A Critical Edition of Bayān dhikr al-khafiyy al-mustajlib li’l-ajr al-wafī by ‘Alā’ al-Dawla al-Simnānī

Abstract

One of the famous names in the Kubrawī tradition, ‘Alā’ al-Dawla alSimnānī is a sheikh who lived in the city of Simnān in modern-day Iran between 659-736/1261-1336. In his youth, he served under Arghūn Khan (r.
1284-1291) in the Īlkhānid Palace; Simnānī later left the palace after a spiritual
experience and embarked on the life of a Sufi. He left Arghun for his hometown
Simnān on the pretext of having been inflicted with a grave illness. For some
period of time, he carried on worshipping and engaging in spiritual discipline
(riyāđa) unsupervised, and eventually in Baghdad he met with a disciple of
the Kubrawī sheikh, Nūr al-Dīn Abd al-Rahmān Isfarāyīnī (d. 717/1317), and
thereafter became Isfarāyīnī’s disciple. After obtaining an ijāza (licensure) for
irshād (teaching and guiding the people), upon the instruction of his sheikh,
he returned back to Simnān; he spent the rest of his life instructing his disciples and writing scholarly works in his lodge in Śūfīābād. He authored around
ninety works in Arabic and Persian in various fields of Sufism.
Simnānī retains an eminent position both in terms of Sufi history and the
Kubrawiyya tariqah. His contribution to the Sufi tradition includes his ideas
on unity, laŧā’if, rijāl al-ghayb, wāqi‘a and tajallī. Simnānī is also known for his
criticism of Ibn al-‘Arabī on his conception of unity, which is often the first
line of critique concerning Ibn al-Arabī among the Sufis. Simnānī’s thoughts
on unity had a great deal of influence on Aĥmad al-Sirhindī (d. 1034/1624),
as well as on Sirhindī’s sheikh Bāqībillāh (d. 1012/1603). Notwithstanding, his
doctrine of laŧā’if also had an impact on Naqshbandiyya. He had a particular influence on Muĥammad Pārsā (d. 822/1240), a leading Naqshbandī author, and
his thoughts on rijāl al-ghayb. Moreover, the extant branches of the Kubrawiyya
come through Simnānī’s chain, and he is also known to have influenced other
eminent figures such as Sayyid ‘Alī Hamadānī (d. 786/1385) and Muĥammad
Nūrbakhsh (d. 869/1464). These examples serve as evidence of his importance
among the Kubrawiyya tariqah.
As is the case for other Sufi sheikhs, dhikr (remembrance) is at the heart
of mystical training according to Simnānī. His most common dhikr is “lā ilāha
illā Allāh.” He preferred the silent dhikr and also ordered his disciples in this
regard and prevented them from performing the loud dhikr. In addition to endorsing in various works of his the silent dhikr based on the Quran, prophetic
narrations, and rational arguments, he authored a short treatise dedicated to the
topic of the silent dhikr, and had also instructed his disciples to memorize it.
This particular treatise, which forms the subject of the present critical edition,
is registered as Bayān dhikr al-khafiyy al-mustajlib li’l-ajr al-wafī and Dhikr
al-khafiyy al-mustajlib li ajr al-wafī. As its title suggests, the main theme of this
work revolves around the silent dhikr. Its importance emanates from two main
causes: First, Simnānī had asked his disciples to write down below this work,
Mā lā budda minh fī al-dīn, and first to also teach novices, Mā lā budda minh
fī al-dīn, and then to read this treatise. Moreover, he advised them to read this
work routinely once a week. Second, Simnānī writes that those of among his
disciples who do not act upon this treatise would be as if they severed their
relationship with Simnānī. Accordingly, it seems fairly evident that Simnānī
had compiled in this short treatise an important part of the duties of which his
disciples were to carry out.
The author of this treatise which is centered on the silent dhikr presents
ten evidences, both narrative and rational, about why the silent dhikr should be
performed. There are also other advice that Simnānī offers to his disciples and
these include not to lie and to protect one’s eyes and ears from immorality. The
author links the ability to perform these advice to eating what is permissible
(ĥalāl) and emphasizes his expectation from his disciples to be sensitive with
regards to this particular issue. One of the most striking advice Simnānī gives is
to remain unmarried for those of his disciples who have yet to marry.
There are three manuscript copies of the work that I was able to locate,
two of which are located in Istanbul while the other one, an incomplete copy,
is in Tehran. None of the extant manuscripts were personally written by the
author, and moreover none were copied during his lifetime or anywhere near
his time. The Istanbul manuscripts are housed in the Nuruosmaniye Library nr.
5007 (113b
-122b
) and in the Istanbul University Library Persian Manuscripts
Collection nr. 1056 (104b
-109a
). The Tehran manuscript is located at the Malik
National Library. Since the incomplete Tehran manuscript does not contribute
much to the critical edition, it was not included in the editing process.
This study follows the “preferential method” of ISAM’s (Turkish Religious
Foundation Center for Islamic Studies) critical edition principles. For this reason, instead of choosing a principal manuscript, both copies are considered as
if they are original copies. In the event that differences between the two manuscripts occur, the one that contains more meaning is included in the edited text,
while the other expressions are shown in the footnotes. Folio numbers are given
according to the Nuruosmaniye copy since its copier, the place, and the date of
copy is known. In the completion of the present critical edition, we have found
that there were no significant differences between both manuscripts in terms of
the overall meaning of the text.

Keywords