh al-Arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 157a158a, and compare
it with Sharh al-Talwh t, [al-Tanqh t f Sharh al-Talwh t], ed. Sayyid Msaw, vol.
3, pp. 92830.
45
See Nayrz, Misbh al-Arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff. 159b161a, and compare
it to Sharh al-Talwh t [al-Tanqh t f Sharh al-Talwh t], ed. Sayyid Msaw, vol. 3,
pp. 9346.
46
See Nayrz, Misbh al-Arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff. 179ab. The passage is
quoted from Sharh al-Talwh t [al-Tanqh t f Sharh al-Talwh t], ed. Sayyid Msaw,
vol. 3, pp. 9789.
150 chapter four

This use of Ibn Kammnas Sharh al-Talwh t on the issue of the soul
shows that Nayrz was aware of the strength of Ibn Kammna on this
issue. It is also to be noted that in all the issues on which he quotes Ibn
Kammna, he refrains from ever criticizing the latters position. There is
only one exception, namely Ibn Kammnas idea of the pre-eternity of
the soul (azaliyyat al-nafs), on which he adopts a distinctive position.47
Ibn Kammnas syllogism for pre-eternity of the soul runs as follows:
The soul is simple. (2) Everything originated in time (h dith zamn) 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 Sn.48 For the second premise,
Ibn Kammna again sets a syllogism:
The cause of everything originated in time is compound. (2) It is implau-
sible that something compound causes something simple. Therefore, every
temporally originated thing is not simple.
Ibn Kammna argues that when the cause is complete, its effect is
inevitably there (al-mall yastah l takhallufihu an al-illa al-tmma).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-illa al-tmma)
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 (mawjd dim al-wujd).50
On the other hand, the emanation of the simple from the compound
is impossible. When a compound causes an effect, Ibn Kammna 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 Kammn discusses this issue in a number of his writings. See Ibn Kammna,
Sharh al-Talwh t [al-Tanqh t f Sharh al-Talwh t], ed. Ziai & Alwishah, pp. 43042;
Maqla f Azaliyyat al-nafs wa-baqih, Azaliyyat al-nafs wa-baqih, ed. Insiyah
Barkhh, Tehran 1385/2006, pp. 11021; eadem, Maqla f anna al-nafs laysat bi-mizj
al-badan, Azaliyyat al-nafs wa-baqih, pp. 15961; eadem, Risla f abadiyyat al-nafs
wa-baqih wa-bastatih, Azaliyyat al-nafs wa-baqih, pp. 198202.
48
On the view of Ibn Sn on this issue, see al-fann al-sdis min al-tabiyyt min
Kitb al-Shif, in Psychology dibn sn (avicenne) daprs son uvre a-if, ed. &
trans. Jn Bako, Paris 1982, vol. 1, pp. 22431.
49
Ibn Kammna, Maqla f Azaliyyat al-nafs wa-baqih, p. 110.
50
Ibn Kammna, Maqla f anna l-nafs laysat bi-mizj al-badan, p. 161.
nayrz 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, Nayrz
first briefly presents Ibn Kammnas argument, and then rejects it,
but without explicit reference to Ibn Kammna, simply by saying the
[above-] mentioned argument was objected to by one who said . . . (wa-
qad rida al-dall al-madhkr wa-qla). Nayrz shows his disapproval
of Ibn Kammnas argument by saying that the compound cause in its
totality has an impact on the effect and not, as Ibn Kammna 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 plau-
sible.52 Nayrz further posits that had Ibn Kammna 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. Qutb al-Dn al-Shrz


Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs commentary on Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq
was specifically consulted in order to shed light on a few points in
al-Alwh al-Imdiyya, points that were discussed neither in Shahrazrs
Shajara nor in Ibn Kammnas commentary on al-Talwh t, so that
Qutb al-Dns commentary on H ikmat al-ishrq was the only second-
ary source available to Nayrz. This is the case, for example, with the
following issues: (1) the discussion of the souls connection with the
spiritual realm in the state of sleeping and dreaming;53 (2) Suhrawards
principle of the nobler contingency (qidat imkn 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-naw). On this later topic, Nayrz
writes as follows:

51
For a detailed study of Ibn Kammnas arguments for the eternity of the human
soul, see Lukas Muehlethaler, Ibn Kammna (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 Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 81b, and compare with Ibn
Kammna, Sharh al-Talwh t [al-Tanqh t f Sharh al-Talwh t], ed. Ziai & Alwishah,
pp. 4304.
53
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff. 176ab.
54
See Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, ff. 118a119a.
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 Khurdd, the lord (or angel) of the trees Murdd, the lord (or
angel) of fire Urdbihisht. It is this intellect which is regulator and guard-
ian 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-h ukam al-mutaallihn) like Pythagoras.55
Corbin regarded this passage as an Ishrq element of Wadd
al-Tabrz s thought, without noticing that he had taken it from Qutb
al-Dn al-Shrzs H ikmat al-ishrq.56 Nayrzs 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
Nayrz, Misbh al-arwh , MS ehid Ali 1739, f. 192b. It is quoted from Qutb
al-Dn al-Shrzs Sharh H ikmat al-ishrq, pp. 357:22358:11.
56
See Corbin, Philosophie iranienne et philosophie compare, p. 98. Elsewhere, in
his LArchange empourpr, Corbin translates this passage into French (see p. 126).
Nayrz provides no further explanation concerning the nature of the Lords of Species
and the philosophical consequences of their existence. Similar to Nayrz, Mull Sadr
approves this idea. But unlike Nayrz he expounds it further. See Fazlur Rahman, The
Philosophy of Mull Sadr (Sadr al-Dn al-Shrz), Albany 1975, pp. 489.
APPENDIX I

INVENTORY OF HIS WRITINGS

1. Authentic Works

1.1. Independent Works


1.1.1. Risla f Tayn jiht al-ajsm wa-nihytih wa-tabyn
maqsid al-h arakt wa-ghytih
On the finitude of the dimensions (tanh al-abd) and related issues,
completed on 24 Rab II 911/23 September 1505 and dedicated to
a certain D iy al-Dn. 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):


.




:








.
Manuscripts
MS Malik 2614/1, ff. 2b22a, copied from the autograph in Isfahan in
Rab I 1032/January 1623 (Cat. vol. 6, p. 71).
Criticism
Risla f Tahqq al-zwiya by Nas r al-Bayn b. Nr al-Ayn al-Kzirn,
completed in 950/154344, preserved in MS Marw 877 (ff. 43b48b),
consisting of three chapters: 1) on definitions of the angle; 2) on the
views of later scholars; and 3) the views of Khafr and Nayrz (who is
referred to as al-fdil al-kmil mawln al-H jj Mahmd al-Nayrz)
on the issue and the authors rejection of these. According to gh
Buzurg, two other manuscripts of this work are preserved in the private
libraries of Mrz Abd Allh Tihrn (copy completed on 13 Ramadn
950/10 December 1543) and Sayyid Rid Is fahn (copy completed on
13 Dh al-Qada 950/7 February 1544) (see Dhara, vol. 12, p. 12, no.
68; Tabaqt, vol. 7, p. 243).

1.1.2. Rislat Ithbt al-wjib/ Risla f l-wjib wa-l-mumtani


On the proofs for the existence of God, dedicated to Ns ir al-Dn, the
vizier of Sultn Ahmad Kr-Kiy.
In his commentary on the Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda of Dawn
[see below no. 1.2.4.], completed in 921/15156, Nayrz refers to this
work as follows (MS ehid Ali Paa 2761, ff. 4b5a):














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. 115b148a, copied from the autograph in 918/15123,
with glosses on the margin (Cat. vol. 5, p. 148).
Copyists colophon:




.
1.2. Commentaries
1.2.1. Sharh Tajrd al-mantiq
A commentary on the Tajrd al-mantiq of Nasr al-Dn al-Ts, com-
pleted on 23 Dhu l-H ijja 913/24 April 1508 and dedicated to Amr
Nizm al-Din Mahmd. Nayrz refers to this work in his Tahr r
Tajrd al-aqid. The name of the author is mentioned in the intro-
duction, where it is also stated that he moved from Isfahan to Qazwin
while he was in the process of writing the commentary (Dhara,
vol. 13, pp. 1401, no. 469, vol. 3, p. 354, no. 1278; Tabaqt, vol. 7,
p. 244; Mudarris Ridaw, p. 422).
Beginning (Dhara, vol. 13, p. 140, no. 469):








.
Manuscripts
H akm 59, copied from the autograph by H usayn b. H aydar al-Karak
al-Amil, copy completed on 28 Ramadn 1021/22 November 1612
(Cat. vol. 5, p. 425; Dhara, vol. 13, p. 141, no. 469; Tabaqt, vol. 7,
p. 244).
Colophon of the scribe:

...





inventory of his writings 157










.
Private collection of Muhammad al-Samw library, copied by Abd
al-Fatth b. Mrz Muqm (Dhara, vol. 13, p. 141, no. 469).
Private collection of Sayyid Muhammad Bqir Isfahn; the present loca-
tion of the manuscript is unknown (Dhara, vol. 13, p. 141, no. 469).

1.2.2. Tah rr Tajrd al-aqid/Sharh Tajrd al-itiqd


A commentary on the Tajrd al-itiqd of Nasr al-Dn al-Ts, completed
on 2 Rab I 919/8 May 1513 (Mudarris Ridaw, p. 430; Sadry Khy,
p. 175). The author refers to this work in his Sharh Hidyat al-H ikma
(MS Ridaw 175hikmat f. 169b), Sharh Tahdhb al-mantiq (Ridaw
1088, f.108a), and Misbh al-arwh f kashf haqiq al-Alwh (MS Ragp
853, ff. 108a, 134b).
The beginning (MS Ihy-i mrth 1849, ff. 1b3a):




















.













:













.





:
















.
158 appendix i












































.









































































inventory of his writings 159








.







.

















.



















.


















- - .







.


.












.













160 appendix i











:



[ : ]






: ]



.

. [


.


































.



















.





.
End (MS Princeton 70, f. 121a):

























.


inventory of his writings 161







[ ]
.
Authors colophon (Princeton 70, f. 121a; Mill Frs 55, f. 260a):




















.













.

Manuscripts
Majlis 3968, ff. 1b324b, with the name of the author mentioned on
the title page (Cat. vol. 10(4), pp. 21069; Mudarris Ridaw, p. 430;
Sadry Khy, p.175). Contains two fragments of the text written by
two different hands. The first fragment begins near the end of the
commentators introduction (f. 1b) and ends in the middle of Chapter
Three on ilhiyyt (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).
Mill Frs 55 (297/2 kh), ff. 1a260a, incomplete in the beginning
(it starts near the end of fasl 1 of Chapter Three), copied by Shh
Muhammad b. H asan, completed in Shabn 1050/November
December 1640 (Cat. vol. 2, p. 207, therein attributed to H jj
Mahmd Tabrz b. Muhammad).
Beginning:





[...]
Princeton 70, ff. 1b121a (Cat. (1987), pp. 32930, no. 1460), cor-
rupt and incomplete at the beginning and throughout, completed
on 1 Rabi I 1100/24 December 1688, copied by Sharaf al-Dn b.
Zayn al-Dn al-Nn at the request of Mrz Muhammad Ashraf
al-H usayn (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. 87b88b being blank]) and extends to the end of the com-
mentary (f. 121a).
Copyists colophon (f. 121a):


















inventory of his writings 163





...















.

Ihy-i mrth 1849, ff. 3b194b, incomplete at the end, extends to the
conclusion of Chapter One (Cat. vol. 5, pp. 2668).

1.2.3. Sharh Tahdhb al-mantiq wa-l-kalm


A commentary on the Tahdhb al-mantiq of Sad al-Dn al-Taftzn
(Dhara, vol. 6, p. 54, no. 271, vol. 13, p. 163, no. 555; Tabaqt, vol. 7,
p. 244); Nayrz 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 Tahdhb are
extant, the second part of the commentary appears to be lost.
Beginning (MS ehid Ali 1780, ff. 1b2a):



















.


































164 appendix i











.


























































.







































.










inventory of his writings 165
















































: :

[...]
End [of Section One] (MS Ridaw 1088, 261b):

...
























...

.
... ...

Manuscripts
Ridaw 1088, ff. 1b261b, containing the first part on logic only (Cat.
vol. 1, pp. 32930; cf. Dhara, 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 Ghyth al-Dn Mans r
al-Dashtak on the first folio of the manuscript of the text he used.
166 appendix i

Since the note by Dashtak is extant as an autograph in MS Marash


13793/8 (described below), it is likely that Ridaw 1088 was produced
on the basis of that manuscript.
Dnishgh 7051, 115ff., containing the first part on logic only (Cat.
vol. 16, p. 439; cf. Shams Nayrz, pp. 252, 7223).
ehid Ali Paa 1780, ff. 1b51a, containing a fragment from the begin-
ning 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 khtima of the text,
which corresponds to MS Ridaw 1088, f. 254a:9, as follows:


[...]
Yeni Cami 1181, ff.102b107b, containing a fragment from the begin-
ning of the first part on logic; it ends abruptly as follows:

[...]

Ridaw 18410, ff. 66b-67b, a fragment of the commentary dealing with
the conditions of the four syllogistic figures (Sharh dbitat al-ashkl
al-arbaa f Tahdhb al-mantiq). Copy completed on 26 Ramadn
904/7 May 1499. In the title it is attributed to Mull H jj Mahmd.
Beginning (which corresponds to MS Ridaw 1088, f. 239a:34):





[...]
End (which corresponds to MS Ridaw 1088, f. 241a: 58):











. .

Colophon:



...


.
Marash 13793/8, ff. 163189 (Cat. vol. 34, pp. 8323), 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 Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak
which is extant in MS Ridaw 1088. According to the writer of the
catalogue (Cat. vol. 34, p. 833) this is not an autograph.
Gulpygn 293, ff. 1b-62b (Cat. vol. 1, p. 293), incomplete at the end.
It ends abruptly as follows:


[...]


1.2.4. Sharh Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda
A commentary on the Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-jadda of Jall al-Dn
al-Dawn (d. 908/1502). The date of the completion of this work is
given in the Abjad-system as Ithbt wjibihi (= 921/1515) (Dhara,
vol. 1, pp. 1089, no. 527, vol. 1, pp. 1034, no. 50910, vol. 13, pp.
589, no. 188; Mr, vol. 1, p. 585). According to the colophon of MS
Ridawi 144/4, the commentary was completed in the Jmi 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. 59a105b [pp. 117210, the text is actually paginated
and not foliated], copied by Jafar b. Bb b. Muhammad Bqir
al-Tabrz, probably in the 13th/19th century. The authors introduc-
tion is missing (Cat. vol. 5, pp. 3012). The text of the MS starts as
follows:


[...]

inventory of his writings 169

Majlis 1841, ff. 3a156b, copied in 1040/16301 (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:

.

Ridaw 144/4, 94 ff., copy completed on 1 Shawwl 970/23 May 1563
(Cat. vol. 1, p. 134; cf. Dhara, vol. 1, pp. 1089, no. 527; vol. 1, pp.
1034, no. 509; no. 510; Shams Nayrz, p. 253).
Marash 9705/5, ff. 197b237b, 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 Rid Isfahn; the present location of the
manuscript is unknown (Dhara, vol. 13, p. 59).
Private library of Sayyid Mahd Sadr, incomplete at the beginning; the
present location of the manuscript is unknown (Dhara, vol. 13,
p. 59, no.188).
Kprl 825, ff.1b92b (Cat. vol. 1, p. 403 unidentified).
ehid Ali Paa 2761, ff. 1b54b. Complete, the name of the scribe is
not given in this manuscript, but the copy is completed by the same
hand as the Risla f Ithbt al-wjib of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak at
the end of the codex (f. 106a). This last mentioned risla was copied,
according to its colophon, by Ali b. Muhammad b. Hjj Mahmd,
who seems to have been the grandson of Mahmd Nayrz.
Private library of Muhammad Jawd Wjid, copied by the authors son
Muhammad b. Hjj Mahmd, copy completed on 5 Rajab 940/20
January 1534. The present location of the manuscript is unknown
(Muhammad Taq Dnishpazhh & Iraj Afshr, Nuskhah-yi khatt,
vol. 5, p. 285).

1.2.5. Sharh Hidyat al-h ikma


A commentary on the Hidyat al-hikma of Athr al-Dn al-Abhar
(Dhara, vol. 14, pp. 1756, no. 2059), completed in Shiraz in 904/1595
6, copied again by the author with some revisions in Isfahan on 12
Safar 916/20 May 1510. The commentary covers only Chapters Two and
Three of Hidyat al-H ikma, and in the introduction to the commentary
Nayrz 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. 1b2b):






























:


: .




: .


.












! ! :

.





















.



















. ! :






.




.
inventory of his writings 171









.





.




[...]


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

:




.















.






Authors colophon (MS Carullah 1327, f. 218b):































.



.















:






.













172 appendix i










: .













.
Manuscripts
Carullah 1327. ff. 1b218b, copied from the autograph, which was
completed in Isfahan in Safar 916/ May1510. On f. 218b, the date
942/15356 is given, indicating possibly the date of copying.
Ridaw 175, ff. 3b192b, incomplete at the end, covers the section
on physics and the beginning of the metaphysics section. It has an
endowment note dated 1067/16567 (Cat. vol. 1, p. 160; cf. Dhara,
vol. 14, pp. 1756, no. 2059). It ends abruptly as follows (correspond-
ing to MS Carullah Efendi 1327, f. 176a:5):






.

1.2.6. Misbh al- arwh f kashf h aqiq al-Alwh


Commentary on the al-Alwh al-Imdiyya of Shihb al-Dn al-Suhraward;
the name of the commentator is mentioned in the introduction. Nayrz
completed the commentary first in Yazd on 5 Rab II 930/10 February
1524 without having covered the postscript (dhayl) of the Alwh which
was not available to him at the time. Having found another manuscript
containing the postscript two years later in Jawz (Rajab-Shabn) 932/
MayJune 1526, he added a commentary on the postscript. Nayrz
later re-copied the whole commentary, completing it on 5 Rab II 933/
9 January 1527.
Beginning (MS ehid Ali Paa 1739, ff. 2b4b):









inventory of his writings 173



























.







:




.












:
.



:

:
: :





:




















.





174 appendix i



:





.


















.












































:

.


:



































.





inventory of his writings 175

















































.




























.

End (MS ehid Ali Paa 1739, ff. 208a209a):




: .














































:







:



.




176 appendix i





































































.



































.

Beginning of the commentary on the postscript (MS ehid Ali Paa
1739, f. 209a):











inventory of his writings 177







.

: :


[...]
End of the commentary on the postscript (MS ehid Ali Paa 1739,
f. 213a):










.
Authors colophon at the end of the commentary on the postscript
(MS ehid Ali Paa 1739, f. 213a):












.
Manuscripts
Ragp 853, ff. 1b277a, copied from the autograph by Muhammad
al-Thir al-Badakhsh, copy completed on 1 Jumd II 1095/16 May
1684 (cf. Ritter, p. 271).
A microfilm copy of this MS is preserved in the Hellmut Rit-
ter 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).
ehid Ali Paa 1739, ff. 2b213a, complete, copied by the son of the
author, Muhammad b. Hjj Mahmd, copy completed on 2 Rabi
I 943/10 September 1536 from the autograph that had been com-
pleted on 5 Rabi II 933/9 January 1527.
Copyists colophon (f. 209a):


:














178 appendix i














.




.



1.2.7. Sharh Tahdhib tarq al-wusl il ilm al-usl
In his colophon at the end of his Sharh Hidyt al-hikma, Nayrz names
among his earlier writings a commentary on the Tahdhb al-ahkm
of H asan b. Ysuf b. al-Mutahhar al-H ill (d. 726/1326). As there is
no known work written by the Allma al-H ill with the title Tahdhb
al-ahkm, the author presumably was referring to the Tahdhib tarq
al-wusl il ilm al-usl of H ill.
So far, no manuscript of the commentary has been discovered.

1.3. Glosses
1.3.1. H shiya al sharh Matli al-anwr wa-al al-h awshiyya
al-Sharfiyya
Glosses on Qutb al-Dn al-Rzs commentary on Sirj al-Dn al-Urmaws
Matli al-anwr (entitled Lawmi al-asrr f sharh Matli al-anwr)
and on the glosses by Mr Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjn on that commen-
tary. The only extant manuscript of this work (safiyya 58 Mantiq)
is misidentified in the catalogue as Nayrzs superglosses on Jurjns
glosses on Shams al-Dn Mahmd al-Is fahns commentary (entitled
Matli al-anzr f sharh Tawli) on Abd Allh b. Umar al-Baydws
Tawli al-anwr. However, this identification contradicts Nayrzs own
statement in his introduction quoted in the same catalogue.
Beginning (in MS safiyya 58 Mantiq and according to the cata-
logue of the library (vol. 2, p. 519)):







.









.
inventory of his writings 179

Manuscripts
safiyya 58 mantiq, ff. 6, 23 lines per page, copied by the authors son
(Ibn Hajj Mahmd), copy completed on 1 Jumd I 942/28 Octo-
ber 1535 (Cat. vol. 2, p. 519).

1.3.2. Talqa al l-Mawqif


Glosses on the commentary of Mr Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjn (d.
816/14134) on the Mawqif of Adud al-Dn al-j. Reference to the
glosses was made in the authors Sharh Tahdhb al-mantiq (Ridaw
1088, f. 31a).
So far, no MS of the text has been discovered.

1.3.3. Talqa al l-h awshiyya al-Sharfiyya al sharh al-Risla


al-Shamsiyya
Glosses on the glosses of Mr Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjn on the com-
mentary of Qutb al-Dn al-Rz on the Risla al-Shamsiyya of Najm
al-Dn al-Dabrn al-Ktib. References to the glosses were made in the
authors Sharh Tahdhb al-mantiq (Ridaw 1088, ff. 71a, 161b).
So far, no MS of the text has been discovered.

1.3.4. H shiya al H ikmat al-ishrq wa-sharh ihi


Glosses on the H ikmat al-ishrq of Shihb al-Dn al-Suhraward and on
Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs commentary on the work. Dedicated to Nsir
al-Dn, the vizier of sultan Ahmad Krkiy (cf. Ritter, pp. 2778).1
Introduction (MS Laleli 2523, f. 2b):




















.







1
Ritter rendered the name of the person to whom the glosses are dedicated as
Nas r al-Dn Sadd. However, it is more likely that his correct name was Nsir
al-Dn, as the name Nsir is repeated twice in the introduction (once in the beginning
as al-Ns ir li-l-haqq and the second time as Ns iran li-l-Islm). Moreover, Nayrz
dedicated his Ithbt al-wjib to a certain Nsir al-Dn in Gln. Ritters suggestion
that the sultan Ahmad Bahdur Khn mentioned in the text is perhaps the Aqquyunlu
ruler who was killed in 903/1497 (Sultan Ahmad Gwde b. Ughurlu Muhammad) is
also incorrect.
180 appendix i
























.






.


















]





[



























.






















inventory of his writings 181
















.
The first gloss (MS Marash 4266, f. 7a):

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










...
.

Manuscripts
Laleli 2523, on the margins of Sharh H ikmat al-Ishrq of Qutb al-Dn
al-Shrz, distinguished from other glosses by the sign at the end:

. Copied from the autograph by the grand-son of Muhammad
Amn al-Shrwn, Sadr al-Dn Zde Muhammad Sdiq b. Fayd Allh.
Copyists 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 Nayrz in person, since he
refers to Nayrz with the title, Najm al-Dn:
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 fol-
lowing 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):

.









.

Ragp 854, on the margins of Sharh H ikmat al-Ishrq of Qutb al-Dn

al-Shraz, 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 Nayrz, 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).
Marash 4266, autograph, on the margins of Sharh H ikmat al-Ishrq of
Qut b al-Dn al-Shraz, copied by Najm al-Dn Mahmd al-Nayrz,
the copy of the commentary was completed on 14 Safar 897/16
December 1491(Cat. vol. 11, p. 268). The codex does not contain
186 appendix i

Nayrzs introduction to the glosses, but it seems that the codex in


its original form had some extra folios at the beginning, which pos-
sibly contained this introduction. Nayrz 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 Nayrz, who was its first owner
(ff. 4a (2), 200a). It was then passed to Nayrzs son, Muhammad
b. Mahmd al-Nayrz, whose stamp appears on f. 3a. Later in
inventory of his writings 187

989/15812, the codex was owned by a certain Muhammad H usayn


al-H usayn whose stamps are on ff. 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, 200a.
Colophon of the copyist (= Nayrz) at the end of the commentary:














.






Note on the manuscripts: Apart from these two manuscripts, Ritter
refers to four other manuscripts, which supposedly contain Qutb al-Dn
al-Shrzs commentary and the glosses of Nayrz: MSS Revan Kk
1773, Saray Ahmed III 3212, Ahmed III 3197, and Ali Emiri Arapa
1451 (Ritter, p. 278). Of these four, MS Ali Emiri Arapa 1451 was
examined by the present writer. It is evident that none of the glosses
on the manuscript was written by Nayrz, but rather by some other
scholars, including Muhammad Bqir Dmd known as Mr Dmd,
whose glosses are identified by the signature .

1.3.5. H shiya al Unmdhaj al-ulm
Glosses on Unmdhaj al-ulm of Jall al-Dn al-Dawn (Dhara, vol. 2,
pp. 4067, no. 1627, vol. 6, p. 26, no. 102; Tabaqt, vol. 7, p. 244). gh
Buzurg al-Tihrn describes it as al-H awsh al-kathra al Unmdhaj
al-ulm (Tabaqt, vol. 7, p. 244).
Manuscripts
Private collection of Rid Taqaw, autograph, contained in an auto-
graph Majma, completed between 90317/1497507. Its current
location is unknown (Dhara, vol. 2, pp. 4067, no. 1627, vol. 6,
p. 26, no. 102).

1.3.6. H shiya al Nihyat al-kalm f h all shubhat kulli kalm


kdhib/H shiya al H all mughlatat kullu kalm kdhib/H shiya
al H all mughlatat jadhr asamm
Glosses on Dawns Nihyat al-kalm f hall-i shubhat kulli kalm
kdhib; these glosses were included, according to gh Buzurg, in
the Nayrz Codex, the current whereabouts of which are unknown
(Dhara, vol. 7, pp. 7677, no. 409; Tabaqt, vol. 7, p. 244). However,
they are at least partly extant in MS Malik 688. The name of the glossist
in this codexwhich contains another work of Nayrz, Rislat Ithbt
188 appendix i

al-wjib (see above, no. 1.1.2)is not mentioned. There are, however,
two signs pointing to Nayrz being their author: first, the glossist refers
to Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak as al-Ustdh al-muhaqqq and second,

his signature as at the end of each gloss is similar to Nayrzs
signature at the end of his glosses on Suhrawards H ikmat al-ishrq
and Qutb al-Dn al-Shrzs commentary according to MS Laleli 2523
(see above, no. 1.3.4).
Manuscripts
Private collection of Rid Taqaw, autograph, contained in an auto-
graph Majma, completed between 90317/1497507 on the mar-
gins of Nihyat al-kalm f hall shubhat kulli kalm kdhib. Its
current location is unknown (Dhara, vol. 7, pp. 767, no 409).
Malik 688/1, ff. 3a34b, on the margin of Nihyat al-kalm f hall

shubhat kulli kalm kdhib 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 accom-
panying 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 Nayrz.

1.3.7. H shiya al Shawkil al-h r f sharh Haykil al-nr


Glosses on Dawns commentary on Suhrawards Haykil al-nr,
entitled Shawkil al-hr f sharh Haykil al-nr; a copy of Dawns
Shawkil al-hr f sharh Haykil al-nr completed by Muhammad b.
H jj Mahmd on 5 Sabn 943/17 January 1537 contains glosses on
this commentary by Nayrz (MS Majlis 1887). Although Nayrzs 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 authors son (walad musannifih). Moreover, in his
colophon to the glosses (f. 64a), the author refers to another writing
of his as Misbh al- arwh which leaves no doubt that the author is
H jj Mahmd al-Nayrz. The date of revision and completion of these
glosses is mentioned by the author in the Abjad-system as hawsh sharh
al-Haykil (= 930 /15234). He also informs us that he dealt with it
after completing his Misbh al- arwh [f kashf haqiq al-Alwh]. The
latter work was completed on 5 Rab II 930/10 February 1524. There-
fore, these glosses must have been completed sometime after this date.
inventory of his writings 189

Manuscripts
Majlis 1887, ff. 1a64a, containing Dawns Shawkil al-hr f sharh
Haykil al-nr, Dawns additional glosses )distinguished by the sig-
nature ) and Nayrzs glosses (distinguished by the signature ),
copied by Muhammad b. H jj Mahmd al-Nayrz, copy completed
on 28 Ramadn 943/10 March 1537, incomplete in the beginning
(precisely speaking, the first folio of the text and the glosses is miss-
ing). 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):


.
190 appendix i

2. Works of Uncertain Authorship

2.1. Matin al-thaltha


MS Ilhiyyt 749 D contains a work entitled Matin al-thaltha, on
blaming the first three caliphs, written (according to the introduction)
in Madina by H ajj Mahmd (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 Nayrz was its author, yet the attribution
remains uncertain.
Beginning (MS Ilhiyyt 749 D/24, f. 271b):





















.
















[...]

End (MS Ilhiyyt 749 D/24, f. 234b):


.

Manuscript
Ilhiyyt 749 D/24, ff. 271b274b, incomplete at the end, copied in
Safar 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. Sharh Ithbt al-wjib al-qadm


In the catalogue of the National Library in Tehran, a commentary
on Jall al-Dn al-Dawns Rislat Ithbt al-wjib al-qadma with the
shelfmark MS Mill 193/1 (pp. 160, copied in Van in 1071/16601)
is attributed to H jj Mahmd al-Nayrz (Cat. vol. 7, p. 167). In the
manuscript itself there is no reference to al-Nayrz apart from a note in
a modern hand on the front page, stating that it might be by Mahmd
al-Nayrz. As other manuscripts of the same commentary show its
author to be Muhammad Amn al-H anaf al-Tabrz, this attribution is
erroneous (see catalogue of Majlis library 5/3035).

3.2. H shiya al Sharh al-Aqid al-Nasafiyya


Glosses on Sad al-Dn al-Taftzns commentary on al-Aqid al-
Nasafiyya of Najm al-Dn Umar al-Nasaf (d. 537/11423) contained
in MS Ridaw 8914 (copied by Muhammad b. H abb Allh al-Mult n,
cf. Cat. vol. 11, pp. 1101) in the first two folios of its manuscript two
names are put forward as the author of the text: al-Bahrbd and
Mahmd al-Nayrz. There is clear evidence that these glosses are not
by Nayrz. The author of the glosses disagrees with the Sh 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 Nayrz was the
opposite on both the above-mentioned issues, it can safely be excluded
that he was the author of these glosses.
Beginning (MS Ridaw 8914, f. 2b):











.

















192 appendix i









...






























...







.


...

:


End (MS Ridaw 8914):
:
:


.

.

Copyists colophon:





. .

APPENDIX II

PHILOSOPHICAL WRITINGS COPIED BY NAYRZ

1. Nayrz Codex

The so-called Nayrzi Codex is a collection of 57 works copied by Nayrz


from 903/1497 to 919/151213, 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 Nayrzs favourite
philosophical-theological works, was extant until the early 1930s, when
gh Burzurg al-Tihrn saw it in the private collection of Sayyid Rd
Taqaw in Tehran. The manuscript collection of Taqaw 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-Dhara il tasnf al-sha and also in his
Tabaqt alm al-sha, gh 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 gh
Burzurg did not bother to pen down). It also contains an autograph ijza
of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak to Najm al-Dn Mahmd al-Nayrz, written
between Rab I 903/October 1497, the date of completion of copying
Ithbt al-wjib of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, and 12 Ramadn 903/4 May
1498, the date of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtaks death (Dhara, vol.1, p. 108,
no. 526; Tabaqt, vol. 7, p. 244). The ownership statements of the codex,
as he reports, shows that the codex was held in 989/158182 by Afdal
al-Din Muhammad al-Turka al-Isfahn and in 997/15889 by Mr
Dmd.
The works in the codex mentioned by gh Burzurg are as follows:

1) Ibtl ahkm al-nujm of Ibn Sn, in this codex attributed to Frb,


Arabic (Dhara, vol. 1, pp. 667, no. 326);
2) al-Nafs of Ibn Sn, Arabic (Dhara, vol. 24, p. 260 no. 1337);
3) H udd al-ashy of Ibn Sn, Arabic (Dhara, vol. 6, p. 300, no. 1605);
4) Lisn al-tayr, attributed to Ibn Sn, Persian (Dhara, vol. 18, p. 306,
no. 229);
5) Aqsm al-hikma of Ibn Sn, Arabic (Dhara, vol. 2, p. 272, no. 1097);
194 appendix ii

6) Rislat al-Ars of Ibn Sn, Arabic (Dhara, vol. 15, p. 253, no.
1631);
7) Khutbat al-Tamjd of Ibn Sn, Arabic (Dhara, vol. 7, p. 184, no.
943, vol. 7, p. 202, no. 990);
8) Tafsr-i Srat al-Al of Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz (Chapter Two of K.
al-Tanbh), attributed in this codex to Ibn Sn, Arabic (Dhara,
vol. 4, p. 336, no. 1444);
9) Sharh Khutbat al-Tamjd of Umar Khayym, Persian (Dhara, vol.
7, p. 202, no. 990, vol. 13, p. 220, no. 779);
10) Anjm nma/ ghz u anjm of Afdal al-Dn al-Kshn, in this
codex attributed to Nas r al-Dn al-Ts, Persian (Dhara, vol. 2,
p. 264, no. 1479, vol. 1, p. 36, no. 173);
11) Jvdn nma of Afdal al-Dn al-Kshn, Persian (Dhara, vol. 5,
p. 77, no. 307);
12) Qurda-i tabiyyt of Muhammad Qin, in the codex attributed to
Ibn Sin (Nayrz is said to have doubted this attribution), Persian
(Dhara, vol. 17, p. 65, no. 352);
13) Risla f man al-harf of Ab Ishq Muhammad Ibn Abd Allh
al-Nayrz, Persian, copied in 908/15023 (Dhara, vol. 21, p. 274,
no. 5030);
14) H all mughlatat al-jadhr al-asamm of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak,
Arabic (Dhara, vol. 5, p. 92);
15) Ithbt al-wjib of Sadr al-Dn al-Dashtak, Arabic, copied in Rab
I 903/1498 (Dhara, vol. 1, p. 108, no. 384; Tabaqt, vol. 7, p. 244);
16) H all mughlatat al-jadhr al-asamm/ H all mughlata kullu kalm
kdhib (Nihyat al-kalm f hall shubhat kulli kalm kdhib of
Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, Arabic (Dhara, vol. 7, pp. 7677, n. 409);
17) H awshi al R. H all mughlatat al-jadhr al-asamm/ H all mughlatat
kullu kalm kdhib (Nihyat al-kalm f hall shubhat kulli kalm
kdhib) of Nayrz, Arabic (Dhara, vol. 7, pp. 7677, no. 409);
18) Unmdhaj al-ulm of Jall al-Dn al-Dawn, Arabic (Dhara,
vol. 2, pp. 4078, no. 1627);
19) Sharh al Unmdhaj al-ulm of Nayrz, Arabic (Dhara, vol. 2,
pp. 4067, no. 1627, vol. 6, p. 26, no.102; Tabaqt, 7/244).

According to gh Buzurg, Nayrz refers to himself at the end of the


codex as follows:
[...]

philosophical writings copied by nayrz 195

2. Risla f al-Sayr wa-l-sulk of Ghiyth al-Dn Mansr


Dashtak

Copy completed on 2 Rabi II 933/25 January 1526. gh Burzurg


al-Tihrn wrote that the manuscript in his time was preserved in
al-Tihrn library in Samarra (Dhara, vol. 12, p. 284, no. 1910).
APPENDIX III

AN IJZA GIVEN TO NAYRZ BY GHIYTH AL-DN


AL-DASHTAK

This edition is based on MS Malik 956, f. 266a.




.



...












1


























.





















. : 1

an ijza given to nayrz 197



















.



.







.

APPENDIX IV

QUOTATIONS FROM UNPUBLISHED SOURCES

The followings are all the Arabic passages, translated and quoted pre-
viously 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