Download PDF | (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization) Paul E. Walker - Early Philosophical Shiism_ The Ismaili Neoplatonism of Abu Ya’qūb al-Sijistānī-Cambridge University Press (1993).

Download PDF |  (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization) Paul E. Walker - Early Philosophical Shiism_ The Ismaili Neoplatonism of Abu Ya’qūb al-Sijistānī-Cambridge University Press (1993).

219 Pages 

The Ismailis, among whom are the followers of the Aga Khan, first rose to prominence during the fourth Islamic/tenth Christian century. Even in this early period they developed a remarkable intellectual program to sustain and support their Shiite cause. Along with their own version of true Islam, they promoted the investigation of science and philosophy, thus successfully merging the demands of religious tradition and the then newly imported sciences from abroad. The high watermark of this scholarly movement is best illustrated in the writings of the Ismaili theoretician Abu Ya'qub al-Sijistanl, who applied Neoplatonic ideas and language to his own Ismailism in order to explain both the universe at large and humanity's unique place within it. 

Using published and manuscript writings of al-Sijistanl which have hitherto been largely hidden or ignored, Dr. Paul Walker reveals this scholar's major contributions to the development of a philosophical Shiism. He analyzes al-Sijistanl's role in the Ismaili mission (da ewa) and critically assesses the value of his combination of philosophy and religious doctrine. The principal themes covered include God, creation, intellect, soul, nature, the human being, prophecy, interpretation and salvation.

 Early philosophical Shiism presents the first book-length study of the ideas and teachings of this leading tenth-century figure. It will, therefore, be widely read by students and specialists in Islamic history and medieval philosophy and will also be of great interest to the modern Ismaili community.

Preface

 The principal purpose of this book is to introduce a critically important Shiite writer from the fourth (Islamic)/tenth (Christian) century to a general, modern audience. This is an especially difficult task because the person in question, Abu Ya'qub al-Sijistanl, remains little known in the scholarly literature about Muslim thinkers or even in the discussions of Islamic thought by Muslims themselves. His contribution to the development of philosophical Shiism in his time was crucial; yet almost no record of him and no overtly recognizable trace of his thought much outlasted the century in which he lived. His works did not find a place in standard Islamic collections, but were copied and preserved by a small remnant of the once much more powerful and larger Ismaili movement to which he belonged. 

Increasingly, his writings fell into a dark obscurity as they were guarded from outsiders, only to be rediscovered by modern scholars in the second half of the twentieth century. Al-Sijistanl, however, in his ardent support of a particular version of Shiism and in his intense pursuit of philosophical and scientific fact to explain and complement these religious views, was not born or bred in such obscurity. His role in the early Ismaili da ( wa did not limit or confine his interests or his audience. The intellectual activities that created his thinking brought together a complex and sophisticated cosmology, a fully elaborated doctrine of man and history, and a philosophical account of prophecy and other matters, which derives from a thorough knowledge of both Shiite Islam and Greek Neoplatonism.

 Al-SijistanT's productive synthesis of these radically differing traditions might seem natural in the context of western Christianity but within Islam his effort in this regard stands apart, branding him with various forms of heresy and deviation. His aim was high, however, and the surviving evidence of his thought, as it is preserved in the works now available, reveals a brilliant mind - one fully and openly conversant with issues and solutions that, in his time, were a part of Islamic civilization in general, not just of relevance to the peculiar teachings of a marginal sect. 

The concerns raised and the answers given by al-Sijistanl thus belong to the whole of the best Islamic scholarly tradition. Perhaps this is most clearly proven in the life of the great philosopher-physician, Ibn Slna (Avicenna), whose own autobiography confesses to the Ismaili loyalties of his family. Indeed, although the possible direct influence of al-Sijistani on Ibn STna has yet to be studied or worked out in detail, it remains in theory not only possible but highly likely. Ibn STna's father and brother both adhered to the Ismaili view and followed its doctrines and he himself reports that they used to speak in front of him about the intellect and the soul in an Ismaili manner. Such discussions must have followed, for the greater part, the teachings of none other than al-Sijistani, who would have been the most prominent and, therefore, most influential Ismaili writer of that era.

 Moreover, within the Ismaili domain - a realm which once encompassed territories as diverse as Egypt, North Africa, Arabia, Bahrain, and parts of Iran and India - al-Sijistanl's formulation of a philosophical view of Islamic doctrine achieved such prominence that it retained supremacy, despite credible intellectual challenges, until the end of the Fatimid caliphate, some two hundred years after the decades during which he was at the height of his productivity and influence. 

Even later the ghost of his ideas continued to haunt the discourse of the Ismailis and others and to burden such great figures of subsequent periods as Naslr al-Dfn Tusf, who once wrote treatises in support of the Ismaili cause, and possibly Shihab al-Dln Suhrawardf, who like some other anti-establishment authors was accused of subscribing to their doctrines. Indeed there have been a significant number of major Islamic thinkers who had to face a similar accusation. But because the real philosophical foundation of Ismailism has not, until now, been properly understood and thoroughly appreciated, why this tended to happen has made little sense. Surely, however, although the later scholars within Islam may not have known al-Sijistani by name, they nevertheless often recognized a particular tendency within the intellectual tradition and labeled it "Ismaili" precisely because it reflected the position once so forcefully espoused by him. Now to reveal that position in its full details without question gives meaning to an investigation of these charges and explains why the Ismaili interpretation of Islam was frequently seen by their enemies as both intensely profound and also intellectually dangerous. It is, accordingly, highly important that the surviving evidence about Abu Ya'qub al-Sijistani be made available to a wide audience. That, however, is no simple task, and in the nearly total absence of any previous attempt to do so, the difficulties are compounded.

 Since none of al-Sijistanl's works has been translated into English (let alone properly edited and published in Arabic), none can be referred to in any study of them without recourse to the original texts (or, in one case, to a Persian and French translation; in another, to a partial French translation). Readers not skilled in Arabic will have no way to sample the actual material of al-Sijistanl's books or the flow of his thoughts and ideas. It seems imperative, therefore, to begin to translate the books of al-Sijistani. However, each of the existing treatises presents a host of unique textual and interpretive problems: the manuscripts are hard to obtain, the language in them obscure, the printed versions all faulty to one degree or another. And no single example well illustrates the whole range of concerns and interests of its author, nor explains at all adequately the background and context of his ideas.

These dilemmas dictated the form and method utilized in this study. To introduce the work of al-Sijistanl, both as literature and as thought, the following volume consists of two parts, which in effect together constitute an introduction to his writings. Each, however, is to a degree independent of the other since they aim in different directions. Part I offers a detailed review of al-Sijistanl's position with respect to the intellectual world which he inherited and which he attempted to shape to his own liking. The key elements which formed him are Shiism and philosophy and each has its separate career prior to their coming together in early Ismaili thought. The second part presents the teachings of al-Sijistanl primarily, but not exclusively, in terms of philosophy. Based on a comprehensive review of his own writings, it employs a broad, critical perspective by avoiding the limitations of individual texts or particular statements in them. A future project remains the translation of one or more of these texts. In this instance, however, the accuracy of al-Sijistanl's own statements depends on a critical analysis of the material preserved in the manuscript tradition of his Ismaili descendants. For each of his works those materials were consulted. 

The careful preservation of his words over the intervening 1,000 years since his death by the scribes and copyists deserves the kind of recognition and attention this study hopes to focus on the subject of their devotion and labor. These varying approaches ought to make al-Sijistanl understandable in such a way that each serves as a complement to the other, and ultimately enlarges the reader's appreciation of him and the various intellectual roles he chose to play. Perhaps this study will also entice others into continuing such investigations, either into the other Shiite thinkers of his time and place or into al-Sijistanl himself, whose contributions are in no way exhausted by this volume. At a minimum, if al-Sijistanl is no longer ignored as an active participant in the field of either Islamic philosophy or of Shiite thought, this book will have achieved a significant end.

The Ismaili message and its philosophers The balance between Sunni and Shiah Islam changed dramatically at the beginning of the fourth/tenth century with the rise to power of the Fatimids in North Africa and with the success of related movements, such as the Qarmatians, in other provinces of the Muslim empire. For a while Shiism enjoyed an ascendancy that eventually culminated in the latter part of the same century with Buyid control of Baghdad, Hamdanid domination in Aleppo and Fatimid rule in Cairo. Each of these movements espoused a form of Shiite religious ideology. Unfortunately, while the superficial facts of these political developments are available in the standard Arabic chronicles, the underlying doctrinal theories of these and other Shiite groups of the period are not. A complete account of Shiism ought to include details of the thoughts and activities of its partisans, especially those with a claim to positions of influence and leadership. However, the literature of Shiism, as well as its authors, from the critical turning point in the sect's history continue to exist in obscurity. The theoretical concepts involved tend to be clear enough. Shiism, in direct contrast to Sunnism, holds that there necessarily exists a divinely ordained, supreme human authority in all religious matters. 

During his lifetime, the prophet occupied this office: his ruling on any issue was for all intents and purposes that of God Himself. No question of interpretation or problem of clarification in the realms of thought or action could be decided without direct or indirect recourse to this fountainhead of truth, who was in fact the very source of God's instructions to mankind. After the death of Muhammad, in the absence of this ultimate verification of the divine message, another method had to be found to insure that the proper orientation and guidance of individual men and their community would not suffer a turn towards error. Since Shiite doctrine maintains that man alone and by himself inevitably goes astray, human effort in and of itself cannot provide knowledge of the correct path and, therefore, lead the way to God and salvation. It is not sufficient that men simply rediscover or recover the exact form or content of the prophet's teaching in every specific case. 

There must also exist, by divine right, a continuation of at least a portion of the original link between man and God, much as it was when the prophet still lived. In other words, the world at all times must have a prophetically inspired person who, as heir of the prophet himself carries on the principle of his rule in all those matters where his authority was once supreme. The Shiites maintain that the world and its human community has never and will never be without an ultimate religious authority whose commission is to guide mankind in the name of the God who creates and sustains. In the current historical era, this person is the imam and he is of necessity a direct lineal descendant of Muhammad through his single, chosen heir and executor, 'Air ibn Abl Talib. A fairly restrictive theory of the imamate and of religious authority was widely accepted by the main Shiite groups. From a tradition common among them from the time of the imam Ja'far al-Sadiq as far back as the first half of the second/eighth century, the concept of the role of 'Alf ibn Abl Talib, as heir and successor of the prophet, saw in fAlf much more than the most eminent of Muhammad's colleagues and hence the most deserving of the imamate or leadership of the community. Shiah doctrine also holds that Muhammad had actually designated (nass)f Air as his successor and thereby had indicated not just his, but God's, will in this matter. Such a designation carried with it a testamentary function (waslya) in which * 

Air actually inherited from Muhammad certain of his prophetic powers. Thereafter, 'Air became the founder (asas) of a special form of teaching which was based on his inherited knowledge of the spiritual meaning of the holy law (sharl'a). 'AlFin turn bequeathed this divinely sanctioned knowledge to his sons Hasan and Husayn and to the imams who descended from them. By virtue of ordination and inheritance, these imams are both infallible (ma sum) and "firmly versed in knowledge" (al-rasikhunfi al-'ilm). They alone truly understand the real meaning of everything which is outwardly unclear or ambiguous in the Qur'an and the holy law, and they cannot and do not make mistakes in performing this function of interpretation. Their word is authoritative, and they are the only valid guides in each generation of Muslims; not to acknowledge and follow them, therefore, leads to ignorance and, consequently, perdition. 

The Shiite doctrine of authority, however, carries with it the following important ramification: in contrast to Sunni Islam, which tends towards schools of interpretation of law and teaching, the Shiah in theory can appeal all questions and disputes to one impeccable source and receive, thereby, answers that have unimpeachable authority and yet which respond to changing exigencies in a timely way. The imam (or before him the prophet) is a wellspring of living wisdom, a source that flows throughout the course of human history with eternal truths and divine science. But, as this highest point of authority resides in only one place, not many - that is, in the person who holds the imamate - in reality the transmission of this authority flows by virtue of intermediate offices which convey what is pure and absolute at the top down through varying degrees of declining authenticity to the ordinary mortals waiting for it at the bottom. For this reason alone, Shiism requires an ecclesiastical establishment built as a hierarchy of religious and doctrinal authority. But, if this is true of Shiism as a whole and is an all-inclusive principle, what role remains for the individual theologian-philosophers and writers, who were themselves not imams, yet who attempted to discharge at least an expository, but possibly even a creative, function in the development and propagation of this religious system? 

The record of Shiite political and intellectual activity includes much more than an account of its supreme pontiff. In reality many scholars and writers contributed to Shiism through their own personal efforts to propound and elucidate both its theory and its practice. Its doctrinal literature grew substantially even in the early periods. Thus the situation - and possibly the dilemma - of the major Shiite writers and clerics to be studied here finds them acting as the agents and propagators of the specific ideologies behind political movements that, according to the theory of Shiism, contained a teaching which ought rightly to be that of the imam alone. In looking at the work of individual writers, Shiite theory forces an investigator to ask to what degree were the thoughts and ideas in Shiite writings really those of its authors. Were their words always merely restatements of the teachings of the imam and his officially authorized representatives? How did each writer see his own contribution in terms of the hierarchical authority within the doctrinal system to which he belonged? An answer is critical to understanding the position of each of the individual scholars and what his teachings mean or were intended to accomplish. In all cases the guiding hand of the imam ought to be evident and should be a critical factor in analyzing any example of Shiite thought. 

But was this true? Even if, at one level, all teachings are those of the imam, this ideal model of knowledge and authority is less likely to apply in the treatises which display concepts predominantly philosophical in nature. In these cases individual scholarly initiative surely becomes important. Shiite writers were no more confined within a rigid intellectual system than most of their Sunni adversaries. An additional difficulty related to authority stems from various differing conceptions of the imamate, especially those concerned with the problem of occultation (ghayba). When an imam is in occultation, as is, for example, the case for the Imamis following the greater ghayba, he no longer speaks directly to his adherents. In his absence, a form of substitute authority must assume his place. This was also true of some of the earliest Ismailis, who understood their own position in an analogous manner. Their current imam, Muhammad b. Isma'Tl, was no longer present; his guidance had passed into the hands of his followers. The theme of imamate and of ghayba are, therefore, essential factors in analyzing Shiite writings, even while they are truly illusive issues in the Shiism of the late third/ninth and early fourth/tenth century, including that of the Ismailis. To a great extent it raises questions that remain imprecisely answered in the material of this study. Nonetheless, its importance is always discernable just below the surface of the many themes and doctrines to be discussed. 

It represents but one part of the ideological paradox of Shiism - one which serves to enhance the obscurity of its message. Thus despite a theoretical paradox, Shiism grants or even requires the existence of a hierarchically ordered, scholarly class whose function is to spread and expound its teachings and doctrine. In fact the Shiah more often than not already depended on an ecclesiastical establishment even when an imam was openly manifest. During a period of the imam's ghayba, such a role not only persists but becomes paramount, since the theory of unceasing divine involvement in human affairs requires the structure of authority all the more so in the absence of the imam. Long before the end of the third/ninth century, most Shiite groups already adhered to one of several organized missions, each acting on behalf of a specific imam or other claimant to authority, whether present to his followers or absent.

 Following the death of the eleventh imam of those Shiah who were to become the Twelvers (Ithna (ashanya) - an event that took place in 260/874 - or, more exactly, after the final disappearance and occultation of the twelfth imam in 329/940, many of their scholars admitted that direct contact with an imam was no longer possible. Nevertheless, a hierarchical organization - a kind of ecclesiastical structure - persisted and was amplified. Perhaps, the most remarkable among all these organizations was the Ismaili da'wa which promoted in its various manifestations a claim both that it represented the living imam and that it also acted as his substitute in his absence. Thus an organized mission of scholars and teachers was or became a necessary feature of this form of Shiism as well. 

Ismailism Evidence suggests that in theory and in practice the Ismaili da (wa was carefully organized in a chain of ascending offices, each more encompassing and more powerful than the one below it. Theoretically, at the summit there was always an imam, who was himself, in turn, part of a sacred hierarchy of temporal delegates of God running from ages past and active in the present. However, like their counterparts among the Imamlya, the early da'wa more generally recognized an imam in ghayba, thereby increasing the importance of the ecclesiastical organization and its individual members. That details now recorded in surviving books and chronicles by the early writers fail to provide a consistent account of either the theory or the practice connected to this doctrine is not as important as the very notion itself. The Ismaili da'wa was, self-consciously, the instrument through which true religion - valid law and doctrine, proper belief and action, correct science and knowledge of the universe, rightful loyalty to God and His agent for human affairs, appropriate appreciation of the difference between appearance and reality, between the purely physical and the truly spiritual - was made known to mankind in general and to the believers in particular. 

Therefore, an obvious key to explaining the movement behind the various political successes of the early Ismaili Shiah lies in this group's particular concept of da (wa, which in this context means more than an appeal or summons to a particular Islamic creed or belief. The da'wa, for the Ismailis, was the very organization that functioned as the vehicle of the movement itself. It was its "mission" in each and every sense of the word, and it was its message as well. Resembling a corporate embodiment of that message, much like "the Church" in Christianity, the agents of this da'wa, generally, called dais (hence "missionaries"), were the principal actors in the spread of its message. The da 7s carried Ismaili teachings into the territories where they did not already exist, and served to maintain Ismailism after it was once established. So much is clear from the evidence of both Ismaili and non-Ismaili sources, and an extensive list of names of the da 7s survives. Given that their activities were taken by the ruling authorities to be heretical and revolutionary, the personnel of the Ismaili movement - its religious scholars, propagandists, and other agents - is reasonably well known.1 Many questions remain to be answered, however, about the exact nature of the da'is' doctrinal program and the kind of specific appeal they used in various communities of the Islamic world. 

These writers and preachers, soldiers and scholars, were quite obviously partisans of a specific cause. That is implied, in part, in the very notion of da'wa and dal. A member of the Ismaili da'wa followed, in theory, a carefully defined and restricted doctrinal agenda in how he searched for converts and in what he told the potential member about that form of Shiism to which he subscribed. Some of those activities remained part of an oral teaching which is now almost impossible to reconstruct with any precision. More accessible to modern scholarship, and thus more trustworthy, are other materials that, for one reason or another, were written down and preserved. 

This literature, consisting of many, only recently available, books and treatises, will eventually provide a true understanding of what the early Ismailis did and did not say about themselves. Of the many kinds of Shiism at the end of the third/ninth century, Ismailism remains the least known, even though it must be considered highly important since its agents and scholars exercised widespread political, social and intellectual influence at the time. Ismaili Shiism was the sectarian tendency that undergirded both the Fatimid caliphate and the Qarmatian revolts, yet until quite recently assessments of its ideological program were built upon the polemical counterattacks of Sunnis and other opponents. Works written by members of the da rwa that might explain actual Ismaili ideas and doctrines during this critical but obscure period were unavailable or ignored. This was partly due to the inaccessibility of many of the basic sources for Ismaili thinking which were preserved almost exclusively in restricted and protected sectarian libraries. Slowly those few Ismaili communities that have preserved genuine libraries of their own literature are yielding their contents to public scrutiny. This newly emerging material owes its preservation primarily to a continuous chain of Ismaili scholars and religious authorities reaching back from the present all the way to the beginnings of the Fatimid movement in the last quarter of the third/ninth century.

 True believers have zealously copied and studied their own special tradition - both the writings of important early disciples of the cause and the works of those who came later. Since the great figures of the distant past retain a vital place in this tradition, many books and treatises by them were preserved and have recently become available to the general scholarly public. For this reason it is now possible to study the development of this form of Shiism during the critical first century and a half of its existence as a separate sect.2 Moreover, one can now look at the contributions of individual scholars to this process, thereby learning how Shiite, and particularly Ismaili, doctrinal positions were formed. 

This information affords, first and foremost, a new understanding of the religious message and appeal of Ismaili Shiism when it first began, although, even with a growing body of works and treatises by the da Is, much of their effort to elucidate and spread this form of Shiism continues to be shrouded by persisting difficulties in the analysis of their activities and aims. The details of Ismaili history and its da rwa reveal it to be as complex and varied as other ideological movements, despite its claim to a supreme, unimpeachable authority. Its numerous agents did not fit a single mold. Among the scores of names preserved for such Ismaili officials in the first hundred and fifty years of the sect's existence as an independent movement (from the signs of the first Qarmatian revolts about 261/874 until the disappearance of the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim in 411/1021), there are persons whose careers indicate a range of special roles within the da (wa. Some endeavoured to convert semiliterate, non-Arabic speaking tribesmen, others to dispute with scholars of the highest intellectual attainments. In response to individual situations, the methods of individual da 7s changed. Probably, the doctrines they taught under differing circumstances likewise had various levels appropriate to different audiences. 

This seems quite natural. Like most underground, minority religious movements with a definite doctrinal program, however, the Ismailis and their da(wa were constantly subject to splintering, and this is certainly reflected in the records which now exist concerning them. An important problem, then, is to determine when and how these differences became mutually incompatible, leading to the formation of sects within Ismailism itself, because this is what actually happened. And when it did, what positions did the various members take, and over what issues? The life and thought of ranking officials of the da'wa and their various loyalties, whether intellectual or political, were as varied as the movement itself. The sectarian attitudes of the individual da 7s, although suggested by the sources, may never be known with certainty. Many details of their activities remain hidden from outside scrutiny. Fear of exposure and misunderstanding obviously imposed secrecy on the da 7s. Condemnation by non-Ismaili authorities was frequent enough.

 Where the da'wa could not function openly because it espoused a set of doctrines vehemently opposed by the ruling majority, this danger of exposure and condemnation persisted and may have influenced the form and content of Ismaili writings. Therefore questions of loyalty, obedience and adherence to higher authority only complicate a situation of secrecy and caution imposed by being a minority. Ismailism could not help being revolutionary. In declaring that the reigning Abbasid caliphate had come to power by usurpation3 and that, therefore, the current government violated God's explicit commandment, the Ismaili da'wa automatically willed the overturning of the Muslim establishment and thus courted trouble by virtue of its very existence. There were other elements of their teaching that put them in constant jeopardy, and many of the dais suffered harshly at the hands of their enemies.

 If they pursued their activities outside of the political dominion of Ismaili co-religionists, their chances for martyrdom were good. Of those writers who contributed most to the development of an Ismaili literature in this early period, only those actually living in Fatimid territory were safe. Of the major figures who clearly stand out, only two had careers almost exclusively within Fatimid territory.4 Many, if not most, of the dais outside were eventually executed either by the authorities or by angry mobs incited to violence by those who preached against them. Remarkably, the Ismaili cause both survived and flourished at the beginning of the fourth/tenth century, not just in North Africa, the Yemen, Bahrain and parts of Iraq, Arabia, and Syria which were actually under the control of an Ismaili state, but in such territories of their enemies as Iraq, Khurasan and the district of Rayy. 

The organization that held the movement together had succeeded and, if it is true that it was unified and centrally directed throughout, it formed a large, sophisticated, multi-national enterprise covering the whole of the Islamic world from Spain to India. Almost exclusively, however, the outstanding exponents of Ismaili thought, particularly in its more philosophical kind, bear names that relate them to various provinces of Iran. Of the great figures in Ismaili philosophy who were al-Sijistanl's main predecessors, al-RazT was from Rayy in the northwest and al-Nasafl from Nasaf in the northeast. Al-Sijistanl's own nisba connects him to Sijistan in the east.5 Al-KirmanI, Nasir-i Khusraw, and Mu'ayyad fl al-Dln al-ShlrazT, all of whom were important later writers, also came from Iran. Al-RazI, al-Nasafl, and al-Sijistanl were, moreover, active almost exclusively within the da 'was of these regions. Therefore in trying to understand the work of these figures, especially in their role as Ismaili scholars and apologists, it is essential to investigate the history of early Ismaili activity in Iran rather than elsewhere.6 One immediate question is how the various Iranian missions related to Fatimid or Qarmatian policies and the differing versions of the Ismaili message during that crucial period. 

In studying the writings of the da 7s, even subtle discrepancies assume importance if they are attributable, as they often appear to be, to internal disagreements about the content of Ismailism and its teaching. Therefore it is worth dwelling at some length on the primary point at which the most serious of these divergences arose, namely the question of who was imam and who was the expected messiah and what were the implications implicit in the responses given by the various proponents of one answer or another. The Ismailis, in opposition to other forms of Shiism, supported their own specific line of imams after the death of Ja'far al-Sadiq (d. 148/765). Surely, if any single concept brought all of the Ismailis together, it was their fundamental attachment to the line of imams they accepted. Yet, when Wilferd Madelung, the first modern investigator with access to a substantial range of the early Ismaili literature, attempted to verify the doctrine of the imamate and the messiah in each of the successive phases of the history of the movement, he found that the literature produced by the da rwa offered no consistent teaching on these issues. In fact, the doctrine appeared to change over time, evolving according to circumstances. He discovered, moreover, that at any given time there were important variations between the views of one faction and another.7 

Based primarily on the literature of Ismailism and the specific teachings of important members of the da r wa, plus some information from outside sources, the following picture emerges of what the early da 7s actually claimed. Initially - that is, in the period between the earliest known manifestations of the Ismaili movement about 260/8748 and the announcement in 286 of his intention to end the era of concealment by the head of the sect who was to become caliph under the name 'Ubaydallah al-MahdI - the general appeal of the da ( wa was for allegiance to the imam Muhammad b. Ismail, son of the son of Ja'far al-Sadiq (d. 148/765). This imam, being the seventh such imam after 'All's son Hasan, was of extraordinary cosmic significance because he was the seventh imam of the sixth prophetic era (that of Muhammad and Islam). Muhammad b. Ismail, then in occultation, but about to appear as the Messiah, would bring to an end the physical constraints of man's worldly condition and usher in spiritual paradise. 

The expectation of his reappearance was urgent and immediate, demanding that this imam/messiah be recognized and acknowledged without delay. The return of Muhammad b. Ismail, although naturally vague in its exact implications, meant a variety of things, some of which were mutually exclusive. For example, his advent for some would signal (or had signaled) the end of the rule of Islam. This view was based on common Shiite doctrine that the prophet Muhammad, although seal of the kind of prophecy which he represented and which supplanted the divine laws of those who preceded him,9 had provided mankind with a scriptural law built of necessity on a double base: its outward, plain meaning in worldly terms and its inner, hidden, otherworldly significance. 

The distinction between these two aspects of the law or scripture - that is, its exoteric and its esoteric meaning - was a feature of the current condition of man in the physical world. But shortly, upon his advent, the Messiah would change this by cancelling the need for the purely physical forms of the law (and its injunctions which apply to bodily rites and rituals) by revealing permanently the true reality of a paradise in which no restricting ordinances are necessary. Thus if the exoteric aspect of sacred law in the latest historical period is Islam, the coming of the Messiah cancels Islamic legal injunctions. 

The critical problem for most Ismailis in this early period was to determine whether or not Muhammad b. Ismail, the Messiah, whose existence was accepted by them, had properly "returned" or not. Was his advent an accomplished or rather a future fact? A sober Ismaili concept of the Messiah's coming (or return), known as the Resurrection (al-Qiyama), implies no more than that generally accepted by most other Muslims: the end of human history and the final hour, just prior to the gathering of souls for the judging of deeds with the divine purpose of punishment and recompense. That event is due at some unspecified moment in the future. 

The opposing interpretation by certain Ismaili groups insisted that one or more intermediate steps might occur between the more extreme version, which says that the Messiah has come and that Islamic law is null and void, and this generally accepted notion. According to this middle position, only the outward, literal restrictions of Muhammadan law are lifted by the termination of the distinction between the literal form of revelation, the Quran, and its interpretation {ta'wll). One possibility is that the interpretation, as the province of the living imam, becomes dominant or even exclusive. The literal form of the revelation no longer has any validity not accorded explicitly by the latter; the imam of the present naturally rises in importance over the prophet of the past. The history of the Ismailis contains many incidences of these various understandings of the advent of the Messiah or of the resurrection, as well as subtle variations for each position. 

The whole issue of the relationship of Muhammad b. Isma'Tl, the expected Messiah, to the imams who professed to continue his line - these being the Fatimid imams and caliphs - also complicates the matter to the point that a simple, coherent picture of a standard Ismaili doctrine is unobtainable. Basically, however, the notion the da e wa proclaimed at first was the messiahship of an imam born not later than the second/eighth century who would return from concealment. For many Ismailis this changed in 286/899-90, when the future al-Mahdl announced his intention to assume publicly the role of imam and caliph in his own right and to pass this position on to his son and descendants. 

Previous to this he and his predecessors had been known by the title Hujja, which in Ismaili terminology usually means the chief of the da ( wa, and not the imam.10 Reconciliation of the older doctrine of Muhammad b. Isma'Il as the final imam of the Islamic era and this possibility of a continuing line of imams among his descendants was not readily achieved.11 It is a principal theme in early Ismaili literature, and significant vestiges of disagreements and antagonism about this difficulty appear long after most of those who refused to accept the validity of al-Mahdl's new policy or the dissident movements they instigated had ceased to exist. In one sense this is the way Qarmatian Ismailism must be defined and separated from Fatimid Ismailism.12 The Qarmatians never accepted the new teaching, preferring to await the return of Muhammad b. Isma'Tl. 

Many others, too, who had promoted the older teaching about Muhammad b. Isma'Il could not reach a clear doctrinal accommodation with their Fatimid co-religionists, including a substantial portion of the major da 7s from the eastern provinces, among them important writers of doctrinal literature. There was a compromise position, however. In the reign of the fourth Fatimid imam and caliph al-Mu'izz (341/953-365/975), a major shift took place and the following teaching became standard doctrine on this issue. It was now conceded that the da'wa, which had been acting in the name of Muhammad b. Ismail, was not mistaken in holding him to be the Messiah whose advent will indicate the end of the exoteric/esoteric distinction. But due to the special and unique nature of the era of the prophet Muhammad, a perpetuation of the worldly rule of a line of divinely appointed leaders had become necessary. These leaders are termed caliphs (khulafa) or lieutenants.13 

As a result of this new attitude on the part of the Fatimids, many of the older da'Is - those currently active and some from the periods even earlier - were reintegrated or incorporated in a renewed and revived da 'wa, with a new sense of orthodoxy and a loyalty to a unified leadership, which was then in the process of re-asserting itself under an unusually able caliph, himself about to move to create in Egypt a new capital of both his physical domain and his ecclesiastical mission. Serious reasons exist to doubt whether a significant number of the da 7s recognized the Fatimid imams as imams in the absolute sense, noted earlier, prior to this time. Their da'wa, that is their call or appeal, continued to be for an imam who remained in occultation long after the Fatimids had begun to rule. Subsequently, many eventually did accept the Shiite rulers of north Africa and Egypt as imams and heads of the movement to which they belonged. In time these fine distinctions receded from the present concerns of younger generations of da'ls. By the era of al-Hakim bi-amr Allah, certainly by the close of his reign in 411/1021, the exact implications of the belief in Muhammad b. Ismail were rapidly being forgotten in the Ismaili establishment, to be replaced by the more conventional and straightforward concept of an uninterrupted lineal descent, proceeding imam after imam to the end of human history. 

The great writers and heros of the earlier periods were only partially remembered and that selectively. What clearly would not accord with later understanding of both the da fwa and its teaching about the imam was either abandoned or edited out of surviving versions of the older literature. Some names dropped from the pantheon of the illustrious altogether; but surprisingly many retained their high status and were honored both in deed and more particularly in word by continued study emulation in the majalis or sessions of the scholars. The later Fatimid Ismailis recalled the history of the early da (wa in Iran and Iraq vaguely since the events from that period were full of troublesome disagreements and conflict, especially as seen from the later vantage of the Fatimid da rwa and its relatively secure and entrenched establishment in Cairo. By the end of the fourth/tenth century many issues which perplexed the earlier generations were no longer of central concern. 

New teachings replaced old problems. Selected writings of the great figures did endure, although many others were neglected or abandoned. The details of their personal activities, however, were largely forgotten.14 What survives now of the contributions by individual scholars to these doctrinal disputes in the early Ismaili da 'wa forms only a limited amount of its most important literature, but that is a vital and highly significant legacy. Of the many books, treatises and tracts known to have been composed by those authorities, only a precious few are extant. 

The process whereby some survived and others did not may never be adequately explained; however, those that do now exist must have claimed a special prominence in order for them to have been copied again and again over the nine hundred years that intervene. Not all of the surviving material, however, is of equal value, either for references to the history of the Ismaili da(wa and its teachings, or as examples of Shiite thought in that critical period. The group that created this early literature featured four of the Iranian da 7s, Muhammad al-Nasafl (d. 332/943), Aba Hatim al-RazT (d. 322/934), Abu Ya'q'ub al-Sijistanl,15 and Hamld al-Dln al-Kirmanl (d. after 411/1021),16 and two Fatimid officials, al-Qadl al-Nu'man (d. 363/974) and Ja'far b. Mansur al-Yaman (active in the mid fourth/tenth century). 

Of these only the Iranians were philosophers in any sense and of them alSijistanl and al-Kirmanl occupy a special place. They were not merely writers of some of the best and most valued doctrinal treatises, but they were philosophical thinkers with a genuine claim to the attention of historians of Islamic philosophy. This judgment is probably valid also for al-NasafT but his writings have not survived, and this makes firm conclusions about his philosophical contribution difficult, although the little evidence does suggest a similar conclusion. Abu Hatim likewise, though less inclined to philosophy than the other three, did offer a few interesting contributions in this field. As important as it is to understand the details of early Ismaili thought as a whole, the added dimension which the philosophical interests of these four early dais, particularly al-Sijistanl and alKirmanl, gave to their works raises their importance well beyond trie purely sectarian considerations with which each began. 

And it makes the study of them much more than an investigation of the da r wa to which they belonged. In addition to the writings of these outstanding figures, there must have been a considerable number of works written by various other members of the da f wa, even in the period prior to the founding of the Fatimid state.17 Such outside sources as Ibn al-Nadlm's Fihrist recorded the names of some of these authors. Clearly a number wrote on philosophical themes or at least treated their Ismaili Shiism philosophically. That can be proven from a few isolated citations now available. The exact nature of their individual contributions, however, is not known since so little survives. Why it did not is a minor puzzle. In addition to the possibility of a major disagreement over the issue of the imamate, there is a substantial likelihood that the writers who came after them - such as al-Sijistanl and al-Kirmanl - wrote works of greater appeal (and perhaps greater orthodoxy) and therefore the literature of the earliest groups of da 7s tended to be neglected. One highly important instance of this trend, to be discussed later, appears in the case of al-NasafT's al-Mahsul, an early, perhaps the earliest, book by an Ismaili writer to show clear philosophical (Neoplatonic) influences.18 

The dawa in Iran The da r wa in Northwest Persia, Khurasan, Sijistan, Transoxania, and to a lesser extent Iraq, produced a greater proportion of those da 7s whose primary aim was the conversion of an educated, scholarly elite. At least such an assessment is justifiable on the basis of the surviving reports of their activities and the written materials on doctrinal matters that they contributed to the literature of Ismailism.19 The social and intellectual environment in these areas may have demanded a more elaborate form of doctrinal discourse and thus stimulated a heightened interest in philosophical learning. Alternately the record of the da r wa in these provinces may be reflected in its literature and scholarly activities simply because the dais in those regions never achieved a lasting political success and therefore little is known about the efforts of its non-literary members. Regardless of why there were more Ismaili philosophers in Iran than elsewhere, it is true that the earliest evidence of philosophy in Ismaili thought comes from the da f wa of either Khurasan or the district of Rayy. In analyzing the contributions of a later writer such as al-Sijistanl, who came from the same milieu, it is essential to examine carefully those who came before him. These writers generally did not claim an independent intellectual position, because they adhered, theoretically at least, to a common cause which promoted a standard teaching - one which radiated solely from the family of the prophet and the properly ordained descendants of 'All. 

The untangling of the actuality behind this theory requires an investigation of the history and internal relationships of the Ismaili missions in Iran that produced these earlier philosophers. S. M. Stern's reconstruction of the sequence of dais in Iran, which he derived from the various anti-Ismaili sources, suggests that the earliest formal "mission" began at Rayy under a certain da 1 named Khalaf in the period prior to the crisis of 286, possibly even as early as 260.20 Abu Hatim al-RazI was the major figure in this da( wa prior to his death in 322/934-5, although he may never have been overtly loyal to the Fatimids as imams since he seemed to have corresponded with the Qarmatian faction in Bahrayn.21 He became a prominent writer on various aspects of Shiite lore, as well as a minor proponent of early philosophical Shiism.22 Three of his works survive, having been subsequently accepted by the Fatimid da'wa by the time of al-Kirmanl, possibly with appropriate editorial deletions.

 His Kitab al-zlna is a veritable lexicon of religious terminology but it has no particular Ismaili leaning.23 One of the other two works records Abu Hatim's debate over the signs and proofs of prophecy with the famous philosopher (and physician) Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Zakariya' al-Razl.24 Abu Bakr and Abu Hatim were fellow townsmen and the Alam al-nubuwa indicates that their debates often took place in a public forum, presumably in Rayy. Again as with the Kitab al-zlna, the Alam al-nubuwa has no specifically Ismaili content or tone. 

The third treatise, al-Islah (The Rectification), has greater significance for the history of the da e wa. It contains a lengthy refutation of the work of fellow dal Muhammad b. Ahmad al-NasafTs al-Mahsul, which already had acquired a reputation in a number of circles as the standard expression of Ismaili thought and doctrine.25 The Islah also contains important material about Abu Hatim's Ismaili leanings and, most importantly, his philosophical tendencies. For Khurasan, Stern lists a number of early figures but the key person there was most probably the Amir al-MarwazT, a fairly prominent and powerful supporter of the Ismaili cause. His involvement with them began long before he actually became head of the da r wa in the region. Al-MarwazT's protection may have done much to promote and expand the work of the da 7s, particularly their scholarship. Among the retinue of al-MarwazT was the well-known philosopher Abu Zayd alBalkhl (d. 322/934), whose credentials include having studied in Baghdad with the famous third/ninth-century philosopher, Ya'qub b. Ishaq al-Kindl. This alBalkhl, whose father was from Sijistan, maintained good relations with his own townsman Abu al-Qasim al-Balkhl (al-Kaf bI), who had become the head of the Mu'tazila in Baghdad. 

The Amir al-MarwazT evidently granted Abu Zayd a stipend which continued until he published a book on tawll (interpretation) at which point such sponsorship came to an end. Presumably Abu Zayd, who had apparently departed from his Shiite background in the direction of Sunni orthodoxy, did not subscribe to that notion of tawll which is so essential to Ismaili theory.26 His career in Khurasan, however, demonstrates how the elite scholarly classes of places like Nishapur, not to mention Balkh and Sijistan, were conducting their intellectual activities at a sophisticated level, with continuous interaction through correspondence and travel between major academic centers such as then existed in Baghdad and Rayy. Another member of the select circle of the Amir was Muhammad al Nasaf I, the most important philosopher among the early Ismailis, who in fact succeeded alMarwazF as head of the da (wa in Khurasan. An enemy of the Ismailis from much later times, the famous wazir Nizam al-Mulk credited al-Nasafl with having been " . . . one of the philosophers of Khurasan and a theolo ^ian."27 Al-Nasafl himself had joined the da rwa in Khurasan before or during th > ascendancy of the Amir al-Marwazf, whose disciple or protege he must have been.28 It was he in addition who wrote the Mahsul - the first major work in which philosophical training was put to service in the Ismaili cause and subsequently exposed to fairly wide scrutiny. More than any other single book, the Mahsul achieved recognition as the quintessential expression of the doctrines of the movement (apart from those purely connected to arguments about the imamate).

 Extensively cited by name in a way no other work of the Ismailis ever was, perhaps because it was written during the open period of the da'wa in Khurasan in the days of al-Marwazfs ascendancy, it both earned al-Nasafl the reputation accredited to him by Nizam al-Mulk and others and indicates that the work itself circulated outside of da rwa control.29 Al-Nasafl's misfortune with his Mahsul was not entirely due to a series of critical reviews and refutations written by opponents among his Sunni and Zaydi adversaries but as well to substantial works of "rectification" issued by other Ismaili da 7s. Ultimately the book itself disappeared, probably in part because it fell into obsolescence, quite possibly as a result of the popularity of the writings of al-Sijistanl which, while reputed to be similar in content and inclinations, were also apparently better argued and more firmly grounded in philosophical reasoning.30 Briefly, al-NasafI enjoyed the lingering prestige of the deceased Amir when he became head of the da'wa himself. His own attempts in Khurasan at the conversion of powerful courtiers brought him an opportunity finally to persuade the Samanid ruler Nasr b. Ahmad to accept the Ismaili call. 

The list of ranking dignitaries who responded to al-Nasafl is impressive. Abu Bakr NakhshabI, the boon companion, Abu Ash'ath, the private secretary, Abu Mansur ChaghanI inspector of the army. Aytash, chamberlain, Hasan, governor of Ilaq, and fAIT Zarrad, the private deputy. That Nizam al-Mulk - the source for this information - could cite so many names confirms both the power but more particularly the openness of al-Nasafl's activity.31 Not long after he converted the ruler, other factions within the Samanid establishment brought about a reversal of Ismaili influence. Nasr died, his son Nuh took over, and commenced a complete massacre of al-Nasafi and his followers. This ugly process began with a public confrontation between al-Nasafi and Sunni theologians.32 Massive slaughter in Khurasan in 332/943, like earlier reversals in Rayy and other places,33 put an end to the open attempts of these da 'was to raise a substantial public following. A new era of precautionary secrecy commenced at the disastrous failures of Abu Hatim al-RazT and Muhammad alNasafl in Northwest Persia and Khurasan respectively. As a consequence a curtain fell over the historical record in both places at exactly this juncture and the next major figure in the da ( wa, Abu Ya'qub al-Sijistanl, remained all but unknown and unrecorded in the chronicles of that period.

Al-Sijistani's biography Like many Islamic scholars from a century long past, Abu Ya'qub al-Sijistanl appears most completely only through his surviving books and treatises. Paradoxically, whereas they continue to exist, the information about who he was, where he lived, or the other details of his biography are scarce, woefully incomplete and therefore full of uncertainties. There is no date for his birth nor for his death except as obtained by approximation and guesses. Worse still, even his identity in the historical record remains a puzzle containing various problems and doubts. It is possibly inappropriate to try to outline the biography of a person like al-Sijistanl whose writings are the only clear and relatively unambiguous evidence about him. Still, they do testify without question to someone of major importance, both in the history of the Ismaili da f wa and in the history of Islamic philosophy, even though perhaps typically the information which serves to place him within some sort of chronology is weak and fragmentary. Characteristically, little of it derives from surviving records of the da ( wa. Nevertheless, trustworthy data, above all a few facts given by al-Sijistanl himself, have surfaced. Statements about him by later Ismaili writers, mainly Hamld al-DTn al-Kirmanl and Nasir-i Khusraw are also useful. Finally, there is a hodgepodge of incomplete, often cryptic, reports concerning a person or persons cited variously as Ya'qub, Abu Ya'qub, Ishaq,34 al-Sijistanl, al-SijzT, Bandanah (panba-dana), and Khayshafuj or a combination of these names. Whether all these references apply to the same person and whether he is the writer of the works which survive in the name of Abu Ya'qub al-Sijistanl is a matter of some doubt. 

Ignoring for the moment the facts indicating al-Sijistanl's biography in his own writings (little enough at any event), the remaining non-Ismaili sources provide only a few clues. One offers an account which asserts that, following the death of Abu Hatim al-RazT, the leadership of his da r wa passed to someone named Ishaq, then living in Rayy.35 Another version - one given by Kashanl - mentions an Abu Muhammad al-Muf allim, who succeeded Abu Hatim and his son Abu Ya'qub, who appeared in Gurgan but fled to Bukhara.36 Yet another report mentions a certain Abu Ya'qub as a major figure in Rayy abut 320,37 and a further reference cites the name of a da 7 in Baghdad who was once a lieutenant of Abu Ya'qub.38 Do all these references point to a single figure although none cite this person by means of a nisbal Is it, nevertheless, al-Sijistanl? Significantly, al-Sijistanl himself reports that he was in Baghdad, returning from a pilgrimage, in the year 322/934.39 One of the precious few facts available from his own unchallengeable testimony, it fits nicely with the evidence already noted. It indicates that he was adult and active by this year and could very well have assumed a major role in the da ( wa, even prior to acquiring the nisba which relates him to the province of Sijistan, although it is also possible that he was originally from there as well. But what about Khurasan and Sijistan? 

Does al-Sijistanl - the same person as the Abu Ya'qub mentioned above - move from western Persia and Mesopotamia to Khurasan (fleeing?) and assume the leadership there after al-Nasafl's tragic end?40 The Zaydi al-Bustl mentions him at least twice as "sahib Sijistan" (Master of Sijistan)41 implying that he was, in the last phase of his career, closely identified with that province. Al-Baghdadl in his account of the Ismaili heresy mentions an "Abu Ya'qub al-SijzI known as Bandana" along with al-NasafI.42 In al-Isfara'inl, the same passage reads, "and his da ( wa in the country of Sijistan was led by Abu Ya'qub."43 "His da'wa" presumably means al-NasafTs. The nickname Bandana (panba-dana) is otherwise unattested, although another version of the name is present in the accounts of Rashld al-Dln,44 KashanT,45 and al-Bustl. In all cases the word can be read Khayshafuj, although the copyists of the various manuscripts were certainly confused about this.46 The surviving text of alBustl's refutation of the Batiniya cites the person in question six times, variously as al-Khayshafuj al-SijzT, or al-Khayshaf uj, or al-SijzT alone and twice connects this name with known works of the author al-Sijistanl.47 Khayshafuj must be an Arabic rendering of Persian Panba-dana; both mean "cottonseed."48 AlBaghdadl therefore knew it in its common Persian form. This odd bit of information becomes even stranger by its appearance in these two forms, even if they mean the same thing. Al-Sijistanl (or SijzT), nicknamed "cottonseed," is active in the da'wa of Sijistan and quite possibly Khurasan, but none of the authorities provides direct and unambiguous evidence of a link between him and the earlier major figure named only Abu Ya'qub. Yet it is easier and simpler to assume a common identity for both - the transfer from one territory to another may or may not be reflected in the names. 

Finally, Rashld al-Dln gives the one and only report of al-Sijistanl's death: "After this time Ishaq SijzT, nicknamed Khayshafuj, was dal in Sistan; he was killed by the Amir Khalaf b. Ahmad SijzT." This Amir governed Sijistan (Sistan) from 353/964-5 until 393/1002-3 and thus Abu Ya'qub al-SijistanT died a martyr during this forty-year period.49 Internal evidence from his own writings may make this more precise. In al-Sijistanl's own work called al-Iftikhar (The Boast), he twice states that three hundred and fifty years (plus) have passed since the death of the prophet Muhammad in the year 11/632.50 Therefore he wrote this book about 361/971 or soon after. Moreover, the chronological sequence offered for his works below proves that this work is one of his last. Thus al-Sijistanl's death came nearer to this date than the latter end of Governor Khalaf's long reign. If he was already adult in 322/934, when he participated in the hajj, he would have reached his sixties at a minimum by the time he was writing the al-Iftikhar. Furthermore, he himself specifies in this same treatise that the special heptad of khulafa - those allowed for the era of Muhammad - has not yet reached its end.51 Thus the period during which al-Sijistanl wrote his last works surely corresponds to the reign of al-Muf izz which came to an end with this caliph's death in 365/975.52 One significant problem this review of the scattered data about his career did not address is al-Sijistanl's rank and position within the da'wa itself. Ismaili records do not say what his relationship was to any other known members of that organization, nor does this material discuss his contacts with a specific reigning imam or caliph.

 In al-Sijistanl's own writings no explicit reference makes the situation any clearer. Philosophically, he owed a good deal to Abu Hatim al-RazT and to Muhammad al-Nasafl, and perhaps others in the earlier da ( wa but he does not overtly admit this, except in a vague and unspecific way. Al-Sijistanl also betrays little of the usual Shiite concern for the direct, personal authority of a living imam - at least it is not expressed in these writings - and most significantly he does not cite or name an imam after Muhammad b. Isma'Tl.53 Interestingly, he describes the earthly religious hierarchy as having the following five levels: Natiq, Asas, Imam, Lahiq, Janah. These terms roughly translate respectively as speaking-prophet (the lawgiver), founder (of the Interpretation), imam (the preserver and maintainer of the Interpretation in each generation), his deputy or adjunct (here al-Sijistanl means the twelve regional chiefs of the da rwa),54 and lastly the ordinary missionary-^ 7. While the imam certainly preserves a vital place in the sacred hierarchy of this scheme, what is of importance in this instance is al-Sijistanl's view of the lahiq, the higher of the two ranks which fall below the imam, since it may suggest his rank in the da r wa. His concept of the earthly hierarchy includes what he calls the "two branches" (alfar'an).55 These are the imam and the lawahiq (the imam's Adjuncts, the plural of lahiq), the latter holding a rank just below the imam. The overall scheme he outlines offers some sense for his use of the term "two branches."

 There are two "roots" in the spiritual world: the preceder (al-Sabiq), which is the intellect in philosophical language, and the follower (al-Tali), which is the soul. In the terrestrial and historical realm, there are also two key figures called by him the "two founders" (al-Asasan), which might also be rendered "two foundations," perhaps here having the meaning "trunks" as in trunks of a tree. They are the speaking-prophet (al-Natiq) and his executor (Wast).56 Al-Sijistanl continues with the "two branches" as if following the logic of his metaphor of the tree. Thus there are two roots (beneath the earth and hence hidden from sight), two trunks (as the foundation of the tree on the surface of the earth), and two branches which spread upward from this base.57 Al-SijistanI clearly indicates that the lahiq possesses some portion of prophetic powers, even if these powers are but a fraction of those of any other level above. It is tempting to suggest that these lahiqs were, in the time of al-Sijistanl, the active doctrinal authorities in each of the regional da'was and that each possessed personal access to the ta'wil and most probably also tayid (divine support and guidance). Thus it was the lawahiq who established, promoted and protected Ismaili teachings in that period of Muhammad b. Ismail's ghayba.5S One likely possibility is that al-Sijistanl was himself a lahiq and this would imply that he held considerable power, not only as the director of a regional da (wa, but as an architect of Ismaili doctrines and the methods employed to interpret and defend them. This also explains how he, for one, resolved the dilemma posed earlier concerning doctrinal authority within Shiism.59 

Al-Sijistanl's works As with the life of al-Sijistanl, the nature of his literary production is susceptible to the same three classes of evidence: the testimony of his own writings; comments, criticisms and miscellaneous references by other members of the Ismaili da (wa; and one or two citations by outsiders. In terms of content, he speaks for himself, but in doing so inevitably the works listed in his name or ascribed to him must, at the moment, be only those now found in the various modern Ismaili communities, especially that of the Bohras in India. This material depends on a continuous tradition of studying and copying reaching back to the fourth/tenth century and it cannot help but present problems as to authenticity, either in the exact wording of a portion of a text or in the very integrity of the surviving work as a whole.60 Although al-Sijistanl continued to be greatly esteemed almost as a founding father of Ismaili doctrine and thought, the full meaning and significance of portions of what he had said was lost fairly early in this process. 

Ismaili teachings changed significantly after the end of the Fatimid period. In the Yemen in the Tayyibi da(wa, where occurred the most active attempt at preservation and conservation of the earlier literary material, Ismaili thought shifted toward a less critical, but more eclectic, accommodation of various, often conflicting, views inherited from such great figures as Abu Hatim al-RazT, al-Sijistanl, al-Kirmanl, the important fifth/eleventh century da 7 Mu'ayyad fl'l-DTn al-ShlrazI and others. What al-Sijistanl wrote no longer held any primacy and his individual statements were frequently interpreted so as to accord with opposing doctrine taught by al-Kirmanl.61 Since these tendencies have never been analyzed or studied, their effect on the preservation of the texts can unfortunately not be realized at the moment.62 For al-Sijistanl, some of whose books and treatises are extant and some not, these are complicated problems. In addition, he himself probably modified his views in adjusting to a later doctrine of the imamate and either revised his earlier works or wrote new ones. 

If he and others once felt a reluctance to recognize the imamate of the Fatimid rulers, as suggested above, he altered this view in the texts that now exist by admitting to an additional set of seven khulafci for the era of Muhammad. Because he explicitly credits the fourth of these leaders with having conquered cities, this must be a reference to al-Mahdl, the first of the Fatimid caliphs. And this dates the whole of his surviving corpus to a period corresponding approximately to the reign of al-Mur izz (341/953-365/975). That is when a second set of "imams" would not have been exceeded and yet is is also a period when the messiahship of Muhammad b. Ismail was admitted in Fatimid circles. These two conditions both fit the pronouncements on this issue in the surviving treatise of al-Sijistanl and reflect official Fatimid policy at the same time. What this implies is that earlier writings by al-Sijistanl were neglected, abandoned, or simply no longer circulated in the da'wa. He himself may have been responsible for this development. Further corroboration of the theory that al-Sijistanl changed his position on some issues was provided by Nasir-i Khusraw, who commented that on the subject of the metempsychosis of human souls, al-Sijistanl once held an unorthodox view which the authorities later convinced him to alter.63 Al-Kirmanl likewise suggested that there are observable revisions in the works of al-Sijistanl between items which, al-Kirmanl speculates, must be early and those of a later period.64 Significantly, as will be seen, it is only the later treatises which survive into modern times. Among the surviving works or parts of works by al-Sijistanl, several are well recognized by Ismaili tradition and therefore are of less questionable orthodoxy.65 

These are Kitab al-bishara {Glad Tidings) - if this work really has survived66 - lthbat al-nubuwa {Prophecy s Proof), Kitab al-yanabV {The Wellsprings), Kitab al-maqalld {The Keys), Kitab al-iftikhar {The Boast), and Sullam al-najat {The Ladder of Salvation). With a few reservations, to these must be added al-Nusra {The Support) and Kashf al-mahjub {Revealing the Concealed) although neither is known in anything like its original form. What remains of both is either limited to a series of quotations in another work by a different (and largely critical) author {al-Nusra) or a summary and paraphrase in another language (the Persian text of Kashf al-mahjub).61 Most importantly, al-Sijistanl himself attests to the first four by citing them in another of his own works. In addition al-Kirmanl, surely one of the most knowledgeable early witnesses, credits al-lftikhar, as well as al-Maqalld, explicitly to al-Sijistanl in several places.68 In fact al-Kirmanl quotes a fairly lengthy passage from al-Maqalld in one of his own short treatises.69 If the internal citations allow an accurate judgment of the sequence in which al-Sijistanl wrote these treatises, then al-Bishara, lthbat al-nubuwa, and al-YanabV preceded al-Maqalld because it mentions all three (and none of the rest).70 Following al-Maqalld al-Sijistanl composed al-lftikhar, which cites the former as well as al-Bishara,71 and his Sullam al-najat, which also mentions al-Maqalld.12 If this sequence is valid, al-Sijistanl's al-Iftikhar, in which the author comments that he is writing some three hundred and fifty years after the death of the prophet Muhammad (d. 11/632), comes at the end of those works confirmed by this method. 

This dates this body of his writing to a period just prior to 361/971, and also implies that it falls within the reign of al-Muf izz, thus confirming the hypotheses expressed above. Certain works like his al-Nusra, in which he answered his fellow daTs criticism of al-Nasafl's al-Mahsul, and his Kashf al-mahjub both of which may have contained a teaching about metempsychosis or arguments leaning toward it which were unacceptable to the imam or the da r wa, must be from an earlier period, perhaps from a time before the advent of al-Muf izz whose rule began in 341/953.73 These conclusions are, in part, based on al-Sijistanl's acceptance of al-Muf izz's revision of the Fatimid position concerning the imamate as noted previously. In the revised doctrine Muhammad b. Ismail is the Messiah (al-Qaim al-mahdi) in ghayba (occultation). The era of Muhammad requires a second set of seven imams called khulafa' prior to Muhammad b. Ismail's return. Al-SijistanI explicitly recognized such a doctrine in Sullam al-najat, al-Iftikhar, Ithbat al-nubuwa, al-YanabV and al-Maqalid,14 and the correspondence of his declaration on this matter in all five works - namely that the Messiah is Muhammad b. Ismail, who has gone into occultation at present but whose da( wa is being spread and propagated by his deputies {khulafa) of which there will be exactly seven (no more)75 - supports the conclusion that all were published within a relatively short time span. In the process of his conversion to this doctrine, al-Sijistanl reappraised his own earlier writings in the light of new directives from Fatimid headquarters. This may have been the occasion for other revisions and deletions or, in any case, some as yet unclear alterations in his position (such as modifying his stand on metempsychosis).

 If the surviving corpus of al-Sijistanl's works date from the reign of al-Muf izz, that need not mean that they were all originally composed then but that the final version of them was issued at that time. It does require, however, that they are not later than 365/975. The appearance of al-Sijistanl's Nusra in al-Kirmanl's Kitab al-riyad suggests that it continued to be studied in the da'wa. In that book al-Kirmanl, who obviously possessed a copy of the Nusra, speculated that because some of al-Sijistanl's views seem to have changed over time, portions of the older texts may have been inadvertently or even deliberately altered by copyists.76 Nevertheless copies of the earlier treatises were still circulating and al-Kirmanl, as is evident from his critical review of them, must have possessed versions of al-Nasafl's Mahsul as well as the Nusra. Equally Nasir-i Khusraw must have had access to the original Arabic text of Kashf al-mahjub and other older writings.77 But there are other interesting questions concerning Nasir-i Khusraw's access to the works of al-Sijistanl. Clearly he had read a good deal of al-Sijistanl, as is evident particularly in his Khwan al-ikhwan which comes close to being a direct translation of al-Sijistanl's al-Yanabl\ Yet, where Nasir-i Khusraw actually discussed al-Sijistani, he chooses to cite only works such as Kashf al-mahjub, dl-Bahira, and Sus al-baqa which are not recognized in any of the major works that have a firmer claim to orthodoxy - at least in terms of al-Sijistani's own later endorsement of them.78 Nasir-i Khusraw likewise was not attempting to endorse the works he cites but rather to point out that some followers of al-Sijistani continued to study his non-orthodox writings. Thus, while portions of the later da'wa continued to read a selection of al-Sijistanl's problematic treatises, those not a part of the "revised" group and of the time of al-Muf izz - the ones officially sanctioned - were increasingly neglected, if not abandoned altogether, by the mainstream da 7s. 

The major treatises of al-Sijistani themselves vary in style and content. Of those which continue to exist in anything like a complete form - al-Maqalid, al-YanabV, al-Iftikhar, Ithbat al-nubuwa, and Sullam al-najat (although the latter two are incomplete at the end) - three are quite theoretical and in general explore broad philosophical themes, largely without explicitly partisan pronouncements. These are Ithbat al-nubiiwa, al-Maqalld, and al-YanabV.19 Al-Sijistani did not write a work specifically on the imamate nor in fact does he discuss it as a political issue except in sections of Sullam al-najat and al-Iftikhar. Instead he composed a treatise on prophecy which is heavily philosophical in tone. Unlike his predecessor, Abu Hatim al-RazT, whose Alam al-nubuwa (Signs of Prophecy) focuses almost exclusively on the historical and miraculous fact or facts of particular prophets, al-Sijistani provided in his Ithbat al-nubuwa (Prophecy's Proof) a complex demonstration of the necessity of prophecy in terms of a scientific account of the nature of the cosmos and man's place within it. A philosophical view of the meaning and structure of reality, according to al-Sijistani, establishes the necessity of prophecy. The very rationality of mankind and of nature imposes the acceptance by human beings of God's emissaries. This work is, therefore, primarily concerned with the concordance of science and philosophy with religion and religious obligation. Al-YanabV (Wellsprings) or YanabV al-hikma (Wellsprings of Wisdom, according to one of its alternate titles) is another exploration of elaborate philosophical doctrines. In this treatise al-Sijistani discusses the metaphysics of God as Originator of the cosmos, spiritual beings such as intellect and soul, and the relationship of the human to all three. Portions of this work are purely Neoplatonic in the tone and in the content of its teachings; other sections bring these concepts in line with the author's Shiite interpretation of religious knowledge and its purveyors, the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

 Al-Maqalid, the most extensive of al-Sijistani's works, again addresses similar problems with a like interest in grand themes rather than polemics. In many cases, nevertheless, the context for an individual chapter in this treatise implies that it is a response to the position of some other writer. Seldom is it possible to identify an immediate source or stimulus for the particular chapter, although it is now clear that some passages in it contain language which directly parallels portions of the Longer Theologia (to be discussed later in chapter 2). Al-Iftikhar is substantially different from these three. Stridently polemical and strikingly defensive and apologetic, its title indicates its tone: al-Iftikhar meaning boasting or taking pride - that is, in the teaching of one's own group. What pride could be greater, al-Sijistani asks rhetorically, than comprehending the real truth and alighting on the right path.80 Those in error - his opponents - include the ignorant as, for example, the literalists (al-Hashwiya), the vain such as the dialectical theologians {al-Mutakallimun), and the presumptuous such as the philosophers (al-Falasifa). All disdain true guidance, he says.81 In the pages of al-Iftikhar that follow this list of his detractors, al-Sijistani outlines exactly what his madhhab actually says about tawhld, the angels, the names and their purposes, apostleship, executorship {al-wasiya), the imamate, resurrection, reward, punishment, al-qiyama, and the application of interpretation to the revelation and the law. In every case he tries to show that the professed falsehood of which the "people of truth" (Ahl al-Haqq) stand accused is, in fact, more properly true of the doctrines held by those accusing them. 

The whole hypothetical debate he recorded in this work is an exceedingly frank confession of the points of difference between himself and the Ismaili da'wa, on the one hand, and the intellectual, religious world all around him, on the other. In defending his "pride," he defined his cause and the message of the Ismaili Shiah as well. There is perhaps no better place to look for a definition of that form of Shiism in its fourth/tenth-century manifestation. Al-SijistanT's Sullam al-najat, at least the portion of it that survives, is similarly concerned with providing a basic statement of what constitutes the Ismaili madhhab but in this case without as much of the stridently polemical rhetoric that characterizes al-Iftikhar throughout. The elements of the Ismaili creed are, as listed in this work, faith in God, His angels, His books, His emissaries, the last day, salvation after death, and paradise and hellfire.82 

The final works written by al-Sijistani more clearly indicate a sectarian position and also a pronounced militancy. Al-Iftikhar, in particular, holds back little. Possibly this bold thrust into unreserved, public defense of his cause contributed to his death as a martyr. In al-Iftikhar, for example, he voiced such a harsh and bitter denunciation of the Abbasid caliphs that he must have put his life at risk. In any case in none of this group of works does he contradict or alter the teachings of the others. Thus if al-Kirmanl or others found signs that he had changed any of his fundamental notions as, for example, it is suggested in the Riyad between ideas found in the Nusra and al-Maqalid or al-Iftikhar, those adjustments occurred prior to the publication of the works now available. Research into the exact relationship between the works and titles ascribed to al-Sijistani has really just begun, especially in regard to the problem of earlier and later material. Despite this continuing problem, a firm body of writings represents his thought, and for it the peripheral questions of orthodoxy are less problematic. Therefore it is more productive at this time to delve into the questions involved in elucidating al-Sijistanl's ideas and their place in Islamic intellectual history by concentrating on those major treatises, cited above, which both Ismaili tradition and internal evidence suggest are accurate expressions of his thought and doctrines.

Link 

Press Here