This is Part Four of our seven-part series of reflections on the life, influence, and philosophical foundations of the cosmology of Shaykh Aḥmad Ibn Zayniddīn al-Aḥsāʾī. Here we focus on the phenomenon of Shaykhism.
Contents of the seven parts of this series:
- Life, Travels, Character and Charisma
- Works: Opera Majora and Minora
- Legacy and Influence I: Students, Close Disciples, Licensees, and Other Contemporaries
- Legacy and Influence II: Shaykhism
- Major Arcs in the Philosophy of Shaykh Aḥmad I: Preliminary Considerations
- Major Arcs in the Philosophy of Shaykh Aḥmad II: Objective Logic and Dialectics
- Major Arcs in the Philosophy of Shaykh Aḥmad III: Dialectical Metaphysics and the Project of Illuminationism.
With this post, the biographical and historical portion of our survey is complete. In the next three parts of this series we turn to a discussion of some key themes in the philosophical foundations of Shaykh Aḥmad’s metaphysics and cosmology, inshāʾa Ãllãh.
In WALAYAH
SAMAWI
community.
In the view of this author this is something of a half-truth. Yes, the Shaykh absolutely abhorred fame and position, strongly preferring to live the life of a recluse divorced from the immediate phenomenal world. He never had any intention of standing out from others, let alone effecting any division within the larger Shīʿī community. He went to great lengths to ensure that both the exoteric and esoteric aspects of his cosmological meditations locked together in respectable if not perfect harmony with the general consensus of Shīʿī tradition. At the same time, there is hardly anything more certain than that the Shaykh was also very much aware of the iconoclastic nature of some of his views and methods, particularly within philosophy. He would not have been averse to seeing his cosmological meditations and praxis, as expressed in his teachings and books, accepted as a philosophical and theological tradition within the larger Shīʿī community, as a viable alternative to the trends of the time. Even further: Without the slightest shred of pride or ambition on his part, it is clear that he did have a certain sense of mission, that there was an ordained role for him to play in the historical movement of Tashayyuʿ. At the same time, he never tried to force this in any egotistical or political manner:
,”
as Imām Ḥasan
emphasized to him in his early visions (see page 2).
a circumstance bitterly lamented by Henry Corbin (1993, p. 356). Shunned by the officialdom of the scholastic establishment, the most devoted followers of Shaykh Aḥmad began to coalesce with their families into a sub-community within the larger Shīʿī community. This community, which came to be known as that of the
– from
’, the most common title of Aḥmad al-Aḥsāʾī – developed in three directions:
development within this branch. The theology propounded by this branch of the Shaykhiyyah does indeed possess a considerable spiritual depth, especially with regards to the cosmological status of the Ahlulbayt
.
But these insights are largely (though not exclusively) framed within close proximity to the perimeters of the very scholastic framework that Shaykh Aḥmad sought to overcome.
potential latent within the writings of Shaykh Aḥmad and Sayyid Kāẓim as did one of the latter’s most important students,
(d. 1288
/1871
). A powerful and iconoclastic personality, the mark he left on the Shaykhī community was so great that, even today, Shaykhism as such is often identified with the work of this man and with the sub-branch of the Shaykhī community that he established.
(
) as scholastically conceived was cast off, to be replaced with a kind of neo-Akhbārī framework which sought to make the average educated Shīʿī independent of recourse to the traditional
.
Most significantly, the Āqā, via the focused application of his own genius, distilled much of the cosmological meditations of Shaykh Aḥmad and Sayyid Kāẓim into a new form intended for both the common man and experts alike: This distillation especially emphasized concepts such as the high metaphysical stations of the Ahlulbayt
and the cosmogony of the intermediary universe of subtle matter, space, and time;
.
A particularly controversial doctrine developed by the Āqā is the doctrine of the
(
), pertaining to the need of the Shīʿī community at any given time for the existence of at least one especially enlightened cognizant within their midst. These and other doctrines distilled from higher cosmological meditations on the Prophetic sources, via a loving spiritual connection with the Ahlulbayt
, constitute what we call Āqā Muḥammad Karīm’s
. This is in contrast to the scholastic establishment’s traditional method, which involves the distillation of
from the Prophetic sources via (in large measure) the dry and dispassionate application of traditional Aristotelian logic.
al-Ḥamrāʾ
(
). Indeed, one area of philosophical thought where he makes an important contribution is in the
of (natural) science and (theosophical) religion.
However, the dialectical movement of the cosmos and its consciousness that is so critical to the
of Shaykh Aḥmad becomes somewhat ossified in the
of Āqā Muḥammad Karīm. His theosophy and associated praxis are, in an important sense,
. Indeed, it is not far-fetched to compare Āqā Muḥammad Karīm’s interpretation of the teachings of Shaykh Aḥmad with the then contemporary phenomenon of Right-Hegelianism in Europe. Space does not allow us to say more at the moment.
(d. 1319
/1900–01
), is still active in such cities as Mashhad, Isfahan, and Tehran.
(d. 1265
/1850
) attended the lectures of Sayyid Kāẓim for about two years. After the passing of the latter in 1844
, this young man announced his own mission as the
(
) to the awaited twelfth
of Tashayyuʿ, al-Ḥujjah ibn al-Ḥasan
. This was the beginning of that 19
-century revolutionary movement known as Bābism.
. Three points stand out. First, Bābism was radically theosophical: The Bāb would eventually claim a semi-divine status for his position. Second, Bābism was quite Gnostic in the classical sense: The age of the Islāmic
(
) was now coming to an end, to be replaced in the new, post-legalist era. The sources of Bābism are replete with examples of antinomian practices. Finally, Bābism culminated in a revolutionary, egalitarian fervor that actually tried to overthrow the Iranian monarchy. In these three aspects we see that Bābism may, in all fairness, be considered as constituting both a Gnostic and a millenarianist movement, much like certain phases in the history of Ismāʿīlism.
, replacing objective idealism with materialism; in Bābism the vertical dialectic of Shaykh Aḥmad is aggressively mapped to the horizontal plane of the phenomenal world of historical time. During the rebellion against the monarchy, followers of Bābism (if not the Bāb himself) promoted a
praxis which may be positively compared with socialism or even communism. Bābism was to Shaykhism as the Hegelian Left was to Hegelianism.
Although his admirers and followers from amongst the Shaykhiyyah have continued to vigorously defend him from false accusations and to preserve his writings (as well as those of Sayyid Kāẓim), the exposition and further development of the
of the Shaykh proper went into a very steep decline from which it has not yet recovered.
/1944
), as well as his most famous student Imām Sayyid Rūḥullāh al-Khumaynī (d. 1409
/1989
), were under the influence of Shaykh Aḥmad in a significant way. It was bad enough that they were philosophers in the tradition of Mullā Ṣadrā (a tradition that was barely tolerated by the establishment at that time); to acknowledge the additional influence of the Shaykh with even a whisper would have spelled professional suicide.
’, followed by a quotation from the Shaykh. One of the best examples of this phenomenon is provided by Shaykh Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī al-Baḥrānī al-Najafī (ca. 1275?
/1858?
), a well- respected mainstream scholar of the ʿAtabāt: He wrote a very influential book in spiritual wayfaring,
(Baḥrānī 2002). Sayyid Muḥsin al-Amīn (d. 1371
/1952
), author of the biographical encyclopedia
, has an entry on him (Amīn 1983, Vol. 6, p. 119). Sayyid Muḥsin’s negative attitude towards Shaykh Aḥmad is exemplified by an extraordinarily prejudiced entry on the latter that arguably crosses the line into scholarly misconduct (Amīn 1983, Vol. 2, p. 569). Now this sayyid gives both Shaykh Ḥusayn and his book unqualified high praise. Yet Chapter Nine of
constitutes, in virtually its entirety, a commentary on the very verses received by Shaykh Aḥmad from Imām Ḥasan
in his early visions!
Again, Shaykh Aḥmad’s name is not mentioned explicitly.
.↩
, which discusses Shaykh Aḥmad and his teachings, is worthless.↩
’ by Corbin and others; however, Shaykh Aḥmad has explicitly vocalized it as
’ (Aḥsāʾī 2009, Vol. 5, p. 129).↩
, delivered as a keynote lecture at Utah Valley University in October of 2013. The paper remains unpublished at the time of writing this chapter.↩
This was a great and much needed work on what has sadly become a rather persecuted school among Students of Shi’i Mysticism (largely due to the attacks of Sayyid Muhammad Husayn al-Tihrani in his works like Ruh al-Mujarad and both Ma’arifat Allah and Ma’arifat al-Imam upon the school of Shaykh Ahmad) I hope you manage to write more upon the Shaykh and indeed his successor Sayyid Kazim.
I am curious if you could elaborate upon the following “Indeed, even some scholars who genuinely admired Shaykh Aḥmad became opposed to the further elaborations of his thought on the part of Sayyid Kāẓim.”
Can you think of any radical or even brief departures of the Sayyid from his predecessor’s line of thought.
I am curious to know what you make of the relationship between Qurrat al-‘Ayn and Sayyid Kazim which is claimed to have been a fond correspondence; particularly given that she would go on to be received by al-Rashti’s wife in al-Rashti’s home after the death of al-Rashti.
I’d also like to ask which of the Shaykhiyyah Schools (and by that I do not mean their contemporary representation) is most loyally following what you would consider to be the teachings of Shaykh Ahmad and Sayyid Kazim.
Finally, I was wondering which of the two editions of Shaykh Ahmad’s works you prefer, Jawami’ al-Kalim published by al-Ghadeer (Basra) or the Turath Shaykh al-Awhad published by the Usku’is (Tahqeeq of Sh. Tawfeeq Bu ‘Ali). I find the former is less aesthetically pleasing and therefore extremely irritating to read whilst the latter has a few too many printing errors for my liking.
Another excellent article in this series, i look forward to reading the rest of the series, may Allah bless all of your endeavours, ameen!
@Admirer of Al-Awhad and Al-Amjad:
============
the attacks of Sayyid Muhammad Husayn al-Tihrani
============
Indeed, the negative attitude of Sayyid Tehrani (R) with respect to the Shaykh (Q) crosses the border into the pathological. OTOH, his is just a small blip in a nearly 200 history of persecution, and ultimately of little consequence:
==========
I am curious if you could elaborate upon the following “Indeed, even some scholars who genuinely admired Shaykh Aḥmad became opposed to the further elaborations of his thought on the part of Sayyid Kāẓim.”
Can you think of any radical or even brief departures of the Sayyid from his predecessor’s line of thought.
==========
This is a detailed and subtle discussion. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Sayyid does not hold the reins on the movement of the dialectical expression of his thought as tightly as the Shaykh does. For someone not already deeply situated in the ways of the Shaykh (Q), it comes across as extremely obscure. And obscurity breeds even more misunderstanding. At the same time, the Sayyid was overwhelmed with the dual responsibility of both defending the Shaykh to the exoteric establishment as well as elaborating the esoteric dialectic. These pressures show up in various ways, but we’ll save that discussion for another occasion, inshaa Allah.
============
I am curious to know what you make of the relationship between Qurrat al-’Ayn and Sayyid Kazim which is claimed to have been a fond correspondence; particularly given that she would go on to be received by al-Rashti’s wife in al-Rashti’s home after the death of al-Rashti.
============
The lady Fatimah Baraghani was a complicated personality. The sources are so polemical that it takes some strong and sober objectivity to get at the truth. That said, what Imam Khumayni (Q) says is sufficient for now:
Replace ‘Islamic Republic’ with ‘teachings of Sayyid Kazim’ and that about sums it up. That said, the phenomenon of Lady Fatimah Baraghani needs more objective research, as mentioned above.
============
I’d also like to ask which of the Shaykhiyyah Schools (and by that I do not mean their contemporary representation) is most loyally following what you would consider to be the teachings of Shaykh Ahmad and Sayyid Kazim.
============
To this faqir, the question is better asked of individuals rather than of schools. Between the scholastic and theosophical distillations of the ways of the Shaykh (Q) and the Sayyid (Q) one can find powerful reflections, as well as wonderful and magnificent individuals.
But to your question: The theosophical school reflects certain themes better than the scholastic school and vice versa. Neither is a perfect reflection. The spirit of the dialectic and objective logic of the Shaykh (Q) is somewhat more palpable in the theosophical school.
From the strictly philosophical point of view the school of the Shaykh (Q) has been in a very sorry state for at least 150 years.
==================
Finally, I was wondering which of the two editions of Shaykh Ahmad’s works you prefer, Jawami’ al-Kalim published by al-Ghadeer (Basra) or the Turath Shaykh al-Awhad published by the Usku’is (Tahqeeq of Sh. Tawfeeq Bu ‘Ali).
==================
For scholarly accuracy the transcription of the Kermanis (Basra) is by far the preferable resource. Although we can call it an edition, it is more accurately called a transcription of the best manuscripts available to the Kermanis. A critical edition of the corpus remains to be done. But the work that the Kermanis have done is the most accurate that is currently available.
Thanks for the very interesting comment!
@ abuzaynab
Your support and encouragement mean a lot, and are greatly appreciated!
Thank you for the excellent responses Shaykhna,
In regards to the bordering on pathological, I couldn’t agree more. I also hope that the brothers who read the Sayyid’s (R) critiques of Shaykh al-Awhad (Q) would take note of the fact that in Ruh al-Mujarad- the critiques all seem to fall immediately after a passionate defense of Ibn ‘Arabi. I suspect those who ponder upon this will also conclude as I have that such attacks are largely due to Shaykh al-Awhad’s (Q) firm critiques of Ibn ‘Arabi.
@Admirer of Al-Awhad and Al-Amjad
=========
…such attacks are largely due to Shaykh al-Awhad’s (Q) firm critiques of Ibn ‘Arabi.
=========
Absolutely correct. The pathology of this deep-seated prejudice would make a good theme for an in-depth psychological study. Our dīn is very clear:
Despite this, they have made a ṣanam out of a hard-core (if not downright nāṣibī) ʿĀmmī such as Ibn Arabi, while insulting and casting aside someone such as the Shaykh (Q)!