8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Sa‘di, Shaykh Muslih al-Din
Sa‘di, Shaykh Muslih al-Din (Shaykh Muslih al-Din Sa‘di) (Musharrif al-Din bin Muslih Sa‘di) (Abu Muhammad Musharrif al-Din Muslih ibn Abd Allah Shirazi) (Sa'di) (Abū-Muḥammad Muṣliḥ al-Dīn bin Abdallāh Shīrāzī) (Musharrif al-Dīn ibn Muṣlih al-Dīn) (c.1213 – December 9, 1291). One of the greatest of Persian poets. His works have always been esteemed and much quoted in the Muslim world for their homely and practical wisdom. Little is known for certain about his life, as the autobiographical references he makes in his writings can not all to be taken seriously.
Sa’di was the pen name of Abu Muhammad Musharrif al-Din Muslih ibn Abd Allah Shirazi. Sa‘di was one of the great poets of the world and truly the best and most multi-faceted author in Persian literature. He is often refered to by his countrymen as Afsah al-Mutakallimin (“most eloquent of speakers”). He was born in Shiraz to a family of religious scholars and received his earliest education from his father. His father died while Sa‘di was still very young, and he continued his education under the direction of his maternal grandfather. Sa‘di might have continued his education in Shiraz, then a major center of learning, had not political turmoil in 1224, when the province of Fars was ravaged by the forces of the Khwarazmshah, forced him to leave his home town for further study at the Nizamiyya college of Baghdad.
Sa‘di’s teachers at the Nizamiyya included Jamal al-Din Abu al-Faraj ibn Yahya al-Jauzi, a lecturer at the Mustansariyya college in Baghdad, to whom Sa‘di refers in his Gulistan. During the years that Sa‘di was studying in Baghdad, Iran was being severely ravaged by the Mongol hordes, who destroyed cities and massacred their populations. In about 1227, rather than going back to Shiraz, Sa‘di embarked on a traveling adventure in the Middle East, visiting scholars, theologians, Sufi shaikhs, and other distinguished figures of the time.
Sa‘di made several pilgrimages to Mecca (fourteen by one account) and, if a story in his Gulistan is to be taken as true, was taken captive by the Crusaders in Tripoli. The stories of his visits to India and Central Asia are most probably fictitious.
In 1257, Sa‘di was back in Shiraz, which, under the wise administration of the Salghurid atabegs, had managed to escape unscathed the destruction brought by the Mongols to the other parts of Iran. He became attached to the court of Atabeg Abu Bakr ibn Sa’d and his son Sa’d. Except for another pilgrimage to Mecca Sa‘di spent the remaining years of his life in peace in Shiraz, enjoying the great honor and esteem that he deservedly received as a sage and great poet from kings, noblemen, and commoners alike. He died in Shiraz and was buried to the east of the modern town, where his mausoleum, the Sa‘diyya, now stands.
The enormous respect and reputation that Sa‘di enjoyed during his lifetime only increased after his death and is unmatched by any other poet in the Persian language. His own remark that his poetry was eagerly sought after like gold leaves is hardly an exaggeration. His contemporary, Amir Khusrau, a great poet in his own right, felt embarrassed that he dared to write poetry in Sa‘di’s age. His poetry was put to music in China only half a century after his death. His impact on later poetry has been tremendous, and his prose marked a turning point in Persian literary style. For centuries, his Bustan and Gulistan have been the standard textbooks for serious students of Persian.
Sa‘di’s works (known as the Kulliyyat) include the Sa’dinama, or Bustan (Orchard), completed in 1257, in ten versified chapters; Gulistan (Rose Garden), an entertaining book on practical wisdom in rhymed prose (in the form of anecdotes) interspersed with short poems (it was called the “Bible of the Persians” by Emerson); ghazals (lyrics); qasidas (odes, a few in Arabic); satires; and a few short pieces in prose.
In 1258, Sa‘di completed Gulistan (“The Rose Garden”). Gulistan is a collection of gnomic anecdotes written in rhyming prose with verse passages interspersed. Gulistan is also known as Sa‘di-nama. Gulistan is a collection of poems on ethical subjects, the latter a collection of moral stories in prose.
The rest of his life was spent at Shiraz, where his tomb is still revered.
Sa‘di was also a prolific writer of occasional verse -- panegyric, elegies, and lyrics (ghazals). As the popularizer of the ghazal form, Sa‘di paved the way for Hafiz.
Sa‘di also wrote a volume of odes, and collections of poems known as Pleasantries, Jests and Obscenities. He is regarded as the master of the ghazal. His influence on Persian, Turkish and Indian literature has been very considerable, and his works were often translated into European languages from the seventeenth century onwards.
Sa'di lost his father, Muṣliḥ al-Dīn, in early childhood. Later he was sent to study in Baghdad at the renowned Neẓāmīyeh College, where he acquired the traditional learning of Islam. The unsettled conditions following the Mongol invasion of Persia led him to wander abroad through Anatolia, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq. He refers in his work to travels in India and Central Asia, but these cannot be confirmed. He claimed that he was held captive by the Franks and put to work in the trenches of the fortress of Tripoli (now in Lebanon). However, this story, like many of his other “autobiographical” anecdotes, is considered highly suspect. When he returned to his native Shīrāz, he was middle-aged. He seems to have spent the rest of his life in Shīrāz.
Saʿdī took his nom de plume from the name of a local atabeg (prince), Saʿd ibn Zangī. Saʿdī’s best-known works are the Būstān (1257; The Orchard) and the Gulistān (1258; The Rose Garden). The Būstān is entirely in verse (epic meter) and consists of stories aptly illustrating the standard virtues recommended to Muslims (justice, liberality, modesty, contentment) as well as of reflections on the behavior of dervishes and their ecstatic practices. The Gulistān is mainly in prose and contains stories and personal anecdotes. The text is interspersed with a variety of short poems, containing aphorisms, advice, and humorous reflections. The morals preached in the Gulistān border on expediency—e.g., a well-intended lie is admitted to be preferable to a seditious truth. Saʿdī demonstrates a profound awareness of the absurdity of human existence. The fate of those who depend on the changeable moods of kings is contrasted with the freedom of the dervishes.
For Western students the Būstān and Gulistān have a special attraction; but Saʿdī is also remembered as a great panegyrist and lyricist and as the author of a number of masterly general odes portraying human experience and also of particular odes such as the lament on the fall of Baghdad after the Mongol invasion in 1258. His lyrics are to be found in Ghazalīyāt (“Lyrics”) and his odes in Qaṣāʿīd (“Odes”). Six prose treatises on various subjects are attributed to him. He is also known for a number of works in Arabic. The peculiar blend of human kindness and cynicism, humor, and resignation displayed in Saʿdī’s works, together with a tendency to avoid the hard dilemma, make him, to many, the most widely admired writer in the world of Iranian culture.
Shaykh Muslih al-Din Sa‘di see Sa‘di, Shaykh Muslih al-Din
Musharrif al-Din bin Muslih Sa‘di see Sa‘di, Shaykh Muslih al-Din
Abu Muhammad Musharrif al-Din Muslih ibn Abd Allah Shirazi see Sa‘di, Shaykh Muslih al-Din
Sa'di see Sa‘di, Shaykh Muslih al-Din
Abū-Muḥammad Muṣliḥ al-Dīn bin Abdallāh Shīrāzī see Sa‘di, Shaykh Muslih al-Din
Musharrif al-Dīn ibn Muṣlih al-Dīn see Sa‘di, Shaykh Muslih al-Din
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Mulla Sadra
Mulla Sadra (Sadr al-Din Shirazi) (Ṣadr ad-Dīn Muḥammad Shīrāzī) (Molla Sadra) (Mollasadra) (Sadrol Mote'allehin) (1571-1640/1641). Persian philosopher. His Secrets is widely regarded in Iran as the most advanced text in the field of mystical philosophy.
Mulla Sadra was born into a noble Persian family. His life coincided with the reign of Shah Abbas the First, during whose rule Shi‘ism and the propagation of Islamic law, philosophy, and theology reached its climax in Iran. He devoted himself to the study of the intellectual sciences -- in particular, the philosophies of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Suhrawardi, and the Neoplatonists, especially Ibn ‘Arabi. His intense studies of philosophy intimidated some of the orthodox jurists who held much political power and who regarded philosophy as a heretical activity. Due to the hostility of the orthodoxy to his serious pursuit of philosophy by the studying and teaching of it, Mulla Sadra was forced to leave Isfahan, where he had been studying, and move to a small village outside of the city of Qum. In exile, Mulla Sadra spent twelve years in contemplation and ascetic practices, which led to the strengthening of his intellectual intuition (dhawq).
Mulla Sadra is important in the history of Islamic philosophy for several reasons. First, his work, in particular his magnum opus, the al-Afsar al-arba ‘ah (The Four Journeys of the Soul), is a compendium of the history of Islamic philosophy. Having presented the ideas of his predecessors in great detail, Mulla Sadra goes on to offer a thorough examination and critique of their philosophical ideas. Second, Mulla Sadra consolidated the School of Isfahan, which his teacher Mir Damad had established. This philosophical school was a turning point in the history of Islamic philosophy in Iran and produced some of the greatest masters of Islamic philosophy. The philosophical tradition of the School of Isfahan that was perfected by such masters as Mulla Sadra came to be known as “transcendental wisdom” (al-hikmat al-muti‘aliya), a rapprochement of discursive reasoning, intellectual intuition and practical wisdom.
Mulla Sadra wrote three distinct types of works: commentaries on the Qur’an and hadith, polemical works, and philosophical treatises. His commentaries on various verses of the Qur’an, such as the verses on light, is an indication of his esoteric reading of the scripture. He also wrote a monumental commentary upon the sayings of the Shi‘ite Imams, bringing out their more esoteric aspects. His polemics are directed towards the anti-nomian Sufis and their violations of the religious law. Finally, there are the philosophical writings of Mulla Sadra, most of which were written for the intellectual elite and the learned scholars who had sufficient training in traditional Islamic philosophy.
Mulla Sadra synthesized the theological (kalam) discussions, Ibn Sinan (Avicennian) metaphysics, and the mystical thoughts of Ibn ‘Arabi. The result is a tradition of wisdom that relates to the traditional concerns of the theologians, the discursive reasoning of the philosophers, and the direct experience of the Sufis. Mulla Sadra in particular was influenced by two figures, Ibn Sina, the philosopher of Being, and Suhrawardi, the philosopher of light and the founder of the School of Illumination (Ishraq) in Islamic philosophy. Mulla Sadra interprets Ibn Sinan philosophy from a Suhrawardian point of view while making some fundamental revisions in Suhrawardi’s ontology.
Theology, which by the time of Mulla Sadra was well developed, relied on the same vocabulary as that of the philosophers. Mulla Sadra takes note of the similarity in the use of technical terms by philosophers and theologians and of their methodologies. The second point Mulla Sadra alludes to is that Islamic theology is developed, not as an independent branch of intellectual sciences, but as a discipline that is primarily concerned with Islamic law.
Mulla Sadra, in his treatment of kalam, adopts a two-pronged approach, arguing against the theological methodology on one hand while affirming the truth of the objectives of the theologians on the other. Mulla Sadra demonstrates how and why it is that theological arguments fail to prove their purported conclusions while at the same time he is careful not to question the validity of the theological beliefs. In his work on the problem of eternity versus creation in time and the problem of bodily resurrection, Mulla Sadra brings some of the controversial positions of philosophers closer to the views of the theologians.
Mulla Sadra retains the general structure of the Ibn Sinan philosophy that asserts the existence of the Necessary Being and the gradations of Being that emanate from the Necessary Being. However, he departs from Ibn Sina by putting more emphasis on the centrality of a personal insight leading to the discoveries of the immutable principles of philosophy. It is precisely these experiences that serve as the foundation upon which Sadrian philosophy is established. Whereas Ibn Sinan principles are derived from discursive philosophy and his logic is based on rationalization of philosophical categories, Mulla Sadra’s “logic of transcendence” is derived from his mots inward and noetic insight. Mulla Sadra refers to these principles as the “Principles of Oriental Philosophy” (Qa‘ida Mashraqiyah) and “Transcendental Principles” (Qa‘ida Laduniya).
Mulla Sadra was profoundly influenced by the mystics of Islam, both by theoretical and practical dimensions of Sufism. With regard to theoretical Sufism, Mulla Sadra was highly influenced by Ibn ‘Arabi, the great Andalusian mystic. In fact, a great number of the technical terminologies that Mulla Sadra uses are borrowed from Ibn ‘Arabi and his massive commentary upon Islamic gnosticism. In particular, Mulla Sadra finds Ibn ‘Arabi’s treatment of such issues as human understanding of the experience of the divine and various problems associated with that understanding to be quite illuminating.
As to the practical aspects of the Sufi path, Mulla Sadra endorses asceticism as part of the path of knowledge whle he rejects the excesses and the antinomian practices of the Sufis.
Mulla Sadra divides knowledge into two types -- that which is learned by sense perception or instruction and that which is learned through intellectual intuition, a mode of knowledge marked by directness and the absence of mediation. The knowledge that is learned through the senses or instruction itself is divided into the traditional divisions of knowledge most commonly held by the Peripatetics, namely, theoretical and practical. The theoretical sciences consist of logic, mathematics, natural philosophy, and metaphysics; practical wisdom includes ethics, politics, and economics.
Mulla Sadra goes on to subdivide the sciences, leading to a unified theory of knowledge, which despite the multiplicity of different branches of knowledge leads the intellect to that knowledge of unity that lies at the heart of Sadrian philosophy. This view of knowledge (hikmah) integrates various modes of knowing, including that of practical wisdom, since knowledge for Mulla Sadra is not only informative but also transformative.
Mulla Sadra, whose encyclopedic knowledge of Islamic philosophy provided him with the basis for illuminating analyses of the philosophical ideas of his predecessors, makes three major contributions to the field of Islamic philosophy. They include (1) his commentary on Being, leading to the Doctrine of the Unity of Being, (2) his account of the occurrence of change in motion, known as “Substantial Motion,” and (3) his theory of the unity of the knower, the known, and knowledge itself.
Mulla Sadra takes issue with Suhrawardi, the founder of the School of Illumination, and his own teacher Mir Damad, reversing their scheme based on the principality of essence (mahiyyah) over existence (wujud). He argues that existence is the primary and principal aspect of an existent being and that essences are accidents of Being. Furthermore, Existence or Being (which for most of the Islamic philosophers, including Mulla Sadra, are the same) has an independent existence, whereas essences are contingent upon Being and therefore without a reality of their own.
Regarding the classical divisions of Being, Mulla Sadra accepts Ibn Sina’s division of Being into necessary, contingent, and impossible. Mulla Sadra also elaborates on copulative and non-copulative Being. Copulative Being is that which connects the subject to the predicate such as in “Socrates is a philosopher.” The term “is” here has a twofold function -- a copulative one, which connects the adjective of being a philosopher to Socrates, and a second one, namely, the existential function, which alludes to the existence of an existent being, in this case Socrates. Mulla Sadra, who is interested in the latter use of “is,” argues that “is” in the corporeal world is always copulative except for the Being of God, who is pure and without essences.
Mulla Sadra accepts Plato’s concept of archetypes as the “master of species” (arbab al-anwa’). According to Mulla Sadra, the corporeal world as a level of Being derives its characteristics from the archetypal world. The separation of the corporeal world from its archetypal world leads to the principle of “the possibility of that which is superior” (Qa‘ida imkan al-ashraf), a principle for which Mulla Sadra is known. This principle entails that for everything that journeys from the imperfect to perfect in the material world, there is its cosmic counterpart in the incorporeal world.
Mulla Sadra’s criticism of the Illuminationists goes beyond the priority and principality of existence over essence and includes the theory of hylomorphism. Accordingly, matter manifests itself in various domains of existence according to the ontological status of each level. Whereas the world of objects is immersed in the lowest level of matter, the soul belongs to a higher level of matter suitable for it. This process continues until it culminates in the intelligible world, where realities are completely free from matter.
Mulla Sadra is unique in the history of Islamic philosophy in that he allows for motion to exist in substance (al-harakat al-jawhariyyah). This is a deviation from Ibn Sina (Avicenna), who considered motion in substance to lead to a continuous change and the loss of that which constitutes the identity of a thing.
Mulla Sadra uses a number of arguments in support of his theory of the existence of motion in substance. When an apple has become ripe, it is not only the accidents that have changed, but the substance of the apple must have changed as well. In fact, when a potentiality becomes actualized, Mulla Sadra argues, it signifies a change both in accidents and in substance. Mulla Sadra states that for every change that occurs in accident, there has to be a corresponding change in substance, for accidents depend on their substance for their properties. Therefore, change in an apple is an example of the created order and signifies several points: first, that the world is like a river that is constantly in a state of flux; second, change occurs out of necessity and nothing remains the same except God; third, this change is not an accident in the universe, but is part of its very nature. This change, according to Mulla Sadra, acts as a force that moves the universe towards becoming; becoming is fundamentally a spiritual journey that all beings yearn for and accounts for both the ripening of an apple as well as for the yearning of the human being for transcendence.
Mulla Sadra uses the notion of Substantial Motion to shed light on the concept of time. For Mulla Sadra, as for Aristotle, time is the quantity of motion, except that for Mulla Sadra the change in quantity is the quantity of change in substance. Time is not to be viewed only quantitatively but has an ontological aspect as well. Motion in substance is also the measurement of the perfection and therefore has a purpose and direction, and carries a sense of necessity with it.
The fact that all things are in motion and that motion goes from less perfect to more perfect is an indication for Mulla Sadra that the entire universe is yearing for the ultimate perfection, God. This view also entails tha in some sense the universe is conscious of its own state of being and yearns for an eventual unity with its origin. Since Substantial Motion also entails that the identity of the object in question is always changing, Mulla Sadra concludes that this type of motion brings about a type of creation at every given moment. In other words, God through Substantial Motion creates the universe instantaneously at every moment. The Reality of God manifests itself through creation, which then goes through successive creations.
What Mulla Sadra was trying to achieve was to bring about a rapprochement between the Peripatetic who argued for the eternity of the world and the theologian view who insisted on creation ex nihilo. According to Mulla Sadra, the world as an extension of God has always existed, but yet it was created in time that ceases to exist, and is then recreated.
The unity of the knower, the known, and knowledge is deeply embedded in the Sadrian philosophy. Since God’s essence and Being are the same and all things emanate from God, God is at once the knower, the known, and the knowledge.
From the above it follows that in order for any person to achieve a similar status, one has to achieve unity with God. The reverse is also true: anyone who attains the knowledge of unity is in his or her very being the knower, the known, and the knowledge; in knowing unity, one has become unified. It is for this reason that Mulla Sadra’s al-Asfar al-arba ‘ah (the Four Journeys of the Soul) alludes to the spiritual journey of the soul from the time that it departs from God until it achieves unity once again.
Mulla Sadra not only offers complex philosophical arguments but also uses gnostic imagery as a mirror representing Divine Essence within which God witnesses the essence of all things. Although Mulla Sadra never explicitly states that unity with God is the necessary condition of knowledge, the thrust of his philosophy is such that this notion is implied.
Mulla Sadra and his teachings were a turning point in the history of Islamic philosophy. One of the greatest achievements of Mulla Sadra was the training of several students who themselves became masters of Islamic philosophy and propagators of Sadrian philosophy. Among them we can name ‘Abd al-Razzaq Lahiji, Mulla Muhsin Fayd Kashani, and Qadi Sa‘id Qummi.
Sadrian philosophy, which had gone through a period of decline, was once again revived in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Iran by such notable figures as Sabziwari, Ali Nuri, Ahsa’i, and the Zunuzi family. The teaching of Mulla Sadra and his students was well received by the Islamic philosophers of the subcontinent of India, and some of his books became the official texts of traditional schools. Islamic philosophy today in Iran and the eastern parts of the Islamic world is still under the influence of Mulla Sadra and his teachings.
Sadra, Mulla see Mulla Sadra
Sadr al-Din Shirazi see Mulla Sadra
Shirazi, Sadr al-Din see Mulla Sadra
Sadr ad-Din Muhammad Shirazi see Mulla Sadra
Molla Sadra see Mulla Sadra
Sadrol Mote'allehin see Mulla Sadra
Mulla Sadra (Sadr al-Din Shirazi) (Ṣadr ad-Dīn Muḥammad Shīrāzī) (Molla Sadra) (Mollasadra) (Sadrol Mote'allehin) (1571-1640/1641). Persian philosopher. His Secrets is widely regarded in Iran as the most advanced text in the field of mystical philosophy.
Mulla Sadra was born into a noble Persian family. His life coincided with the reign of Shah Abbas the First, during whose rule Shi‘ism and the propagation of Islamic law, philosophy, and theology reached its climax in Iran. He devoted himself to the study of the intellectual sciences -- in particular, the philosophies of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Suhrawardi, and the Neoplatonists, especially Ibn ‘Arabi. His intense studies of philosophy intimidated some of the orthodox jurists who held much political power and who regarded philosophy as a heretical activity. Due to the hostility of the orthodoxy to his serious pursuit of philosophy by the studying and teaching of it, Mulla Sadra was forced to leave Isfahan, where he had been studying, and move to a small village outside of the city of Qum. In exile, Mulla Sadra spent twelve years in contemplation and ascetic practices, which led to the strengthening of his intellectual intuition (dhawq).
Mulla Sadra is important in the history of Islamic philosophy for several reasons. First, his work, in particular his magnum opus, the al-Afsar al-arba ‘ah (The Four Journeys of the Soul), is a compendium of the history of Islamic philosophy. Having presented the ideas of his predecessors in great detail, Mulla Sadra goes on to offer a thorough examination and critique of their philosophical ideas. Second, Mulla Sadra consolidated the School of Isfahan, which his teacher Mir Damad had established. This philosophical school was a turning point in the history of Islamic philosophy in Iran and produced some of the greatest masters of Islamic philosophy. The philosophical tradition of the School of Isfahan that was perfected by such masters as Mulla Sadra came to be known as “transcendental wisdom” (al-hikmat al-muti‘aliya), a rapprochement of discursive reasoning, intellectual intuition and practical wisdom.
Mulla Sadra wrote three distinct types of works: commentaries on the Qur’an and hadith, polemical works, and philosophical treatises. His commentaries on various verses of the Qur’an, such as the verses on light, is an indication of his esoteric reading of the scripture. He also wrote a monumental commentary upon the sayings of the Shi‘ite Imams, bringing out their more esoteric aspects. His polemics are directed towards the anti-nomian Sufis and their violations of the religious law. Finally, there are the philosophical writings of Mulla Sadra, most of which were written for the intellectual elite and the learned scholars who had sufficient training in traditional Islamic philosophy.
Mulla Sadra synthesized the theological (kalam) discussions, Ibn Sinan (Avicennian) metaphysics, and the mystical thoughts of Ibn ‘Arabi. The result is a tradition of wisdom that relates to the traditional concerns of the theologians, the discursive reasoning of the philosophers, and the direct experience of the Sufis. Mulla Sadra in particular was influenced by two figures, Ibn Sina, the philosopher of Being, and Suhrawardi, the philosopher of light and the founder of the School of Illumination (Ishraq) in Islamic philosophy. Mulla Sadra interprets Ibn Sinan philosophy from a Suhrawardian point of view while making some fundamental revisions in Suhrawardi’s ontology.
Theology, which by the time of Mulla Sadra was well developed, relied on the same vocabulary as that of the philosophers. Mulla Sadra takes note of the similarity in the use of technical terms by philosophers and theologians and of their methodologies. The second point Mulla Sadra alludes to is that Islamic theology is developed, not as an independent branch of intellectual sciences, but as a discipline that is primarily concerned with Islamic law.
Mulla Sadra, in his treatment of kalam, adopts a two-pronged approach, arguing against the theological methodology on one hand while affirming the truth of the objectives of the theologians on the other. Mulla Sadra demonstrates how and why it is that theological arguments fail to prove their purported conclusions while at the same time he is careful not to question the validity of the theological beliefs. In his work on the problem of eternity versus creation in time and the problem of bodily resurrection, Mulla Sadra brings some of the controversial positions of philosophers closer to the views of the theologians.
Mulla Sadra retains the general structure of the Ibn Sinan philosophy that asserts the existence of the Necessary Being and the gradations of Being that emanate from the Necessary Being. However, he departs from Ibn Sina by putting more emphasis on the centrality of a personal insight leading to the discoveries of the immutable principles of philosophy. It is precisely these experiences that serve as the foundation upon which Sadrian philosophy is established. Whereas Ibn Sinan principles are derived from discursive philosophy and his logic is based on rationalization of philosophical categories, Mulla Sadra’s “logic of transcendence” is derived from his mots inward and noetic insight. Mulla Sadra refers to these principles as the “Principles of Oriental Philosophy” (Qa‘ida Mashraqiyah) and “Transcendental Principles” (Qa‘ida Laduniya).
Mulla Sadra was profoundly influenced by the mystics of Islam, both by theoretical and practical dimensions of Sufism. With regard to theoretical Sufism, Mulla Sadra was highly influenced by Ibn ‘Arabi, the great Andalusian mystic. In fact, a great number of the technical terminologies that Mulla Sadra uses are borrowed from Ibn ‘Arabi and his massive commentary upon Islamic gnosticism. In particular, Mulla Sadra finds Ibn ‘Arabi’s treatment of such issues as human understanding of the experience of the divine and various problems associated with that understanding to be quite illuminating.
As to the practical aspects of the Sufi path, Mulla Sadra endorses asceticism as part of the path of knowledge whle he rejects the excesses and the antinomian practices of the Sufis.
Mulla Sadra divides knowledge into two types -- that which is learned by sense perception or instruction and that which is learned through intellectual intuition, a mode of knowledge marked by directness and the absence of mediation. The knowledge that is learned through the senses or instruction itself is divided into the traditional divisions of knowledge most commonly held by the Peripatetics, namely, theoretical and practical. The theoretical sciences consist of logic, mathematics, natural philosophy, and metaphysics; practical wisdom includes ethics, politics, and economics.
Mulla Sadra goes on to subdivide the sciences, leading to a unified theory of knowledge, which despite the multiplicity of different branches of knowledge leads the intellect to that knowledge of unity that lies at the heart of Sadrian philosophy. This view of knowledge (hikmah) integrates various modes of knowing, including that of practical wisdom, since knowledge for Mulla Sadra is not only informative but also transformative.
Mulla Sadra, whose encyclopedic knowledge of Islamic philosophy provided him with the basis for illuminating analyses of the philosophical ideas of his predecessors, makes three major contributions to the field of Islamic philosophy. They include (1) his commentary on Being, leading to the Doctrine of the Unity of Being, (2) his account of the occurrence of change in motion, known as “Substantial Motion,” and (3) his theory of the unity of the knower, the known, and knowledge itself.
Mulla Sadra takes issue with Suhrawardi, the founder of the School of Illumination, and his own teacher Mir Damad, reversing their scheme based on the principality of essence (mahiyyah) over existence (wujud). He argues that existence is the primary and principal aspect of an existent being and that essences are accidents of Being. Furthermore, Existence or Being (which for most of the Islamic philosophers, including Mulla Sadra, are the same) has an independent existence, whereas essences are contingent upon Being and therefore without a reality of their own.
Regarding the classical divisions of Being, Mulla Sadra accepts Ibn Sina’s division of Being into necessary, contingent, and impossible. Mulla Sadra also elaborates on copulative and non-copulative Being. Copulative Being is that which connects the subject to the predicate such as in “Socrates is a philosopher.” The term “is” here has a twofold function -- a copulative one, which connects the adjective of being a philosopher to Socrates, and a second one, namely, the existential function, which alludes to the existence of an existent being, in this case Socrates. Mulla Sadra, who is interested in the latter use of “is,” argues that “is” in the corporeal world is always copulative except for the Being of God, who is pure and without essences.
Mulla Sadra accepts Plato’s concept of archetypes as the “master of species” (arbab al-anwa’). According to Mulla Sadra, the corporeal world as a level of Being derives its characteristics from the archetypal world. The separation of the corporeal world from its archetypal world leads to the principle of “the possibility of that which is superior” (Qa‘ida imkan al-ashraf), a principle for which Mulla Sadra is known. This principle entails that for everything that journeys from the imperfect to perfect in the material world, there is its cosmic counterpart in the incorporeal world.
Mulla Sadra’s criticism of the Illuminationists goes beyond the priority and principality of existence over essence and includes the theory of hylomorphism. Accordingly, matter manifests itself in various domains of existence according to the ontological status of each level. Whereas the world of objects is immersed in the lowest level of matter, the soul belongs to a higher level of matter suitable for it. This process continues until it culminates in the intelligible world, where realities are completely free from matter.
Mulla Sadra is unique in the history of Islamic philosophy in that he allows for motion to exist in substance (al-harakat al-jawhariyyah). This is a deviation from Ibn Sina (Avicenna), who considered motion in substance to lead to a continuous change and the loss of that which constitutes the identity of a thing.
Mulla Sadra uses a number of arguments in support of his theory of the existence of motion in substance. When an apple has become ripe, it is not only the accidents that have changed, but the substance of the apple must have changed as well. In fact, when a potentiality becomes actualized, Mulla Sadra argues, it signifies a change both in accidents and in substance. Mulla Sadra states that for every change that occurs in accident, there has to be a corresponding change in substance, for accidents depend on their substance for their properties. Therefore, change in an apple is an example of the created order and signifies several points: first, that the world is like a river that is constantly in a state of flux; second, change occurs out of necessity and nothing remains the same except God; third, this change is not an accident in the universe, but is part of its very nature. This change, according to Mulla Sadra, acts as a force that moves the universe towards becoming; becoming is fundamentally a spiritual journey that all beings yearn for and accounts for both the ripening of an apple as well as for the yearning of the human being for transcendence.
Mulla Sadra uses the notion of Substantial Motion to shed light on the concept of time. For Mulla Sadra, as for Aristotle, time is the quantity of motion, except that for Mulla Sadra the change in quantity is the quantity of change in substance. Time is not to be viewed only quantitatively but has an ontological aspect as well. Motion in substance is also the measurement of the perfection and therefore has a purpose and direction, and carries a sense of necessity with it.
The fact that all things are in motion and that motion goes from less perfect to more perfect is an indication for Mulla Sadra that the entire universe is yearing for the ultimate perfection, God. This view also entails tha in some sense the universe is conscious of its own state of being and yearns for an eventual unity with its origin. Since Substantial Motion also entails that the identity of the object in question is always changing, Mulla Sadra concludes that this type of motion brings about a type of creation at every given moment. In other words, God through Substantial Motion creates the universe instantaneously at every moment. The Reality of God manifests itself through creation, which then goes through successive creations.
What Mulla Sadra was trying to achieve was to bring about a rapprochement between the Peripatetic who argued for the eternity of the world and the theologian view who insisted on creation ex nihilo. According to Mulla Sadra, the world as an extension of God has always existed, but yet it was created in time that ceases to exist, and is then recreated.
The unity of the knower, the known, and knowledge is deeply embedded in the Sadrian philosophy. Since God’s essence and Being are the same and all things emanate from God, God is at once the knower, the known, and the knowledge.
From the above it follows that in order for any person to achieve a similar status, one has to achieve unity with God. The reverse is also true: anyone who attains the knowledge of unity is in his or her very being the knower, the known, and the knowledge; in knowing unity, one has become unified. It is for this reason that Mulla Sadra’s al-Asfar al-arba ‘ah (the Four Journeys of the Soul) alludes to the spiritual journey of the soul from the time that it departs from God until it achieves unity once again.
Mulla Sadra not only offers complex philosophical arguments but also uses gnostic imagery as a mirror representing Divine Essence within which God witnesses the essence of all things. Although Mulla Sadra never explicitly states that unity with God is the necessary condition of knowledge, the thrust of his philosophy is such that this notion is implied.
Mulla Sadra and his teachings were a turning point in the history of Islamic philosophy. One of the greatest achievements of Mulla Sadra was the training of several students who themselves became masters of Islamic philosophy and propagators of Sadrian philosophy. Among them we can name ‘Abd al-Razzaq Lahiji, Mulla Muhsin Fayd Kashani, and Qadi Sa‘id Qummi.
Sadrian philosophy, which had gone through a period of decline, was once again revived in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Iran by such notable figures as Sabziwari, Ali Nuri, Ahsa’i, and the Zunuzi family. The teaching of Mulla Sadra and his students was well received by the Islamic philosophers of the subcontinent of India, and some of his books became the official texts of traditional schools. Islamic philosophy today in Iran and the eastern parts of the Islamic world is still under the influence of Mulla Sadra and his teachings.
Sadra, Mulla see Mulla Sadra
Sadr al-Din Shirazi see Mulla Sadra
Shirazi, Sadr al-Din see Mulla Sadra
Sadr ad-Din Muhammad Shirazi see Mulla Sadra
Molla Sadra see Mulla Sadra
Sadrol Mote'allehin see Mulla Sadra
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Saladin
Saladin (al-Malik al-Nasir Salah al-Din Yusuf) (Salah al-Din) (Yusuf Salah ad-Din ibn Ayyub) (Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb -- “Righteousness of the Faith, Joseph, Son of Job”) (b. 1137/38, Tikrīt, Mesopotamia [now in Iraq] — d. March 4, 1193, Damascus [now in Syria]). Ayyubid ruler and Sultan of Egypt and Syria. He was a Kurdish Muslim and led the Islamic opposition to the Third Crusade.At the height of his power, the Ayyubid dynasty he founded, ruled over Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Hijaz, and Yemen. He led Muslim resistance to the European Crusaders and eventually recaptured Palestine from the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. As such, Saladin is a notable figure in Arab, Kurdish, and Muslim culture.
Saladin was a strict practitioner of Sunni Islam. He did not maim, kill or retaliate against those whom he defeated, with the notable exception of certain events following the Battle of Hattin. His generally chivalrous behavior was noted by Christian chroniclers, especially in the accounts of the siege of Krak in Moab.
Saladin came from a predominantly Kurdish background and ancestry. His family lived in Tikrit, Iraq, where he was born during the Islamic world's Golden Age. His father, Najm ad-Din Ayyub, was banned from Tikrit and moved to Mosul where he met Imad ad-Din Zengi, the Turkish atabeg (regent) of Mosul. At the time, Imad ad-Din Zengi, the founder of the Zengid dynasty, was also the leader of Muslim forces against the Crusaders in Edessa. Imad ad-Din Zengi appointed Najm ad-Din as the commander of his fortress in Baalbek. After the death of Imad ad-Din Zengi in 1146, his son, Nur ad-Din, became the regent of Mosul. Saladin received his name from Nur ad-Din and was sent to Damascus to continue his education and this was where he also completed his educational studies. Several sources claim that during his studies he was more interested in religion than joining the military. Another factor which may have affected his interest in religion was that, during the First Crusade in 1099, Jerusalem was taken by force from the Christians by surprise when the Islamic world had done nothing to start the offensive. Muslim culture and the city were pillaged. Much of Muslim culture would lay in ruins for over one hundred years. It would be Saladin who would later rebel against Christian-held Jerusalem to win back the city.
The career of Saladin in the military began when his uncle Asad al-Din Shirkuh started training him. Shirkuh was an important military commander under the emir Nur al-Din, who was the son and successor of Zengi. Saladin accompanied Shirkuh during three military expeditions led by Shirkuh into Egypt to prevent its falling to the Latin Christian Crusaders who already ruled Jerusalem. In 1154, Saladin went with his uncle Shirkuh to the court of the Zangid Nur al-Din Mahmud at Damascus, accompanied him on his military mission to Egypt in 1164, and again in 1168, when he withstood the siege of Alexandria by Amalric I, king of Jerusalem. When the latter besieged Cairo, the last Fatimid Caliph al-‘Adid li-Din Allah sent for assistance to Nur al-Din, while his vizier Shawar negotiated with Amalric. Shirkuh and Saladin were hailed at Cairo as rescuers, and Saladin had Shawar executed as a traitor. The caliph appointed Shirkuh as vizier and, when the latter died after two months, he appointed Saladin as such and gave him the title “al-Malik al-Nasir.”
Saladin's aims were to secure power for himself and his family, to put down Shi‘ism and to fight the Crusaders to the utmost. He attained these aims to a great degree.
He put down a rebellion of the caliph’s black guards and in 1169 resisted the siege of Damietta by Amalric, who was assisted by a fleet from Constantinople and an auxiliary force from southern Italy. In 1171, Saladin abolished the ineffective Shi'ite Fatimid caliphate and led a return to Sunni Islam in Egypt. When the caliph died in 1171, Saladin had the 'ulama pronounce the name of al-Mustadi bi-Amr Allah, the Sunni -- and, more importantly, 'Abbasid -- caliph in Baghdad at sermon before Friday prayers (salat) instead of the name of the Shi'a Fatimid Caliph. Thus, the Fatimids and Shi‘ism came to an end in Egypt.
Saladin effectively ruled Egypt, but officially as the representative of the Turkish Seljuk ruler Nur ad-Din, who himself conventionally recognized the 'Abbasid caliph. Although he remained for a time a vassal of Nur ad-Din, and although their relationship became strained, the relationship only came to an end in 1174 when Nur ad-Din died.
After the death of Nur ad-Din, Saladin quickly used the emir's rich agricultural possessions in Egypt as a financial base. He defeated the Normans of Sicily, who had landed at Alexandria, and captured an enormous booty. He then turned his attention to Syria.
On two occasions, in 1170 and 1172, Saladin retreated from an invasion of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. These had been launched by Nur ad-Din and Saladin hoped that the Crusader kingdom would remain intact, as a buffer state between Egypt and Syria, until Saladin could gain control of Syria as well. Nur ad-Din and Saladin were headed towards open war on these counts when Nur ad-Din died in 1174. Nur ad-Din's heir, as-Salih Ismail al-Malik, was a mere boy in the hands of court eunuchs, and died in 1181.
Immediately after Nur ad-Din's death in 1174, Saladin marched on Damascus and was welcomed into the city. He reinforced his legitimacy there in the time-honored way, by marrying Nur ad-Din's widow Ismat ad-Din Khatun. Aleppo and Mosul, on the other hand, the two other largest cities that Nur ad-Din had ruled, were never taken but Saladin managed to impose his influence and authority on them in 1176 and 1186 respectively. While he was occupied in besieging Aleppo, on May 22, 1176, the shadowy Ismaili assassin group, the Hashshashin, attempted to murder him. They made two attempts on his life, the second time coming close enough to inflict wounds.
While Saladin was consolidating his power in Syria, he usually left the Crusader kingdom alone, although he was generally victorious whenever he did meet the Crusaders in battle. One exception was the Battle of Montgisard on November 25, 1177, where he was defeated by the combined forces of Baldwin IV of Jerusalem, Raynald of Chatillon and the Knights Templar. Only one tenth of his army made it back to Egypt.
Saladin spent the subsequent year recovering from his defeat and rebuilding his army, renewing his attacks in 1179 when he defeated the Crusaders at the Battle of Jacob's Ford, after which a truce was declared between Saladin and the Crusader States in 1180. However, Crusader counter-attacks provoked further responses by Saladin. Raynald of Chatillon, in particular, harassed Muslim trading and pilgrimage routes with a fleet on the Red Sea, a water route that Saladin needed to keep open. In response, Saladin constructed a fleet of 30 galleys to attack Beirut in 1182. Raynald threatened to attack the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. In retaliation, Saladin twice besieged Kerak, Raynald's fortress in Oultrejordain, in 1183 and 1184. Raynald responded by looting a caravan of pilgrims on the Hajj in 1185.
Following the failure of his Kerak sieges, Saladin temporarily turned his attention back to another long-term project and resumed attacks on the territory of 'Izz ad-Din (Mas'ud ibn Mawdud ibn Zangi), around Mosul, which he had begun with some success in 1182. However, since then, Mas'ud had allied himself with the powerful governor of Azerbaijan and Jibal, who in 1185 began moving his troops across the Zagros Mountains, causing Saladin to hesitate in his attacks. The defenders of Mosul, when they became aware that help was on the way, increased their efforts, and Saladin subsequently fell ill, so in March 1186, a peace treaty was signed.
In July 1187, Saladin captured most of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. On July 4, 1187, Saladin faced at the Battle of Hattin the combined forces Guy of Lusignan, King Consort of Jerusalem and Raymond III of Tripoli. In this battle alone, the Crusader army was largely annihilated by the motivated army of Saladin in what was a major disaster for the Crusaders and a turning point in the history of the Crusades. Saladin captured Raynald de Chatillon and was personally responsible for his execution in retaliation for previously attacking Muslim pilgrim caravans. Guy of Lusignan was also captured but his life was spared. However, that night with uncharacteristic cruelty, Saladin ordered the execution of the hundred or so Templar and Hospitaller knights among the prisoners. Because of their religious devotion and rigorous training, they were the most feared of the Christian soldiers. Seated on a dais before his army, Saladin watched as the executions were carried out.
Saladin captured almost every Crusader city. Jerusalem capitulated to his forces on October 2, 1187 after a siege. Before the siege, Saladin had offered generous terms of surrender, which were rejected. After the sieged had started, he was unwilling to promise terms of quarter to the European occupants of Jerusalem until Balian of Ibelin threatened to kill every Muslim hostage, estimated at 5000 and to destroy Islam's holy shrines of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque if quarter was not given. Saladin consulted his council and the terms of the Crusader surrender were again offered. Ransom was to be paid for each Frank in the city whether man, woman or child. Saladin allowed many to leave without having the required amount for ransom for others.
Tyre, on the coast of modern-day Lebanon was the last major Crusader city that was not captured by Muslim forces (strategically, it would have made more sense for Saladin to capture Tyre before Jerusalem -- however, Saladin chose to pursue Jerusalem first because of the importance of the city to Islam). The city was now commanded by Conrad of Montferrat, who strengthened Tyre's defenses and withstood two sieges by Saladin. In 1188, at Tortosa, Saladin released Guy of Lusignan and returned him to his wife, Queen Sibylla of Jerusalem. They went first to Tripoli, then to Antioch. In 1189, they sought to reclaim Tyre for their kingdom, but were refused admission by Conrad, who did not recognize Guy as king. Guy then set about besieging Acre.
Hattin and the fall of Jerusalem prompted the Third Crusade, financed in England by a special "Saladin tithe." Richard I of England led Guy's siege of Acre, conquered the city and executed 3000 Muslim prisoners including women and children. Saladin retaliated by killing all Franks captured from August 28 to September 10.
The armies of Saladin engaged in combat with the army of King Richard I of England at the Battle of Arsuf on September 7, 1191, at which Saladin was defeated. However, all attempts made by Richard I -- Richard the Lionheart -- to re-take Jerusalem failed. Nevertheless, Saladin's relationship with Richard was one of chivalrous mutual respect as well as military rivalry. When Richard became ill with fever, Saladin offered the services of his personal physician. Saladin also sent him fresh fruit and fruit juice, with snow to chill the drink as treatment. At Arsuf, when Richard lost his horse, Saladin sent him two replacements. Richard suggested to Saladin that Palestine, Christian and Muslim, could be united through the marriage of his sister to Saladin's brother, and that Jerusalem could be their wedding gift. Ironically, the two men never met face to face and communication was either written or by messenger.
As leaders of their respective factions, the two men came to an agreement in the Treaty of Ramla in 1192, whereby Jerusalem would remain in Muslim hands but would be open to Christian pilgrimages. The treaty reduced the Latin Kingdom to a strip along the coast from Tyre to Jaffa. This treaty was supposed to last three years.
Saladin died of a fever on March 4, 1193, at Damascus, not long after Richard's departure. When they opened Saladin's treasury they found there was not enough money to pay for his funeral. He had given most of his money away in charity.
Saladin is buried in a mausoleum in the garden outside the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, Syria. Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany donated a new marble sarcophagus to the mausoleum. The body of Saladin, however, was not placed in it. Instead, the mausoleum, which is open to visitors, now has two sarcophagi: one empty in marble and one in wood containing the body of Saladin.
Despite his fierce struggle against the crusades, Saladin achieved a great reputation in Europe as a chivalrous knight, so much so that there existed by the fourteenth century an epic poem about his exploits, and Dante included him among the virtuous pagan souls in Limbo. Saladin is portrayed in a sympathetic light in Sir Walter Scott's The Talisman (1825). Despite the Crusaders' slaughter of Muslims when they originally conquered Jerusalem in 1099, Saladin granted amnesty and free passage to all common Catholics and even to the defeated Christian army, as long as they were able to pay a ransom. Indeed, Greek Orthodox Christians were treated even better, because they often opposed the western Crusaders.
Notwithstanding the differences in beliefs, the Muslim Saladin was respected by Christian lords, especially Richard the Lionheart. Richard once praised Saladin as a great prince, saying that he was without doubt the greatest and most powerful leader in the Islamic world. Saladin, in turn, stated that there was not a more honorable Christian lord than Richard. After the treaty, Saladin and Richard sent each other many gifts as tokens of respect, even though they never met face to face.
In April 1191, a Frankish woman's three month old baby had been stolen from her camp and had been sold on the market. The Franks urged her to approach Saladin herself with her grievance. After Saladin used his own money to buy the child, he gave the child to its mother. She took the child and with tears streaming down her face, she suckled the child to her breast. The Muslim people watched her with her child and they wept. The woman suckled the child for some time and then Saladin ordered a horse to be fetched for her and she went back to the Christian camp.
The name Salah ad-Din means "Righteousness of Faith," and through the ages Saladin has been an inspiration for Muslims in many respects. Modern Muslim rulers have sought to commemorate Saladin through various measures. A governorate centered around Tikrit and Samarra in modern day Iraq, Salah ad-Din Governorate, is named after Saladin, as is Salahaddin University in Arbil. A suburb community of Arbil, Masif Salahaddin, is also named after him.
Few structures associated with Saladin survive within modern cities. Saladin first fortified the Citadel of Cairo (1175-1183), which had been a domed pleasure pavilion with a fine view in more peaceful times. In Syria, even the smallest city is centered on a defensible citadel, and Saladin introduced this essential feature to Egypt.
Among the forts Saladin constructed was Qalaat al-Gindi, a mountaintop fortress and caravanserai in the Sinai. The fortress overlooks a large wadi which was the convergence of several caravan routes that linked Egypt and the Middle East. Inside the structure are a number of large vaulted rooms hewn out of rock, including the remains of shops and a water cistern. A notable archaeological site, it was excavated in 1909 by a French team under Jules Barthoux.
Although the Ayyubid dynasty he founded would only outlive him by fifty-seven years, the legacy of Saladin within the Arab World continues to this day. With the rise of Arab nationalism in the Twentieth Century, particularly with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Saladin's heroism and leadership gained a new significance. The glory and comparative unity of the Arab World under Saladin was seen as the perfect symbol for the new unity sought by Arab nationalists, such as Gamal Abdel Nasser. For this reason, the Eagle of Saladin became the symbol of revolutionary Egypt, and was subsequently adopted by several other Arab states (Iraq, Palestine, and Yemen).
A brief chronology of Saladin reads as follows:
Saladin was born in Tikrit in Iraq, the son of the Kurdish chief Ayyub in 1138. In 1152, he began to work in the service of the Syrian ruler, Nur ad-Din (Nureddin).
In 1164, he started to show his military and strategical qualities under three campaigns against the Crusaders who were established in Palestine, with the first campaign this year.
In 1169, Saladin served as second to the commander in chief of the Syrian army, his uncle Shirkuh. Shirkuh became vizier of Egypt, but died after only two months. Saladin then took over as vizier. Despite the nominal limitations to the vizier position, Saladin took little regard to the interests of his superiors, the Fatimid rulers. He turned Cairo into an Ayyubid power base, where he used Kurds in leading positions.
In 1171, Saladin suppressed the Fatimid rulers of Egypt, whereupon he united Egypt with the Abbasid Caliphate. However, he was not as eager as Nur ad-Din to go to war against the Crusaders, and relations between him and Nur ad-Din became very difficult.
In 1173, Saladin sent his brother, Turan-Shah, to Yemen, which was subjugated.
In 1174, Nur ad-Din died, and Saladin used the opportunity to extend his power base. Saladin defeated the Normans of Sicily, who had landed at Alexandria, and captured an enormous booty. Saladin turned his attention to Syria, where he defeated the troops of Nur ad-Din’s son al-Salih Isma‘il (r. 1174-1181) at Qurun Hamat, but left al-Salih Isma'il in the possession of Aleppo and gave Hamat, Homs and Ba‘albek, which had surrendered, to relatives as fiefs. In 1175, he was granted by the caliph rule over Egypt, Nubia, Yemen, North Africa from Egypt to Tripoli, Palestine and Central Syria. After a final attempt by the Zangids against him in 1176, he made peace with them. He was however unable to take the fortress of Masyad in central Syria from Shaykh Rashid al-Din al-Sinan, the leader of the Syrian branch of the Isma‘ilis and known to the West as “the Old Man of the Mountain.” The latter promised Saladin that he would not attack him.
In 1175, the Syrian Assassin leader Rashideddin’s men made two attempts on the life of Saladin, the leader of the Ayyubids. The second time, the Assassin came so close that wounds were inflicted upon Saladin.
In 1176, Saladin besieged the fortress of Masyaf, the stronghold of Rashideddin. After some weeks, Saladin suddenly withdrew, and left the Assassins in peace for the rest of his life. It is believed that he was exposed to a threat of having his entire family murdered.
In 1177, he met at Ramla the troops of Baldwin IV, reinforced by many Knights under the leadership of Raynald de Chatillon of al-Karak. Saladin suffered a crushing defeat. But the next year (1178) he was able to defeat Baldwin, and again in 1179. In the following years, he gained suzerainty over Mesopotamia.
In 1183, Saladin signed a four years’ peace with Baldwin V, who was soon succeeded by Guy de Lusignan. But when Raynald de Chatillon fell upon a large caravan and refused to give any satisfaction, fight became inevitable.
In 1183, Saladin conquered the important north Syrian city of Aleppo.
In 1186, Saladin conquered Mosul in northern Iraq.
In 1187, with his new strength, he attacked the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, and after three months of fighting he seized control of the city. On July 4, 1187, at the Battle of Hattin (Hittin), the Crusaders were utterly defeated. Saladin gave Guy de Lusignan a friendly reception, but slew Raynald with his own hand, and hall the Templars and Knights of St. John executed. He now was master of Palestine, including Tiberias, Nazareth, Samaria, Sidon, Beyrouth, Acre, Ramla, Gaza. Hebron also fell into his hands, and on October 2, 1187, Jerusalem was conquered. The inhabitants who could not pay the ransom were sold into slavery, but many were released at the intercession of Muslim and Christian persons of standing, as were a large number of poor people by Saladin himself. Only Antioch, Tripolis, Tyre and a number of smaller towns and castles remained in the possession of the Christians. At the siege of Tyre, Saladin suffered a severe reverse. He had Acre rebuilt, and in 1188 went to Damascus from where he captured many places.
In 1189, a third Crusade managed to enlarge the coastal area of Palestine, while Jerusalem remained under Saladin’s control.
In 1192, with The Peace of Ramla, an armistice agreement with King Richard I of England, a strip of land along the coast was defined as Christian land, while the city of Jerusalem remained under Muslim control.
Saladin died of a fever on March 4, 1193, at Damascus, not long after Richard's departure.
Since Saladin had given most of his possessions and money away for charity, when they opened his treasury, they found there was not enough money to pay for his funeral.
Saladin was buried in a mausoleum in the garden outside the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, Syria.
Seven centuries later, Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany donated a new marble sarcophagus to the mausoleum. Saladin was, however, not placed in it. Instead the mausoleum, which is open to visitors, now has two sarcophagi: one, empty made of marble and the original, which holds Saladin, which is made of wood. The reason why Saladin was not placed in the tomb was most likely respect and a desire to not disturb his body.
According to Imad al-Din, Saladin had fathered five sons before he left Egypt in 1174. Saladin's eldest son, al-Afdal was born in 1170 and Uthman was born in 1172 to Shamsa who accompanied Saladin to Syria. Al-Afdal's mother bore Saladin another child in 1177. A letter preserved by Qalqashandi records that a twelfth son was born in May 1178, while on Imad al-Din's list, he appears as Saladin's seventh son. Mas'ud was born in 1175 and Yaq'ub in 1176, the latter to Shamsa. Nur al-Din's widow, Ismat al-Din Khatun, remarried to Saladin in September 1176. Ghazi and Da'ud were born to the same mother in 1173 and 1178, respectively, and the mother of Ishaq who was born in 1174 also gave birth to another son in July 1182.
His fierce struggle against the crusaders was where Saladin achieved a great reputation in Europe as a chivalrous knight, so much so that there existed by the fourteenth century an epic poem about his exploits. Though Saladin faded into history after the Middle Ages, he appears in a sympathetic light in Sir Walter Scott's novel The Talisman (1825). It is mainly from this novel that the contemporary view of Saladin originates. Despite the Crusaders' slaughter when they originally conquered Jerusalem in 1099, Saladin granted amnesty and free passage to all common Catholics and even to the defeated Christian army, as long as they were able to pay the aforementioned ransom (the Greek Orthodox Christians were treated even better, because they often opposed the western Crusaders). An interesting view of Saladin and the world in which he lived is provided by Tariq Ali's novel The Book of Saladin. Though contemporary views on Saladin are often positive, Saladin's qualities are often exaggerated, mainly under influence of the image created during the 19th Century.
Notwithstanding the differences in beliefs, the Muslim Saladin was respected by Christian lords, Richard especially. Richard once praised Saladin as a great prince, saying that he was without doubt the greatest and most powerful leader in the Islamic world. Saladin in turn stated that there was not a more honorable Christian lord than Richard. After the treaty, Saladin and Richard sent each other many gifts as tokens of respect, but never met face to face.
In April 1191, a Frankish woman's three month old baby had been stolen from her camp and had been sold on the market. The Franks urged her to approach Saladin herself with her grievance. According to Bahā' al-Dīn, Saladin used his own money to buy the child back:
In 1898 German Emperor Wilhelm II visited Saladin's tomb to pay his respects. The visit, coupled with anti-colonial sentiments, led nationalist Arabs to reinvent the image of Saladin and portray him as a hero of the struggle against the West. The image of Saladin they used was the romantic one created by Walter Scott and other Europeans in the West at the time, as Saladin had been a figure entirely forgotten in the Muslim world. This was mainly because of Saladin's short-lived "quasi-empire" and evident lack of commitment to religion, plus his eclipse by more successful figures such as Baybars of Egypt.
Modern Arab states have sought to commemorate Saladin through various measures, often based on the false image created of him in the 19th century west. A governorate centered around Tikrit and Samarra in modern-day Iraq, Salah ad Din Governorate, is named after him, as is Salahaddin University in Arbil. A suburb community of Arbil, Masif Salahaddin, is also named after him.
Few structures associated with Saladin survive within modern cities. Saladin first fortified the Citadel of Cairo (1175–1183), which had been a domed pleasure pavilion with a fine view in more peaceful times. In Syria, even the smallest city is centered on a defensible citadel, and Saladin introduced this essential feature to Egypt.
Among the forts he built was Qalaat al-Gindi, a mountaintop fortress and caravanserai in the Sinai. The fortress overlooks a large wadi which was the convergence of several caravan routes that linked Egypt and the Middle East. Inside the structure are a number of large vaulted rooms hewn out of rock, including the remains of shops and a water cistern. A notable archaeological site, it was investigated in 1909 by a French team under Jules Barthoux.
Although the Ayyubid dynasty that he founded would only outlive him by 57 years, the legacy of Saladin within the Arab World continues to this day. With the rise of Arab nationalism in the Twentieth Century, particularly with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Saladin's heroism and leadership gained a new significance. Saladin's liberation of Palestine from the European Crusaders was put forth as the inspiration for the modern-day Arabs' opposition to Zionism.
Moreover, the glory and comparative unity of the Arab World under Saladin was seen as the perfect symbol for the new unity sought by Arab nationalists, such as Gamal Abdel Nasser. For this reason, the Eagle of Saladin became the symbol of revolutionary Egypt, and was subsequently adopted by several other Arab states (Iraq, the Palestinian Territory, and Yemen).
Malik al-Nasir Salah al-Din Yusuf, al- see Saladin
Salah al-Din see Saladin
Salah al-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub see Saladin
Yusuf Salah ad-Din ibn Ayyub see Saladin
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Sayyid Ahmad Khan
Ahmad Khan, Sayyid (Sayyid Ahmad Khan) (October 17, 1817 - March 27, 1898). Educational, political, and religious reformer and the major formulator of the modern concept of communal identity among Muslims of India in the latter half of the nineteenth century of the Christian calendar. As founder of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh and leader of the Aligarh movement, he attempted to bring about a synthesis between the culture of the Mughal Empire and the institutions of British rule.
Son of an official of the Mughal court, by then a protectorate of the British East India Company, Sayyid Ahmad was raised in the religious and cultural style of the Mughal literati and scholastic tradition associated with Shah Wali Ullah (Shah Wali Allah). In defiance of the wishes of his elders, he took service as a subordinate official of the British regime in 1836 and spent the next forty years of his life posted in a series of small North Indian towns. At the same time, he was editor of one of the first Urdu newspapers and author of religious and historical works. During the 1857 Revolt, he remained a staunch supporter of British rule, but afterwards published a sharp critique of British policies and attitudes.
During the 1860s, Sayyid Ahmad became an active public leader, journalist, and orator, as well as the founder of a series of schools and associations, all aimed at reconciling British and Indian ideologies and institutions. He established a Scientific Society in 1864, which moved to Aligarh the following year, dedicated to translating European historical and scientific works into Urdu and publishing older works of Indian and Islamic scholarship.
Following a trip to England in 1869/1870 Sayyid Ahmad became determined to establish an autonomous Indian Muslim educational system, which would prepare a new intellectual leadership grounded in Western knowledge as well as in a reformed Islam. Although his religious liberalism inspired intense opposition, the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh, founded in 1875, became a center and symbol of a new concept of communal unity for Indian Muslims.
In 1887, “Sir Syed,” as he came to be known, led a movement of opposition to the Indian National Congress, arguing that its program was inconsistent with the nature of Indian society and the interests of Muslims. After his death, these opinions were deemed a charter for separatist Muslim politics, although Sayyid Ahmad represented more the imperial ideologies of the Mughals and British than the religious nationalism of the movement that led to the creation of the state of Pakistan.
Syed Ahmed Khan (also Sayyid Ahmad Khan), commonly known as "Sir Syed," was an Indian educator and politician, and an Islamic reformer and modernist. Syed Ahmed pioneered modern education for the Muslim community in India by founding the Muhammedan Anglo-Oriental College, which later developed into the Aligarh Muslim University. His work gave rise to a new generation of Muslim intellectuals and politicians who composed the Aligarh movement to secure the political future of Muslims in India.
Born into Mughal nobility, Syed Ahmed earned a reputation as a distinguished scholar while working as a jurist for the British East India Company. During the Indian Rebellion of 1857, he remained loyal to the British and was noted for his actions in saving European lives. After the rebellion, he penned the booklet Asbab-e-Bhaghawath-e-Hind ("The Causes of the Indian Mutiny") — a daring critique, at the time, of British policies that he blamed for causing the revolt. Believing that the future of Muslims was threatened by the rigidity of their orthodox outlook, Syed Ahmed began promoting Western-style scientific education by founding modern schools and journals and organising Muslim intellectuals. Towards this goal, Syed Ahmed founded the Muhammedan Anglo-Oriental College in 1875 with the aim of promoting social and economic development of Indian Muslims.
One of the most influential Muslim politicians of his time, Syed Ahmed was suspicious of the Indian independence movement and called upon Muslims to loyally serve the British Raj. He denounced nationalist organisations such as the Indian National Congress, instead forming organisations to promote Muslim unity and pro-British attitudes and activities. Syed Ahmed promoted the adoption of Urdu as the lingua franca of all Indian Muslims, and mentored a rising generation of Muslim politicians and intellectuals. Although hailed as a great Muslim leader and social reformer, Syed Ahmed remains the subject of controversy for his views on Hindu-Muslim issues.
Syed Ahmed Khan Bahadur was born in Delhi, then the capital of the Mughal Empire. His family is said to have migrated from [Herat] (now in [Afghanistan]) in the time of emperor Akbar, although by other accounts his family descended from Arabia. Many generations of his family had since been highly connected with the Mughal administration. His maternal grandfather Khwaja Fariduddin served as wazir in the court of Akbar Shah II. His paternal grandfather Syed Hadi held a mansab, a high-ranking administrative position and honorary name of Jawwad Ali Khan in the court of Alamgir II. Syed's father Mir Muhammad Muttaqi was personally close to Akbar Shah II and served as his personal adviser. However, Syed Ahmed was born at a time when rebellious governors, regional insurrections and the British colonialism had diminished the extent and power of the Mughal state, reducing its monarch to a figurehead status. With his elder brother Syed Muhammad Khan, Syed Ahmed was raised in a large house in a wealthy area of the city. They were raised in strict accordance with Mughal noble traditions and exposed to politics. Their mother Azis-un-Nisa played a formative role in Syed Ahmed's life, raising him with rigid discipline and with a strong emphasis on education. Syed Ahmed was taught to read and understand the Qur'an by a female tutor, which was unusual at the time. He received an education traditional to Muslim nobility in Delhi. Under the charge of Maulvi Hamiduddin, Syed Ahmed was trained in Persian, Arabic, Urdu and religious subjects. He read the works of Muslim scholars and writers such as Sahbai, Rumi and Ghalib. Other tutors instructed him in mathematics, astronomy and Islamic jurisprudence. Syed Ahmed was also adept at swimming, wrestling and other sports. He took an active part in the Mughal court's cultural activities. His elder brother founded the city's first printing press in the Urdu language along with the journal Sayyad-ul-Akbar. Syed Ahmed pursued the study of medicine for several years, but did not complete the prescribed course of study. Until the death of his father in 1838, Syed Ahmed had lived a life customary for an affluent young Muslim noble. Upon his father's death, he inherited the titles of his grandfather and father and was awarded the title of Arif Jung by the emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar. Financial difficulties put an end to Syed Ahmed's formal education, although he continued to study in private, using books on a variety of subjects. Syed Ahmed assumed editorship of his brother's journal and rejected offers of employment from the Mughal court. Having recognised the steady decline in Mughal political power, Syed Ahmed entered the British East India Company's civil service. He was appointed serestadar at the courts of law in Agra, responsible for record-keeping and managing court affairs. In 1840, he was promoted to the title of munshi.
The Social Reformer was a pioneering publication initiated by Syed Ahmed to promote liberal ideas in Muslim society. While continuing to work as a jurist, Syed Ahmed began focusing on writing on various subjects, mainly in Urdu. His career as an author began when he published a series of treatises in Urdu on religious subjects in 1842. He published the book Athar Assanadid ("Great Monuments") documenting antiquities of Delhi dating from the medieval era. This work earned him the reputation of a cultured scholar. In 1842, he completed the Jila-ul-Qulub bi Zikr il Mahbub and the Tuhfa-i-Hasan, along with the Tahsil fi jar-i-Saqil in 1844. These works focused on religious and cultural subjects. In 1852, he published the two works Namiqa dar bayan masala tasawwur-i-Shaikh and Silsilat ul-Mulk. He released the second edition of Athar Assanadid in 1854. He also penned a commentary on the Bible in which he argued that Islam was the closest religion to Christianity, with a common lineage from Abrahamic religions.
Acquainted with high-ranking British officials, Syed Ahmed obtained close knowledge about British colonial politics during his service at the courts. At the outbreak of the Indian rebellion, on May 10, 1857, Syed Ahmed was serving as the chief assessment officer at the court in Bijnor. Northern India became the scene of the most intense fighting. The conflict had left large numbers of civilians dead. Erstwhile centres of Muslim power such as Delhi, Agra, Lucknow and Kanpur were severely affected. Syed Ahmed was personally affected by the violence and the ending of the Mughal dynasty amongst many other long-standing kingdoms. Syed Ahmed and many other Muslims took this as a defeat of Muslim society. He lost several close relatives who died in the violence. Although he succeeded in rescuing his mother from the turmoil, she died in Meerut, owing to the privations she had experienced.
In 1858, Syed Ahmed was appointed to a high-ranking post at the court in Muradabad, where he began working on his most famous literary work. Publishing the booklet Asbab-e-Bhaghawath-e-Hind in 1859, Syed Ahmed studied the causes of the revolt. In this, his most famous work, he rejected the common notion that the conspiracy was planned by Muslim élites, who were insecure at the diminishing influence of Muslim monarchs. Syed Ahmed blamed the British East India Company for its aggressive expansion as well as the ignorance of British politicians regarding Indian culture. However, he gained respect for British power, which he felt would dominate India for a long period of time. Seeking to rehabilitate Muslim political influence, Syed Ahmed advised the British to appoint Muslims to assist in administration. His other writings such as Loyal Muhammadans of India, Tabyin-ul-Kalam and A Series of Essays on the Life of Muhammad and Subjects Subsidiary Therein helped to create cordial relations between the British authorities and the Muslim community.
Through the 1850s, Syed Ahmed Khan began developing a strong passion for education. While pursuing studies of different subjects including European [jurisprudence], Syed Ahmed began to realize the advantages of Western-style education, which was being offered at newly-established colleges across India. Despite being a devout Muslim, Syed Ahmed criticized the influence of traditional dogma and religious orthodoxy, which had made most Indian Muslims suspicious of British influences. Syed Ahmed began feeling increasingly concerned for the future of Muslim communities. A scion of Mughal nobility, Syed Ahmed had been reared in the finest traditions of Muslim élite culture and was aware of the steady decline of Muslim political power across India. The animosity between the British and Muslims before and after the rebellion (Independence War) of 1857 threatened to marginalize Muslim communities across India for many generations. Syed Ahmed intensified his work to promote co-operation with British authorities, promoting loyalty to the Empire amongst Indian Muslims. Committed to working for the uplifting of Muslims, Syed Ahmed founded a modern madrassa in Muradabad in 1859. This was one of the first religious schools to impart scientific education. Syed Ahmed also worked on social causes, helping to organize relief for the famine-struck people of the Northwest Frontier Province in 1860. He established another modern school in Ghazipur in 1863.
Upon his transfer to Aligarh in 1864, Syed Ahmed began working wholeheartedly as an educator. He founded the Scientific Society of Aligarh, the first scientific association of its kind in India. Modelling it after the Royal Society and the Royal Asiatic Society, Syed Ahmed assembled Muslim scholars from different parts of the country. The Society held annual conferences, disbursed funds for educational causes and regularly published a journal on scientific subjects in English and Urdu. Syed Ahmed felt that the socio-economic future of Muslims was threatened by their orthodox aversions to modern science and technology. He published many writings promoting liberal, rational interpretations of Islamic scriptures. However, his view of Islam was rejected by Muslim clergy as contrary to traditional views on issues like jihad, polygamy and animal slaughtering. In face of pressure from religious Muslims, Syed Ahmed avoided discussing religious subjects in his writings, focusing instead on promoting education.
The onset of the Hindi-Urdu controversy of 1867 saw the emergence of Syed Ahmed as a political leader of the Muslim community. He became a leading Muslim voice opposing the adoption of Hindi as a second official language of the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh). Syed Ahmed perceived Urdu as the lingua franca of Muslims. Having been developed by Muslim rulers of India, Urdu was used as a secondary language to Persian, the official language of the Mughal court. Since the decline of the Mughal dynasty, Syed Ahmed promoted the use of Urdu through his own writings. Under Syed Ahmed, the Scientific Society translated Western works only into Urdu. The schools established by Syed Ahmed imparted education in the Urdu medium. The demand for Hindi, led largely by Hindus, was to Syed Ahmed an erosion of the centuries-old Muslim cultural domination of India. Testifying before the British-appointed education commission, Syed Ahmed controversially exclaimed that "Urdu was the language of gentry and Hindi that of the vulgar." His remarks provoked a hostile response from Hindu leaders, who unified across the nation to demand the recognition of Hindi.
The success of the Hindi movement led Syed Ahmed to further advocate Urdu as the symbol of Muslim heritage and as the language of all Indian Muslims. His educational and political work grew increasingly centered around, and exclusively for, Muslim interests. He also sought to persuade the British to give Urdu extensive official use and patronage. His colleagues and protégés such as Mohsin-ul-Mulk and Maulvi Abdul Haq developed organisations such as the Urdu Defence Association and the Anjuman Taraqqi-i-Urdu, committed to the perpetuation of Urdu. Syed Ahmed's protégé Shibli Nomani led efforts that resulted in the adoption of Urdu as the official language of the Hyderabad State and as the medium of instruction in the Osmania University. To Muslims in northern and western India, Urdu had become an integral part of political and cultural identity. However, the division over the use of Hindi or Urdu further provoked communal conflict between Muslims and Hindus in India.
On April 1, 1869, Syed Ahmed travelled to England, where he was awarded the Order of the Star of India from the British government on August 6. Travelling across England, he visited its colleges and was inspired by the culture of learning established after the Renaissance. Syed Ahmed returned to India in the following year determined to build a "Muslim Cambridge." Upon his return, he organized the "Committee for the Better Diffusion and Advancement of Learning among Muhammadans" (Muslims) on December 26, 1870.
By 1873, the committee under Syed Ahmed issued proposals for the construction of a college in Aligarh. He began publishing the journal Tahzib al-Akhlaq (Social Reformer) to spread awareness and knowledge on modern subjects and promote reforms in Muslim society. Syed Ahmed worked to promote re-interpretation of Muslim ideology in order to reconcile tradition with Western education. He argued in several books on Islam that the Qur'an rested on an appreciation of reason and natural law, making scientific inquiry important to being a good Muslim. Syed Ahmed established a modern school in Aligarh and, obtaining support from wealthy Muslims and the British, laid the foundation stone of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College on May 24, 1875. He retired from his career as a jurist the following year, concentrating entirely on developing the college and on religious reform. Syed Ahmed's pioneering work received support from the British. Although intensely criticized by orthodox religious leaders hostile to modern influences, Syed Ahmed's new institution attracted a large student body, mainly drawn from the Muslim gentry and middle classes. The curriculum at the college involved scientific and Western subjects, as well as Oriental subjects and religious education. The first chancellor was Sultan Shah Jahan Begum, a prominent Muslim noblewoman, and Syed Ahmed invited an Englishman, Theodore Beck, to serve as the first college principal. The college was originally affiliated with Calcutta University but was transferred to the Allahabad University in 1885. Near the turn of the 20th century, it began publishing its own magazine and established a law school. In 1920, the college was transformed into a university.
In 1878, Syed Ahmed was nominated to the Viceroy's Legislative Council. He testified before the education commission to promote the establishment of more colleges and schools across India. In the same year, Syed Ahmed founded the Muhammadan Association to promote political co-operation amongst Indian Muslims from different parts of the country. In 1886, he organized the All India Muhammadan Educational Conference in Aligarh, which promoted his vision of modern education and political unity for Muslims. His works made him the most prominent Muslim politician in 19th century India, often influencing the attitude of Muslims on various national issues. He supported the efforts of Indian political leaders Surendranath Banerjea and Dadabhai Naoroji to obtain representation for Indians in the government and civil services. In 1883, he founded the Muhammadan Civil Service Fund Association to encourage and support the entry of Muslim graduates into the Indian Civil Service (ICS).
Syed Ahmed's political views were shaped by a strong aversion to the emerging nationalist movement, which was composed largely of Hindus. Syed Ahmed opposed the Indian National Congress (created in 1885) on the grounds that it was a Hindu-majority organization. Syed Ahmed called on Muslims to stay away from it. While fearful of the loss of Muslim political power owing to the community's backwardness, Syed Ahmed was also averse to the prospect of democratic self-government, which would give control of government to the Hindu-majority population.
Syed Ahmed's fierce criticism of the Congress and Indian nationalists created rifts between Muslims and Hindus. At the same time, Syed Ahmed sought to politically ally Muslims to the British government. An avowed loyalist of the British Empire, Syed Ahmed was nominated as a member of the Civil Service Commission in 1887 by Lord Dufferin. In 1888, he established the United Patriotic Association at Aligarh to promote political co-operation with the British and Muslim participation in the government. Syed Ahmed Khan was knighted by the British government in 1888 and in the following year he received an LL.D. honoris causa from the Edinburgh University.
Syed Ahmed Khan lived the last two decades of his life in Aligarh, regarded widely as the mentor of 19th- and 20th century Muslim intellectuals and politicians. He remained the most influential Muslim politician in India, with his opinions guiding the convictions of a large majority of Muslims. Battling illnesses and old age, Syed Ahmed died on March 27, 1898. He was buried besides Syed Masjid inside the campus of the Aligarh university. His funeral was attended by thousands of students, Muslim leaders and British officials. Syed Ahmed is widely commemorated across South Asia as a great Muslim reformer and visionary.
The university he founded remains one of India's most prominent institutions. Prominent alumni of Aligarh include Muslim political leaders Maulana Mohammad Ali, Abdur Rab Nishtar, Maulana Shaukat Ali and Maulvi Abdul Haq, who is hailed in Pakistan as Baba-e-Urdu (Father of Urdu). The first two Prime Ministers of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan and Khawaja Nazimuddin, as well as the late Indian President Dr. Zakir Hussain, are amongst Aligarh's most famous graduates. In India, Syed Ahmed is commemorated as a pioneer who worked for the socio-political upliftment of Indian Muslims, though his views on Hindu-Muslim issues are a subject of controversy. Syed Ahmed is also hailed as a founding father of Pakistan for his role in developing a Muslim political class independent of Hindu-majority organizations. The Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology was established in honor of Syed Ahmed in Karachi and is a leading technical institution in Pakistan. Furthermore, Sir Syed Government Girls College in Karachi, Pakistan is also named in the honor of Syed Ahmed Khan.
During his lifetime and in contemporary times, Syed Ahmed was criticised for encouraging communal divisions between Hindus and Muslims. He is identified by historians as one of the earliest advocates of the Two-Nation Theory — that Hindus and Muslims were distinct and incompatible nations. Historians argue that Syed Ahmed was emotionally unable to accept the prospect that an independent India's Hindu-majority would come to rule Muslims, who had been the erstwhile colonial rulers. He also feared that Hindu culture would diminish the Perso-Arabic nature of Muslim culture, which had enjoyed a dominant status under Muslim rulers for centuries. His condemnation of Indian nationalists and profession of the incompatibility of Muslims and Hindus widened the socio-political gulf between the communities that had emerged with the Urdu-Hindi controversy.
Supporters of Syed Ahmed contend that his political vision gave an independent political expression to the Muslim community, which aided its goal to secure political power in India. His philosophy guided the creation of the All India Muslim League in 1906, as a political party separate from the Congress. Syed Ahmed's ideas inspired both the liberal, pro-British politicians of the Muslim League and the religious ideologues of the Khilafat struggle. The Muslim League remained at odds with the Congress and continued to advocate the boycott of the Indian independence movement. In the 1940s, the student body of Aligarh committed itself to the establishment of Pakistan and contributed in a large measure to the activities of the Muslim League. Syed Ahmed's patronage of Urdu led to its widespread use amongst Indian Muslim communities and following the Partition of India its adoption as the official language of Pakistan, even though the most spoken Pakistani languages were Bengali and Punjabi.
Khan, Sayyid Ahmad see Ahmad Khan, Sayyid
"Sir Syed" see Ahmad Khan, Sayyid
Syed Ahmed Khan see Ahmad Khan, Sayyid
Ahmad Khan, Sayyid (Sayyid Ahmad Khan) (October 17, 1817 - March 27, 1898). Educational, political, and religious reformer and the major formulator of the modern concept of communal identity among Muslims of India in the latter half of the nineteenth century of the Christian calendar. As founder of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh and leader of the Aligarh movement, he attempted to bring about a synthesis between the culture of the Mughal Empire and the institutions of British rule.
Son of an official of the Mughal court, by then a protectorate of the British East India Company, Sayyid Ahmad was raised in the religious and cultural style of the Mughal literati and scholastic tradition associated with Shah Wali Ullah (Shah Wali Allah). In defiance of the wishes of his elders, he took service as a subordinate official of the British regime in 1836 and spent the next forty years of his life posted in a series of small North Indian towns. At the same time, he was editor of one of the first Urdu newspapers and author of religious and historical works. During the 1857 Revolt, he remained a staunch supporter of British rule, but afterwards published a sharp critique of British policies and attitudes.
During the 1860s, Sayyid Ahmad became an active public leader, journalist, and orator, as well as the founder of a series of schools and associations, all aimed at reconciling British and Indian ideologies and institutions. He established a Scientific Society in 1864, which moved to Aligarh the following year, dedicated to translating European historical and scientific works into Urdu and publishing older works of Indian and Islamic scholarship.
Following a trip to England in 1869/1870 Sayyid Ahmad became determined to establish an autonomous Indian Muslim educational system, which would prepare a new intellectual leadership grounded in Western knowledge as well as in a reformed Islam. Although his religious liberalism inspired intense opposition, the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh, founded in 1875, became a center and symbol of a new concept of communal unity for Indian Muslims.
In 1887, “Sir Syed,” as he came to be known, led a movement of opposition to the Indian National Congress, arguing that its program was inconsistent with the nature of Indian society and the interests of Muslims. After his death, these opinions were deemed a charter for separatist Muslim politics, although Sayyid Ahmad represented more the imperial ideologies of the Mughals and British than the religious nationalism of the movement that led to the creation of the state of Pakistan.
Syed Ahmed Khan (also Sayyid Ahmad Khan), commonly known as "Sir Syed," was an Indian educator and politician, and an Islamic reformer and modernist. Syed Ahmed pioneered modern education for the Muslim community in India by founding the Muhammedan Anglo-Oriental College, which later developed into the Aligarh Muslim University. His work gave rise to a new generation of Muslim intellectuals and politicians who composed the Aligarh movement to secure the political future of Muslims in India.
Born into Mughal nobility, Syed Ahmed earned a reputation as a distinguished scholar while working as a jurist for the British East India Company. During the Indian Rebellion of 1857, he remained loyal to the British and was noted for his actions in saving European lives. After the rebellion, he penned the booklet Asbab-e-Bhaghawath-e-Hind ("The Causes of the Indian Mutiny") — a daring critique, at the time, of British policies that he blamed for causing the revolt. Believing that the future of Muslims was threatened by the rigidity of their orthodox outlook, Syed Ahmed began promoting Western-style scientific education by founding modern schools and journals and organising Muslim intellectuals. Towards this goal, Syed Ahmed founded the Muhammedan Anglo-Oriental College in 1875 with the aim of promoting social and economic development of Indian Muslims.
One of the most influential Muslim politicians of his time, Syed Ahmed was suspicious of the Indian independence movement and called upon Muslims to loyally serve the British Raj. He denounced nationalist organisations such as the Indian National Congress, instead forming organisations to promote Muslim unity and pro-British attitudes and activities. Syed Ahmed promoted the adoption of Urdu as the lingua franca of all Indian Muslims, and mentored a rising generation of Muslim politicians and intellectuals. Although hailed as a great Muslim leader and social reformer, Syed Ahmed remains the subject of controversy for his views on Hindu-Muslim issues.
Syed Ahmed Khan Bahadur was born in Delhi, then the capital of the Mughal Empire. His family is said to have migrated from [Herat] (now in [Afghanistan]) in the time of emperor Akbar, although by other accounts his family descended from Arabia. Many generations of his family had since been highly connected with the Mughal administration. His maternal grandfather Khwaja Fariduddin served as wazir in the court of Akbar Shah II. His paternal grandfather Syed Hadi held a mansab, a high-ranking administrative position and honorary name of Jawwad Ali Khan in the court of Alamgir II. Syed's father Mir Muhammad Muttaqi was personally close to Akbar Shah II and served as his personal adviser. However, Syed Ahmed was born at a time when rebellious governors, regional insurrections and the British colonialism had diminished the extent and power of the Mughal state, reducing its monarch to a figurehead status. With his elder brother Syed Muhammad Khan, Syed Ahmed was raised in a large house in a wealthy area of the city. They were raised in strict accordance with Mughal noble traditions and exposed to politics. Their mother Azis-un-Nisa played a formative role in Syed Ahmed's life, raising him with rigid discipline and with a strong emphasis on education. Syed Ahmed was taught to read and understand the Qur'an by a female tutor, which was unusual at the time. He received an education traditional to Muslim nobility in Delhi. Under the charge of Maulvi Hamiduddin, Syed Ahmed was trained in Persian, Arabic, Urdu and religious subjects. He read the works of Muslim scholars and writers such as Sahbai, Rumi and Ghalib. Other tutors instructed him in mathematics, astronomy and Islamic jurisprudence. Syed Ahmed was also adept at swimming, wrestling and other sports. He took an active part in the Mughal court's cultural activities. His elder brother founded the city's first printing press in the Urdu language along with the journal Sayyad-ul-Akbar. Syed Ahmed pursued the study of medicine for several years, but did not complete the prescribed course of study. Until the death of his father in 1838, Syed Ahmed had lived a life customary for an affluent young Muslim noble. Upon his father's death, he inherited the titles of his grandfather and father and was awarded the title of Arif Jung by the emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar. Financial difficulties put an end to Syed Ahmed's formal education, although he continued to study in private, using books on a variety of subjects. Syed Ahmed assumed editorship of his brother's journal and rejected offers of employment from the Mughal court. Having recognised the steady decline in Mughal political power, Syed Ahmed entered the British East India Company's civil service. He was appointed serestadar at the courts of law in Agra, responsible for record-keeping and managing court affairs. In 1840, he was promoted to the title of munshi.
The Social Reformer was a pioneering publication initiated by Syed Ahmed to promote liberal ideas in Muslim society. While continuing to work as a jurist, Syed Ahmed began focusing on writing on various subjects, mainly in Urdu. His career as an author began when he published a series of treatises in Urdu on religious subjects in 1842. He published the book Athar Assanadid ("Great Monuments") documenting antiquities of Delhi dating from the medieval era. This work earned him the reputation of a cultured scholar. In 1842, he completed the Jila-ul-Qulub bi Zikr il Mahbub and the Tuhfa-i-Hasan, along with the Tahsil fi jar-i-Saqil in 1844. These works focused on religious and cultural subjects. In 1852, he published the two works Namiqa dar bayan masala tasawwur-i-Shaikh and Silsilat ul-Mulk. He released the second edition of Athar Assanadid in 1854. He also penned a commentary on the Bible in which he argued that Islam was the closest religion to Christianity, with a common lineage from Abrahamic religions.
Acquainted with high-ranking British officials, Syed Ahmed obtained close knowledge about British colonial politics during his service at the courts. At the outbreak of the Indian rebellion, on May 10, 1857, Syed Ahmed was serving as the chief assessment officer at the court in Bijnor. Northern India became the scene of the most intense fighting. The conflict had left large numbers of civilians dead. Erstwhile centres of Muslim power such as Delhi, Agra, Lucknow and Kanpur were severely affected. Syed Ahmed was personally affected by the violence and the ending of the Mughal dynasty amongst many other long-standing kingdoms. Syed Ahmed and many other Muslims took this as a defeat of Muslim society. He lost several close relatives who died in the violence. Although he succeeded in rescuing his mother from the turmoil, she died in Meerut, owing to the privations she had experienced.
In 1858, Syed Ahmed was appointed to a high-ranking post at the court in Muradabad, where he began working on his most famous literary work. Publishing the booklet Asbab-e-Bhaghawath-e-Hind in 1859, Syed Ahmed studied the causes of the revolt. In this, his most famous work, he rejected the common notion that the conspiracy was planned by Muslim élites, who were insecure at the diminishing influence of Muslim monarchs. Syed Ahmed blamed the British East India Company for its aggressive expansion as well as the ignorance of British politicians regarding Indian culture. However, he gained respect for British power, which he felt would dominate India for a long period of time. Seeking to rehabilitate Muslim political influence, Syed Ahmed advised the British to appoint Muslims to assist in administration. His other writings such as Loyal Muhammadans of India, Tabyin-ul-Kalam and A Series of Essays on the Life of Muhammad and Subjects Subsidiary Therein helped to create cordial relations between the British authorities and the Muslim community.
Through the 1850s, Syed Ahmed Khan began developing a strong passion for education. While pursuing studies of different subjects including European [jurisprudence], Syed Ahmed began to realize the advantages of Western-style education, which was being offered at newly-established colleges across India. Despite being a devout Muslim, Syed Ahmed criticized the influence of traditional dogma and religious orthodoxy, which had made most Indian Muslims suspicious of British influences. Syed Ahmed began feeling increasingly concerned for the future of Muslim communities. A scion of Mughal nobility, Syed Ahmed had been reared in the finest traditions of Muslim élite culture and was aware of the steady decline of Muslim political power across India. The animosity between the British and Muslims before and after the rebellion (Independence War) of 1857 threatened to marginalize Muslim communities across India for many generations. Syed Ahmed intensified his work to promote co-operation with British authorities, promoting loyalty to the Empire amongst Indian Muslims. Committed to working for the uplifting of Muslims, Syed Ahmed founded a modern madrassa in Muradabad in 1859. This was one of the first religious schools to impart scientific education. Syed Ahmed also worked on social causes, helping to organize relief for the famine-struck people of the Northwest Frontier Province in 1860. He established another modern school in Ghazipur in 1863.
Upon his transfer to Aligarh in 1864, Syed Ahmed began working wholeheartedly as an educator. He founded the Scientific Society of Aligarh, the first scientific association of its kind in India. Modelling it after the Royal Society and the Royal Asiatic Society, Syed Ahmed assembled Muslim scholars from different parts of the country. The Society held annual conferences, disbursed funds for educational causes and regularly published a journal on scientific subjects in English and Urdu. Syed Ahmed felt that the socio-economic future of Muslims was threatened by their orthodox aversions to modern science and technology. He published many writings promoting liberal, rational interpretations of Islamic scriptures. However, his view of Islam was rejected by Muslim clergy as contrary to traditional views on issues like jihad, polygamy and animal slaughtering. In face of pressure from religious Muslims, Syed Ahmed avoided discussing religious subjects in his writings, focusing instead on promoting education.
The onset of the Hindi-Urdu controversy of 1867 saw the emergence of Syed Ahmed as a political leader of the Muslim community. He became a leading Muslim voice opposing the adoption of Hindi as a second official language of the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh). Syed Ahmed perceived Urdu as the lingua franca of Muslims. Having been developed by Muslim rulers of India, Urdu was used as a secondary language to Persian, the official language of the Mughal court. Since the decline of the Mughal dynasty, Syed Ahmed promoted the use of Urdu through his own writings. Under Syed Ahmed, the Scientific Society translated Western works only into Urdu. The schools established by Syed Ahmed imparted education in the Urdu medium. The demand for Hindi, led largely by Hindus, was to Syed Ahmed an erosion of the centuries-old Muslim cultural domination of India. Testifying before the British-appointed education commission, Syed Ahmed controversially exclaimed that "Urdu was the language of gentry and Hindi that of the vulgar." His remarks provoked a hostile response from Hindu leaders, who unified across the nation to demand the recognition of Hindi.
The success of the Hindi movement led Syed Ahmed to further advocate Urdu as the symbol of Muslim heritage and as the language of all Indian Muslims. His educational and political work grew increasingly centered around, and exclusively for, Muslim interests. He also sought to persuade the British to give Urdu extensive official use and patronage. His colleagues and protégés such as Mohsin-ul-Mulk and Maulvi Abdul Haq developed organisations such as the Urdu Defence Association and the Anjuman Taraqqi-i-Urdu, committed to the perpetuation of Urdu. Syed Ahmed's protégé Shibli Nomani led efforts that resulted in the adoption of Urdu as the official language of the Hyderabad State and as the medium of instruction in the Osmania University. To Muslims in northern and western India, Urdu had become an integral part of political and cultural identity. However, the division over the use of Hindi or Urdu further provoked communal conflict between Muslims and Hindus in India.
On April 1, 1869, Syed Ahmed travelled to England, where he was awarded the Order of the Star of India from the British government on August 6. Travelling across England, he visited its colleges and was inspired by the culture of learning established after the Renaissance. Syed Ahmed returned to India in the following year determined to build a "Muslim Cambridge." Upon his return, he organized the "Committee for the Better Diffusion and Advancement of Learning among Muhammadans" (Muslims) on December 26, 1870.
By 1873, the committee under Syed Ahmed issued proposals for the construction of a college in Aligarh. He began publishing the journal Tahzib al-Akhlaq (Social Reformer) to spread awareness and knowledge on modern subjects and promote reforms in Muslim society. Syed Ahmed worked to promote re-interpretation of Muslim ideology in order to reconcile tradition with Western education. He argued in several books on Islam that the Qur'an rested on an appreciation of reason and natural law, making scientific inquiry important to being a good Muslim. Syed Ahmed established a modern school in Aligarh and, obtaining support from wealthy Muslims and the British, laid the foundation stone of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College on May 24, 1875. He retired from his career as a jurist the following year, concentrating entirely on developing the college and on religious reform. Syed Ahmed's pioneering work received support from the British. Although intensely criticized by orthodox religious leaders hostile to modern influences, Syed Ahmed's new institution attracted a large student body, mainly drawn from the Muslim gentry and middle classes. The curriculum at the college involved scientific and Western subjects, as well as Oriental subjects and religious education. The first chancellor was Sultan Shah Jahan Begum, a prominent Muslim noblewoman, and Syed Ahmed invited an Englishman, Theodore Beck, to serve as the first college principal. The college was originally affiliated with Calcutta University but was transferred to the Allahabad University in 1885. Near the turn of the 20th century, it began publishing its own magazine and established a law school. In 1920, the college was transformed into a university.
In 1878, Syed Ahmed was nominated to the Viceroy's Legislative Council. He testified before the education commission to promote the establishment of more colleges and schools across India. In the same year, Syed Ahmed founded the Muhammadan Association to promote political co-operation amongst Indian Muslims from different parts of the country. In 1886, he organized the All India Muhammadan Educational Conference in Aligarh, which promoted his vision of modern education and political unity for Muslims. His works made him the most prominent Muslim politician in 19th century India, often influencing the attitude of Muslims on various national issues. He supported the efforts of Indian political leaders Surendranath Banerjea and Dadabhai Naoroji to obtain representation for Indians in the government and civil services. In 1883, he founded the Muhammadan Civil Service Fund Association to encourage and support the entry of Muslim graduates into the Indian Civil Service (ICS).
Syed Ahmed's political views were shaped by a strong aversion to the emerging nationalist movement, which was composed largely of Hindus. Syed Ahmed opposed the Indian National Congress (created in 1885) on the grounds that it was a Hindu-majority organization. Syed Ahmed called on Muslims to stay away from it. While fearful of the loss of Muslim political power owing to the community's backwardness, Syed Ahmed was also averse to the prospect of democratic self-government, which would give control of government to the Hindu-majority population.
Syed Ahmed's fierce criticism of the Congress and Indian nationalists created rifts between Muslims and Hindus. At the same time, Syed Ahmed sought to politically ally Muslims to the British government. An avowed loyalist of the British Empire, Syed Ahmed was nominated as a member of the Civil Service Commission in 1887 by Lord Dufferin. In 1888, he established the United Patriotic Association at Aligarh to promote political co-operation with the British and Muslim participation in the government. Syed Ahmed Khan was knighted by the British government in 1888 and in the following year he received an LL.D. honoris causa from the Edinburgh University.
Syed Ahmed Khan lived the last two decades of his life in Aligarh, regarded widely as the mentor of 19th- and 20th century Muslim intellectuals and politicians. He remained the most influential Muslim politician in India, with his opinions guiding the convictions of a large majority of Muslims. Battling illnesses and old age, Syed Ahmed died on March 27, 1898. He was buried besides Syed Masjid inside the campus of the Aligarh university. His funeral was attended by thousands of students, Muslim leaders and British officials. Syed Ahmed is widely commemorated across South Asia as a great Muslim reformer and visionary.
The university he founded remains one of India's most prominent institutions. Prominent alumni of Aligarh include Muslim political leaders Maulana Mohammad Ali, Abdur Rab Nishtar, Maulana Shaukat Ali and Maulvi Abdul Haq, who is hailed in Pakistan as Baba-e-Urdu (Father of Urdu). The first two Prime Ministers of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan and Khawaja Nazimuddin, as well as the late Indian President Dr. Zakir Hussain, are amongst Aligarh's most famous graduates. In India, Syed Ahmed is commemorated as a pioneer who worked for the socio-political upliftment of Indian Muslims, though his views on Hindu-Muslim issues are a subject of controversy. Syed Ahmed is also hailed as a founding father of Pakistan for his role in developing a Muslim political class independent of Hindu-majority organizations. The Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology was established in honor of Syed Ahmed in Karachi and is a leading technical institution in Pakistan. Furthermore, Sir Syed Government Girls College in Karachi, Pakistan is also named in the honor of Syed Ahmed Khan.
During his lifetime and in contemporary times, Syed Ahmed was criticised for encouraging communal divisions between Hindus and Muslims. He is identified by historians as one of the earliest advocates of the Two-Nation Theory — that Hindus and Muslims were distinct and incompatible nations. Historians argue that Syed Ahmed was emotionally unable to accept the prospect that an independent India's Hindu-majority would come to rule Muslims, who had been the erstwhile colonial rulers. He also feared that Hindu culture would diminish the Perso-Arabic nature of Muslim culture, which had enjoyed a dominant status under Muslim rulers for centuries. His condemnation of Indian nationalists and profession of the incompatibility of Muslims and Hindus widened the socio-political gulf between the communities that had emerged with the Urdu-Hindi controversy.
Supporters of Syed Ahmed contend that his political vision gave an independent political expression to the Muslim community, which aided its goal to secure political power in India. His philosophy guided the creation of the All India Muslim League in 1906, as a political party separate from the Congress. Syed Ahmed's ideas inspired both the liberal, pro-British politicians of the Muslim League and the religious ideologues of the Khilafat struggle. The Muslim League remained at odds with the Congress and continued to advocate the boycott of the Indian independence movement. In the 1940s, the student body of Aligarh committed itself to the establishment of Pakistan and contributed in a large measure to the activities of the Muslim League. Syed Ahmed's patronage of Urdu led to its widespread use amongst Indian Muslim communities and following the Partition of India its adoption as the official language of Pakistan, even though the most spoken Pakistani languages were Bengali and Punjabi.
Khan, Sayyid Ahmad see Ahmad Khan, Sayyid
"Sir Syed" see Ahmad Khan, Sayyid
Syed Ahmed Khan see Ahmad Khan, Sayyid
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Shafi‘i, Abu Abdullah ibn al-
Shafi‘i, Abu Abdullah ibn al- (Abu ‘Abdullah ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i) (Abū ʿAbdullāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shafiʿī) (b. 767, Gaza, Palestine - d. 820, Fustat, Egypt). Founder of the Shafi‘ite school of law, most famous for his exposition of the “roots of jurisprudence,” which forms the basis for most Islamic legal considerations.
Al-Shafi‘i was so highly regarded from such an early date that his biographical notices tend to be more hagiographic than accurate. A Quraysh of the clan of Hashim, and therefore distantly related to Muhammad, al-Shafi‘i was raised in Mecca and received both an Arab and a Muslim education. He studied with Malik ibn Anas in Medina, had Shi‘ite involvements in the Yemen, spent time in Baghdad and Mecca, and died in Egypt.
In the area of substantive commentary on legal practice, al-Shafi‘i, because of his eclectic and broad education, was able to make penetrating analyses of practices current in his time, but he is more famous for his Rasala, written in the last years of his life, which expounds his theoretical positions on the foundations of law. According to his system, the four roots are Qur’an, the Sunna of Muhammad, consensus (ijma’), and analogic reasoning (qiyas). While these elements had been present before his time, al-Shafi‘i remade the Islamic legal system by redefining these terms. There was no dispute about the Qur’an’s role in law, but there was controversy about its interpretation. Starting with the Qur’anic injunction to obey both Allah and Muhammad {see Sura 4:69}, al-Shafi‘i raised the position of Muhammad’s sunna above that of only first among equals, making Muhammad’s actions the interpreter of the Qur’an. By the use of the notion of consensus, al-Shafi‘i legitimized the then current practice of the Muslim community as it was seen in retrospect to conform to the historical perceptions of the age of Muhammad and the Prophet’s Companions -- the Sahaba. Finally, the limitation of human reasoning to analogic reasoning removed much of the individual idiosyncrasy from legal practice. Al-Shafi‘i’s theory can be seen as a compromise between the strict Traditionists and the so-called Rationalists.
The Shafi‘ite school has had its greatest influence in East Africa, South Arabia, and Southeast Asia, although al-Shafi‘i’s personal influence is felt in all schools. The Shafi‘ites stand with the Hanbalites in opposing admission of judicial or public interest in legal consideration, and are most consistent in applying rules of analogy throughout their system, preferring judicial reasoning to weak traditions. They opposed legal stratagems in their early stages of development but admitted some in later periods. The Shafi‘ite school was generally adopted by the Ash‘arite speculative theologians after the tenth century.
Abu ‘Abdullah ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i see Shafi‘i, Abu Abdullah ibn al-
Abū ʿAbdullāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shafiʿī see Shafi‘i, Abu Abdullah ibn al-
Shafi‘i, Abu Abdullah ibn al- (Abu ‘Abdullah ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i) (Abū ʿAbdullāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shafiʿī) (b. 767, Gaza, Palestine - d. 820, Fustat, Egypt). Founder of the Shafi‘ite school of law, most famous for his exposition of the “roots of jurisprudence,” which forms the basis for most Islamic legal considerations.
Al-Shafi‘i was so highly regarded from such an early date that his biographical notices tend to be more hagiographic than accurate. A Quraysh of the clan of Hashim, and therefore distantly related to Muhammad, al-Shafi‘i was raised in Mecca and received both an Arab and a Muslim education. He studied with Malik ibn Anas in Medina, had Shi‘ite involvements in the Yemen, spent time in Baghdad and Mecca, and died in Egypt.
In the area of substantive commentary on legal practice, al-Shafi‘i, because of his eclectic and broad education, was able to make penetrating analyses of practices current in his time, but he is more famous for his Rasala, written in the last years of his life, which expounds his theoretical positions on the foundations of law. According to his system, the four roots are Qur’an, the Sunna of Muhammad, consensus (ijma’), and analogic reasoning (qiyas). While these elements had been present before his time, al-Shafi‘i remade the Islamic legal system by redefining these terms. There was no dispute about the Qur’an’s role in law, but there was controversy about its interpretation. Starting with the Qur’anic injunction to obey both Allah and Muhammad {see Sura 4:69}, al-Shafi‘i raised the position of Muhammad’s sunna above that of only first among equals, making Muhammad’s actions the interpreter of the Qur’an. By the use of the notion of consensus, al-Shafi‘i legitimized the then current practice of the Muslim community as it was seen in retrospect to conform to the historical perceptions of the age of Muhammad and the Prophet’s Companions -- the Sahaba. Finally, the limitation of human reasoning to analogic reasoning removed much of the individual idiosyncrasy from legal practice. Al-Shafi‘i’s theory can be seen as a compromise between the strict Traditionists and the so-called Rationalists.
The Shafi‘ite school has had its greatest influence in East Africa, South Arabia, and Southeast Asia, although al-Shafi‘i’s personal influence is felt in all schools. The Shafi‘ites stand with the Hanbalites in opposing admission of judicial or public interest in legal consideration, and are most consistent in applying rules of analogy throughout their system, preferring judicial reasoning to weak traditions. They opposed legal stratagems in their early stages of development but admitted some in later periods. The Shafi‘ite school was generally adopted by the Ash‘arite speculative theologians after the tenth century.
Abu ‘Abdullah ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i see Shafi‘i, Abu Abdullah ibn al-
Abū ʿAbdullāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shafiʿī see Shafi‘i, Abu Abdullah ibn al-
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Shafi‘ites
Shafi‘i (Shafi‘ites) (in Arabic, al-Shafi‘iyya) (Madhhab Shāfiʿī). Term which refers to a school of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence which is predominant in Asia and in eastern Africa. The Sunni school of Islamic law, derived from the teachings of al-Shafi‘i, Shafi‘i originated in Cairo and makes considerable use of analogy. In the ninth and tenth century, the school won many adherents in Baghdad, Cairo, Mecca and Medina, although their position in Baghdad was difficult because of the so-called “partisans of personal opinion” (in Arabic, ashab al-ra’y). In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there were frequent street fights with the Hanbalis in Baghdad. Under the Ottoman sultans the school was replaced by the Hanafis, while in Persia they had to cede to the Shi‘a under the Safavids. The school is still dominant in South Arabia, Bahrain, Malaysia, East Africa, Dagestan and some parts of Central Asia.
Shafi’i was one of the four schools of law in orthodox Islam, named after Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi’i (d. 820), its founder and guiding influence. Disturbed by the confusing plethora of views, methods and practices that prevailed in the legal circles of his day, Shafi’i set out to develop a systematic theory of law on the basis of which legal thought and practice in Islam might be unified. His Risala, composed in Cairo near the end of his life, constitutes his most important work on juridical theory. In it he sets down what were to become the characteristic features of Shafi’i law. Although Shafi’i aimed at the elaboration of a comprehensive theory of law, his most important contribution to the history of Islamic jurisprudence lies in his insistence on the indispensability of the sunna, or tradition of the Prophet, as a substantive source of law. Over against Hanafis and Malikis, for whom the sunna was largely a function of local practice, Shafi’i not only linked it to the Prophet himself but declared it to be divinely inspired. In keeping with his position on the primacy of revelation (that is, the Qur’an and the sunna), he sought to limit personal judgment (ijtihad/ra’y) to analogical reason (qiyas), whose only function was to extend the application of those principles laid down in the revealed texts to problems not addressed by the latter.
Shafi’i’s views, although not universally accepted at first, had a substantial impact on Islamic law in the long term. His views defined the essential elements of what was to become classical Shafi’i doctrine, and compelled Hanafis, Malikis, and others to undertake important revisions of their own legal systems. From Baghdad and Cairo, the chief centers of the early Shafi’i school, its influence spread throughout the central lands of Islam from Egypt to Khurasan and, by the late Mameluke period, had become the dominant school of law in this vast region. While the school found only limited acceptance in India and Central Asia, it became and remains the principal school of law in the Muslim lands of Southeast Asia.
In Islām, the Shafi'ites formed one of the four Sunnī schools of religious law, derived from the teachings of Abū ʿAbd Allāh ash-Shāfiʿī (767–820). This legal school (madhhab) stabilized the bases of Islāmic legal theory, admitting the validity of both divine will and human speculation. Rejecting provincial dependence on the living sunnah (traditional community practice) as the source of precedent, the Shafiites argued for the unquestioning acceptance of Ḥadīth (traditions concerning the life and utterances of the Prophet) as the major basis for legal and religious judgments and the use of qiyas (analogical reasoning) when no clear directives could be found in the Qurʾān or Ḥadīth. Ijmāʿ (consensus of scholars) was accepted but not stressed. The Shāfiʿī school predominates in eastern Africa, parts of Arabia, and Indonesia.
The Shāfi‘ī madhhab is one of the four schools of fiqh, or religious law, within the Sunni branch of Islam. The Shāfi‘ī school of fiqh is named after Imām ash-Shāfi‘ī. The other three schools of Islamic law are Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali.
Shafi'ites see Shafi‘i
Shafi'iyya, al- see Shafi‘i
Madhhab Shafi'i see Shafi‘i
Shafi’i was one of the four schools of law in orthodox Islam, named after Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi’i (d. 820), its founder and guiding influence. Disturbed by the confusing plethora of views, methods and practices that prevailed in the legal circles of his day, Shafi’i set out to develop a systematic theory of law on the basis of which legal thought and practice in Islam might be unified. His Risala, composed in Cairo near the end of his life, constitutes his most important work on juridical theory. In it he sets down what were to become the characteristic features of Shafi’i law. Although Shafi’i aimed at the elaboration of a comprehensive theory of law, his most important contribution to the history of Islamic jurisprudence lies in his insistence on the indispensability of the sunna, or tradition of the Prophet, as a substantive source of law. Over against Hanafis and Malikis, for whom the sunna was largely a function of local practice, Shafi’i not only linked it to the Prophet himself but declared it to be divinely inspired. In keeping with his position on the primacy of revelation (that is, the Qur’an and the sunna), he sought to limit personal judgment (ijtihad/ra’y) to analogical reason (qiyas), whose only function was to extend the application of those principles laid down in the revealed texts to problems not addressed by the latter.
Shafi’i’s views, although not universally accepted at first, had a substantial impact on Islamic law in the long term. His views defined the essential elements of what was to become classical Shafi’i doctrine, and compelled Hanafis, Malikis, and others to undertake important revisions of their own legal systems. From Baghdad and Cairo, the chief centers of the early Shafi’i school, its influence spread throughout the central lands of Islam from Egypt to Khurasan and, by the late Mameluke period, had become the dominant school of law in this vast region. While the school found only limited acceptance in India and Central Asia, it became and remains the principal school of law in the Muslim lands of Southeast Asia.
In Islām, the Shafi'ites formed one of the four Sunnī schools of religious law, derived from the teachings of Abū ʿAbd Allāh ash-Shāfiʿī (767–820). This legal school (madhhab) stabilized the bases of Islāmic legal theory, admitting the validity of both divine will and human speculation. Rejecting provincial dependence on the living sunnah (traditional community practice) as the source of precedent, the Shafiites argued for the unquestioning acceptance of Ḥadīth (traditions concerning the life and utterances of the Prophet) as the major basis for legal and religious judgments and the use of qiyas (analogical reasoning) when no clear directives could be found in the Qurʾān or Ḥadīth. Ijmāʿ (consensus of scholars) was accepted but not stressed. The Shāfiʿī school predominates in eastern Africa, parts of Arabia, and Indonesia.
The Shāfi‘ī madhhab is one of the four schools of fiqh, or religious law, within the Sunni branch of Islam. The Shāfi‘ī school of fiqh is named after Imām ash-Shāfi‘ī. The other three schools of Islamic law are Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali.
Shafi'ites see Shafi‘i
Shafi'iyya, al- see Shafi‘i
Madhhab Shafi'i see Shafi‘i
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Shah Jahan I
Shah Jahan I (Shahjahan) (Shah Jahan the Magnificent) (Shihab al-Din Shah Jahan I) (Prince Khurrem) (Shahab-ud-din Muhammad Shah Jahan I) (Al-Sultan al-'Azam wal Khaqan al-Mukarram, Abu'l-Muzaffar Shihab ud-din Muhammad, Sahib-i-Qiran-i-Sani, Shah Jahan I Padshah Ghazi Zillu'llah) (Shah Jehan) (Shahjehan) (b. January 5, 1592, Lahore, India - d. January 22, 1666, Agra, India). Mughal emperor (r.1628-1657). In 1632, he compelled the kingdoms Ahmadnagar, Golkonda and Bijapur in the Deccan to submit. In 1657, his son Aurangzib defeated his three brothers, imprisoned his father and ascended the throne. Shah Jahan I had the Taj Mahal built at Agra over the remains of his wife Mumtaz Mahall and ordered the famous Peacock Throne to be constructed, which took seven years in the making.
Shah Jahan was the fifth Mughal emperor. Born Khurram Shihab al-Din Muhammad, the third son of Jahangir, he is better known as Shah Jahan. Shah Jahan is often considered the Mughal political and cultural apogee. As a prince he displayed great military talent. Until 1622, he was favored as the heir apparent. Frustrated by attempts to designate Shahryar as Jahangir’s successor, the prince Shah Jahan rebelled in 1623. Pardoned by Jahangir, Shah Jahan succeeded to the throne in 1628 and adopted titles that emphasized his Timurid ancestry. The initial years of Shah Jahan’s reign were marked by regional rebellions, including renewed conflict in the Deccan. Most difficulties were quickly suppressed, but the Deccan troubles persisted. In 1636, Shah Jahan appointed Prince Aurangzeb viceroy of the Deccan and pursued an increasingly aggressive policy against the Deccani rulers and the Maratha leader Shivaji, temporarily maintaining firm authority there. Less successful was Shah Jahan’s attempt to regain territories in Afghanistan, including Qandahar and Balkh, regarded as the Mughal homeland, thus affecting Indian trade and fresh recruitment of Central Asian Muslims into the Mughal army.
When Shah Jahan became ill in 1657, his four sons vied for the throne. Although Shah Jahan recovered, Aurangzeb seized power, imprisoning his father in the Agra Red Fort until his death nine years later. Many feel that Shah Jahan was an extremely orthodox Muslim. However, his orthodoxy is more apparent in his state policy than in his personal belief, for he favored Dara Shikoh, his son with mystical leanings, and continued to recruit Hindus into the Mughal army. A keen patron of architecture, Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal (a tomb for his wife) and a new city of Delhi, called Shahjahanabad, which included the Red Fort and the Jama Masjid.
Shah Jahān was the third son of the Mughal emperor Jahāngīr and the Rajput princess Manmati. Marrying in 1612 Arjūmand Bānū Begum, niece of Jahāngīr’s wife Nūr Jahān, he became, as Prince Khurram, one of the influential Nūr Jahān clique of the middle period of Jahāngīr’s reign. In 1622 Shah Jahān, ambitious to win the succession, rebelled, ineffectually roaming the empire until reconciled to Jahāngīr in 1625. After Jahāngīr’s death in 1627, the support of Āṣaf Khan, Nūr Jahān’s brother, enabled Shah Jahān to proclaim himself emperor at Agra (February 1628).
Shah Jahān’s reign was notable for successes against the Deccan states. By 1636, Ahmadnagar had been annexed and Golconda and Bijapur forced to become tributaries. Mughal power was also temporarily extended in the northwest. In 1638 the Persian governor of Kandahār, ʿAlī Mardān Khan, surrendered that fortress to the Mughals. In 1646 Mughal forces occupied Badakhshān and Balkh, but in 1647 Balkh was relinquished, and attempts to reconquer it in 1649, 1652, and 1653 failed. The Persians reconquered Kandahār in 1649. Shah Jahān transferred his capital from Agra to Delhi in 1648, creating the new city of Shāhjahānābād there.
Shah Jahān had an almost insatiable passion for building. At his first capital, Agra, he undertook the building of two great mosques, the Motī Masjid (Pearl Mosque) and the Jāmiʿ Masjid (Great Mosque), as well as the superb mausoleum known as the Taj Mahal. The Taj Mahal is the masterpiece of his reign and was erected in memory of the favorite of his three queens, Mumtāz Maḥal (the mother of Aurangzeb). At Delhi, Shah Jahān built a huge fortress-palace complex called the Red Fort as well as another Jāmiʿ Masjid, which is among the finest mosques in India. Shah Jahān’s reign was also a period of great literary activity, and the arts of painting and calligraphy were not neglected. His court was one of great pomp and splendor, and his collection of jewels was probably the most magnificent in the world.
Indian writers have generally characterized Shah Jahān as the very ideal of a Muslim monarch. But though the splendor of the Mughal court reached its zenith under him, he also set in motion influences that finally led to the decline of the empire. His expeditions against Balkh and Badakhshān and his attempts to recover Kandahār brought the empire to the verge of bankruptcy. In religion, Shah Jahān was a more orthodox Muslim than Jahāngīr or his grandfather Akbar but a less orthodox one than Aurangzeb. He proved a relatively tolerant ruler toward his Hindu subjects.
In September 1657 Shah Jahān fell ill, precipitating a struggle for succession between his four sons, Dārā Shikōh, Murād Bakhsh, Shah Shujāʿ, and Aurangzeb. The victor, Aurangzeb, declared himself emperor in 1658 and strictly confined Shah Jahān in the fort at Agra until his death.
Shah Jahan exemplified one of the highest points in the Mughal Empire but also foreshadowed its downfall through the succession of emperors in the Mughal line. With his accession and downfall at the hands of his sons aside, Shah Jahan can clearly be seen as a leader who changed the landscape of India dramatically in the course of his reign; when you take into consideration that the legacy that brought him down as well as his great accomplishment, Shah Jahan gives us a great wealth of knowledge into the internal workings of an empire that was built from conquering, violence, and tolerance while alluding to the unstable hierarchy and the right to power in the Mughal Empire. He came to power through violence and betrayal and was ultimately brought down by the same means, exacerbating the legacy of the Mughals.
Nevertheless, Shah Jahan left behind a grand legacy of structures constructed during his reign. He was a patron of architecture. His most famous building was the Taj Mahal, now a wonder of the world, which he built out of love for Mumtaz Mahal. Its structure was drawn with great care and architects from all over the world were called for this purpose. The building took twenty years to complete and was constructed entirely from the white marble. Upon his death, his son Aurangazeb had him interred in it next to Mumtaz Mahal. Among his other constructions are Delhi Fort also called the Red Fort or Lal Qila (Urdu) in Delhi, large sections of Agra Fort, the Jama Masjid (Grand Mosque), Delhi, the Wazir Khan Mosque, Lahore, Pakistan, the Moti Masjid (Pearl Mosque), Lahore, the Shalimar Gardens in Lahore, sections of the Lahore Fort, Lahore, the Jahangir mausoleum — his father's tomb, the construction of which was overseen by his stepmother Nur Jahan and the Shahjahan Mosque, Thatta, Pakistan. He also had the Peacock Throne, Takht e Taus, made to celebrate his rule.
A famous Seamless celestial globe was produced in 1659-1660 AD (1070 AH), by the Sindhi Astronomer Muhammad Salih Tahtawi of Thatta with Arabic and Persian inscriptions.
There is a crater named after Shah Jahan on the asteroid 433 Eros. Craters on Eros are named after famous fictional and real-life lovers.
Shihab al-Din Shah Jahan I see Shah Jahan I
Shahjahan see Shah Jahan I
Shah Jahan the Magnificent see Shah Jahan I
Shihab al-Din Shah Jahan I see Shah Jahan I
Prince Khurrem see Shah Jahan I
Shahab-ud-din Muhammad Shah Jahan I see Shah Jahan I
Shah Jahan I (Shahjahan) (Shah Jahan the Magnificent) (Shihab al-Din Shah Jahan I) (Prince Khurrem) (Shahab-ud-din Muhammad Shah Jahan I) (Al-Sultan al-'Azam wal Khaqan al-Mukarram, Abu'l-Muzaffar Shihab ud-din Muhammad, Sahib-i-Qiran-i-Sani, Shah Jahan I Padshah Ghazi Zillu'llah) (Shah Jehan) (Shahjehan) (b. January 5, 1592, Lahore, India - d. January 22, 1666, Agra, India). Mughal emperor (r.1628-1657). In 1632, he compelled the kingdoms Ahmadnagar, Golkonda and Bijapur in the Deccan to submit. In 1657, his son Aurangzib defeated his three brothers, imprisoned his father and ascended the throne. Shah Jahan I had the Taj Mahal built at Agra over the remains of his wife Mumtaz Mahall and ordered the famous Peacock Throne to be constructed, which took seven years in the making.
Shah Jahan was the fifth Mughal emperor. Born Khurram Shihab al-Din Muhammad, the third son of Jahangir, he is better known as Shah Jahan. Shah Jahan is often considered the Mughal political and cultural apogee. As a prince he displayed great military talent. Until 1622, he was favored as the heir apparent. Frustrated by attempts to designate Shahryar as Jahangir’s successor, the prince Shah Jahan rebelled in 1623. Pardoned by Jahangir, Shah Jahan succeeded to the throne in 1628 and adopted titles that emphasized his Timurid ancestry. The initial years of Shah Jahan’s reign were marked by regional rebellions, including renewed conflict in the Deccan. Most difficulties were quickly suppressed, but the Deccan troubles persisted. In 1636, Shah Jahan appointed Prince Aurangzeb viceroy of the Deccan and pursued an increasingly aggressive policy against the Deccani rulers and the Maratha leader Shivaji, temporarily maintaining firm authority there. Less successful was Shah Jahan’s attempt to regain territories in Afghanistan, including Qandahar and Balkh, regarded as the Mughal homeland, thus affecting Indian trade and fresh recruitment of Central Asian Muslims into the Mughal army.
When Shah Jahan became ill in 1657, his four sons vied for the throne. Although Shah Jahan recovered, Aurangzeb seized power, imprisoning his father in the Agra Red Fort until his death nine years later. Many feel that Shah Jahan was an extremely orthodox Muslim. However, his orthodoxy is more apparent in his state policy than in his personal belief, for he favored Dara Shikoh, his son with mystical leanings, and continued to recruit Hindus into the Mughal army. A keen patron of architecture, Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal (a tomb for his wife) and a new city of Delhi, called Shahjahanabad, which included the Red Fort and the Jama Masjid.
Shah Jahān was the third son of the Mughal emperor Jahāngīr and the Rajput princess Manmati. Marrying in 1612 Arjūmand Bānū Begum, niece of Jahāngīr’s wife Nūr Jahān, he became, as Prince Khurram, one of the influential Nūr Jahān clique of the middle period of Jahāngīr’s reign. In 1622 Shah Jahān, ambitious to win the succession, rebelled, ineffectually roaming the empire until reconciled to Jahāngīr in 1625. After Jahāngīr’s death in 1627, the support of Āṣaf Khan, Nūr Jahān’s brother, enabled Shah Jahān to proclaim himself emperor at Agra (February 1628).
Shah Jahān’s reign was notable for successes against the Deccan states. By 1636, Ahmadnagar had been annexed and Golconda and Bijapur forced to become tributaries. Mughal power was also temporarily extended in the northwest. In 1638 the Persian governor of Kandahār, ʿAlī Mardān Khan, surrendered that fortress to the Mughals. In 1646 Mughal forces occupied Badakhshān and Balkh, but in 1647 Balkh was relinquished, and attempts to reconquer it in 1649, 1652, and 1653 failed. The Persians reconquered Kandahār in 1649. Shah Jahān transferred his capital from Agra to Delhi in 1648, creating the new city of Shāhjahānābād there.
Shah Jahān had an almost insatiable passion for building. At his first capital, Agra, he undertook the building of two great mosques, the Motī Masjid (Pearl Mosque) and the Jāmiʿ Masjid (Great Mosque), as well as the superb mausoleum known as the Taj Mahal. The Taj Mahal is the masterpiece of his reign and was erected in memory of the favorite of his three queens, Mumtāz Maḥal (the mother of Aurangzeb). At Delhi, Shah Jahān built a huge fortress-palace complex called the Red Fort as well as another Jāmiʿ Masjid, which is among the finest mosques in India. Shah Jahān’s reign was also a period of great literary activity, and the arts of painting and calligraphy were not neglected. His court was one of great pomp and splendor, and his collection of jewels was probably the most magnificent in the world.
Indian writers have generally characterized Shah Jahān as the very ideal of a Muslim monarch. But though the splendor of the Mughal court reached its zenith under him, he also set in motion influences that finally led to the decline of the empire. His expeditions against Balkh and Badakhshān and his attempts to recover Kandahār brought the empire to the verge of bankruptcy. In religion, Shah Jahān was a more orthodox Muslim than Jahāngīr or his grandfather Akbar but a less orthodox one than Aurangzeb. He proved a relatively tolerant ruler toward his Hindu subjects.
In September 1657 Shah Jahān fell ill, precipitating a struggle for succession between his four sons, Dārā Shikōh, Murād Bakhsh, Shah Shujāʿ, and Aurangzeb. The victor, Aurangzeb, declared himself emperor in 1658 and strictly confined Shah Jahān in the fort at Agra until his death.
Shah Jahan exemplified one of the highest points in the Mughal Empire but also foreshadowed its downfall through the succession of emperors in the Mughal line. With his accession and downfall at the hands of his sons aside, Shah Jahan can clearly be seen as a leader who changed the landscape of India dramatically in the course of his reign; when you take into consideration that the legacy that brought him down as well as his great accomplishment, Shah Jahan gives us a great wealth of knowledge into the internal workings of an empire that was built from conquering, violence, and tolerance while alluding to the unstable hierarchy and the right to power in the Mughal Empire. He came to power through violence and betrayal and was ultimately brought down by the same means, exacerbating the legacy of the Mughals.
Nevertheless, Shah Jahan left behind a grand legacy of structures constructed during his reign. He was a patron of architecture. His most famous building was the Taj Mahal, now a wonder of the world, which he built out of love for Mumtaz Mahal. Its structure was drawn with great care and architects from all over the world were called for this purpose. The building took twenty years to complete and was constructed entirely from the white marble. Upon his death, his son Aurangazeb had him interred in it next to Mumtaz Mahal. Among his other constructions are Delhi Fort also called the Red Fort or Lal Qila (Urdu) in Delhi, large sections of Agra Fort, the Jama Masjid (Grand Mosque), Delhi, the Wazir Khan Mosque, Lahore, Pakistan, the Moti Masjid (Pearl Mosque), Lahore, the Shalimar Gardens in Lahore, sections of the Lahore Fort, Lahore, the Jahangir mausoleum — his father's tomb, the construction of which was overseen by his stepmother Nur Jahan and the Shahjahan Mosque, Thatta, Pakistan. He also had the Peacock Throne, Takht e Taus, made to celebrate his rule.
A famous Seamless celestial globe was produced in 1659-1660 AD (1070 AH), by the Sindhi Astronomer Muhammad Salih Tahtawi of Thatta with Arabic and Persian inscriptions.
There is a crater named after Shah Jahan on the asteroid 433 Eros. Craters on Eros are named after famous fictional and real-life lovers.
Shihab al-Din Shah Jahan I see Shah Jahan I
Shahjahan see Shah Jahan I
Shah Jahan the Magnificent see Shah Jahan I
Shihab al-Din Shah Jahan I see Shah Jahan I
Prince Khurrem see Shah Jahan I
Shahab-ud-din Muhammad Shah Jahan I see Shah Jahan I
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Shadhili, Abu’l-Hasan al-
Shadhili, Abu’l-Hasan al- (Abu’l-Hasan al-Shadhili) (Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili) (b. 1196/97, Ghumàra, near Ceuta, Mor - d. 1258, Humaithra, on the Red Sea). Mystic of Moroccan origin and founder of the religious brotherhood named after him. He is said to be the originator of coffee-drinking.
Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili was the founder of the eponymous Shadhili order. He was born in Ghumara, near Ceuta in the north of Morocco in 1196 into a family of peasant laborers. He studied in Fes. He set out across North Africa and into the Levant in the hope of finding the great living saint of his time. In Iraq, a Sufi named al-Wasiti told him that he could find this saint in the country Abul Hasan had travelled from, ‘Abd al-Salam ibn Mashish, the great Moroccan spiritual master. Under his guidance, Abul Hasan attained enlightenment and proceeded to spread his knowledge across North Africa, especially in Tunisia and Egypt, where he is buried. He advocated a path of moderation in outward actions, concentrating instead on attaining sincerity through constant invocation, heartfelt petitions to God, and invocation of the Name, Allah. He died in 1258 in Humaithra, Egypt, while he was on his way from a pilgrimage to Mecca. His shrine is highly venerated.
Al-Shadhili taught his close followers to lead a life of contemplation and remembrance of Allah while performing the normal everyday activities of the world. He disliked initiating any would-be follower unless that person already had a profession. His admonition to his close followers was to apply the teachings of Islam in their own lives in the world and to transform their existence.
The details of al-Shādhilī’s life are clouded by legend. He is said to have been a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad and to have gone blind in his youth because of excessive study. In 1218/19 he traveled to Tunisia, where his Sufi teachings of ascetic mysticism aroused the hostility of the traditional orthodox Muslim theologians. Al-Shādhilī was forced to go into exile in Egypt. He died returning from a pilgrimage to the Islamic holy cities of Arabia. It was while he was in Egypt that he founded the Shādhilīyah order, which was destined to become one of the most popular of the mystical brotherhoods of the Middle East and North Africa and from which 15 other orders derive their origin.
Although al-Shādhilī left no writings, certain sayings and some poetry have been preserved by his disciples.
Abu'l-Hasan al-Shadhili see Shadhili, Abu’l-Hasan al-
Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili see Shadhili, Abu’l-Hasan al-
Shadhili, Abu’l-Hasan al- (Abu’l-Hasan al-Shadhili) (Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili) (b. 1196/97, Ghumàra, near Ceuta, Mor - d. 1258, Humaithra, on the Red Sea). Mystic of Moroccan origin and founder of the religious brotherhood named after him. He is said to be the originator of coffee-drinking.
Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili was the founder of the eponymous Shadhili order. He was born in Ghumara, near Ceuta in the north of Morocco in 1196 into a family of peasant laborers. He studied in Fes. He set out across North Africa and into the Levant in the hope of finding the great living saint of his time. In Iraq, a Sufi named al-Wasiti told him that he could find this saint in the country Abul Hasan had travelled from, ‘Abd al-Salam ibn Mashish, the great Moroccan spiritual master. Under his guidance, Abul Hasan attained enlightenment and proceeded to spread his knowledge across North Africa, especially in Tunisia and Egypt, where he is buried. He advocated a path of moderation in outward actions, concentrating instead on attaining sincerity through constant invocation, heartfelt petitions to God, and invocation of the Name, Allah. He died in 1258 in Humaithra, Egypt, while he was on his way from a pilgrimage to Mecca. His shrine is highly venerated.
Al-Shadhili taught his close followers to lead a life of contemplation and remembrance of Allah while performing the normal everyday activities of the world. He disliked initiating any would-be follower unless that person already had a profession. His admonition to his close followers was to apply the teachings of Islam in their own lives in the world and to transform their existence.
The details of al-Shādhilī’s life are clouded by legend. He is said to have been a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad and to have gone blind in his youth because of excessive study. In 1218/19 he traveled to Tunisia, where his Sufi teachings of ascetic mysticism aroused the hostility of the traditional orthodox Muslim theologians. Al-Shādhilī was forced to go into exile in Egypt. He died returning from a pilgrimage to the Islamic holy cities of Arabia. It was while he was in Egypt that he founded the Shādhilīyah order, which was destined to become one of the most popular of the mystical brotherhoods of the Middle East and North Africa and from which 15 other orders derive their origin.
Although al-Shādhilī left no writings, certain sayings and some poetry have been preserved by his disciples.
Abu'l-Hasan al-Shadhili see Shadhili, Abu’l-Hasan al-
Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili see Shadhili, Abu’l-Hasan al-
Shadhiliyya
Shadhiliyya (Shaziliyah). Sufi sect which, apart from the mysterious knowledge of its leaders, claimed to be strictly orthodox. When a revelation conflicted with the sunna, the latter had to prevail. The members of the sect claimed that they were all predestined to belong to the “well-guarded Tablet” (in Arabic, lawh mahfuz), that ecstasy does not permanently incapacitate them from active life, and that “the most perfect human being” (in Arabic, qutb) will throughout the ages be one of them. The main seat of the brotherhood is Algeria and Tunisia. Many other communities have sprung from it.
The Shadhiliyya was a widespread brotherhood of Muslim mystics (Ṣūfīs), founded on the teachings of Abū al-Ḥasan ash-Shādhilī (d. 1258) in Alexandria. Shādhilī teachings stress five points: fear of God, living the sunna (practices) of the Prophet, disdain of mankind, fatalism, and turning to God in times of happiness and distress. The order, which spread throughout North Africa and the Sudan and into Arabia, was created by disciples, as ash-Shādhilī himself discouraged monasticism and urged his followers to maintain their ordinary lives, a tradition still followed. The order gave rise to an unusually large number of suborders, notably the Jazūlīyah and the Darqāwā in Morocco and the ʿĪsāwīyah in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.
The Shadhili Tariqa has historically been of importance and influence in North Africa and Egypt with many contributions to Islamic literature. Among the figures most known for their literary and intellectual contributions are Ibn 'Ata Allah, author of the Hikam, and Shaykh Ahmed Zarruq, author of numerous commentaries and works, and Sheikh ibn Ajibah who also wrote numerous commentaries and works. In poetry expressing love of Muhammad, there have been the notable contributions of al-Jazuli, author of the "Dala'il al-Khayrat", and Busiri, author of the famous poem, the Poem of the Mantle. Many of the head lecturers of al-Azhar University in Cairo have also been followers of this tariqa.
Of the various branches of the Shadhili tariqa are the Fassiyatush, found largely in India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. The Darqawi branch is found mostly in Morocco and the Alawiyya (no connection to the Turkish or Syrian Alawi or Alevi groups) which originated in Algeria is now found the world over, particularly in Syria, Jordan, France and among many English-speaking communities.
The Swedish impressionist painter and Sufi scholar Ivan Aguéli (1869-1917) was the first official Moqaddam (representative) of the Shadhili Order in Western Europe. Aguéli initiated René Guénon (1886-1951) into the Shadhili tariqa. Guénon went on to write a number of influential books on tradition and modernity.
The silsila of the Shadhili order is as follows:
* Prophet Muhammad
* Ali ibn Abi Talib
* Hasan al-Basri
* Habib al-‘Ajami
* Dawud al-Ta’i
* Ma‘ruf al-Karkhi
* Sari al-Saqati
* Abul Qasim al-Junayd
* Abu Bakr al-Shibli
* Abu Faraj ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Tamimi
* Abul Faraj al-Tartusi
* Abul Hasan ibn ‘Ali Yusuf
* Sa‘id al-Mubarak
* Abdul-Qadir Gilani
* al-Ghawth Abu Madyan
* ‘Abd al-Rahman al-‘Attar al-Zayyat
* Abdeslam Ben Mshish
* Abu-l-Hassan ash-Shadhili
Shaziliyah see Shadhiliyya
Shadhiliyya (Shaziliyah). Sufi sect which, apart from the mysterious knowledge of its leaders, claimed to be strictly orthodox. When a revelation conflicted with the sunna, the latter had to prevail. The members of the sect claimed that they were all predestined to belong to the “well-guarded Tablet” (in Arabic, lawh mahfuz), that ecstasy does not permanently incapacitate them from active life, and that “the most perfect human being” (in Arabic, qutb) will throughout the ages be one of them. The main seat of the brotherhood is Algeria and Tunisia. Many other communities have sprung from it.
The Shadhiliyya was a widespread brotherhood of Muslim mystics (Ṣūfīs), founded on the teachings of Abū al-Ḥasan ash-Shādhilī (d. 1258) in Alexandria. Shādhilī teachings stress five points: fear of God, living the sunna (practices) of the Prophet, disdain of mankind, fatalism, and turning to God in times of happiness and distress. The order, which spread throughout North Africa and the Sudan and into Arabia, was created by disciples, as ash-Shādhilī himself discouraged monasticism and urged his followers to maintain their ordinary lives, a tradition still followed. The order gave rise to an unusually large number of suborders, notably the Jazūlīyah and the Darqāwā in Morocco and the ʿĪsāwīyah in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.
The Shadhili Tariqa has historically been of importance and influence in North Africa and Egypt with many contributions to Islamic literature. Among the figures most known for their literary and intellectual contributions are Ibn 'Ata Allah, author of the Hikam, and Shaykh Ahmed Zarruq, author of numerous commentaries and works, and Sheikh ibn Ajibah who also wrote numerous commentaries and works. In poetry expressing love of Muhammad, there have been the notable contributions of al-Jazuli, author of the "Dala'il al-Khayrat", and Busiri, author of the famous poem, the Poem of the Mantle. Many of the head lecturers of al-Azhar University in Cairo have also been followers of this tariqa.
Of the various branches of the Shadhili tariqa are the Fassiyatush, found largely in India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. The Darqawi branch is found mostly in Morocco and the Alawiyya (no connection to the Turkish or Syrian Alawi or Alevi groups) which originated in Algeria is now found the world over, particularly in Syria, Jordan, France and among many English-speaking communities.
The Swedish impressionist painter and Sufi scholar Ivan Aguéli (1869-1917) was the first official Moqaddam (representative) of the Shadhili Order in Western Europe. Aguéli initiated René Guénon (1886-1951) into the Shadhili tariqa. Guénon went on to write a number of influential books on tradition and modernity.
The silsila of the Shadhili order is as follows:
* Prophet Muhammad
* Ali ibn Abi Talib
* Hasan al-Basri
* Habib al-‘Ajami
* Dawud al-Ta’i
* Ma‘ruf al-Karkhi
* Sari al-Saqati
* Abul Qasim al-Junayd
* Abu Bakr al-Shibli
* Abu Faraj ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Tamimi
* Abul Faraj al-Tartusi
* Abul Hasan ibn ‘Ali Yusuf
* Sa‘id al-Mubarak
* Abdul-Qadir Gilani
* al-Ghawth Abu Madyan
* ‘Abd al-Rahman al-‘Attar al-Zayyat
* Abdeslam Ben Mshish
* Abu-l-Hassan ash-Shadhili
Shaziliyah see Shadhiliyya
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al- (Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani) (Tāj al-Dīn Abū al-Fath Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Karīm ash-Shahrastānī) (1076/1086-1153). Principal Muslim historian of religions in the Middle Ages. In his most famous work, a treatise on religions and sects, he passes in review all the philosophic and religious systems that he was able to study and classes them according to their degree of remoteness from Muslim orthodoxy. After the Muslim sects, the Mu‘tazila, the Shi ‘a and the Batiniyya, follow the Christians and the Jews, then the Magi and the Dualists, and finally the Sabaeans. The author then goes back to pagan antiquity and gives articles on the prinicipal philosophers and sages of Greece, and then gives an exposition of Arab scholasticism as a derivative from Hellenism; the last part of the book is devoted to the religions of India.
Shahrastani, the man who has been called the “principal historian of religion” in Asia during the Middle Ages, was born in Shahrastan, in the Khurasan area of Iran. Born Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim ash-Sharastani, Shahrastani offered a distinctive method of viewing the cultural interaction and conceptual development of world religions and philosophies within the Mediterranean, Southwest Asian, and South Asian world.
Little is known about Shahrastani’s early years. However, it is reported that he studied jurisprudence and theology, but his personal philosophical and religious allegiances are a matter of controversy. In addition to his masterwork, The Book of Religious and Philosophical Communities (Kitab al-Milal wa’l-Nihal), he wrote a Dual of the Philosophers and a respected work on theology, the Culmination of Demonstration in Scholastic Theology (Nihayat al-‘Iqdam). It is the first work, however, on which his present influence and reputation are based.
Shahrastani’s famous discussion of the scholastic theologians (mutakallimun) is based upon categorizations of schools and sub-schools with respect to their positions on a number of topical categories, including tawhid (the affirmation of divine unity) and qadar, the issue of divine predetermination versus human free will.
The affirmation of divine unity is codified in the Islamic shahada or testimony (itself encoded in the call to prayer and recited five times a day): “No God but God and Muhammad is his Messenger.” The common meaning of such affirmation is of course that there is only one Deity. To affirm any other deities is to be guilty of shirk (associationism), that is, the associating of other deities with the one God. To the theological mind, as demonstrated in case studies by Shahrastani, tawhid raised further questions. If there is only one Deity, how do the divine attributes in the Qur’an (seeing, hearing, knowing, having compassion) relate to the Deity? Are they part of the divine essence? If so, are we to imagine a multiplicity of powers (knowing, hearing, seeing) existing from all eternity, and would that not be a subtle form of shirk, asserting the existence of multiple, eternal powers? However, if the attributes are not part of the Deity’s essence, then does the Diety change? Is it in a state of not-hearing at one time, and hearing at another, subject to accident and contingency?
Shahrastani demonstrates no particular dogmatic answer, but illuminates, rather, how the debate among various schools led to more profound questions. Shahrastani also takes up Qur’anic references to a Deity that sees, hears, creates “with two hands,” and “sits on a throne.” Some groups, such as the Mu‘tazila, considered a literal interpretation of these images to be a form “likening” (tashbih) the Deity upon human characteristics, a procedure that would entail an anthropomorphic image just as idolatrous as idols made of wood and stone. They argued in favor of a figurative interpretation (ta’wil) that would explain how such figures of speech can refer to the one Divine Power.
Shahrastani shows us how the theological debate generated new positions, with some scholars arguing that attributes shared by humans (seeing, hearing, and so forth) are intrinsically anthropomorphic, and therefore affirming only those, such as power, knowledge, and will, which in their view belong to the Deity alone. Others argued that figurative interpretation is an “explaining away” of the Qur’anic text based upon the preferences of human rationalizing, and a stripping (ta‘til) from the Deity of the attributes it has affirmed for itself in its own word.
Shahrastani’s second theological category is divine predetermination (qadar). Several passages in the Qur’an emphasize the all-powerful nature of the Deity in a way that seems to preclude human will or choice; the Deity is said to “stop up the ears” of those who have rejected the Qur’anic message, for example. Other passages are urgent prophetic appeals to the hearer to choose the path of prophetic wisdom. If the response of the listener has already been predetermined by an all-knowing, all-powerful Deity, what is the status of such appeals? Is it fair or just for the Deity to then reward and punish humans on the basis of a decision made from all time by that Deity?
Shahrastani quotes Wasil, the most famous theologian of the Mu‘tazilite School of theology, who rejected divine predetermination:
It is not possible for [God] to will for [God’s] servants what is in disagreement with [God’s] command -- to control their action and then to punish them for what they did.
Later, he quotes ‘Amr as asking, “Does he predestine me to do something and then punish me for it?” For the Mu‘tazilites, the Deity is all-wise (hakim) and therefore must act in the interests of his creatures and with justice (‘adl). Human beings have an innate capacity for understanding justice, right and wrong, without which they could not receive prophetic revelation in the first place. For their opponents, such statements are denial of divine power and knowledge; what the Deity does is, by nature, just -- the Deity cannot be held accountable to fallible human understandings of what is just; and what the Deity imparts by way of revelation is in fact the only knowledge of right and wrong, and the only understanding of justice available to humankind.
Ironically, and confusingly, those who rejected divine predetermination (qadar) were called by the epithet the qadariyya. Those who affirmed predetermination were called the compulsionists (jabriyya). Those who appealed to the interpretations of the earliest companions of the prophets and rejected the theological attempt to apply formal human reason to such questions were called the traditionalists (salaf), but even this group finally accepted a form of theological discourse to defend their original anti-theological stance.
Another major group was called the attributionists (sifatiyya). This group originally sprang from the position of the theological al-Ash‘ari, who vehemently maintained both the literalness of the attributes and the reality of divine predetermination. However, his school, the Ash‘arites, later tried to walk a middle ground on both issues and came to be the most widely accepted theological school in Islam. Some spoke of divine conditions (ahwal), which would be neither divine attributes eternally one with divine substance nor accidents that would prevail upon the Deity. In the area of divine predetermination, Shahrastani suggests that they tried to walk that middle ground by speaking of the Deity as creator of all acts, and of human beings as “acquiring” the power of the act at the moment of participation in it.
The Ash‘arite School later was considered the “orthodoxy” among some writers, and some considered Shahrastani to be of that school. However, although he was willing to give his opinion, what makes Shahrastani’s work reflective of a great thinker is not his argument for any particular position, but rather his ability to expound positions in such a way as to bring out the centrality of key theological issues and show how the Islamic tradition shaped itself around the effort to resolve those issues.
Shahrastani’s treatment of cosmology is particularly important. In his discussion of the pre-Socratic philosophers he outlines what we might call “neo-pre-Socratic Islamic thought,” that is, the construction of the pre-Socratics by Islamic thinkers who then formed “schools” around them. Although much of the thought is consonant with what we know of Thales, Empedocles, and other pre-Socratics, it carries a new emphasis, with more thematic unity based upon more continued return to the question of the primal element “receptive of all forms.” It is difficult to know, given the lack of other testimony, how much of the thematic unity is due to the Islamic schools themselves and how much is the work of Shahrastani.
Shahrastani also brings us the critical texts of the anonymous figure known as the “Greek Master” (al-shaykh al-yunani), texts that turn out to be the most radically apophatic passages of Plotinus, passages attempting to express the inexpressible. Shahrastani thus demonstrates that in addition to the more Aristotelian school of Islamic Plotinian thought centered around the “Theology of Aristotle,” there was a more mystically inclined school that focused on those Plotinian passages placing ultimate reality beyond the the categories of being altogether.
Perhaps Shahrastani’s most brilliant essay is that on the Sabaeans of Harran. Harran, the ancient city near the upper Tigris, was an early Islamic center of alternative philosophies, from the Hermeticists (devoted to Agathodaemon, Asclepius, and Hermes), to those following elaborate ritual calendars. Shahrastrani places the Harranians in a debate with the hanifs. The word hanif was used in early Islam to refer to monotheists, particularly the pre-Islamic monotheists of Arabia. For example, Abraham was considered the archetypal hanif.
The Harranians outline a cosmos made up of concentric spheres inhabited by spirits -- by ruhaniyat --, and the goal of philosophy is either to ascend through the spheres to encounter the spirits, or to draw the spirits down into temples on Earth. From the spirits one receives true inspiration. The hanifs counter that the true bearers of truth are the prophets, who are, as in the mi ‘raj account of Muhammad’s ascent through the Heavens, the guardians of the various Heavens.
As Shahrastani unfolds the argument, he demonstrates a fundamental tension in classical Islamic thought between the spiritualists (those who see the goal of philosophy as having become more spiritual -- or, as in the case of Ibn Sina [Avicenna], more intellectual) and the humanists (those who see the goal as having become more human and who see the intermediaries of truth as the human prophets). Sharastani thus helps us in understanding the symbolic significance of every detail of the cosmos of concentric spheres, the identity of the guardians of the spheres, the way in which human beings can rise through the spheres, the test by which they are tried at each sphere, and the ultimate arrival at the divine throne. This paradigm, which is fundamental not only to medieval Islam, but to medieval Judaism and Christianity as well (and which, indeed, served as one of the meeting places and places of contest among the three traditions) has a coded system of values that, through his debate format, Shahrastani helps to make explicit.
The analysis of theological debates about the unity of the Deity and divine predetermination, the philosophical cosmology of the pre-Socratics (as reconstructed in Islamic philosophy), the mystical dimension of Islamic Plotinian thought, and the symbolic cosmology of the heavenly spheres and their guardians are only some examples of Shahrastani’s contributions. In these cases, and throughout his masterwork, Shahrastani uses a categorization of schools to demonstrate how central questions, dilemmas, and symbols become the matrix for the development of ever more sophisticated versions of Islamic thought.
Al-Shahrastani was an able and learned man of great personal charm. The real nature of his thought is best referred to by the term theosophy, in the older sense of "divine wisdom". However, al-Shahrastani was certainly not totally against theology or philosophy, even if he was very harsh against the theologians and the philosophers. As he explained in the Majlis, in order to remain on the right path, one must preserve a perfect equilibrium between intellect (`aql) and audition (sam`). A philosopher or a theologian must use his intellect until he reaches the rational limit. Beyond this limit, he must listen to the teaching of Prophets and Imams.
His works reflect a complex interweaving of intellectual strands, and his thought is a synthesis of this fruitful historical period. In his conception of God, Creation, Prophecy, and Imama, al-Shahrastani adopted many doctrinal elements that are reconcilable with Nizari Isma'ilism. The necessity of a Guide, belonging both to the spiritual and the physical world, is primordial in his scheme since the Imam is manifested in this physical world.
Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani see Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
The Principal Historian of Religion see Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Tāj al-Dīn Abū al-Fath Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Karīm ash-Shahrastānī see Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al- (Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani) (Tāj al-Dīn Abū al-Fath Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Karīm ash-Shahrastānī) (1076/1086-1153). Principal Muslim historian of religions in the Middle Ages. In his most famous work, a treatise on religions and sects, he passes in review all the philosophic and religious systems that he was able to study and classes them according to their degree of remoteness from Muslim orthodoxy. After the Muslim sects, the Mu‘tazila, the Shi ‘a and the Batiniyya, follow the Christians and the Jews, then the Magi and the Dualists, and finally the Sabaeans. The author then goes back to pagan antiquity and gives articles on the prinicipal philosophers and sages of Greece, and then gives an exposition of Arab scholasticism as a derivative from Hellenism; the last part of the book is devoted to the religions of India.
Shahrastani, the man who has been called the “principal historian of religion” in Asia during the Middle Ages, was born in Shahrastan, in the Khurasan area of Iran. Born Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim ash-Sharastani, Shahrastani offered a distinctive method of viewing the cultural interaction and conceptual development of world religions and philosophies within the Mediterranean, Southwest Asian, and South Asian world.
Little is known about Shahrastani’s early years. However, it is reported that he studied jurisprudence and theology, but his personal philosophical and religious allegiances are a matter of controversy. In addition to his masterwork, The Book of Religious and Philosophical Communities (Kitab al-Milal wa’l-Nihal), he wrote a Dual of the Philosophers and a respected work on theology, the Culmination of Demonstration in Scholastic Theology (Nihayat al-‘Iqdam). It is the first work, however, on which his present influence and reputation are based.
Shahrastani’s famous discussion of the scholastic theologians (mutakallimun) is based upon categorizations of schools and sub-schools with respect to their positions on a number of topical categories, including tawhid (the affirmation of divine unity) and qadar, the issue of divine predetermination versus human free will.
The affirmation of divine unity is codified in the Islamic shahada or testimony (itself encoded in the call to prayer and recited five times a day): “No God but God and Muhammad is his Messenger.” The common meaning of such affirmation is of course that there is only one Deity. To affirm any other deities is to be guilty of shirk (associationism), that is, the associating of other deities with the one God. To the theological mind, as demonstrated in case studies by Shahrastani, tawhid raised further questions. If there is only one Deity, how do the divine attributes in the Qur’an (seeing, hearing, knowing, having compassion) relate to the Deity? Are they part of the divine essence? If so, are we to imagine a multiplicity of powers (knowing, hearing, seeing) existing from all eternity, and would that not be a subtle form of shirk, asserting the existence of multiple, eternal powers? However, if the attributes are not part of the Deity’s essence, then does the Diety change? Is it in a state of not-hearing at one time, and hearing at another, subject to accident and contingency?
Shahrastani demonstrates no particular dogmatic answer, but illuminates, rather, how the debate among various schools led to more profound questions. Shahrastani also takes up Qur’anic references to a Deity that sees, hears, creates “with two hands,” and “sits on a throne.” Some groups, such as the Mu‘tazila, considered a literal interpretation of these images to be a form “likening” (tashbih) the Deity upon human characteristics, a procedure that would entail an anthropomorphic image just as idolatrous as idols made of wood and stone. They argued in favor of a figurative interpretation (ta’wil) that would explain how such figures of speech can refer to the one Divine Power.
Shahrastani shows us how the theological debate generated new positions, with some scholars arguing that attributes shared by humans (seeing, hearing, and so forth) are intrinsically anthropomorphic, and therefore affirming only those, such as power, knowledge, and will, which in their view belong to the Deity alone. Others argued that figurative interpretation is an “explaining away” of the Qur’anic text based upon the preferences of human rationalizing, and a stripping (ta‘til) from the Deity of the attributes it has affirmed for itself in its own word.
Shahrastani’s second theological category is divine predetermination (qadar). Several passages in the Qur’an emphasize the all-powerful nature of the Deity in a way that seems to preclude human will or choice; the Deity is said to “stop up the ears” of those who have rejected the Qur’anic message, for example. Other passages are urgent prophetic appeals to the hearer to choose the path of prophetic wisdom. If the response of the listener has already been predetermined by an all-knowing, all-powerful Deity, what is the status of such appeals? Is it fair or just for the Deity to then reward and punish humans on the basis of a decision made from all time by that Deity?
Shahrastani quotes Wasil, the most famous theologian of the Mu‘tazilite School of theology, who rejected divine predetermination:
It is not possible for [God] to will for [God’s] servants what is in disagreement with [God’s] command -- to control their action and then to punish them for what they did.
Later, he quotes ‘Amr as asking, “Does he predestine me to do something and then punish me for it?” For the Mu‘tazilites, the Deity is all-wise (hakim) and therefore must act in the interests of his creatures and with justice (‘adl). Human beings have an innate capacity for understanding justice, right and wrong, without which they could not receive prophetic revelation in the first place. For their opponents, such statements are denial of divine power and knowledge; what the Deity does is, by nature, just -- the Deity cannot be held accountable to fallible human understandings of what is just; and what the Deity imparts by way of revelation is in fact the only knowledge of right and wrong, and the only understanding of justice available to humankind.
Ironically, and confusingly, those who rejected divine predetermination (qadar) were called by the epithet the qadariyya. Those who affirmed predetermination were called the compulsionists (jabriyya). Those who appealed to the interpretations of the earliest companions of the prophets and rejected the theological attempt to apply formal human reason to such questions were called the traditionalists (salaf), but even this group finally accepted a form of theological discourse to defend their original anti-theological stance.
Another major group was called the attributionists (sifatiyya). This group originally sprang from the position of the theological al-Ash‘ari, who vehemently maintained both the literalness of the attributes and the reality of divine predetermination. However, his school, the Ash‘arites, later tried to walk a middle ground on both issues and came to be the most widely accepted theological school in Islam. Some spoke of divine conditions (ahwal), which would be neither divine attributes eternally one with divine substance nor accidents that would prevail upon the Deity. In the area of divine predetermination, Shahrastani suggests that they tried to walk that middle ground by speaking of the Deity as creator of all acts, and of human beings as “acquiring” the power of the act at the moment of participation in it.
The Ash‘arite School later was considered the “orthodoxy” among some writers, and some considered Shahrastani to be of that school. However, although he was willing to give his opinion, what makes Shahrastani’s work reflective of a great thinker is not his argument for any particular position, but rather his ability to expound positions in such a way as to bring out the centrality of key theological issues and show how the Islamic tradition shaped itself around the effort to resolve those issues.
Shahrastani’s treatment of cosmology is particularly important. In his discussion of the pre-Socratic philosophers he outlines what we might call “neo-pre-Socratic Islamic thought,” that is, the construction of the pre-Socratics by Islamic thinkers who then formed “schools” around them. Although much of the thought is consonant with what we know of Thales, Empedocles, and other pre-Socratics, it carries a new emphasis, with more thematic unity based upon more continued return to the question of the primal element “receptive of all forms.” It is difficult to know, given the lack of other testimony, how much of the thematic unity is due to the Islamic schools themselves and how much is the work of Shahrastani.
Shahrastani also brings us the critical texts of the anonymous figure known as the “Greek Master” (al-shaykh al-yunani), texts that turn out to be the most radically apophatic passages of Plotinus, passages attempting to express the inexpressible. Shahrastani thus demonstrates that in addition to the more Aristotelian school of Islamic Plotinian thought centered around the “Theology of Aristotle,” there was a more mystically inclined school that focused on those Plotinian passages placing ultimate reality beyond the the categories of being altogether.
Perhaps Shahrastani’s most brilliant essay is that on the Sabaeans of Harran. Harran, the ancient city near the upper Tigris, was an early Islamic center of alternative philosophies, from the Hermeticists (devoted to Agathodaemon, Asclepius, and Hermes), to those following elaborate ritual calendars. Shahrastrani places the Harranians in a debate with the hanifs. The word hanif was used in early Islam to refer to monotheists, particularly the pre-Islamic monotheists of Arabia. For example, Abraham was considered the archetypal hanif.
The Harranians outline a cosmos made up of concentric spheres inhabited by spirits -- by ruhaniyat --, and the goal of philosophy is either to ascend through the spheres to encounter the spirits, or to draw the spirits down into temples on Earth. From the spirits one receives true inspiration. The hanifs counter that the true bearers of truth are the prophets, who are, as in the mi ‘raj account of Muhammad’s ascent through the Heavens, the guardians of the various Heavens.
As Shahrastani unfolds the argument, he demonstrates a fundamental tension in classical Islamic thought between the spiritualists (those who see the goal of philosophy as having become more spiritual -- or, as in the case of Ibn Sina [Avicenna], more intellectual) and the humanists (those who see the goal as having become more human and who see the intermediaries of truth as the human prophets). Sharastani thus helps us in understanding the symbolic significance of every detail of the cosmos of concentric spheres, the identity of the guardians of the spheres, the way in which human beings can rise through the spheres, the test by which they are tried at each sphere, and the ultimate arrival at the divine throne. This paradigm, which is fundamental not only to medieval Islam, but to medieval Judaism and Christianity as well (and which, indeed, served as one of the meeting places and places of contest among the three traditions) has a coded system of values that, through his debate format, Shahrastani helps to make explicit.
The analysis of theological debates about the unity of the Deity and divine predetermination, the philosophical cosmology of the pre-Socratics (as reconstructed in Islamic philosophy), the mystical dimension of Islamic Plotinian thought, and the symbolic cosmology of the heavenly spheres and their guardians are only some examples of Shahrastani’s contributions. In these cases, and throughout his masterwork, Shahrastani uses a categorization of schools to demonstrate how central questions, dilemmas, and symbols become the matrix for the development of ever more sophisticated versions of Islamic thought.
Al-Shahrastani was an able and learned man of great personal charm. The real nature of his thought is best referred to by the term theosophy, in the older sense of "divine wisdom". However, al-Shahrastani was certainly not totally against theology or philosophy, even if he was very harsh against the theologians and the philosophers. As he explained in the Majlis, in order to remain on the right path, one must preserve a perfect equilibrium between intellect (`aql) and audition (sam`). A philosopher or a theologian must use his intellect until he reaches the rational limit. Beyond this limit, he must listen to the teaching of Prophets and Imams.
His works reflect a complex interweaving of intellectual strands, and his thought is a synthesis of this fruitful historical period. In his conception of God, Creation, Prophecy, and Imama, al-Shahrastani adopted many doctrinal elements that are reconcilable with Nizari Isma'ilism. The necessity of a Guide, belonging both to the spiritual and the physical world, is primordial in his scheme since the Imam is manifested in this physical world.
Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani see Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
The Principal Historian of Religion see Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Tāj al-Dīn Abū al-Fath Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Karīm ash-Shahrastānī see Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Shahrukh
Shahrukh (Shahrukh Mirza) (Šāhrukh Mīrzā) (Shāh Rokh Mīrzā) (b. Aug. 20/30, 1377, Samarkand, Timurid empire [now in Uzbekistan] - d. March 12, 1447, Fishawand, Timurid Iran). Ruler of the Timurid dynasty in Transoxiana and Persia (r.1405-1447). The fourth son of Timur, he became governor of Samarkand around 1394, took part in the expeditions against Persia, Syria and Anatolia, and held important commands at the siege of Aleppo and at the battle of Ankara of 1402. On the death of Timur in 1405, he was recognized as sovereign of Khurasan and fought his brother Khalil Sultan, whom he nevertheless accepted as ruler. Rebellions having deprived Khalil of any authority, Shahrukh gave his lands to his son Ulugh Beg and conquered Mazandaran in 1406. In 1420, he defeated the army of Qara Yusuf, the Qara Qoyunlu ruler of Azerbaijan and Iraq. Praised by historians as a munificent sovereign, he rebuilt Marw, fortified and embellished Herat and was a patron of writers, artists and scholars. During his reign Turkish poetry began to rival Persian.
The first Timurid ruler, Shahrukh began the task of reconstruction necessitated by his father’s devastating campaigns. Anxious to establish himself as a legitimate Muslim sovereign, he moved his capital from Samarkand to Herat, where he became a patron of Perso-Islamic culture, supporting poets and artists, encouraging historical writing, and providing for religious endowments. He established the institution of the kitabkhana, the royal library complete with artists’ workshops for the production of illuminated manuscripts. He also exchanged embassies with China of several occasions. It was during his rule that Chagatai Turkish began to develop as a literary language. Through his patronage, Shahrukh laid the groundwork for the re-birth of Khurasan cultural life that was to continue throughout the fifteenth century. Of his five sons, Ulugh Beg alone survived to succeed him.
Shāh Rukh was the fourth son of Timur (Tamerlane), founder of the Timurid dynasty. At Timur’s death in 1405, a struggle for control of his empire broke out among members of his family. Shāh Rukh gained control of most of the empire, including Iran and Turkistan, and held it until his death. The only major areas of Timur’s empire outside of Shāh Rukh’s control were Syria and Khūzestān (now in southwestern Iran).
Shāh Rukh’s patronage of the arts was centered on his capital at Herāt in Khorāsān (now in western Afghanistan). Particularly important were the library and the school of miniature painting that developed and flourished there. One of his wives, Gawhar Shād, worked with the Persian architect Qavam ud-Din in the planning and construction of a series of magnificent public buildings there.
Continuing power struggles among various members of his own family forced Shāh Rukh to undertake a number of military campaigns to ensure his power. The settlements he was able to impose were temporary, and intra-family power struggles eventually destroyed the dynasty.
The devastation of Persia's main cities led to the cultural center of the empire shifting to Samarkand in modern Uzbekistan and Herat in modern Afghanistan. Shāhrukh chose to have his capital not in Samarkand, but in Herat. This was to become the political center of the Timurid empire, and residence of his principal successors, though both cities benefited from the wealth and privilege of Shāhrukh's court, which was a great patron of the arts and sciences.
His wife, Gowhar Shād, funded the construction of two outstanding mosques and theological colleges in Mashhad and Herāt. The Gowhar-Shād-Mosque was finished in 1418. The mixed ethnic origins of the ruling dynasty led to a distinctive character in its cultural outlook, which was a combination of Persian civilization and art, with borrowings from China, and literature written in Persian as well as Turkic and Arabic. In fact, Shah Rukh sent a large embassy to the Ming Dynasty of China in 1419.
Shāhrukh died during a journey in Persia and was succeeded by his son, Mohammad Taragae Uluğ Bēg, who had been viceroy of Transoxiana during his father's lifetime.
Shahrukh Mirza see Shahrukh
Mirza, Shahrukh see Shahrukh
Shahrukh (Shahrukh Mirza) (Šāhrukh Mīrzā) (Shāh Rokh Mīrzā) (b. Aug. 20/30, 1377, Samarkand, Timurid empire [now in Uzbekistan] - d. March 12, 1447, Fishawand, Timurid Iran). Ruler of the Timurid dynasty in Transoxiana and Persia (r.1405-1447). The fourth son of Timur, he became governor of Samarkand around 1394, took part in the expeditions against Persia, Syria and Anatolia, and held important commands at the siege of Aleppo and at the battle of Ankara of 1402. On the death of Timur in 1405, he was recognized as sovereign of Khurasan and fought his brother Khalil Sultan, whom he nevertheless accepted as ruler. Rebellions having deprived Khalil of any authority, Shahrukh gave his lands to his son Ulugh Beg and conquered Mazandaran in 1406. In 1420, he defeated the army of Qara Yusuf, the Qara Qoyunlu ruler of Azerbaijan and Iraq. Praised by historians as a munificent sovereign, he rebuilt Marw, fortified and embellished Herat and was a patron of writers, artists and scholars. During his reign Turkish poetry began to rival Persian.
The first Timurid ruler, Shahrukh began the task of reconstruction necessitated by his father’s devastating campaigns. Anxious to establish himself as a legitimate Muslim sovereign, he moved his capital from Samarkand to Herat, where he became a patron of Perso-Islamic culture, supporting poets and artists, encouraging historical writing, and providing for religious endowments. He established the institution of the kitabkhana, the royal library complete with artists’ workshops for the production of illuminated manuscripts. He also exchanged embassies with China of several occasions. It was during his rule that Chagatai Turkish began to develop as a literary language. Through his patronage, Shahrukh laid the groundwork for the re-birth of Khurasan cultural life that was to continue throughout the fifteenth century. Of his five sons, Ulugh Beg alone survived to succeed him.
Shāh Rukh was the fourth son of Timur (Tamerlane), founder of the Timurid dynasty. At Timur’s death in 1405, a struggle for control of his empire broke out among members of his family. Shāh Rukh gained control of most of the empire, including Iran and Turkistan, and held it until his death. The only major areas of Timur’s empire outside of Shāh Rukh’s control were Syria and Khūzestān (now in southwestern Iran).
Shāh Rukh’s patronage of the arts was centered on his capital at Herāt in Khorāsān (now in western Afghanistan). Particularly important were the library and the school of miniature painting that developed and flourished there. One of his wives, Gawhar Shād, worked with the Persian architect Qavam ud-Din in the planning and construction of a series of magnificent public buildings there.
Continuing power struggles among various members of his own family forced Shāh Rukh to undertake a number of military campaigns to ensure his power. The settlements he was able to impose were temporary, and intra-family power struggles eventually destroyed the dynasty.
The devastation of Persia's main cities led to the cultural center of the empire shifting to Samarkand in modern Uzbekistan and Herat in modern Afghanistan. Shāhrukh chose to have his capital not in Samarkand, but in Herat. This was to become the political center of the Timurid empire, and residence of his principal successors, though both cities benefited from the wealth and privilege of Shāhrukh's court, which was a great patron of the arts and sciences.
His wife, Gowhar Shād, funded the construction of two outstanding mosques and theological colleges in Mashhad and Herāt. The Gowhar-Shād-Mosque was finished in 1418. The mixed ethnic origins of the ruling dynasty led to a distinctive character in its cultural outlook, which was a combination of Persian civilization and art, with borrowings from China, and literature written in Persian as well as Turkic and Arabic. In fact, Shah Rukh sent a large embassy to the Ming Dynasty of China in 1419.
Shāhrukh died during a journey in Persia and was succeeded by his son, Mohammad Taragae Uluğ Bēg, who had been viceroy of Transoxiana during his father's lifetime.
Shahrukh Mirza see Shahrukh
Mirza, Shahrukh see Shahrukh
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Shah Wali Allah
Shah Wali Allah (Shah Wali Ullah) (Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi) (b. February 21, 1703, Delhi, India - d. August 20, 1762, Delhi, India). Born into a strongly religious and learned family. His father, Shah ‘Abd al-Rahim, was a noted jurist and scholar who founded an Islamic teaching institution, a madrasa,in Delhi. He instructed his precocious son in Qur’anic studies, Arabic language, and the Naqshbandi mystical tradition, making him his successor at the tender age of seventeen. Shah Wali Allah therefore assumed his father’s position at the time of the Shah ‘Abd al-Rahim’s death in 1719.
A powerful formative influence on Shah Wali Allah’s thought was the pilgrimage he made to Mecca in 1730. He spent about a year and a half inthe Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina studying with most prominent and respected Sufi masters and hadith scholars of the time, who, recognizing his abilities, took him into their circle. His fluency in Arabic was such that many of his major works were written in that language. In addition, quite a number were composed in the Persian language, the major vehicle for prose among the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent until the twentieth century.
The period spent in the intellectual, religious, and cultural hub of the Muslim world gave Shah Wali Allah a cosmopolitan outlook in matters of Islamic law and practice so that his works address Muslims as a whole, rather than a more parochial audience. Since his Meccan masters were steeped in the tradition of hadith studies. Shah Wali Allah embraced the concept that the study and interpretation of the sayings of the Prophet were the key to integrating and revitalizing the practice of Islam in his time.
After his return from Arabia, Shah Wali Allah pursued his scholarly and mystical activities in Delhi, teaching in the Islamic religious school founded by his father and guiding disciples in the intricacies of mystical path.
Shah Wali Allah lived during that period in the development of the Islamic tradition known as the “wisdom” period, when a synthesis of the traditional religious sciences of philosophy, theology, and mysticism had been effected. In pre-modern times, however, this classical synthesis was showing signs of breaking down under various sectarian, political and social pressures.
The main thrust of Shah Wali Allah’s teaching and writing activities was therefore to re-integrate and revitalize the study of the Islamic religious sciences through coordinating the approaches of the main Islamic intellectual disciplines: law, theology, mysticisim, and especially Qur’anic and hadith studies. To this end, he composed some forty books and treatises and served as a religious scholar and spiritual guide.
Shah Wali Allah’s major work, Hujjat Allah al-Baligha (The Conclusive Argument from God), was composed after his return from the pilgrimage. In this two-volume study he presents an overview of an entire cosmology. In volume 1, he expounds on the underlying purpose of creation, the dynamics of human psychology, the higher significance of human thoughts and actions, the progressive development of human social and political systems, and ultimately the need for the religious revelation and its interpretation. In volume 2, he applies his method for bringing out an understanding of the deeper spiritual aspects of the Islamic legal injunctions to specific hadith reports of the Prophet covered in the order of the topics featured in traditional hadith compendia. Due to this enterprise of elucidating and reconciling the inner and outer dimensions of Islamic practice, he is often compared to the great thinker and mystic al-Ghazali (d. 1111).
His metaphysical system is also highly influenced by the philosophical Sufi tradition of both al-Ghazali and Ibn ‘Arabi (d. 1240), who related the Platonic concept of a higher or ideal level of meaning to the events of this world. This somewhat fluid layer, which seems to mediate between the purely spiritual and the purely material dimensions of reality, is known as the “World of Images.” This was understood by him to be the realm at which religious symbols were formulated before their articulation in specific religious injunctions. The essential understanding of what it means to follow these specific religious injunctions, then, must ultimately be sought at this higher level rather than in the particular instances of their external occurrence. This led Shah Wali Allah to elaborate a theory of symbolization and its expressions in concrete historical situations of meaning and applicability, which argues that the symbols have a kind of objective validity of their own. The conclusion is that the Islamic law must be practiced in its esoteric form in order to obtain its inner spiritual benefits.
In the case of his theory of religious revelation, he conceives of Islam as a universal religion, which, however, naturally had to take on concrete form in the time of the Prophet in the context of seventh-century Arabia. There is therefore somewhat of an unresolved tension in his thought between the concept of an ideal template of a universal religion termed the din, which is suited to the innate temperaments of all persons, and his asserting the applicability of its particular historical manifestation, Islam, to all times and places.
In his system, human beings are not merely passive receptors of religious laws. Those who strive in the path of moral and spiritual development are able to participate in the shaping of the future course of destiny, for even after death the most evolved among them will join the angels of the “Supreme Assembly” to participate in the task of guiding further human social and spiritual progress.
Although Shah Wali Allah’s translation of the Qur’an from Arabic into Perian was not the first, as some have claimed, it was pioneering in his conscious intention to go beyond previous translations in striking a balance between an overly literal version and one conveying merely the gist of the text. In the preface to this translation and in a later book called the Principles of Quranic Exegesis, he elaborated on the types of of divine discourse which constitute the Qur’an, including its legal import, its account of God’s favors to human beings, its evocation of God’s acts of intervention in human history, and its warning of the eventual reckoning at the end of time.
Shah Wali Allah’s sound training in law and hadith in the Holy Cities led Shah Wali Allah to favor the hadith methodology of the school of Malik ibn Anas (d. 795) and the theoretical tools of the Legal School of al-Shafi’i (d. 819). In his own practice, like most South Asian Muslims, he followed the Hanafi School of Law. Such eclecticism was known as tatbiq, or bringing diverse elements into correspondence. Some of his works on law and hadith are technical studies of theory and interpretation. In others, he considers the historical sources of the disagreements among the four major Sunni schools of law and suggests that the factors leading to these differences should be understood developmentally, so that differences do not become rigidified identifications. His position on the ability of qualified individuals to interpret the main sources, Qur’an and hadith, of Islamic legislation is not entirely radical, but signals his willingness to allow a certain level of individual interpretation (ijtihad) on the part of the qualified jurist.
Shah Wali Allah’s approach to the practice of Sufism was both eclectic and reformist. His attitude to Sufi practice and theory, as to the other Islamic disciplines, was that each Sufi order had its own unique history and strengths. The individual spiritual aspirant should therefore be taught to practice those elements of Sufism most compatible with his of her inherent nature, whether contemplative, devotional, or intellectual.
Shah Wali Allah was influenced by the philosophy of Ibn ‘Arabi, which featured the idea of an emanationist cosmology. While many of his contemporaries felt that the implicitly monistic formulations of Ibn ‘Arabi and the more dualistic philosophy of the respected Indian Sufi, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi (1625), were insurmountably opposed, Shah Wali Allah argued that their differences were essentially those of perspective and orientation rather than rooted in true metaphysical incompatibility.
Shah Wali Allah claimed initiation in the major Sufi orders of his age and, rather than stressing affiliation to any one of them, may have attempted to establish his own eclectic sort of practice, which, however, did not take hold. What seems to have been passed on to posterity was a diminishing emphasis on Sufism as a distinct form of practice and discipline, and an attempt by some of his descendants to incorporate Sufi elements so as to spiritualize more mainstream elements of Islamic belief and practice. For example, the Deoband madrasa, a prominent Islamic institute of higher learning, was founded by followers of his son, Shah ‘Abd al-Aziz (d. 1823); his grandson, Shah Isma’il Shahid (d. 1831), initially composed highly technical works of mystical philosophy, but is most widely known for serving as the ideologue of a militant Islamic reform movement, the “Muhammadan Way” (Tariqa Muhammadiyya).
Living at a time of transition in the political situation of Muslims in India and experiencing the fragmentation of the Mughal empire and subsequent upheavals on the eve of the colonial period, Shah Wali Allah seems to exemplify certain of the trends typical of pre-modern Muslim reform movements. Unlike the Wahhabis of Arabia, however, he did not reject the practice of venerating Muslim saints and believing that they, as well as the Prophet, had a continual spiritual presence that was accessible to the faithful.
In his discussion of human social and political development Shah Wali Allah coined the term irtifaqat from an Arabic root meaning “gaining benefit by.” According to his view of human societal development, human beings make continuous historical progress through four levels, or irtifaqat, which correspond to the stages of nomadic life, urbanization, the establishment of states, and the consolidation of international empires such as the Islamic Caliphate.
It is interesting that today all major religious movements in Muslim South Asia invoke Shah Wali Allah as an intellectual progenitor. His son, Shah ‘Abd al-Aziz, was a noted scholar and teacher with a wide circle of pupils. Other South Asian Muslims who have a more anti-Sufi, puritan outlook -- such as the Ahl al-Hadith group -- and even the followers of Maulana Maududi (d. 1979) find in Shah Wali Allah’s return to the fundamentals of the Islamic legal system and political rejection of alien influences a precursor to their own reformist beliefs. Islamic Modernists see in Shah Wali Allah a thinker who responded to the crisis of his time by accommodating divergent legal and ideological factions, calling for a renewed ijtihad, and searching for the spirit behind the literal injunctions of the religious tradition.
Walī Allāh received a traditional Islamic education from his father and is said to have
Shah Wali Allah (Shah Wali Ullah) (Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi) (b. February 21, 1703, Delhi, India - d. August 20, 1762, Delhi, India). Born into a strongly religious and learned family. His father, Shah ‘Abd al-Rahim, was a noted jurist and scholar who founded an Islamic teaching institution, a madrasa,in Delhi. He instructed his precocious son in Qur’anic studies, Arabic language, and the Naqshbandi mystical tradition, making him his successor at the tender age of seventeen. Shah Wali Allah therefore assumed his father’s position at the time of the Shah ‘Abd al-Rahim’s death in 1719.
A powerful formative influence on Shah Wali Allah’s thought was the pilgrimage he made to Mecca in 1730. He spent about a year and a half inthe Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina studying with most prominent and respected Sufi masters and hadith scholars of the time, who, recognizing his abilities, took him into their circle. His fluency in Arabic was such that many of his major works were written in that language. In addition, quite a number were composed in the Persian language, the major vehicle for prose among the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent until the twentieth century.
The period spent in the intellectual, religious, and cultural hub of the Muslim world gave Shah Wali Allah a cosmopolitan outlook in matters of Islamic law and practice so that his works address Muslims as a whole, rather than a more parochial audience. Since his Meccan masters were steeped in the tradition of hadith studies. Shah Wali Allah embraced the concept that the study and interpretation of the sayings of the Prophet were the key to integrating and revitalizing the practice of Islam in his time.
After his return from Arabia, Shah Wali Allah pursued his scholarly and mystical activities in Delhi, teaching in the Islamic religious school founded by his father and guiding disciples in the intricacies of mystical path.
Shah Wali Allah lived during that period in the development of the Islamic tradition known as the “wisdom” period, when a synthesis of the traditional religious sciences of philosophy, theology, and mysticism had been effected. In pre-modern times, however, this classical synthesis was showing signs of breaking down under various sectarian, political and social pressures.
The main thrust of Shah Wali Allah’s teaching and writing activities was therefore to re-integrate and revitalize the study of the Islamic religious sciences through coordinating the approaches of the main Islamic intellectual disciplines: law, theology, mysticisim, and especially Qur’anic and hadith studies. To this end, he composed some forty books and treatises and served as a religious scholar and spiritual guide.
Shah Wali Allah’s major work, Hujjat Allah al-Baligha (The Conclusive Argument from God), was composed after his return from the pilgrimage. In this two-volume study he presents an overview of an entire cosmology. In volume 1, he expounds on the underlying purpose of creation, the dynamics of human psychology, the higher significance of human thoughts and actions, the progressive development of human social and political systems, and ultimately the need for the religious revelation and its interpretation. In volume 2, he applies his method for bringing out an understanding of the deeper spiritual aspects of the Islamic legal injunctions to specific hadith reports of the Prophet covered in the order of the topics featured in traditional hadith compendia. Due to this enterprise of elucidating and reconciling the inner and outer dimensions of Islamic practice, he is often compared to the great thinker and mystic al-Ghazali (d. 1111).
His metaphysical system is also highly influenced by the philosophical Sufi tradition of both al-Ghazali and Ibn ‘Arabi (d. 1240), who related the Platonic concept of a higher or ideal level of meaning to the events of this world. This somewhat fluid layer, which seems to mediate between the purely spiritual and the purely material dimensions of reality, is known as the “World of Images.” This was understood by him to be the realm at which religious symbols were formulated before their articulation in specific religious injunctions. The essential understanding of what it means to follow these specific religious injunctions, then, must ultimately be sought at this higher level rather than in the particular instances of their external occurrence. This led Shah Wali Allah to elaborate a theory of symbolization and its expressions in concrete historical situations of meaning and applicability, which argues that the symbols have a kind of objective validity of their own. The conclusion is that the Islamic law must be practiced in its esoteric form in order to obtain its inner spiritual benefits.
In the case of his theory of religious revelation, he conceives of Islam as a universal religion, which, however, naturally had to take on concrete form in the time of the Prophet in the context of seventh-century Arabia. There is therefore somewhat of an unresolved tension in his thought between the concept of an ideal template of a universal religion termed the din, which is suited to the innate temperaments of all persons, and his asserting the applicability of its particular historical manifestation, Islam, to all times and places.
In his system, human beings are not merely passive receptors of religious laws. Those who strive in the path of moral and spiritual development are able to participate in the shaping of the future course of destiny, for even after death the most evolved among them will join the angels of the “Supreme Assembly” to participate in the task of guiding further human social and spiritual progress.
Although Shah Wali Allah’s translation of the Qur’an from Arabic into Perian was not the first, as some have claimed, it was pioneering in his conscious intention to go beyond previous translations in striking a balance between an overly literal version and one conveying merely the gist of the text. In the preface to this translation and in a later book called the Principles of Quranic Exegesis, he elaborated on the types of of divine discourse which constitute the Qur’an, including its legal import, its account of God’s favors to human beings, its evocation of God’s acts of intervention in human history, and its warning of the eventual reckoning at the end of time.
Shah Wali Allah’s sound training in law and hadith in the Holy Cities led Shah Wali Allah to favor the hadith methodology of the school of Malik ibn Anas (d. 795) and the theoretical tools of the Legal School of al-Shafi’i (d. 819). In his own practice, like most South Asian Muslims, he followed the Hanafi School of Law. Such eclecticism was known as tatbiq, or bringing diverse elements into correspondence. Some of his works on law and hadith are technical studies of theory and interpretation. In others, he considers the historical sources of the disagreements among the four major Sunni schools of law and suggests that the factors leading to these differences should be understood developmentally, so that differences do not become rigidified identifications. His position on the ability of qualified individuals to interpret the main sources, Qur’an and hadith, of Islamic legislation is not entirely radical, but signals his willingness to allow a certain level of individual interpretation (ijtihad) on the part of the qualified jurist.
Shah Wali Allah’s approach to the practice of Sufism was both eclectic and reformist. His attitude to Sufi practice and theory, as to the other Islamic disciplines, was that each Sufi order had its own unique history and strengths. The individual spiritual aspirant should therefore be taught to practice those elements of Sufism most compatible with his of her inherent nature, whether contemplative, devotional, or intellectual.
Shah Wali Allah was influenced by the philosophy of Ibn ‘Arabi, which featured the idea of an emanationist cosmology. While many of his contemporaries felt that the implicitly monistic formulations of Ibn ‘Arabi and the more dualistic philosophy of the respected Indian Sufi, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi (1625), were insurmountably opposed, Shah Wali Allah argued that their differences were essentially those of perspective and orientation rather than rooted in true metaphysical incompatibility.
Shah Wali Allah claimed initiation in the major Sufi orders of his age and, rather than stressing affiliation to any one of them, may have attempted to establish his own eclectic sort of practice, which, however, did not take hold. What seems to have been passed on to posterity was a diminishing emphasis on Sufism as a distinct form of practice and discipline, and an attempt by some of his descendants to incorporate Sufi elements so as to spiritualize more mainstream elements of Islamic belief and practice. For example, the Deoband madrasa, a prominent Islamic institute of higher learning, was founded by followers of his son, Shah ‘Abd al-Aziz (d. 1823); his grandson, Shah Isma’il Shahid (d. 1831), initially composed highly technical works of mystical philosophy, but is most widely known for serving as the ideologue of a militant Islamic reform movement, the “Muhammadan Way” (Tariqa Muhammadiyya).
Living at a time of transition in the political situation of Muslims in India and experiencing the fragmentation of the Mughal empire and subsequent upheavals on the eve of the colonial period, Shah Wali Allah seems to exemplify certain of the trends typical of pre-modern Muslim reform movements. Unlike the Wahhabis of Arabia, however, he did not reject the practice of venerating Muslim saints and believing that they, as well as the Prophet, had a continual spiritual presence that was accessible to the faithful.
In his discussion of human social and political development Shah Wali Allah coined the term irtifaqat from an Arabic root meaning “gaining benefit by.” According to his view of human societal development, human beings make continuous historical progress through four levels, or irtifaqat, which correspond to the stages of nomadic life, urbanization, the establishment of states, and the consolidation of international empires such as the Islamic Caliphate.
It is interesting that today all major religious movements in Muslim South Asia invoke Shah Wali Allah as an intellectual progenitor. His son, Shah ‘Abd al-Aziz, was a noted scholar and teacher with a wide circle of pupils. Other South Asian Muslims who have a more anti-Sufi, puritan outlook -- such as the Ahl al-Hadith group -- and even the followers of Maulana Maududi (d. 1979) find in Shah Wali Allah’s return to the fundamentals of the Islamic legal system and political rejection of alien influences a precursor to their own reformist beliefs. Islamic Modernists see in Shah Wali Allah a thinker who responded to the crisis of his time by accommodating divergent legal and ideological factions, calling for a renewed ijtihad, and searching for the spirit behind the literal injunctions of the religious tradition.
Walī Allāh received a traditional Islamic education from his father and is said to have
memorized the Qurʾān at the age of seven. In 1732 he made a pilgrimage to Mecca, and he then remained in the Hejaz (now in Saudi Arabia) to study religion with eminent theologians. He reached adulthood at a time of disillusionment following the death in 1707 of Aurangzeb, the last great Mughal emperor of India. Because large areas of the empire had been lost to Hindu and Sikh rulers of the Deccan and the Punjab, Indian Muslims had to accept the rule of non-Muslims. This challenge occupied Walī Allāh’s adult life.
Walī Allāh believed that the Muslim polity could be restored to its former splendor by a policy of religious reform that would harmonize the religious ideals of Islam with the changing social and economic conditions of India. According to him, religious ideas were universal and eternal, but their application could meet different circumstances. The main tool of his policy was the doctrine of tatbīq, whereby the principles of Islam were reconstructed and reapplied in accordance with the Qurʾān and the Ḥadīth (the spoken traditions attributed to Muhammad). He thereby allowed the practice of ijtihād (independent thinking by theologians in matters relating to Islamic law), which hitherto had been curtailed. As a corollary, he reinterpreted the concept of taqdīr (determinism) and condemned its popularization, qismat (narrow fatalism, or absolute predetermination). Walī Allāh held that man could achieve his full potential by his own exertion in a universe that was determined by God. Theologically, he opposed the veneration of saints or anything that compromised strict monotheism. He was jurisprudentially eclectic, holding that a Muslim could follow any of the four schools of Islamic law on any point of dogma or ritual.
The best known of Walī Allāh’s voluminous writings was Asrār ad-dīn (“The Secrets of Belief”). His annotated Persian translation of the Qurʾān is still popular in India and Pakistan.
Shah Wali Allah worked for the revival of Muslim rule and intellectual learning in South Asia, during a time of waning Muslim power. He despised the divisions and deviations within Islam and its practice in India and hoped to "purify" the religion and unify all Indian Muslims under the "banner of truth". He is also thought to have anticipated a number of progressive, social, economic, and political ideas of the modern era such as social reform, equal rights, labor protection, and welfare entitlement of all to food, clothing, and housing.
Shah Wali Ullah see Shah Wali Allah
Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi see Shah Wali Allah
Walī Allāh believed that the Muslim polity could be restored to its former splendor by a policy of religious reform that would harmonize the religious ideals of Islam with the changing social and economic conditions of India. According to him, religious ideas were universal and eternal, but their application could meet different circumstances. The main tool of his policy was the doctrine of tatbīq, whereby the principles of Islam were reconstructed and reapplied in accordance with the Qurʾān and the Ḥadīth (the spoken traditions attributed to Muhammad). He thereby allowed the practice of ijtihād (independent thinking by theologians in matters relating to Islamic law), which hitherto had been curtailed. As a corollary, he reinterpreted the concept of taqdīr (determinism) and condemned its popularization, qismat (narrow fatalism, or absolute predetermination). Walī Allāh held that man could achieve his full potential by his own exertion in a universe that was determined by God. Theologically, he opposed the veneration of saints or anything that compromised strict monotheism. He was jurisprudentially eclectic, holding that a Muslim could follow any of the four schools of Islamic law on any point of dogma or ritual.
The best known of Walī Allāh’s voluminous writings was Asrār ad-dīn (“The Secrets of Belief”). His annotated Persian translation of the Qurʾān is still popular in India and Pakistan.
Shah Wali Allah worked for the revival of Muslim rule and intellectual learning in South Asia, during a time of waning Muslim power. He despised the divisions and deviations within Islam and its practice in India and hoped to "purify" the religion and unify all Indian Muslims under the "banner of truth". He is also thought to have anticipated a number of progressive, social, economic, and political ideas of the modern era such as social reform, equal rights, labor protection, and welfare entitlement of all to food, clothing, and housing.
Shah Wali Ullah see Shah Wali Allah
Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi see Shah Wali Allah
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Shamil
Shamil (Şeyx Şamil) (Shamyl) (Schamil) (Schamyl) (b. c. 1797, Gimry, Dagestan [now in Russia]—d. March 1871, Medina, Arabia). Popular leader in Dagestan. He was the head of the local Naqshbandiyya and the last and most successful leader of the uprising against Russian rule.
Shāmil was the leader of Muslim Dagestan and Chechen mountaineers, whose fierce resistance delayed Russia’s conquest of the Caucasus for 25 years.
The son of a free landlord, Shāmil studied grammar, logic, rhetoric, and Arabic, acquired prestige as a learned man, and, in 1830, joined the Murīdīs, a Ṣūfī (Islāmic mystical) brotherhood. Under the leadership of Ghāzī Muḥammad, the brotherhood had become involved in a holy war against the Russians, who had formally acquired control of Dagestan from Iran in 1813. After Ghāzī Muḥammad was killed by the Russians (1832) and his successor, Gamzat Bek, was assassinated by his own followers (1834), Shāmil was elected to serve as the third imam (political-religious leader) of Dagestan.
Establishing an independent state in Dagestan (1834), Shāmil reorganized and enlarged his Chechen and Dagestan forces and led them in extensive raids against the Russian positions in the Caucasus region. The Russians sent a fresh expedition against Shāmil in 1838; although it captured Ahulgo, the mountaineers’ main stronghold, Shāmil escaped. Neither that nor subsequent expeditions were able to defeat Shāmil, despite their successful penetration into his territory and their conquests of his forts and towns.
In 1857, the Russians became more determined to suppress Shāmil, whose reputation had spread throughout western Europe and whose exploits had become legendary among his own people. Sending large, well-equipped forces under generals N.I. Evdokimov and A.I. Baryatinsky, they started operations from all sides. Their military successes, coupled with the increasing exhaustion of Shāmil’s followers, resulted in the surrender of many villages and tribes to the Russians. After the invaders successfully stormed Shāmil’s fortress at Vedeno (April 1859), he and several hundred of his adherents withdrew to Mount Gunib. On August 25 (September 6, New Style), 1859, Shāmil, recognizing the futility of continuing to fight the overwhelming Russian armies that surrounded him, finally surrendered and effectively ended the resistance of the Caucasian peoples to Russian subjugation. Shāmil was taken to Saint Petersburg and then was exiled to Kaluga, south of Moscow.
After his capture, Shamil was sent to Saint Petersburg to meet the Emperor Alexander II. Afterwards, he was exiled to Kaluga, then a small town near Moscow. After several years in Kaluga he complained to the authorities about the climate and in December, 1868, Shamil received permission to move to Kiev, a commercial center of the Empire's southwest. In Kiev he was afforded a mansion on Aleksandrovskaya Street. The Imperial authorities ordered the Kiev superintendent to keep Shamil under "strict but not overly burdensome surveillance" and allotted the city a significant sum for the needs of the exile. Shamil seemed to have liked his luxurious detainment, as well as the city, as evidenced by the letters he sent from Kiev.
In 1869, shamil was given permission to perform the Hajj to the holy city of Mecca. He traveled first from Kiev to Odessa and then sailed to Istanbul, where he was greeted by the Ottoman Sultan Abdulaziz. He became a guest at the Imperial Topkapi Palace for a short while and left Istanbul on a ship reserved for him by the Sultan. After completing his pilgrimage to Mecca, he died in Medina in 1871 while visiting the city, and was buried in the Jannatul Baqi, a historical graveyard in Medina where many prominent personalities from Islamic history are interred. Two elder sons, (Cemaleddin and Muhammed Şefi), whom he had to leave in Russia in order to get permission to visit Mecca, became officers in the Russian army, while two younger sons, (Muhammed Gazi and Muhammed Kamil), served in the Turkish army.
Said Shamil, a grandson of Imam Shamil, became one of the founders of the Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus, which survived between 1917 and 1920 and later, in 1924, he established the "Committee of Independence of the Caucasus" in Germany
Seyx Samil see Shamil
Shamyl see Shamil
Schamil see Shamil
Schamyl see Shamil
Shamil (Şeyx Şamil) (Shamyl) (Schamil) (Schamyl) (b. c. 1797, Gimry, Dagestan [now in Russia]—d. March 1871, Medina, Arabia). Popular leader in Dagestan. He was the head of the local Naqshbandiyya and the last and most successful leader of the uprising against Russian rule.
Shāmil was the leader of Muslim Dagestan and Chechen mountaineers, whose fierce resistance delayed Russia’s conquest of the Caucasus for 25 years.
The son of a free landlord, Shāmil studied grammar, logic, rhetoric, and Arabic, acquired prestige as a learned man, and, in 1830, joined the Murīdīs, a Ṣūfī (Islāmic mystical) brotherhood. Under the leadership of Ghāzī Muḥammad, the brotherhood had become involved in a holy war against the Russians, who had formally acquired control of Dagestan from Iran in 1813. After Ghāzī Muḥammad was killed by the Russians (1832) and his successor, Gamzat Bek, was assassinated by his own followers (1834), Shāmil was elected to serve as the third imam (political-religious leader) of Dagestan.
Establishing an independent state in Dagestan (1834), Shāmil reorganized and enlarged his Chechen and Dagestan forces and led them in extensive raids against the Russian positions in the Caucasus region. The Russians sent a fresh expedition against Shāmil in 1838; although it captured Ahulgo, the mountaineers’ main stronghold, Shāmil escaped. Neither that nor subsequent expeditions were able to defeat Shāmil, despite their successful penetration into his territory and their conquests of his forts and towns.
In 1857, the Russians became more determined to suppress Shāmil, whose reputation had spread throughout western Europe and whose exploits had become legendary among his own people. Sending large, well-equipped forces under generals N.I. Evdokimov and A.I. Baryatinsky, they started operations from all sides. Their military successes, coupled with the increasing exhaustion of Shāmil’s followers, resulted in the surrender of many villages and tribes to the Russians. After the invaders successfully stormed Shāmil’s fortress at Vedeno (April 1859), he and several hundred of his adherents withdrew to Mount Gunib. On August 25 (September 6, New Style), 1859, Shāmil, recognizing the futility of continuing to fight the overwhelming Russian armies that surrounded him, finally surrendered and effectively ended the resistance of the Caucasian peoples to Russian subjugation. Shāmil was taken to Saint Petersburg and then was exiled to Kaluga, south of Moscow.
After his capture, Shamil was sent to Saint Petersburg to meet the Emperor Alexander II. Afterwards, he was exiled to Kaluga, then a small town near Moscow. After several years in Kaluga he complained to the authorities about the climate and in December, 1868, Shamil received permission to move to Kiev, a commercial center of the Empire's southwest. In Kiev he was afforded a mansion on Aleksandrovskaya Street. The Imperial authorities ordered the Kiev superintendent to keep Shamil under "strict but not overly burdensome surveillance" and allotted the city a significant sum for the needs of the exile. Shamil seemed to have liked his luxurious detainment, as well as the city, as evidenced by the letters he sent from Kiev.
In 1869, shamil was given permission to perform the Hajj to the holy city of Mecca. He traveled first from Kiev to Odessa and then sailed to Istanbul, where he was greeted by the Ottoman Sultan Abdulaziz. He became a guest at the Imperial Topkapi Palace for a short while and left Istanbul on a ship reserved for him by the Sultan. After completing his pilgrimage to Mecca, he died in Medina in 1871 while visiting the city, and was buried in the Jannatul Baqi, a historical graveyard in Medina where many prominent personalities from Islamic history are interred. Two elder sons, (Cemaleddin and Muhammed Şefi), whom he had to leave in Russia in order to get permission to visit Mecca, became officers in the Russian army, while two younger sons, (Muhammed Gazi and Muhammed Kamil), served in the Turkish army.
Said Shamil, a grandson of Imam Shamil, became one of the founders of the Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus, which survived between 1917 and 1920 and later, in 1924, he established the "Committee of Independence of the Caucasus" in Germany
Seyx Samil see Shamil
Shamyl see Shamil
Schamil see Shamil
Schamyl see Shamil
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Sinan, Mi‘mar
Sinan, Mi‘mar (Mi‘mar Sinan - “Architect Sinan”) (Mimar Koca Sinan - “Great Architect Sinan”) (Khoca Mimar Sinan Ağa) (b. 1489/1490, Ağırnaz, Turkey - d. July 17, 1588, Istanbul). Greatest architect of the Ottomans. Born at Kayseri in Anatolia of Christian origin, he became a Janissary and took part in several campaigns, during which he attracted attention by devising ferries and building bridges. From around 1540, he was exclusively engaged in building mosques, palaces, schools and public baths from Bosnia to Mecca. His three most famous works are the Sheh-zade Mosque and the Suleymaniyye in Istanbul, and the Mosque of Sultan Selim II in Edirne. The list of his buildings is given by his biographer, the poet Mustafa Sa‘id (d. 1595).
Sinan was the most celebrated of all Ottoman architects. His ideas, perfected in the construction of mosques and other buildings, served as the basic themes for virtually all later Turkish religious and civic architecture.
The son of Greek Orthodox Christian parents, Sinan entered his father’s trade as a stone mason and carpenter. In 1512, however, he was drafted into the Janissary corps. Sinan, whose Christian name was Joseph, converted to Islam, and he began a lifelong service to the Ottoman royal house and to the great sultan Süleyman I (r. 1520–66) in particular. Following a period of schooling and rigorous training, Sinan became a construction officer in the Ottoman army, eventually rising to chief of the artillery.
He first revealed his talents as an architect in the 1530s by designing and building military bridges and fortifications. In 1539, he completed his first nonmilitary building, and for the remaining 40 years of his life he was to work as the chief architect of the Ottoman Empire at a time when it was at the zenith of its political power and cultural brilliance. The number of projects Sinan undertook is massive—79 mosques, 34 palaces, 33 public baths, 19 tombs, 55 schools, 16 poorhouses, 7 madrasahs (religious schools), and 12 caravansaries, in addition to granaries, fountains, aqueducts, and hospitals. His three most famous works are the Şehzade Mosque and the Mosque of Süleyman I the Magnificent, both of which are in Istanbul, and the Selim Mosque at Edirne.
Sinan’s first truly important architectural commission was the Şehzade Mosque, which was completed in 1548 and which Sinan regarded as the best work of his apprenticeship. Like many of his mosque constructions, the Şehzade Mosque has a square base upon which rests a large central dome flanked by four half domes and numerous smaller, subsidiary domes.
The Mosque of Süleyman in Istanbul was constructed in the years 1550–57 and is considered by many scholars to be his finest work. It was based on the design of the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, a 6th-century masterpiece of Byzantine architecture that greatly influenced Sinan. The Mosque of Süleyman has a massive central dome that is pierced by 32 openings, thus giving the dome the effect of lightness while also copiously illuminating the mosque’s interior. It is one of the largest mosques ever built in the Ottoman Empire. Besides the place of worship, it contains a vast social complex comprising four madrasahs, a large hospital and medical school, a kitchen-refectory, and baths, shops, and stables.
Sinan himself considered the Mosque of Selim at Edirne, built in the years 1569–75, to be his masterwork. This mosque is the culmination of his centralized-domed plans, the great central dome rising on eight massive piers in between which are impressive recessed arcades. The dome is framed by the four loftiest minarets in Turkey.
Starting with the Byzantine church as a model, Sinan adapted the designs of his mosques to meet the needs of Muslim worship, which requires large open spaces for common prayer. As a result, the huge central dome became the focal point around which the design of the rest of the structure was developed. Sinan pioneered the use of smaller domes, half domes, and buttresses to lead the eye up the mosque’s exterior to the central dome at its apex, and he used tall, slender minarets at the corners to frame the entire structure. This plan could yield striking exterior effects, as in the dramatic facade of the Selim Mosque. Sinan was able to convey a sense of size and power in all of his larger buildings. Many scholars consider his tomb monuments to be the finest examples of his smaller works.
Sinan was the chief Ottoman architect and civil engineer for sultans Suleiman I, Selim II, and Murad III. He was responsible for the construction of more than three hundred major structures, and other more modest projects, such as his Qur'an schools (sibyan mektebs).
Trained as a military engineer, he rose through the ranks to become first an officer and finally a Janissary commander, with the honorific title of ağa. He learned his architectural and engineering skills while on campaign with the Janissaries, becoming expert at constructing fortifications of all kinds, as well as military infrastructure, such as roads, bridges and aqueducts. At about the age of fifty, he was appointed as chief royal architect, applying the technical skills he had acquired in the army to the "creation of fine religious buildings" and civic structures of all kinds. He remained in post for almost fifty years.
Sinan's masterpiece is the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, although his most famous work is the Suleiman Mosque in Istanbul. He headed an extensive governmental department and trained many assistants who, in turn, distinguished themselves, including Sedefhar Mehmet Ağa, architect of the Sultan Ahmed Mosque. He is considered the greatest architect of the classical period of Ottoman architecture, and has been compared to Michelangelo, his contemporary in the West. Michelangelo and his plans for St. Peter's Basilica in Rome were well-known in Istanbul, since Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo had been invited, in 1502 and 1505 respectively, by the Sublime Porte to submit plans for a bridge spanning the Golden Horn.
At the start of his career as an architect, Sinan had to deal with an established, traditional domed architecture. His training as an army engineer led him to approach architecture from an empirical point of view, rather than from a theoretical one. He started to experiment with the design and engineering of single-domed and multiple-domed structures. He tried to obtain a new geometrical purity, a rationality and a spatial integrity in his structures and designs of mosques. Through all this, he demonstrated his creativity and his wish to create a clear, unified space. He started to develop a series of variations on the domes, surrounding them in different ways with semi-domes, piers, screen walls and different sets of galleries. His domes and arches are curved, but he avoided curvilinear elements in the rest of his design, transforming the circle of the dome into a rectangular, hexagonal or octagonal system. He tried to obtain a rational harmony between the exterior pyramidal composition of semi-domes, culminating in a single drumless dome, and the interior space where this central dome vertically integrates the space into a unified whole. His genius lies in the organization of this space and in the resolution of the tensions created by the design. He was an innovator in the use of decoration and motifs, merging them into the architectural forms as a whole. He accentuated the center underneath the central dome by flooding it with light from the many windows. He incorporated his mosques in an efficient way into a complex (külliye), serving the needs of the community as an intellectual center, a community center and serving the social needs and the health problems of the faithful.
When Sinan died, the classical Ottoman architecture had reached its climax. No successor was gifted enough to better the design of the Selimiye mosque and to develop it further. His students retreated to earlier models, such as the Şehzade mosque. Invention faded away, and a decline set in.
During his tenure of 50 years at the post of imperial architect, Sinan is said to have constructed or supervised 476 buildings (196 of which still survive), according to the official list of his works, the Tazkirat-al-Abniya. He couldn't possibly have designed them all, but he relied on the skills of his office. He took credit and the responsibility for their work. As a janissary, and thus a slave of the sultan, his primary responsibility was to the sultan. In his spare time, he also designed buildings for the chief officials. He delegated to his assistants the construction of less important buildings in the provinces. The number of buildings he was responsible for include:
* 94 large mosques (camii),
* 57 colleges,
* 52 smaller mosques (mescit),
* 48 bath-houses (hamam).
* 35 palaces (saray),
* 22 mausoleums (türbe),
* 20 caravanserai (kervansaray; han),
* 17 public kitchens (imaret),
* 8 bridges,
* 8 store houses or granaries
* 7 Qur'anic schools (medrese),
* 6 aqueducts,
* 3 hospitals (darüşşifa)
Some of his works include:
* Azapkapi Sokullu Mosque in Istanbul
* Caferağa Medresseh
* Selimiye Mosque in Edirne
* Süleymaniye Complex
* Kılıç Ali Pasha Complex
* Molla Çelebi Mosque
* Haseki Baths
* Piyale Pasha Mosque
* Şehzade Mosque
* Mihrimah Sultan Mosque in Edirnekapı
* Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge in Višegrad
* Nisanci Mehmed Pasha Mosque
* Rüstem Pasha Mosque
* Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque
* Kadirga Sokullu Mosque
* Koursoum Mosque or Osman Shah Mosque in Trikala
* Al-Takiya Al-Suleimaniya in Damascus
* Yavuz Sultan Selim Madras
* Mimar Sinan Bridge in Büyükçekmece
* Church of the Assumption in Uzundzhovo
* Tekkiye Mosque
* Khusruwiyah Mosque
* Oratory at the Western Wall
Sinan died in 1588 and is buried in a tomb in Istanbul, a türbe of his own design, in the cemetery just outside the walls of the Süleymaniye Mosque to the north, across a street named Mimar Sinan Caddesi in his honor. He was buried near the tombs of his greatest patrons: Sultan Süleyman and the Sultana Haseki Hürrem, Suleiman's wife.
His name is also given to:
* a crater on the planet Mercury.
* A Turkish state university, the Mimar Sinan University of Fine Arts in Istanbul.
Sinan's portrait was depicted on the reverse of the Turkish 10,000 lira banknotes of 1982-1995.
Mi'mar Sinan see Sinan, Mi‘mar
Sinan see Sinan, Mi‘mar
Architect Sinan see Sinan, Mi‘mar
Great Architect Sinan see Sinan, Mi‘mar
Mimar Koca Sinan see Sinan, Mi‘mar
Khoca Mimar Sinan Ağa see Sinan, Mi‘mar
Sinan was the most celebrated of all Ottoman architects. His ideas, perfected in the construction of mosques and other buildings, served as the basic themes for virtually all later Turkish religious and civic architecture.
The son of Greek Orthodox Christian parents, Sinan entered his father’s trade as a stone mason and carpenter. In 1512, however, he was drafted into the Janissary corps. Sinan, whose Christian name was Joseph, converted to Islam, and he began a lifelong service to the Ottoman royal house and to the great sultan Süleyman I (r. 1520–66) in particular. Following a period of schooling and rigorous training, Sinan became a construction officer in the Ottoman army, eventually rising to chief of the artillery.
He first revealed his talents as an architect in the 1530s by designing and building military bridges and fortifications. In 1539, he completed his first nonmilitary building, and for the remaining 40 years of his life he was to work as the chief architect of the Ottoman Empire at a time when it was at the zenith of its political power and cultural brilliance. The number of projects Sinan undertook is massive—79 mosques, 34 palaces, 33 public baths, 19 tombs, 55 schools, 16 poorhouses, 7 madrasahs (religious schools), and 12 caravansaries, in addition to granaries, fountains, aqueducts, and hospitals. His three most famous works are the Şehzade Mosque and the Mosque of Süleyman I the Magnificent, both of which are in Istanbul, and the Selim Mosque at Edirne.
Sinan’s first truly important architectural commission was the Şehzade Mosque, which was completed in 1548 and which Sinan regarded as the best work of his apprenticeship. Like many of his mosque constructions, the Şehzade Mosque has a square base upon which rests a large central dome flanked by four half domes and numerous smaller, subsidiary domes.
The Mosque of Süleyman in Istanbul was constructed in the years 1550–57 and is considered by many scholars to be his finest work. It was based on the design of the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, a 6th-century masterpiece of Byzantine architecture that greatly influenced Sinan. The Mosque of Süleyman has a massive central dome that is pierced by 32 openings, thus giving the dome the effect of lightness while also copiously illuminating the mosque’s interior. It is one of the largest mosques ever built in the Ottoman Empire. Besides the place of worship, it contains a vast social complex comprising four madrasahs, a large hospital and medical school, a kitchen-refectory, and baths, shops, and stables.
Sinan himself considered the Mosque of Selim at Edirne, built in the years 1569–75, to be his masterwork. This mosque is the culmination of his centralized-domed plans, the great central dome rising on eight massive piers in between which are impressive recessed arcades. The dome is framed by the four loftiest minarets in Turkey.
Starting with the Byzantine church as a model, Sinan adapted the designs of his mosques to meet the needs of Muslim worship, which requires large open spaces for common prayer. As a result, the huge central dome became the focal point around which the design of the rest of the structure was developed. Sinan pioneered the use of smaller domes, half domes, and buttresses to lead the eye up the mosque’s exterior to the central dome at its apex, and he used tall, slender minarets at the corners to frame the entire structure. This plan could yield striking exterior effects, as in the dramatic facade of the Selim Mosque. Sinan was able to convey a sense of size and power in all of his larger buildings. Many scholars consider his tomb monuments to be the finest examples of his smaller works.
Sinan was the chief Ottoman architect and civil engineer for sultans Suleiman I, Selim II, and Murad III. He was responsible for the construction of more than three hundred major structures, and other more modest projects, such as his Qur'an schools (sibyan mektebs).
Trained as a military engineer, he rose through the ranks to become first an officer and finally a Janissary commander, with the honorific title of ağa. He learned his architectural and engineering skills while on campaign with the Janissaries, becoming expert at constructing fortifications of all kinds, as well as military infrastructure, such as roads, bridges and aqueducts. At about the age of fifty, he was appointed as chief royal architect, applying the technical skills he had acquired in the army to the "creation of fine religious buildings" and civic structures of all kinds. He remained in post for almost fifty years.
Sinan's masterpiece is the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, although his most famous work is the Suleiman Mosque in Istanbul. He headed an extensive governmental department and trained many assistants who, in turn, distinguished themselves, including Sedefhar Mehmet Ağa, architect of the Sultan Ahmed Mosque. He is considered the greatest architect of the classical period of Ottoman architecture, and has been compared to Michelangelo, his contemporary in the West. Michelangelo and his plans for St. Peter's Basilica in Rome were well-known in Istanbul, since Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo had been invited, in 1502 and 1505 respectively, by the Sublime Porte to submit plans for a bridge spanning the Golden Horn.
At the start of his career as an architect, Sinan had to deal with an established, traditional domed architecture. His training as an army engineer led him to approach architecture from an empirical point of view, rather than from a theoretical one. He started to experiment with the design and engineering of single-domed and multiple-domed structures. He tried to obtain a new geometrical purity, a rationality and a spatial integrity in his structures and designs of mosques. Through all this, he demonstrated his creativity and his wish to create a clear, unified space. He started to develop a series of variations on the domes, surrounding them in different ways with semi-domes, piers, screen walls and different sets of galleries. His domes and arches are curved, but he avoided curvilinear elements in the rest of his design, transforming the circle of the dome into a rectangular, hexagonal or octagonal system. He tried to obtain a rational harmony between the exterior pyramidal composition of semi-domes, culminating in a single drumless dome, and the interior space where this central dome vertically integrates the space into a unified whole. His genius lies in the organization of this space and in the resolution of the tensions created by the design. He was an innovator in the use of decoration and motifs, merging them into the architectural forms as a whole. He accentuated the center underneath the central dome by flooding it with light from the many windows. He incorporated his mosques in an efficient way into a complex (külliye), serving the needs of the community as an intellectual center, a community center and serving the social needs and the health problems of the faithful.
When Sinan died, the classical Ottoman architecture had reached its climax. No successor was gifted enough to better the design of the Selimiye mosque and to develop it further. His students retreated to earlier models, such as the Şehzade mosque. Invention faded away, and a decline set in.
During his tenure of 50 years at the post of imperial architect, Sinan is said to have constructed or supervised 476 buildings (196 of which still survive), according to the official list of his works, the Tazkirat-al-Abniya. He couldn't possibly have designed them all, but he relied on the skills of his office. He took credit and the responsibility for their work. As a janissary, and thus a slave of the sultan, his primary responsibility was to the sultan. In his spare time, he also designed buildings for the chief officials. He delegated to his assistants the construction of less important buildings in the provinces. The number of buildings he was responsible for include:
* 94 large mosques (camii),
* 57 colleges,
* 52 smaller mosques (mescit),
* 48 bath-houses (hamam).
* 35 palaces (saray),
* 22 mausoleums (türbe),
* 20 caravanserai (kervansaray; han),
* 17 public kitchens (imaret),
* 8 bridges,
* 8 store houses or granaries
* 7 Qur'anic schools (medrese),
* 6 aqueducts,
* 3 hospitals (darüşşifa)
Some of his works include:
* Azapkapi Sokullu Mosque in Istanbul
* Caferağa Medresseh
* Selimiye Mosque in Edirne
* Süleymaniye Complex
* Kılıç Ali Pasha Complex
* Molla Çelebi Mosque
* Haseki Baths
* Piyale Pasha Mosque
* Şehzade Mosque
* Mihrimah Sultan Mosque in Edirnekapı
* Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge in Višegrad
* Nisanci Mehmed Pasha Mosque
* Rüstem Pasha Mosque
* Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque
* Kadirga Sokullu Mosque
* Koursoum Mosque or Osman Shah Mosque in Trikala
* Al-Takiya Al-Suleimaniya in Damascus
* Yavuz Sultan Selim Madras
* Mimar Sinan Bridge in Büyükçekmece
* Church of the Assumption in Uzundzhovo
* Tekkiye Mosque
* Khusruwiyah Mosque
* Oratory at the Western Wall
Sinan died in 1588 and is buried in a tomb in Istanbul, a türbe of his own design, in the cemetery just outside the walls of the Süleymaniye Mosque to the north, across a street named Mimar Sinan Caddesi in his honor. He was buried near the tombs of his greatest patrons: Sultan Süleyman and the Sultana Haseki Hürrem, Suleiman's wife.
His name is also given to:
* a crater on the planet Mercury.
* A Turkish state university, the Mimar Sinan University of Fine Arts in Istanbul.
Sinan's portrait was depicted on the reverse of the Turkish 10,000 lira banknotes of 1982-1995.
Mi'mar Sinan see Sinan, Mi‘mar
Sinan see Sinan, Mi‘mar
Architect Sinan see Sinan, Mi‘mar
Great Architect Sinan see Sinan, Mi‘mar
Mimar Koca Sinan see Sinan, Mi‘mar
Khoca Mimar Sinan Ağa see Sinan, Mi‘mar
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Sirhindi, Ahmad
Sirhindi, Ahmad (Sirhindi) (Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi) (Imām Rabbānī Shaykh Ahmad al-Farūqī al-Sirhindī) (b. 1564, Sirhind, Patiāla, India - d. 1624, Sirhind, India). Islamic philosopher who became the eminent divine and mystic of Muslim India. He was born in Sirhind (India).
Sirhindi is a Sufi saint of the Naqshbandi order who, on account of his scholarship, reformist views, and piety, came to be regarded as the “renewer of the second millennium.” His family claimed descent from Caliph Umar I. Shaikh Ahmad received his early education at his birthplace, Sirhind (in the Punjab), from his father, Shaikh Abdul Ahab, and later moved to Sialkot for further studies. The emperor Akbar invited him to Agra, where he came into contact with Abu’l Fazl and Faizi. At the age of twenty-eight, he joined the Naqshbandi order at Delhi and became a disciple of Khwaja Baqi Billah. Shaikh Ahmad soon gained great popularity and his disciples were spread over large parts of India and Central and West Asia. The three volume collection of his letters is an important source of information about his teachings and activities. It has been translated from Persian into Arabic, Turkish, and Urdu. His views raised opposition in certain quarters, leading to his imprisonment for a year at Gwalior by Jahangir.
Shaikh Ahmad criticized the religious experiments of Akbar. He rejected Ibn Arabi’s doctrine of wah-dat-ul-wujud (“unity of being”) and put forward his own theory of wahdat-ul-shuhud (“unity of vision”). He preached adherence to the laws of Islam and the traditions of the Prophet. Shaikh Ahmad was opposed to mystic music and preferred a life of sobriety to a life of ecstasy. Some of his ideas seem to have influenced Aurangzeb, who was deeply attached to the saint’s descendants. Shaikh Ahmad’s tomb at Sirhind is visited by a large number of people even today.
Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi was primarily a mystical thinker and Sufi master. His activities in reformulating major Sufi ideas led to his being given the epithet “Renewer of the Second Millennium” (Mujaddid-e-Alf-e-Thani) since the dates of his life (971-1034 A.H.) spanned the opening years of the second millennium of the Islamic calendar. According to a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad, a great Muslim leader would arise at the beginning of each Islamic century to renew the religion. In his writings, Sirhindi elaborated on the role of this “Renewer” -- this Mujaddid. Ultimately, Sirhindi became recognized as the Mujaddid and the branch of the Naqshbandi order which he founded came to be known as the Mujaddidi.
The influence of the Mujaddidi eventually spread far beyond India to the Arab Middle East, Central Asia, Turkey, and other regions, and it remains one of the most vital spiritual and occasionally political forces in the contemporary Muslim world.
Islamic scholars generally speak of two phases to Sirhindi’s career. The early phase featured training in the Islamic intellectual tradition and initiation in two major Sufi orders, Chishti and Qadiri, after which he attained a respectable position as a scholar of Islam at the court of the Mughal emperor Akbar.
The second phase of Sirhindi’s career began in 1598 C.C. in Delhi, where he met Khwaja Baqi bi’llah, a Naqshbandi Sufi master from Afghanistan who had recently come to India. Under this master, Sirhindi attained higher states of spiritual realization, which convinced him of the necessity of combining orthodox practice of the Islamic tradition with mystical experience.
Sirhindi became a prominent spiritual teacher in the Naqshbandi order and wrote extensively on matters of Islamic mysticism, theology, and his own spiritual experience. At certain points in these writings he also commented on the religious policies that he felt should be adopted by the Mughal state.
Scholars differ concerning the prominence of political opinions in Sirhindi’s thought. The most recent European and European American academic studies conclude that Sirhindi was primarily a Sufi theorist. In South Asia, however, Sirhindi’s image has gradually developed so as to portray him as an incipient Muslim nationalist who challenged the syncretistic religious tendencies of the Mughal court. Proponents of this view cite as evidence the fact that he was publicly reprimanded and even imprisoned for about a year in 1619 C.C. before being released and ultimately honored by the Mughal Emperor Jahangir. Those who emphasize the Sufi element of Sirhindi’s concerns note that Jahangir complains in his memoirs about Sirhindi’s arrogance and theories, rather than objecting to any specifically political recommendations on his part.
Following his release from prison, Sirhindi returned to Sirhind and for the rest of his life continued his literary and spiritual teaching activities. His sons, in particular, Muhammad Ma‘sum (d. 1668 C.C.), and their successors continued the Mujaddidi Sufi line and left their own collections of letters and practical Sufi manuals in the tradition of their illustrious ancestor.
The most important literary legacy of Sirhindi is undoubtedly his three volumes of collected letters, known as the Maktubat, most of which are written in Persian, although some entire letters and many phrases are written in Arabic. The 534 letters were collected and edited during his lifetime by three of his disciples under his supervision. About a third of the letters are in the form of answers to questions he was asked. About half of the letters run less than twenty lines, although a few of them are as long as twenty pages.
The tradition of writing one’s major ideas in the form of a personal letter but with a wider audience in mind is quite typical of this period of Sufism, both within and beyond South Asian Islam. Numerous collections of such letters exist. The challenge to the scholar is that the letters must be carefully sifted through, as the doctrines presented in them are not organized thematically or presented systematically.
Among the major points discussed in the Maktubat are “the unity of appearance,” practical mysticism, and the respective ranks of the prophet and the saint. Within each of these topics one may point to a humanistic factor, in the sense of affirming the purpose and significance of human activities in reforming both the inner self and outer world, which works throughout Sirhindi’s thought.
The concept of the unity of experience essentially concerns the relationship between the Creator and the Creation. One of the more intensely debated issues in Sufism in the later periods was tension between monism and dualism in mystical thought and, more generally, in the Islamic worldview. Since these Sufi philosophical doctrines were often expressed in very abstract symbols and expressions, it is difficult to explicitly characterize figures such as the Sufi philosopher Ibn ‘Arabi (d. 1240) as having been exclusively monistic. Based primarily on the thought of Ibn ‘Arabi’s successors and on the popularization of his ideas through vehicles such as mystical poetry, many Sufis came to consider that the doctrine of the “Unity of Existence” (wahdat al-wujud), which they attributed to Ibn ‘Arabi, was uncompromisingly monistic.
In response to this metaphysically monistic and ethically relativistic outlook Sirhindi propounded a complex cosmological system that detailed the relationship between God and the world in such as way as to provide a more positive existential status to the creation and human activities.
Sirhindi’s theory came to be known as the “Unity of Appearance” (wahdat al-shuhud). In formulating it, Sirhindi criticized some aspects of the “Greatest Shaikh’s” (Ibn ‘Arabi’s) teachings, but remained highly influenced by others and often cites him approvingly. Among the features of Sirhindi’s philosophical system is the idea that in the creative process the divine names are emanated from the mind of God into the world, where they must encounter their opposites in order to be fully discerned and experienced. The world, therefore, is not the same as the Divine Being, but rather has a shadowiy or adumbrated reality of its own. By positing this reality as apart from that of God, Sirhindi is able to assert a real existential status to evil, as opposed to the relativism entailed by absolute monism.
For Sirhindi, living according to the tenets and practice of orthodox Islam is a prerequisite for traveling the Sufi path of individual purification and realization. The main purpose of this path is certainty of faith rather than hidden knowledge. However, those who grasp the essence or the inner dimension of the Islamic Law (shari‘a), are at a higher level than those who simply enact the outer formal requirements.
Sirhindi continued to stress the element of sobriety of characteristic of Naqshbandi Sufis. In this context, he disapproved of mystical practices incorporating dancing, music, or trance states. He advocated the practice of silent dhikr, the calm and focused recitation of the names and attributes of God and other pious phrases. According to Sirhindi, the spiritual aspirant, under the close supervision and guidance of a Sufi master, pursues an itinerary of spiritual progress that reverses the process of the descent of the divine reality into physical manifestation.
Each person possesses a subtle body composed of ten spiritual centers knwon as the lata’if, including the “heart” and “spirit.” These spiritual centers are arranged at two levels, which correspond to the two cosmic levels: (1) The eternal, spiritual realm of God’s command (‘amr), which precedes empirical manifestation, and (2) the temporal world of physical creation (khalq).
Through specific practices of contemplation and recitations combined with the interventions of the Sufi master, the aspirant activates the energy focused in these centers in order to initiate and pursue spiritual awakening and ascent.
Another aspect of Sirhindi’s perspective on monism and dualism was his exposition of the respective states of the “Prophet” and the “Saint.”
All Muslims hold that the Prophet Muhammad was the best of creation. In mystical and Shi‘i thought, however, there tended to be an emphasis on the continuation of charismatic qualities in the world even after the death of the Prophet. The role of the saint (walaya) was increasingly elaborated on by Sufis as a kind of metaphysical template for human spiritual progress. Some Sufis had even seemed to suggest, according to Sirhindi, that the status of the saint was existentially higher than that of the Prophet since the saint was conceived of as having remained absorbed in the contemplation of the divine reality rather than descending into the turbidity of worldly matters.
Consistent with his upholding of the value and meaningfulness of human efforts, Sirhindi posited that the level of Prophecy (nubuwwa) both incorporated and transcended the saintly level of intoxication and union with the divine in order to return to the world with a sober approach and a focus on a reformist mission. Citing a hadith of the Prophet Muhammad – “My Satan has submitted” -- Sirhindi elaborated on the status of Prophet as one who fulfills a mission of transforming both himself and the world by being willing to descend deeply back into worldly existence even after having attained the highest level of mystical heights of annihilation (fana) in the divine, for, “the descent occurs proportionately to the ascent.”
What then, could be the highest state available to the Sufi, since Muhammad was the Last of the Prophets, according to Islamic belief? Today’s spiritual aspirants could pursue the state of being followers and heirs of the Prophet in order to ensure the continuity of this reformist mission in the world.
Sirhindi became a prominent spiritual teacher in the Naqshbandi order and wrote extensively on matters of Islamic mysticism, theology, and his own spiritual experience. At certain points in these writings he also commented on the religious policies that he felt should be adopted by the Mughal state.
Scholars differ concerning the prominence of political opinions in Sirhindi’s thought. The most recent Western academic studies, based on the content of Sirhindi’s writings and the response of his contemporaries and successors to them, conclude that he was primarily a Sufi theorist. In South Asia, however, his image has gradually developed so as to portray him as an incipient Muslim nationalist who challenged the syncretistic religious tendencies of the Mughal court. Proponents of this view cite as evidence the fact that he was publicly reprimanded and even imprisoned for about a year in 1619 before being released and ultimately honored by the emperor Jahangir. Those who emphasize the Sufi element of Sirhindi’s concerns note that Jahangir complains in his memoirs about Sirhindi’s arrogance and theories, rather than objecting to any specifically political recommendations on his part.
An interesting and controversial aspect of Sirhindi’s teaching was his idea of his own special mission. Although alluded to in a fairly esoteric fashion in his works, this stimulated controversy and even some condemnations for heresy among his contemporaries. In an esoteric reference in his work, Mabda’-o-Ma‘ad, Sirhindi claims that a new age has been initiated with the coming of the second Islamic millennium in which the cosmological state known as the “Reality of Muhammad” would unite with that of the “Reality of the Ka’ba.” A new composite higher state known as the “Reality of Ahmad” would be the result, ushering in a new period of fulfillment and spiritual progress for Muslims. This is apparently a thinly veiled reference to his own name, Ahmad. Further, using number mysticism, he spoke of the individual instantiation of the “Reality of Muhammad” in the form of the historical Prophet as having been twofold, spiritual and human. The balance between the human and the spiritual sides of the Prophet had, over time, become disturbed in favor of the spiritual dimension, with consequent detrimental effects on the Muslim community’s affairs in the world. He claimed that in the Second Millennium, following the lead of the “Renewer” (Mujaddid), the “Perfections of Prophecy” would be restored through the efforts of the heirs and followers of the Prophet.
Sirhindi's more extravagant, almost messianic claims were not entirely alien to the history of Islamic mystical thought, and thus Sirhindi’s statements, while clearly controversial, did not result in his being universally condemned for heresy during his lifetime. Over time the image of Sirhindi as a heroic reformer and advocate of uncompromising adherence to Islam became increasingly evocative for the Muslims of India and Pakistan. One can understand the appeal of Sirhindi’s more activist, world affirming outlook to Muslim reformers who partially blame mystically inspired quietism for the decline of Muslim power and influence in the world in later centuries.
Sirhindi see Sirhindi, Ahmad
Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi see Sirhindi, Ahmad
Imām Rabbānī Shaykh Ahmad al-Farūqī al-Sirhindī see Sirhindi, Ahmad
Sirhindi, Ahmad (Sirhindi) (Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi) (Imām Rabbānī Shaykh Ahmad al-Farūqī al-Sirhindī) (b. 1564, Sirhind, Patiāla, India - d. 1624, Sirhind, India). Islamic philosopher who became the eminent divine and mystic of Muslim India. He was born in Sirhind (India).
Sirhindi is a Sufi saint of the Naqshbandi order who, on account of his scholarship, reformist views, and piety, came to be regarded as the “renewer of the second millennium.” His family claimed descent from Caliph Umar I. Shaikh Ahmad received his early education at his birthplace, Sirhind (in the Punjab), from his father, Shaikh Abdul Ahab, and later moved to Sialkot for further studies. The emperor Akbar invited him to Agra, where he came into contact with Abu’l Fazl and Faizi. At the age of twenty-eight, he joined the Naqshbandi order at Delhi and became a disciple of Khwaja Baqi Billah. Shaikh Ahmad soon gained great popularity and his disciples were spread over large parts of India and Central and West Asia. The three volume collection of his letters is an important source of information about his teachings and activities. It has been translated from Persian into Arabic, Turkish, and Urdu. His views raised opposition in certain quarters, leading to his imprisonment for a year at Gwalior by Jahangir.
Shaikh Ahmad criticized the religious experiments of Akbar. He rejected Ibn Arabi’s doctrine of wah-dat-ul-wujud (“unity of being”) and put forward his own theory of wahdat-ul-shuhud (“unity of vision”). He preached adherence to the laws of Islam and the traditions of the Prophet. Shaikh Ahmad was opposed to mystic music and preferred a life of sobriety to a life of ecstasy. Some of his ideas seem to have influenced Aurangzeb, who was deeply attached to the saint’s descendants. Shaikh Ahmad’s tomb at Sirhind is visited by a large number of people even today.
Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi was primarily a mystical thinker and Sufi master. His activities in reformulating major Sufi ideas led to his being given the epithet “Renewer of the Second Millennium” (Mujaddid-e-Alf-e-Thani) since the dates of his life (971-1034 A.H.) spanned the opening years of the second millennium of the Islamic calendar. According to a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad, a great Muslim leader would arise at the beginning of each Islamic century to renew the religion. In his writings, Sirhindi elaborated on the role of this “Renewer” -- this Mujaddid. Ultimately, Sirhindi became recognized as the Mujaddid and the branch of the Naqshbandi order which he founded came to be known as the Mujaddidi.
The influence of the Mujaddidi eventually spread far beyond India to the Arab Middle East, Central Asia, Turkey, and other regions, and it remains one of the most vital spiritual and occasionally political forces in the contemporary Muslim world.
Islamic scholars generally speak of two phases to Sirhindi’s career. The early phase featured training in the Islamic intellectual tradition and initiation in two major Sufi orders, Chishti and Qadiri, after which he attained a respectable position as a scholar of Islam at the court of the Mughal emperor Akbar.
The second phase of Sirhindi’s career began in 1598 C.C. in Delhi, where he met Khwaja Baqi bi’llah, a Naqshbandi Sufi master from Afghanistan who had recently come to India. Under this master, Sirhindi attained higher states of spiritual realization, which convinced him of the necessity of combining orthodox practice of the Islamic tradition with mystical experience.
Sirhindi became a prominent spiritual teacher in the Naqshbandi order and wrote extensively on matters of Islamic mysticism, theology, and his own spiritual experience. At certain points in these writings he also commented on the religious policies that he felt should be adopted by the Mughal state.
Scholars differ concerning the prominence of political opinions in Sirhindi’s thought. The most recent European and European American academic studies conclude that Sirhindi was primarily a Sufi theorist. In South Asia, however, Sirhindi’s image has gradually developed so as to portray him as an incipient Muslim nationalist who challenged the syncretistic religious tendencies of the Mughal court. Proponents of this view cite as evidence the fact that he was publicly reprimanded and even imprisoned for about a year in 1619 C.C. before being released and ultimately honored by the Mughal Emperor Jahangir. Those who emphasize the Sufi element of Sirhindi’s concerns note that Jahangir complains in his memoirs about Sirhindi’s arrogance and theories, rather than objecting to any specifically political recommendations on his part.
Following his release from prison, Sirhindi returned to Sirhind and for the rest of his life continued his literary and spiritual teaching activities. His sons, in particular, Muhammad Ma‘sum (d. 1668 C.C.), and their successors continued the Mujaddidi Sufi line and left their own collections of letters and practical Sufi manuals in the tradition of their illustrious ancestor.
The most important literary legacy of Sirhindi is undoubtedly his three volumes of collected letters, known as the Maktubat, most of which are written in Persian, although some entire letters and many phrases are written in Arabic. The 534 letters were collected and edited during his lifetime by three of his disciples under his supervision. About a third of the letters are in the form of answers to questions he was asked. About half of the letters run less than twenty lines, although a few of them are as long as twenty pages.
The tradition of writing one’s major ideas in the form of a personal letter but with a wider audience in mind is quite typical of this period of Sufism, both within and beyond South Asian Islam. Numerous collections of such letters exist. The challenge to the scholar is that the letters must be carefully sifted through, as the doctrines presented in them are not organized thematically or presented systematically.
Among the major points discussed in the Maktubat are “the unity of appearance,” practical mysticism, and the respective ranks of the prophet and the saint. Within each of these topics one may point to a humanistic factor, in the sense of affirming the purpose and significance of human activities in reforming both the inner self and outer world, which works throughout Sirhindi’s thought.
The concept of the unity of experience essentially concerns the relationship between the Creator and the Creation. One of the more intensely debated issues in Sufism in the later periods was tension between monism and dualism in mystical thought and, more generally, in the Islamic worldview. Since these Sufi philosophical doctrines were often expressed in very abstract symbols and expressions, it is difficult to explicitly characterize figures such as the Sufi philosopher Ibn ‘Arabi (d. 1240) as having been exclusively monistic. Based primarily on the thought of Ibn ‘Arabi’s successors and on the popularization of his ideas through vehicles such as mystical poetry, many Sufis came to consider that the doctrine of the “Unity of Existence” (wahdat al-wujud), which they attributed to Ibn ‘Arabi, was uncompromisingly monistic.
In response to this metaphysically monistic and ethically relativistic outlook Sirhindi propounded a complex cosmological system that detailed the relationship between God and the world in such as way as to provide a more positive existential status to the creation and human activities.
Sirhindi’s theory came to be known as the “Unity of Appearance” (wahdat al-shuhud). In formulating it, Sirhindi criticized some aspects of the “Greatest Shaikh’s” (Ibn ‘Arabi’s) teachings, but remained highly influenced by others and often cites him approvingly. Among the features of Sirhindi’s philosophical system is the idea that in the creative process the divine names are emanated from the mind of God into the world, where they must encounter their opposites in order to be fully discerned and experienced. The world, therefore, is not the same as the Divine Being, but rather has a shadowiy or adumbrated reality of its own. By positing this reality as apart from that of God, Sirhindi is able to assert a real existential status to evil, as opposed to the relativism entailed by absolute monism.
For Sirhindi, living according to the tenets and practice of orthodox Islam is a prerequisite for traveling the Sufi path of individual purification and realization. The main purpose of this path is certainty of faith rather than hidden knowledge. However, those who grasp the essence or the inner dimension of the Islamic Law (shari‘a), are at a higher level than those who simply enact the outer formal requirements.
Sirhindi continued to stress the element of sobriety of characteristic of Naqshbandi Sufis. In this context, he disapproved of mystical practices incorporating dancing, music, or trance states. He advocated the practice of silent dhikr, the calm and focused recitation of the names and attributes of God and other pious phrases. According to Sirhindi, the spiritual aspirant, under the close supervision and guidance of a Sufi master, pursues an itinerary of spiritual progress that reverses the process of the descent of the divine reality into physical manifestation.
Each person possesses a subtle body composed of ten spiritual centers knwon as the lata’if, including the “heart” and “spirit.” These spiritual centers are arranged at two levels, which correspond to the two cosmic levels: (1) The eternal, spiritual realm of God’s command (‘amr), which precedes empirical manifestation, and (2) the temporal world of physical creation (khalq).
Through specific practices of contemplation and recitations combined with the interventions of the Sufi master, the aspirant activates the energy focused in these centers in order to initiate and pursue spiritual awakening and ascent.
Another aspect of Sirhindi’s perspective on monism and dualism was his exposition of the respective states of the “Prophet” and the “Saint.”
All Muslims hold that the Prophet Muhammad was the best of creation. In mystical and Shi‘i thought, however, there tended to be an emphasis on the continuation of charismatic qualities in the world even after the death of the Prophet. The role of the saint (walaya) was increasingly elaborated on by Sufis as a kind of metaphysical template for human spiritual progress. Some Sufis had even seemed to suggest, according to Sirhindi, that the status of the saint was existentially higher than that of the Prophet since the saint was conceived of as having remained absorbed in the contemplation of the divine reality rather than descending into the turbidity of worldly matters.
Consistent with his upholding of the value and meaningfulness of human efforts, Sirhindi posited that the level of Prophecy (nubuwwa) both incorporated and transcended the saintly level of intoxication and union with the divine in order to return to the world with a sober approach and a focus on a reformist mission. Citing a hadith of the Prophet Muhammad – “My Satan has submitted” -- Sirhindi elaborated on the status of Prophet as one who fulfills a mission of transforming both himself and the world by being willing to descend deeply back into worldly existence even after having attained the highest level of mystical heights of annihilation (fana) in the divine, for, “the descent occurs proportionately to the ascent.”
What then, could be the highest state available to the Sufi, since Muhammad was the Last of the Prophets, according to Islamic belief? Today’s spiritual aspirants could pursue the state of being followers and heirs of the Prophet in order to ensure the continuity of this reformist mission in the world.
Sirhindi became a prominent spiritual teacher in the Naqshbandi order and wrote extensively on matters of Islamic mysticism, theology, and his own spiritual experience. At certain points in these writings he also commented on the religious policies that he felt should be adopted by the Mughal state.
Scholars differ concerning the prominence of political opinions in Sirhindi’s thought. The most recent Western academic studies, based on the content of Sirhindi’s writings and the response of his contemporaries and successors to them, conclude that he was primarily a Sufi theorist. In South Asia, however, his image has gradually developed so as to portray him as an incipient Muslim nationalist who challenged the syncretistic religious tendencies of the Mughal court. Proponents of this view cite as evidence the fact that he was publicly reprimanded and even imprisoned for about a year in 1619 before being released and ultimately honored by the emperor Jahangir. Those who emphasize the Sufi element of Sirhindi’s concerns note that Jahangir complains in his memoirs about Sirhindi’s arrogance and theories, rather than objecting to any specifically political recommendations on his part.
An interesting and controversial aspect of Sirhindi’s teaching was his idea of his own special mission. Although alluded to in a fairly esoteric fashion in his works, this stimulated controversy and even some condemnations for heresy among his contemporaries. In an esoteric reference in his work, Mabda’-o-Ma‘ad, Sirhindi claims that a new age has been initiated with the coming of the second Islamic millennium in which the cosmological state known as the “Reality of Muhammad” would unite with that of the “Reality of the Ka’ba.” A new composite higher state known as the “Reality of Ahmad” would be the result, ushering in a new period of fulfillment and spiritual progress for Muslims. This is apparently a thinly veiled reference to his own name, Ahmad. Further, using number mysticism, he spoke of the individual instantiation of the “Reality of Muhammad” in the form of the historical Prophet as having been twofold, spiritual and human. The balance between the human and the spiritual sides of the Prophet had, over time, become disturbed in favor of the spiritual dimension, with consequent detrimental effects on the Muslim community’s affairs in the world. He claimed that in the Second Millennium, following the lead of the “Renewer” (Mujaddid), the “Perfections of Prophecy” would be restored through the efforts of the heirs and followers of the Prophet.
Sirhindi's more extravagant, almost messianic claims were not entirely alien to the history of Islamic mystical thought, and thus Sirhindi’s statements, while clearly controversial, did not result in his being universally condemned for heresy during his lifetime. Over time the image of Sirhindi as a heroic reformer and advocate of uncompromising adherence to Islam became increasingly evocative for the Muslims of India and Pakistan. One can understand the appeal of Sirhindi’s more activist, world affirming outlook to Muslim reformers who partially blame mystically inspired quietism for the decline of Muslim power and influence in the world in later centuries.
Sirhindi see Sirhindi, Ahmad
Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi see Sirhindi, Ahmad
Imām Rabbānī Shaykh Ahmad al-Farūqī al-Sirhindī see Sirhindi, Ahmad
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-
Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al- (Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-Suhrawardi) (Shahāb ad-Dīn" Yahya ibn Habash as-Suhrawardī) (Sohrevardi) (Shihāb ad-Dīn Yaḥyā ibn Ḥabash ibn Amīrak as-Suhrawardī) (al-Maqtūl) (Shaykh al-Ishrāq) (Shahab al-Din Yahya ibn Habash ibn Amirak Abul Futuh Suhrawardi) (b. c. 1153/1155, Suhraward, near Zanjān, Iran - d. 1191, Ḥalab, Syria). Mystic theologian and philosopher. His best known work is called Knowledge of Illumination, in which he develops the Neoplatonic theory of light, which serves as a symbol of emanation but at the same time is regarded as the fundamental reality of things. He was also the founder of a sect, called “the Illuminates”. Suspected of pantheism, he was put to death (in Arabic, al-maqtul) in Aleppo in 1191 by Saladin’s son al-Malik al-Zahir.
Suhrawardi, known as Shaikh al-Ishraq (“the master of illumination”) as well as al-Maqtul (“the Martyr”), was a Persian Muslim philosopher who founded the School of Illumination (ishraq). Because of his controversial ideas, at the age of thirty-eight he was put to death by the order of Salah al-Din Ayyubi, Saladin the Great, Syrian commander and sultan of Egypt.
Suhrawardi was born in a village near Zanjan, a northern Iranian city. His full name is Shahab al-Din Yahya ibn Habash ibn Amirak Abul Futuh Suhrawardi.
At an early age, he went to the city of Maragheh, where he studied hikmat with Majd al-Din Jili, and he then traveled to Isfahan, where he studied philosophy with Zahir al-Din al-Farsi and the Observations (al-Basa’ir) of ‘Umar ibn Salah al-Sawi. He then set out upon a long journey through the Islamic lands to meet the Sufi masters, while practicing asceticism and withdrawing for long spiritual retreats. He tells us that he had looked for a companion with spiritual insight equal to his, but he failed to find one.
Since Suhrawardi persisted in advocating a type of wisdom which was inconsistent with the views of the orthodox jurists, the jurists finally asked Malik Zahir, son of Saladin, to put Suhrawardi to death for advocating heretical ideas. When Malik Zahir refused they signed a petition and sent it to Saladin, who ordered his son to have him killed. Malik Zahir reluctantly carried out his father’s order and Suhrawardi was killed in the year 1191.
In light of the above factors, one can view Suhrawardi as a Persian who inherited a rich culture with Zoroastrian elements in it, a philosopher well-versed in Peripatetic (Aristotelian) philosophy, and a mystic who tried to demonstrate that at the heart of all the divinely revealed traditions of wisdom there is one universal truth.
Suhrawardi lived at a time when the two schools of philosophy and mysticism were perceived to be irreconcilable. In fact, the influence of discursive philosophy had been somewhat curtailed following the conversion of al-Ghazali from a philosopher to a mystic. Suhrawardi argued that mysticism and philosophy are not irreconcilable and that the validity of the immutable principles of philosophy can be verified through the illumination of the intellect.
Suhrawardi argued that discursive reasoning is the necessary condition for the attainment of illumination. Toward this end, Suhrawardi composed many treatises commenting on a wide range of traditional topics pertaining to Peripatetic philosophy. On the whole, where he speaks as a philosopher, Suhrawardi is a Peripatetic whose opinion are similar to those of Ibn Sina (Avicenna).
As to the most important debate in Islamic philosophy, the distinction between existence (wujud) and essence (mahiyyah), Suhrawardi departs from the traditional Peripatetic understanding of them. Suhrawardi argues that the discussion concerning the principality of existence over essence neglects the fact that essence is a degree of existence.
Suhrawardi also criticizes Aristotle’s theory of hylomorphism, arguing that corporeal beings are combinations of form and matter. Suhrawardi defines matter as a simple substance that is capable of accepting the forms of species. He then reduces physical features into qualities which can be expressed in terms of their ontological status.
Finally, Suhrawardi rejects the existing theories of vision that were held in the Middle Ages and proposes his own. He maintains that vision can occur when an object is lit. The soul of the observer then surrounds the illuminated object, and the illumination (ishraq) of the soul (nafs) that then takes place through light emanated from the Light of Lights (nur al-anwar) is vision.
Suhrawardi criticizes the traditional Aristotelian notion of categories and reduces them to four. He then criticizes the Peripatetics’ concept of “definition” as that which provides us with the knowledge of what a thing is. He rejects the Peripatetics’ claim that there is an essential nature of the human being indicated by the definition of the human being as a rational animal. Suhrawardi argues that other attributes of the human being are as important as rationality. Since there is no definition that can adequately disclose all the attributes of the human being, the definition as such remains an inadequate means of understanding. Suhrawardi demonstrates that empiricism and rationalism also fail and that their applications in epistemology are limited.
How a human being comes to know is a mystery, which despite his meditations Suhrawardi could not resolve. In a dream vision Suhrawardi sees Aristotle, who resolves the mystery of how the self comes to know by telling Suhrawardi that to know anything one has to first know oneself.
Suhrawardi then argues that the fundamental principle of knowledge is that before the self is to know an object, it has to know itself. The self knows itself through a direct and immediate relationship known as “Knowledge by Presence” (‘Ilm al-huduri).
Suhrawardi departs from traditional Islamic ontology by arguing that the source of being is not simply being but light. Assuming that light is necessary since the cognition of everything else requires it, beings in the world are therefore defined in terms of their ontological status and the degree of their luminosity. The beings closer to the Light of Lights are more transparent and ontologically superior. Light, as an axiomatic truth and thereby self-evident, is made up of an infinite succession of contingent lights, and each light is the existential cause of the light below it. The ultimate light, which is the same as the Necessary Being (wajib al-wujud), is for Suhrawardi the Light of Lights, the ultimate cause of all things. As the ontological distance between the object and the Light of Lights grows, darkness prevails until the object in question becomes impenetrable to light. Suhrawardi identifies the world of such objects with the corporeal world in which we live.
For Suhrawardi, just as light has degrees of intensity, so does darkness. Although he classifies light in accordance with the extent to which light exists by necessity, his criterion for determining the ontological status of beings is whether they are conscious of themselves or not. Self-awareness is absent when a being is impenetrable to light.
Relying on his ontological system, Suhrawardi reduces quantity to quality. According to him, it is not the case that a two-foot stick of wood is “longer” than a one-foot stick. For Suhrawardi, this relation should be expressed in terms of “more” or “less.” Therefore, it is the case that a two-foot stick is “more” than the one-foot stick. This “more” or “less” becomes meaningful within the context of a hierarchical ontology. The closer a being is to the Light of Lights, the more it “is.” Some beings therefore “are” more than others, depending on the degree of their closeness to the Light of Light. Applying this concept to human beings, Suhrawardi argues that those who have mastered discursive philosophy and intellectual intuition and have practiced asceticism are more “luminous,” in the metaphysical sense of light, and are therefore closer to the Light of Lights.
Having used the symbolism of light and darkness, Suhrawardi goes on to develop an elaborate angelology based on a Zoroastrian theory of angels. Thereby, once again, he joined two religious universes, those of Islam and Zoroastrianism.
All beings, according to Suhrawardi, are the illuminations of the Light of Lights, which has left its vice-regent in each domain. The lordly light (nur ispahbad), which is the viceregent of the Light of Lights in the human soul, accounts for the joy of human beings when they see fire or the sun.
Between the Light of Lights and its opposite pole, the corporeal world, there are levels and degrees of light, which Suhrawardi identifies with the various levels of angelic order. Suhrawardi’s use of Zoroastrian symbolism is partly done in the spirit of his ecumenical philosophy in order to demonstrate that since the inner truth of all religions is the same, some concepts of a religious tradition can often be used to interpret and clarify the concepts of another tradition.
From the Light of Lights comes the “longitudinal” angelic order, which Suhrawardi identifies with a masculine aspect such as dominance, whereas contemplation and independence give rise to a “latitudinal” order. Suhrawardi identifies the latitudinal angelic order with Platonic ideas. From the feminine aspect of the longitudinal order comes into being the Heaven of fixed stars.
For Suhrawardi there exists a veil between each level of light, which acts as a “purgatory” or Barzakh and allows the passage of only a certain amount of light. The primordial, original, and all-encompassing nature of this system, through which Suhrawardi expresses a number of esoteric doctrines, is such that he calls it al-ummahat (“the mother”), since all that exists originates from this hierarchy and, therefore, contains within itself the “ideas” (a‘yan thabita) whose unfolding is the world.
Angelology in Suhrawardi’s philosophy is a two-fold concept: first, it is an attempt to map out the world. Second, through the use of angelic symbolism, the correspondence between the human being as the microcosm and the universe as the macrocosm is further demonstrated.
This new philosophy of angels changes the traditional view of angels as the sustainers of the universe. According to Suhrawardi, angels serve a number of functions, the most important of which is their intermediary role between the Light of Lights and humanity. For instance, the “lordly light” (al-nur al-isfahbodi) is defined by Suhrawardi as that wich is “within the soul of man.”
Suhrawardi relies heavily upon the psychology of Ibn Sina. In fact, his classification of the faculties of the soul is greatly influenced by Ibn Sina, as evidenced by Suhrawardi’s depiction of the soul as being divided into three parts, the vegetative soul (al-nafs al-nabatiyyah), the animal soul (al-nafs al-hayawaniyyah), and the intellectual soul (al-nafs natiqah).
Suhrawardi argues that, in addition to the five external senses, the human being possesses five internal senses that serve as a bridge between the physical and the spiritual world. The internal senses, according to Suhrawardi are: sensus communis, fantasy, apprehension, imagination, and memory.
In putting forth his views on physics, Suhrawardi begins with a discussion regarding the nature of the universe, which from his point of view is pure light. The views of the ‘Asharite atomists, who were one of the predominant intellectual schools of the time, were based on the principality of form and matter and, therefore, the study of physics for them became the study of matter. Suhrawardi argues against them by saying that since material bodies are constituted of light, the study of physics is the study of light.
Having defined the nature of things as light, Suhrawardi goes on to classify things according to the degree of their transparency. For example, all those objects that allow light to pass through them, such as air, are in a different ontological category from those that obstruct light, such as earth.
In explaining meteorological phenomena, Suhrawardi follows Ibn Sina and Aristotle, but he rejects their views concerning change within things. For example, whereas Aristotle argues that the boiling of water is caused by the atoms of fire coming into contact with water, Suhrawardi states that boiling depends on a quality in water such that when water comes close to fire the potentiality for boiling is actualized. He argues that when water boils in a jug of water placed over a fire, the fire does not come in contact with the water nor does the volume of water change. Suhrawardi draws the conclusion that there exists a special quality or attribute within water which is receptive to the influence of heat.
It is obvious that such a theory has implications not only for the field of physics but also as an esoteric doctrine that seeks to explain how the association of different things may create qualitative changes within beings. This principle is one of the crucial elements in the development of spiritual alchemy, which appears in Islamic esoteric writings.
Suhrawardi contends that the Peripatetic argument for the subsistence of the soul is weak and insufficient. Using his ontological scheme based on light and darkness, Suhrawardi argues that all souls, depending on the degree of their perfection, seek unity with their origin, the Light of Lights. The degree of one’s purification in this world determines the ontological status of the soul in the other world. According to Suhrawardi, the goal of the human being is to become illuminated and return to its origin in the other world. The other world is only a continuation of this one, and the status of the soul in the other world depends on the degree to which a person is purified here and now.
Suhrawardi identifies three groups of people according to the degree of their purity and illumination and establishes a causal connection between their purity and their ontological status in the other world. These three groups are:
1. Those who remain in the darkness of ignorance (‘Ashqiya’),
2. Those who purify themselves to some extent (Sudad), and
3. Those who purify themselves and reach illumination (muta ‘allihun).
Suhrawardi, who adhered to the notion of Philosophia Perennis, or what he called Hikmat al-Ladunniyah or Hikmat al-‘Atiqah, maintains that the eternal truth has existed always among the followers of divinely revealed religions. For Suhrawardi, philosophy is identified with Sophia Perennis, the perennial wisdom, rather than with rationalizing alone. From an Ishraqi point of view, Hermes (Prophet Idris, Enoch, or Khidr) is the father of wisdom who initiated Sophia Perennis. From him two chains of transmission branch off; one branch is preserved and transmitted through the Persian masters and the other one through Greco-Egyptian masters, until Suhrawardi, who considers himself to be the reviver of perennial wisdom.
For Suhrawardi there are four types of people within the hierarchy of knowledge:
1. The hakims, who have mastered both discursive philosophy and gnosis.
2. The class of philosophers who are masters of practical wisdom and do not involve themselves with discursive philosophy.
3. The philosophers who know discursive philosophy but are alien to gnosis, such as al-Farabi and Ibn Rushd.
4. The seekers of knowledge who have not mastered either of the two branches of wisdom, rationalist or practical philosophy.
Suhrawardi’s philosophy was a turning point in the history of Islamic philosophy in that it presents the first serious attempt at a rapprochement between mysticism and rationalist philosophy. Suhrawardi’s methodology of reconciling discursive reasoning with intellectual intuition remained the cornerstone of Islamic philosophy, especially in the eastern part of the Islamic world.
Suhrawardi’s philosophy gave rise to the School of Isfahan during the Safavid era in Persia when such notable masters of the ishraqi doctrine as Mulla Sadra, who propagated Suhrawardi’s doctrine with substantial modifications, established a philosophical paradigm on its foundations.
Ishraqi philosophy is a living a philosophical tradition in many parts of the Islamic world, in particular, in Iran, Pakistan, and India.
The primary concern of Suhrawardi’s entire philosophy is to demonstrate the complete journey of the human soul towards its original abode. Having mastered rationalist philosophy, one should then follow the teachings of a master who can direct the disciple through the maze of spiritual dangers. It is only through a combination of practical and theoretical wisdom that one reaches a state where spiritual knowledge can be obtained directly without mediation.
Suhrawardi elaborated the neo-Platonic idea of an independent intermediary world, the imaginal world (alam-e mithal). His views have exerted a powerful influence down to this day, particularly through Mulla Sadra’s combined peripatetic and illuminationist description of reality.
Suhrawardi's Illuminationist project was to have far-reaching consequences for Islamic philosophy in Shi'ite Iran. His teachings had a strong influence on subsequent esoteric Iranian thought and the idea of “Decisive Necessity” is believed to be one of the most important innovations of in the history of logical philosophical speculation, stressed by the majority of Muslim logicians and philosophers. In the seventeenth century it was to initiate an Illuminationist Zoroastrian revival in the figure of Azar Kayvan.
Suhrawardi left over 50 writings in Persian and Arabic. His Persian writings include:
* Partaw Nama ("Treatise on Illumination")
* Hayakal al-Nur
* Alwah-i imadi ("The tablets dedicated to Imad al-Din")
* Lughat-i Muran ("The language of Termites")
* Risalat al-Tayr ("The treatise of the Bird")
* Safir-i Simurgh ("The Calling of the Simurgh")
* Ruzi ba jama'at Sufiyaan ("A day with the community of Sufis")
* Fi halat al-tifulliyah ("Treatise on the state of the childhood")
* Awaz-i par-i Jebrail ("The Chant of the Wing of Gabriel")
* Aql-i Surkh ("The Red Intellect")
* Fi Haqiqat al-'Ishaq ("On the reality of love")
* Bustan al-Qolub ("The Garden of the Heart")
Suhrawardi's Arabic writings include:
* Kitab al-talwihat
* Kitab al-moqawamat
* Kitab al-mashari' wa'l-motarahat
* Kitab Hikmat al-ishraq
* Mantiq al-talwihat
* Kitab hikmat al-ishraq (The Philosophy of Illumination)
As-Suhrawardī wrote voluminously. The more than 50 separate works that were attributed to him were classified into two categories: doctrinal and philosophical accounts containing commentaries on the works of Aristotle and Plato, as well as his own contribution to the illuminationist school; and shorter treatises, generally written in Persian and of an esoteric nature, meant to illustrate the paths and journeys of a mystic before he could achieve ma ʿrifah (“gnosis,” or esoteric knowledge).
Influenced by Aristotelian philosophy and Zoroastrian doctrines, he attempted to reconcile traditional philosophy and mysticism. In his best-known work, Ḥikmat al-ishrāq (“The Wisdom of Illumination”), he said that essences are creations of the intellect, having no objective reality or existence. Concentrating on the concepts of being and non-being, he held that existence is a single continuum that culminates in a pure light that he called God. Other stages of being along this continuum are a mixture of light and dark.
As-Suhrawardī also founded a mystical order known as the Ishrāqīyah. The Nūrbakhshīyah order of dervishes (itinerant holy men) also traces its origins to him.
Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs 'Umar Suhrawardi see Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-
Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-Suhrawardi see Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-
Shahāb ad-Dīn" Yahya ibn Habash as-Suhrawardī see Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-
Sohrevardi see Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-
Shahab al-Din Yahya ibn Habash ibn Amirak Abul Futuh Suhrawardi. see Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-
Shaykh al-Ishrāq see Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-
Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al- (Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-Suhrawardi) (Shahāb ad-Dīn" Yahya ibn Habash as-Suhrawardī) (Sohrevardi) (Shihāb ad-Dīn Yaḥyā ibn Ḥabash ibn Amīrak as-Suhrawardī) (al-Maqtūl) (Shaykh al-Ishrāq) (Shahab al-Din Yahya ibn Habash ibn Amirak Abul Futuh Suhrawardi) (b. c. 1153/1155, Suhraward, near Zanjān, Iran - d. 1191, Ḥalab, Syria). Mystic theologian and philosopher. His best known work is called Knowledge of Illumination, in which he develops the Neoplatonic theory of light, which serves as a symbol of emanation but at the same time is regarded as the fundamental reality of things. He was also the founder of a sect, called “the Illuminates”. Suspected of pantheism, he was put to death (in Arabic, al-maqtul) in Aleppo in 1191 by Saladin’s son al-Malik al-Zahir.
Suhrawardi, known as Shaikh al-Ishraq (“the master of illumination”) as well as al-Maqtul (“the Martyr”), was a Persian Muslim philosopher who founded the School of Illumination (ishraq). Because of his controversial ideas, at the age of thirty-eight he was put to death by the order of Salah al-Din Ayyubi, Saladin the Great, Syrian commander and sultan of Egypt.
Suhrawardi was born in a village near Zanjan, a northern Iranian city. His full name is Shahab al-Din Yahya ibn Habash ibn Amirak Abul Futuh Suhrawardi.
At an early age, he went to the city of Maragheh, where he studied hikmat with Majd al-Din Jili, and he then traveled to Isfahan, where he studied philosophy with Zahir al-Din al-Farsi and the Observations (al-Basa’ir) of ‘Umar ibn Salah al-Sawi. He then set out upon a long journey through the Islamic lands to meet the Sufi masters, while practicing asceticism and withdrawing for long spiritual retreats. He tells us that he had looked for a companion with spiritual insight equal to his, but he failed to find one.
Since Suhrawardi persisted in advocating a type of wisdom which was inconsistent with the views of the orthodox jurists, the jurists finally asked Malik Zahir, son of Saladin, to put Suhrawardi to death for advocating heretical ideas. When Malik Zahir refused they signed a petition and sent it to Saladin, who ordered his son to have him killed. Malik Zahir reluctantly carried out his father’s order and Suhrawardi was killed in the year 1191.
In light of the above factors, one can view Suhrawardi as a Persian who inherited a rich culture with Zoroastrian elements in it, a philosopher well-versed in Peripatetic (Aristotelian) philosophy, and a mystic who tried to demonstrate that at the heart of all the divinely revealed traditions of wisdom there is one universal truth.
Suhrawardi lived at a time when the two schools of philosophy and mysticism were perceived to be irreconcilable. In fact, the influence of discursive philosophy had been somewhat curtailed following the conversion of al-Ghazali from a philosopher to a mystic. Suhrawardi argued that mysticism and philosophy are not irreconcilable and that the validity of the immutable principles of philosophy can be verified through the illumination of the intellect.
Suhrawardi argued that discursive reasoning is the necessary condition for the attainment of illumination. Toward this end, Suhrawardi composed many treatises commenting on a wide range of traditional topics pertaining to Peripatetic philosophy. On the whole, where he speaks as a philosopher, Suhrawardi is a Peripatetic whose opinion are similar to those of Ibn Sina (Avicenna).
As to the most important debate in Islamic philosophy, the distinction between existence (wujud) and essence (mahiyyah), Suhrawardi departs from the traditional Peripatetic understanding of them. Suhrawardi argues that the discussion concerning the principality of existence over essence neglects the fact that essence is a degree of existence.
Suhrawardi also criticizes Aristotle’s theory of hylomorphism, arguing that corporeal beings are combinations of form and matter. Suhrawardi defines matter as a simple substance that is capable of accepting the forms of species. He then reduces physical features into qualities which can be expressed in terms of their ontological status.
Finally, Suhrawardi rejects the existing theories of vision that were held in the Middle Ages and proposes his own. He maintains that vision can occur when an object is lit. The soul of the observer then surrounds the illuminated object, and the illumination (ishraq) of the soul (nafs) that then takes place through light emanated from the Light of Lights (nur al-anwar) is vision.
Suhrawardi criticizes the traditional Aristotelian notion of categories and reduces them to four. He then criticizes the Peripatetics’ concept of “definition” as that which provides us with the knowledge of what a thing is. He rejects the Peripatetics’ claim that there is an essential nature of the human being indicated by the definition of the human being as a rational animal. Suhrawardi argues that other attributes of the human being are as important as rationality. Since there is no definition that can adequately disclose all the attributes of the human being, the definition as such remains an inadequate means of understanding. Suhrawardi demonstrates that empiricism and rationalism also fail and that their applications in epistemology are limited.
How a human being comes to know is a mystery, which despite his meditations Suhrawardi could not resolve. In a dream vision Suhrawardi sees Aristotle, who resolves the mystery of how the self comes to know by telling Suhrawardi that to know anything one has to first know oneself.
Suhrawardi then argues that the fundamental principle of knowledge is that before the self is to know an object, it has to know itself. The self knows itself through a direct and immediate relationship known as “Knowledge by Presence” (‘Ilm al-huduri).
Suhrawardi departs from traditional Islamic ontology by arguing that the source of being is not simply being but light. Assuming that light is necessary since the cognition of everything else requires it, beings in the world are therefore defined in terms of their ontological status and the degree of their luminosity. The beings closer to the Light of Lights are more transparent and ontologically superior. Light, as an axiomatic truth and thereby self-evident, is made up of an infinite succession of contingent lights, and each light is the existential cause of the light below it. The ultimate light, which is the same as the Necessary Being (wajib al-wujud), is for Suhrawardi the Light of Lights, the ultimate cause of all things. As the ontological distance between the object and the Light of Lights grows, darkness prevails until the object in question becomes impenetrable to light. Suhrawardi identifies the world of such objects with the corporeal world in which we live.
For Suhrawardi, just as light has degrees of intensity, so does darkness. Although he classifies light in accordance with the extent to which light exists by necessity, his criterion for determining the ontological status of beings is whether they are conscious of themselves or not. Self-awareness is absent when a being is impenetrable to light.
Relying on his ontological system, Suhrawardi reduces quantity to quality. According to him, it is not the case that a two-foot stick of wood is “longer” than a one-foot stick. For Suhrawardi, this relation should be expressed in terms of “more” or “less.” Therefore, it is the case that a two-foot stick is “more” than the one-foot stick. This “more” or “less” becomes meaningful within the context of a hierarchical ontology. The closer a being is to the Light of Lights, the more it “is.” Some beings therefore “are” more than others, depending on the degree of their closeness to the Light of Light. Applying this concept to human beings, Suhrawardi argues that those who have mastered discursive philosophy and intellectual intuition and have practiced asceticism are more “luminous,” in the metaphysical sense of light, and are therefore closer to the Light of Lights.
Having used the symbolism of light and darkness, Suhrawardi goes on to develop an elaborate angelology based on a Zoroastrian theory of angels. Thereby, once again, he joined two religious universes, those of Islam and Zoroastrianism.
All beings, according to Suhrawardi, are the illuminations of the Light of Lights, which has left its vice-regent in each domain. The lordly light (nur ispahbad), which is the viceregent of the Light of Lights in the human soul, accounts for the joy of human beings when they see fire or the sun.
Between the Light of Lights and its opposite pole, the corporeal world, there are levels and degrees of light, which Suhrawardi identifies with the various levels of angelic order. Suhrawardi’s use of Zoroastrian symbolism is partly done in the spirit of his ecumenical philosophy in order to demonstrate that since the inner truth of all religions is the same, some concepts of a religious tradition can often be used to interpret and clarify the concepts of another tradition.
From the Light of Lights comes the “longitudinal” angelic order, which Suhrawardi identifies with a masculine aspect such as dominance, whereas contemplation and independence give rise to a “latitudinal” order. Suhrawardi identifies the latitudinal angelic order with Platonic ideas. From the feminine aspect of the longitudinal order comes into being the Heaven of fixed stars.
For Suhrawardi there exists a veil between each level of light, which acts as a “purgatory” or Barzakh and allows the passage of only a certain amount of light. The primordial, original, and all-encompassing nature of this system, through which Suhrawardi expresses a number of esoteric doctrines, is such that he calls it al-ummahat (“the mother”), since all that exists originates from this hierarchy and, therefore, contains within itself the “ideas” (a‘yan thabita) whose unfolding is the world.
Angelology in Suhrawardi’s philosophy is a two-fold concept: first, it is an attempt to map out the world. Second, through the use of angelic symbolism, the correspondence between the human being as the microcosm and the universe as the macrocosm is further demonstrated.
This new philosophy of angels changes the traditional view of angels as the sustainers of the universe. According to Suhrawardi, angels serve a number of functions, the most important of which is their intermediary role between the Light of Lights and humanity. For instance, the “lordly light” (al-nur al-isfahbodi) is defined by Suhrawardi as that wich is “within the soul of man.”
Suhrawardi relies heavily upon the psychology of Ibn Sina. In fact, his classification of the faculties of the soul is greatly influenced by Ibn Sina, as evidenced by Suhrawardi’s depiction of the soul as being divided into three parts, the vegetative soul (al-nafs al-nabatiyyah), the animal soul (al-nafs al-hayawaniyyah), and the intellectual soul (al-nafs natiqah).
Suhrawardi argues that, in addition to the five external senses, the human being possesses five internal senses that serve as a bridge between the physical and the spiritual world. The internal senses, according to Suhrawardi are: sensus communis, fantasy, apprehension, imagination, and memory.
In putting forth his views on physics, Suhrawardi begins with a discussion regarding the nature of the universe, which from his point of view is pure light. The views of the ‘Asharite atomists, who were one of the predominant intellectual schools of the time, were based on the principality of form and matter and, therefore, the study of physics for them became the study of matter. Suhrawardi argues against them by saying that since material bodies are constituted of light, the study of physics is the study of light.
Having defined the nature of things as light, Suhrawardi goes on to classify things according to the degree of their transparency. For example, all those objects that allow light to pass through them, such as air, are in a different ontological category from those that obstruct light, such as earth.
In explaining meteorological phenomena, Suhrawardi follows Ibn Sina and Aristotle, but he rejects their views concerning change within things. For example, whereas Aristotle argues that the boiling of water is caused by the atoms of fire coming into contact with water, Suhrawardi states that boiling depends on a quality in water such that when water comes close to fire the potentiality for boiling is actualized. He argues that when water boils in a jug of water placed over a fire, the fire does not come in contact with the water nor does the volume of water change. Suhrawardi draws the conclusion that there exists a special quality or attribute within water which is receptive to the influence of heat.
It is obvious that such a theory has implications not only for the field of physics but also as an esoteric doctrine that seeks to explain how the association of different things may create qualitative changes within beings. This principle is one of the crucial elements in the development of spiritual alchemy, which appears in Islamic esoteric writings.
Suhrawardi contends that the Peripatetic argument for the subsistence of the soul is weak and insufficient. Using his ontological scheme based on light and darkness, Suhrawardi argues that all souls, depending on the degree of their perfection, seek unity with their origin, the Light of Lights. The degree of one’s purification in this world determines the ontological status of the soul in the other world. According to Suhrawardi, the goal of the human being is to become illuminated and return to its origin in the other world. The other world is only a continuation of this one, and the status of the soul in the other world depends on the degree to which a person is purified here and now.
Suhrawardi identifies three groups of people according to the degree of their purity and illumination and establishes a causal connection between their purity and their ontological status in the other world. These three groups are:
1. Those who remain in the darkness of ignorance (‘Ashqiya’),
2. Those who purify themselves to some extent (Sudad), and
3. Those who purify themselves and reach illumination (muta ‘allihun).
Suhrawardi, who adhered to the notion of Philosophia Perennis, or what he called Hikmat al-Ladunniyah or Hikmat al-‘Atiqah, maintains that the eternal truth has existed always among the followers of divinely revealed religions. For Suhrawardi, philosophy is identified with Sophia Perennis, the perennial wisdom, rather than with rationalizing alone. From an Ishraqi point of view, Hermes (Prophet Idris, Enoch, or Khidr) is the father of wisdom who initiated Sophia Perennis. From him two chains of transmission branch off; one branch is preserved and transmitted through the Persian masters and the other one through Greco-Egyptian masters, until Suhrawardi, who considers himself to be the reviver of perennial wisdom.
For Suhrawardi there are four types of people within the hierarchy of knowledge:
1. The hakims, who have mastered both discursive philosophy and gnosis.
2. The class of philosophers who are masters of practical wisdom and do not involve themselves with discursive philosophy.
3. The philosophers who know discursive philosophy but are alien to gnosis, such as al-Farabi and Ibn Rushd.
4. The seekers of knowledge who have not mastered either of the two branches of wisdom, rationalist or practical philosophy.
Suhrawardi’s philosophy was a turning point in the history of Islamic philosophy in that it presents the first serious attempt at a rapprochement between mysticism and rationalist philosophy. Suhrawardi’s methodology of reconciling discursive reasoning with intellectual intuition remained the cornerstone of Islamic philosophy, especially in the eastern part of the Islamic world.
Suhrawardi’s philosophy gave rise to the School of Isfahan during the Safavid era in Persia when such notable masters of the ishraqi doctrine as Mulla Sadra, who propagated Suhrawardi’s doctrine with substantial modifications, established a philosophical paradigm on its foundations.
Ishraqi philosophy is a living a philosophical tradition in many parts of the Islamic world, in particular, in Iran, Pakistan, and India.
The primary concern of Suhrawardi’s entire philosophy is to demonstrate the complete journey of the human soul towards its original abode. Having mastered rationalist philosophy, one should then follow the teachings of a master who can direct the disciple through the maze of spiritual dangers. It is only through a combination of practical and theoretical wisdom that one reaches a state where spiritual knowledge can be obtained directly without mediation.
Suhrawardi elaborated the neo-Platonic idea of an independent intermediary world, the imaginal world (alam-e mithal). His views have exerted a powerful influence down to this day, particularly through Mulla Sadra’s combined peripatetic and illuminationist description of reality.
Suhrawardi's Illuminationist project was to have far-reaching consequences for Islamic philosophy in Shi'ite Iran. His teachings had a strong influence on subsequent esoteric Iranian thought and the idea of “Decisive Necessity” is believed to be one of the most important innovations of in the history of logical philosophical speculation, stressed by the majority of Muslim logicians and philosophers. In the seventeenth century it was to initiate an Illuminationist Zoroastrian revival in the figure of Azar Kayvan.
Suhrawardi left over 50 writings in Persian and Arabic. His Persian writings include:
* Partaw Nama ("Treatise on Illumination")
* Hayakal al-Nur
* Alwah-i imadi ("The tablets dedicated to Imad al-Din")
* Lughat-i Muran ("The language of Termites")
* Risalat al-Tayr ("The treatise of the Bird")
* Safir-i Simurgh ("The Calling of the Simurgh")
* Ruzi ba jama'at Sufiyaan ("A day with the community of Sufis")
* Fi halat al-tifulliyah ("Treatise on the state of the childhood")
* Awaz-i par-i Jebrail ("The Chant of the Wing of Gabriel")
* Aql-i Surkh ("The Red Intellect")
* Fi Haqiqat al-'Ishaq ("On the reality of love")
* Bustan al-Qolub ("The Garden of the Heart")
Suhrawardi's Arabic writings include:
* Kitab al-talwihat
* Kitab al-moqawamat
* Kitab al-mashari' wa'l-motarahat
* Kitab Hikmat al-ishraq
* Mantiq al-talwihat
* Kitab hikmat al-ishraq (The Philosophy of Illumination)
As-Suhrawardī wrote voluminously. The more than 50 separate works that were attributed to him were classified into two categories: doctrinal and philosophical accounts containing commentaries on the works of Aristotle and Plato, as well as his own contribution to the illuminationist school; and shorter treatises, generally written in Persian and of an esoteric nature, meant to illustrate the paths and journeys of a mystic before he could achieve ma ʿrifah (“gnosis,” or esoteric knowledge).
Influenced by Aristotelian philosophy and Zoroastrian doctrines, he attempted to reconcile traditional philosophy and mysticism. In his best-known work, Ḥikmat al-ishrāq (“The Wisdom of Illumination”), he said that essences are creations of the intellect, having no objective reality or existence. Concentrating on the concepts of being and non-being, he held that existence is a single continuum that culminates in a pure light that he called God. Other stages of being along this continuum are a mixture of light and dark.
As-Suhrawardī also founded a mystical order known as the Ishrāqīyah. The Nūrbakhshīyah order of dervishes (itinerant holy men) also traces its origins to him.
Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs 'Umar Suhrawardi see Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-
Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-Suhrawardi see Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-
Shahāb ad-Dīn" Yahya ibn Habash as-Suhrawardī see Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-
Sohrevardi see Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-
Shahab al-Din Yahya ibn Habash ibn Amirak Abul Futuh Suhrawardi. see Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-
Shaykh al-Ishrāq see Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Suleyman I
Suleyman I (Qanuni) (Suleyman the Magnificent) (Süleyman the Lawgiver) (Süleyman Muhteşem) (Kanuni) (b. November 6, 1494–April 1495 — d. September 5/6, 1566, near Szigetvár, Hungary). Greatest of the Ottoman sultans. Peace loving by nature, he took part in thirteen great campaigns in Europe and Asia. In 1521, he conquered Belgrade and the next year the island of Rhodes. In 1526, the Hungarians were defeated at Mohacs and Buda was temporarily occupied. 1529 saw the siege of Vienna, which was however raised soon. The various embassies to Austria had no success, and in 1532 Suleyman started upon what the Turkish sources call “the German campaign against the king of Spain.” However, in 1533, an armistice was concluded with Austria.
Suleyman’s next campaign was directed against Persia, which avoided the battle. In 1534, the sultan made his ceremonial entrance in Baghdad, where he stayed for four months and built the mausoleum of Abu Hanifa. He also visited Najaf, Kufa and Karbala’. In 1541 and 1543, he was again in Hungary, where Turkish administration was introduced. The war against Persia was resumed in 1548 but without success, and in 1555 a treaty was concluded at Amasia, where Suleyman received the Austrian embassy under Ogier Giselin de Busbecq. It could only obtain an armistice. The sultan died during the siege of Szigeth.
Suleyman was a pious man, and must have been a born ruler. As a poet, he used the pen-name of Muhibbi. Following the principles of his predecessors, he elaborated the system of state institutions by promulgating the “Canon,” which deals mainly with the organization of the army, the laws of landed property, the police and the feudal code. During his reign, the Ottoman Empire established its place in international affairs. The Christian states had lost all hope of driving the Turks out of Europe, and King Francis concluded an alliance with the Ottoman sultan. The Turkish fleet began to be active in the Mediterranean, in the Red Sea and in the Indian Ocean. The possession of Aden and Yemen was secured for the empire.
Under Suleyman, Ottoman civilization gained its own special character in the field of literature and especially in that of architecture with the works of Sinan in Istanbul, Baghdad, Konya, Jerusalem and Mecca.
A chronology of Suleyman’s life reads as follows:
Suleyman was born in November of 1494 as the only son of Sultan Selim I.
Early in the sixteenth century, Suleyman became sacak beyi, the governor of Kaffa in the Crimea.
Around 1512, Suleyman moved to Anatolia, where he became governor in Manisa.
In 1520, following the death of his father, Suleyman became the new sultan. He immediately set out on campaigns against the Christian powers in Europe.
In 1521, Belgrade (today’s Serbia) fell to the Ottomans.
In 1522, the island of Rhodes fell to the Ottomans. This meant the end of the rule of the Knights of St. John.
In 1526, Suleyman struck a final defeat on the Hungarians at the battle of Mohacs. Their king was killed, and Suleyman supported the new king John. John became the vassal king under the Ottomans.
In 1529, Suleyman started a short-lived and unsuccessful siege to Vienna.
In 1532, there was an important victory against Austria, where Ottoman forces looted large parts of the country. However, Austria still was not put under direct Ottoman rule, as the sultan was mainly occupied with his Asian neighbors at this time.
In 1534, a campaign was launched against Persia.
In 1535, both Iraq and the region of Erzurum was conquered after the defeat of the Persians.
In 1538, the Ottomans won the sea battle off Preveza under the leadership of Khayr ud-Din, known in Europe as Barbarossa. This made the Ottomans the leading power in the Mediterranean Sea.
From 1541 to 1562, there was a war in Hungary that led to few changes in the situation with regards to Ottoman dominance.
In 1548, a second campaign was launched against Persia.
In 1549, the region around Van Lake came under Ottoman control.
In 1551, Tripoli fell to the Ottomans, giving the empire control over all of the eastern Mediterranean coast from today’s Macedonia to southern Tunisia (including today’s Greece (EU), Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Egypt and Libya.)
In 1553, Suleyman’s son, Mustafa, rebelled against his father’s rule and received many supporters in Anatolia. Suleyman’s reaction was to have Mustafa executed.
In 1554, a third campaign was launched against Persia.
In 1555, a formal peace was signed between the Safavids of Persia and the Ottomans, without substantial changes in the borders between the states.
In 1559, two other sons of Suleyman, Selim and Bayazid, began fighting over the succession to the sultanate.
In 1560, a strong Spanish campaign against Jerba was crushed by Ottoman troops. Suleyman’s son Bayazid was executed, leaving Selim heir of the sultanate.
In 1565, the Ottomans do not succeed in capturing Malta from the Knights of St. John.
On September 5, 1566, Suleyman died near Szigetvar in Hungary.
Süleyman I, as the sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1520 to 1566, not only undertook bold military campaigns that enlarged his realm, he also oversaw the development of what came to be regarded as the most characteristic achievements of Ottoman civilization in the fields of law, literature, art, and architecture.
Süleyman was the only son of Sultan Selim I. He became sancak beyi (governor) of Kaffa in the Crimea during the reign of his grandfather Bayezid II and of Manisa in western Asia Minor in the reign of Selim I.
Süleyman succeeded his father as sultan in September 1520 and began his reign with campaigns against the Christian powers in central Europe and the Mediterranean. Belgrade fell to him in 1521 and Rhodes, long under the rule of the Knights of St. John, in 1522. At Mohács, in August 1526, Süleyman broke the military strength of Hungary, and the Hungarian king, Louis II, lost his life in the battle.
The vacant throne of Hungary was claimed by Ferdinand I, the Habsburg archduke of Austria, and by John (János Zápolya), who was voivode (lord) of Transylvania, and the candidates of the “native” party opposed to the prospect of Habsburg rule. Süleyman agreed to recognize John as a vassal king of Hungary, and in 1529, hoping to remove at one blow all further intervention by the Habsburgs, he laid siege to Vienna. Difficulties of time and distance and of bad weather and lack of supplies, no less than the resistance of the Christians, forced the sultan to raise the siege.
The campaign was successful, however, in a more immediate sense, for John was to rule thereafter over most of Hungary until his death, in 1540. A second great campaign in 1532, notable for the brilliant Christian defense of Güns, ended as a mere foray into Austrian border territories. The sultan, preoccupied with affairs in the East and convinced that Austria was not to be overcome at one stroke, granted a truce to the archduke Ferdinand in 1533.
The death of John in 1540 and the prompt advance of Austrian forces once more into central Hungary drove Süleyman to modify profoundly the solution that he had imposed in the time of John. His campaigns of 1541 and 1543 led to the emergence of three distinct Hungarys—Habsburg Hungary in the extreme north and west; Ottoman Hungary along the middle Danube, a region under direct and permanent military occupation by the Ottomans and with its main center at Buda; and Transylvania, a vassal state dependent on the Porte and in the hands of John Sigismund, the son of John Zápolya.
Between 1543 and 1562 the war in Hungary continued, broken by truces and with few notable changes on either side. The most important was the Ottoman capture of the Banat of Temesvár (Timişoara) in 1532. After long negotiations a peace recognizing the status quo in Hungary was signed in 1562.
Süleyman waged three major campaigns against Persia. The first (1534–35) gave the Ottomans control over the region of Erzurum in eastern Asia Minor and also witnessed the Ottoman conquest of Iraq, a success that rounded off the achievements of Selim I. The second campaign (1548–49) brought much of the area around Lake Van under Ottoman rule, but the third (1554–55) served rather as a warning to the Ottomans of the difficulty of subduing the Ṣafavid state in Persia. The first formal peace between the Ottomans and the Ṣafavids was signed in 1555, but it offered no clear solution to the problems confronting the Ottoman sultan on his eastern frontier.
The naval strength of the Ottomans became formidable in the reign of Süleyman. Khayr al-Dīn, known in the West as Barbarossa, became kapudan (admiral) of the Ottoman fleet and won a sea fight off Preveza, Greece (1538), against the combined fleets of Venice and Spain, which gave to the Ottomans the naval initiative in the Mediterranean until the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. Tripoli in North Africa fell to the Ottomans in 1551. A strong Spanish expedition against Tripoli was crushed at Jarbah (Djerba) in 1560, but the Ottomans failed to capture Malta from the Knights of St. John in 1565. Ottoman naval power was felt at this time even as far afield as India, where a fleet sent out from Egypt made an unsuccessful attempt in 1538 to take the town of Diu from the Portuguese.
The later years of Süleyman were troubled by conflict between his sons. Mustafa had become by 1553 a focus of disaffection in Asia Minor and was executed in that year on the order of the sultan. There followed during 1559–61 a conflict between the princes Selim and Bayezid over the succession to the throne, which ended with the defeat and execution of Bayezid. Süleyman himself died while besieging the fortress of Szigetvár in Hungary.
Süleyman surrounded himself with administrators and statesmen of unusual ability, men such as his grand viziers (chief ministers) İbrahim, Rüstem, and Mehmed Sokollu. ʿUlamāʾ (specialists in Islamic law), notably Abū al-Suʿūd (Hoca Çelebi) and Kemalpaşazade, made the period memorable, as did the great Turkish poet Bâkî and the architect Sinan. Süleyman built strong fortresses to defend the places he took from the Christians and adorned the cities of the Islamic world (including Mecca, Damascus, and Baghdad) with mosques, bridges, aqueducts, and other public works. In general, Süleyman completed the task of transforming the previously Byzantine city of Constantinople into Istanbul, a worthy center for a great Turkish and Islamic empire.
Suleyman’s regime was marked by strong territorial advances in North Africa, central Europe, Bessarabia and Iraq. However, he also oversaw great advances in fields like law, literature, art and architecture. His nickname, Kanuni, is best translated into “the Lawgiver,” indicating his importance in these fields.
Suleyman put strong emphasis on building strong fortresses to defend captured Christian cities, and he improved the infrastructure of many cities in the Muslim world, like Mecca, Damascus and Baghdad. However, most remarkable was that during his time, Istanbul, formerly Constantinople, was fully transformed into a Muslim city through its new organization, architecture and institutions.
At the time of Suleyman's death the Ottoman Empire, with its unrivaled military strength, economic riches and territorial extent, was the world's foremost power. Suleyman's conquests had brought under the control of the Empire the major Muslim cities (Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Damascus, and Baghdad), many Balkan provinces (reaching present day Croatia and Austria), and most of North Africa. His expansion into Europe had given the Ottoman Turks a powerful presence in the European balance of power. Indeed, such was the perceived threat of the Ottoman Empire under the reign of Suleyman that many believed that the Ottoman conquest of Europe was imminent.
Even thirty years after his death "Sultan Solyman" was quoted by the English author William Shakespeare as a military prodigy in The Merchant of Venice (Act 2, Scene 1).
Suleyman's legacy was not, however, merely in the military field. The administrative and legal reforms which earned Suleyman the name Law Giver ensured the Empire's survival long after his death, an achievement which took many generations of decadent heirs to undo.
Through his personal patronage, Suleiman also presided over the Golden Age of the Ottoman Empire, representing the pinnacle of the Ottoman Turks' cultural achievement in the realm of architecture, literature, art, theology and philosophy. Today, the skyline of the Bosphorus, and of many cities in modern Turkey and the former Ottoman provinces, are still adorned with the architectural works of Mimar Sinan. One of these, the Süleymaniye Mosque, is the final resting place of Suleyman and Herenzaltan. They are buried in separate domed mausoleums attached to the mosque.
Qanuni see Suleyman I
Suleyman the Magnificent see Suleyman I
Suleyman the Lawgiver see Suleyman I
Suleyman Muhtesem see Suleyman I
Kanuni see Suleyman I
Suleyman I (Qanuni) (Suleyman the Magnificent) (Süleyman the Lawgiver) (Süleyman Muhteşem) (Kanuni) (b. November 6, 1494–April 1495 — d. September 5/6, 1566, near Szigetvár, Hungary). Greatest of the Ottoman sultans. Peace loving by nature, he took part in thirteen great campaigns in Europe and Asia. In 1521, he conquered Belgrade and the next year the island of Rhodes. In 1526, the Hungarians were defeated at Mohacs and Buda was temporarily occupied. 1529 saw the siege of Vienna, which was however raised soon. The various embassies to Austria had no success, and in 1532 Suleyman started upon what the Turkish sources call “the German campaign against the king of Spain.” However, in 1533, an armistice was concluded with Austria.
Suleyman’s next campaign was directed against Persia, which avoided the battle. In 1534, the sultan made his ceremonial entrance in Baghdad, where he stayed for four months and built the mausoleum of Abu Hanifa. He also visited Najaf, Kufa and Karbala’. In 1541 and 1543, he was again in Hungary, where Turkish administration was introduced. The war against Persia was resumed in 1548 but without success, and in 1555 a treaty was concluded at Amasia, where Suleyman received the Austrian embassy under Ogier Giselin de Busbecq. It could only obtain an armistice. The sultan died during the siege of Szigeth.
Suleyman was a pious man, and must have been a born ruler. As a poet, he used the pen-name of Muhibbi. Following the principles of his predecessors, he elaborated the system of state institutions by promulgating the “Canon,” which deals mainly with the organization of the army, the laws of landed property, the police and the feudal code. During his reign, the Ottoman Empire established its place in international affairs. The Christian states had lost all hope of driving the Turks out of Europe, and King Francis concluded an alliance with the Ottoman sultan. The Turkish fleet began to be active in the Mediterranean, in the Red Sea and in the Indian Ocean. The possession of Aden and Yemen was secured for the empire.
Under Suleyman, Ottoman civilization gained its own special character in the field of literature and especially in that of architecture with the works of Sinan in Istanbul, Baghdad, Konya, Jerusalem and Mecca.
A chronology of Suleyman’s life reads as follows:
Suleyman was born in November of 1494 as the only son of Sultan Selim I.
Early in the sixteenth century, Suleyman became sacak beyi, the governor of Kaffa in the Crimea.
Around 1512, Suleyman moved to Anatolia, where he became governor in Manisa.
In 1520, following the death of his father, Suleyman became the new sultan. He immediately set out on campaigns against the Christian powers in Europe.
In 1521, Belgrade (today’s Serbia) fell to the Ottomans.
In 1522, the island of Rhodes fell to the Ottomans. This meant the end of the rule of the Knights of St. John.
In 1526, Suleyman struck a final defeat on the Hungarians at the battle of Mohacs. Their king was killed, and Suleyman supported the new king John. John became the vassal king under the Ottomans.
In 1529, Suleyman started a short-lived and unsuccessful siege to Vienna.
In 1532, there was an important victory against Austria, where Ottoman forces looted large parts of the country. However, Austria still was not put under direct Ottoman rule, as the sultan was mainly occupied with his Asian neighbors at this time.
In 1534, a campaign was launched against Persia.
In 1535, both Iraq and the region of Erzurum was conquered after the defeat of the Persians.
In 1538, the Ottomans won the sea battle off Preveza under the leadership of Khayr ud-Din, known in Europe as Barbarossa. This made the Ottomans the leading power in the Mediterranean Sea.
From 1541 to 1562, there was a war in Hungary that led to few changes in the situation with regards to Ottoman dominance.
In 1548, a second campaign was launched against Persia.
In 1549, the region around Van Lake came under Ottoman control.
In 1551, Tripoli fell to the Ottomans, giving the empire control over all of the eastern Mediterranean coast from today’s Macedonia to southern Tunisia (including today’s Greece (EU), Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Egypt and Libya.)
In 1553, Suleyman’s son, Mustafa, rebelled against his father’s rule and received many supporters in Anatolia. Suleyman’s reaction was to have Mustafa executed.
In 1554, a third campaign was launched against Persia.
In 1555, a formal peace was signed between the Safavids of Persia and the Ottomans, without substantial changes in the borders between the states.
In 1559, two other sons of Suleyman, Selim and Bayazid, began fighting over the succession to the sultanate.
In 1560, a strong Spanish campaign against Jerba was crushed by Ottoman troops. Suleyman’s son Bayazid was executed, leaving Selim heir of the sultanate.
In 1565, the Ottomans do not succeed in capturing Malta from the Knights of St. John.
On September 5, 1566, Suleyman died near Szigetvar in Hungary.
Süleyman I, as the sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1520 to 1566, not only undertook bold military campaigns that enlarged his realm, he also oversaw the development of what came to be regarded as the most characteristic achievements of Ottoman civilization in the fields of law, literature, art, and architecture.
Süleyman was the only son of Sultan Selim I. He became sancak beyi (governor) of Kaffa in the Crimea during the reign of his grandfather Bayezid II and of Manisa in western Asia Minor in the reign of Selim I.
Süleyman succeeded his father as sultan in September 1520 and began his reign with campaigns against the Christian powers in central Europe and the Mediterranean. Belgrade fell to him in 1521 and Rhodes, long under the rule of the Knights of St. John, in 1522. At Mohács, in August 1526, Süleyman broke the military strength of Hungary, and the Hungarian king, Louis II, lost his life in the battle.
The vacant throne of Hungary was claimed by Ferdinand I, the Habsburg archduke of Austria, and by John (János Zápolya), who was voivode (lord) of Transylvania, and the candidates of the “native” party opposed to the prospect of Habsburg rule. Süleyman agreed to recognize John as a vassal king of Hungary, and in 1529, hoping to remove at one blow all further intervention by the Habsburgs, he laid siege to Vienna. Difficulties of time and distance and of bad weather and lack of supplies, no less than the resistance of the Christians, forced the sultan to raise the siege.
The campaign was successful, however, in a more immediate sense, for John was to rule thereafter over most of Hungary until his death, in 1540. A second great campaign in 1532, notable for the brilliant Christian defense of Güns, ended as a mere foray into Austrian border territories. The sultan, preoccupied with affairs in the East and convinced that Austria was not to be overcome at one stroke, granted a truce to the archduke Ferdinand in 1533.
The death of John in 1540 and the prompt advance of Austrian forces once more into central Hungary drove Süleyman to modify profoundly the solution that he had imposed in the time of John. His campaigns of 1541 and 1543 led to the emergence of three distinct Hungarys—Habsburg Hungary in the extreme north and west; Ottoman Hungary along the middle Danube, a region under direct and permanent military occupation by the Ottomans and with its main center at Buda; and Transylvania, a vassal state dependent on the Porte and in the hands of John Sigismund, the son of John Zápolya.
Between 1543 and 1562 the war in Hungary continued, broken by truces and with few notable changes on either side. The most important was the Ottoman capture of the Banat of Temesvár (Timişoara) in 1532. After long negotiations a peace recognizing the status quo in Hungary was signed in 1562.
Süleyman waged three major campaigns against Persia. The first (1534–35) gave the Ottomans control over the region of Erzurum in eastern Asia Minor and also witnessed the Ottoman conquest of Iraq, a success that rounded off the achievements of Selim I. The second campaign (1548–49) brought much of the area around Lake Van under Ottoman rule, but the third (1554–55) served rather as a warning to the Ottomans of the difficulty of subduing the Ṣafavid state in Persia. The first formal peace between the Ottomans and the Ṣafavids was signed in 1555, but it offered no clear solution to the problems confronting the Ottoman sultan on his eastern frontier.
The naval strength of the Ottomans became formidable in the reign of Süleyman. Khayr al-Dīn, known in the West as Barbarossa, became kapudan (admiral) of the Ottoman fleet and won a sea fight off Preveza, Greece (1538), against the combined fleets of Venice and Spain, which gave to the Ottomans the naval initiative in the Mediterranean until the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. Tripoli in North Africa fell to the Ottomans in 1551. A strong Spanish expedition against Tripoli was crushed at Jarbah (Djerba) in 1560, but the Ottomans failed to capture Malta from the Knights of St. John in 1565. Ottoman naval power was felt at this time even as far afield as India, where a fleet sent out from Egypt made an unsuccessful attempt in 1538 to take the town of Diu from the Portuguese.
The later years of Süleyman were troubled by conflict between his sons. Mustafa had become by 1553 a focus of disaffection in Asia Minor and was executed in that year on the order of the sultan. There followed during 1559–61 a conflict between the princes Selim and Bayezid over the succession to the throne, which ended with the defeat and execution of Bayezid. Süleyman himself died while besieging the fortress of Szigetvár in Hungary.
Süleyman surrounded himself with administrators and statesmen of unusual ability, men such as his grand viziers (chief ministers) İbrahim, Rüstem, and Mehmed Sokollu. ʿUlamāʾ (specialists in Islamic law), notably Abū al-Suʿūd (Hoca Çelebi) and Kemalpaşazade, made the period memorable, as did the great Turkish poet Bâkî and the architect Sinan. Süleyman built strong fortresses to defend the places he took from the Christians and adorned the cities of the Islamic world (including Mecca, Damascus, and Baghdad) with mosques, bridges, aqueducts, and other public works. In general, Süleyman completed the task of transforming the previously Byzantine city of Constantinople into Istanbul, a worthy center for a great Turkish and Islamic empire.
Suleyman’s regime was marked by strong territorial advances in North Africa, central Europe, Bessarabia and Iraq. However, he also oversaw great advances in fields like law, literature, art and architecture. His nickname, Kanuni, is best translated into “the Lawgiver,” indicating his importance in these fields.
Suleyman put strong emphasis on building strong fortresses to defend captured Christian cities, and he improved the infrastructure of many cities in the Muslim world, like Mecca, Damascus and Baghdad. However, most remarkable was that during his time, Istanbul, formerly Constantinople, was fully transformed into a Muslim city through its new organization, architecture and institutions.
At the time of Suleyman's death the Ottoman Empire, with its unrivaled military strength, economic riches and territorial extent, was the world's foremost power. Suleyman's conquests had brought under the control of the Empire the major Muslim cities (Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Damascus, and Baghdad), many Balkan provinces (reaching present day Croatia and Austria), and most of North Africa. His expansion into Europe had given the Ottoman Turks a powerful presence in the European balance of power. Indeed, such was the perceived threat of the Ottoman Empire under the reign of Suleyman that many believed that the Ottoman conquest of Europe was imminent.
Even thirty years after his death "Sultan Solyman" was quoted by the English author William Shakespeare as a military prodigy in The Merchant of Venice (Act 2, Scene 1).
Suleyman's legacy was not, however, merely in the military field. The administrative and legal reforms which earned Suleyman the name Law Giver ensured the Empire's survival long after his death, an achievement which took many generations of decadent heirs to undo.
Through his personal patronage, Suleiman also presided over the Golden Age of the Ottoman Empire, representing the pinnacle of the Ottoman Turks' cultural achievement in the realm of architecture, literature, art, theology and philosophy. Today, the skyline of the Bosphorus, and of many cities in modern Turkey and the former Ottoman provinces, are still adorned with the architectural works of Mimar Sinan. One of these, the Süleymaniye Mosque, is the final resting place of Suleyman and Herenzaltan. They are buried in separate domed mausoleums attached to the mosque.
Qanuni see Suleyman I
Suleyman the Magnificent see Suleyman I
Suleyman the Lawgiver see Suleyman I
Suleyman Muhtesem see Suleyman I
Kanuni see Suleyman I
No comments:
Post a Comment