Matn/Pizhūhī-i Adabī (Sep 2024)
Critique of Khorasan mysticism in Shams Tabrizi articles
Abstract
The current of Khorasan romantic mysticism has a special style tradition centered on the concept of love. After the publication of Shams Tabrizi's articles, one of the topics of interest was that Shams did not accept the likes of Bayazid from the elders of Khorasan and even Junaid, Hallaj and Ibn Arabi. In this research, it is clear that the main criticism of Shams is not on the personality of these people but on their mystical method. The fact is that Shams Tabrizi was one of the top critics of Khorasan mysticism who was also affiliated with this school. To prove this claim, important features of Khorasan behavior such as emphasis on austerity, Sokr, Shath and annihilation in the sheikh have been stated. And then Shams' views on these features are explained and analyzed. Shams was opposed to the monastic system based in Khorasan mysticism and customs such as wearing a cloak. He considered conventional austerity a serious deviation. He also considered conditions such as Sokr and Shath as inefficiencies and shortcomings of this behavior. One of the most important achievements of this discussion is that Shams sought to return to the original way of Khorasan because he did not consider Sufism's reliance on the existing monastic system acceptable. He tried to lead Sufism to dependence on the spiritual guardianship of the sheikh and the doctrine of annihilation in the sheikh. The research method is descriptive and analytical and relies on library resources.IntroductionAfter the establishment of the khanqah system by Sufis such as Abu Saeed Abul Khair, and then the definition and determination of dynasties by elders such as Ahmad Ghazali, the dominant discourse in Sufism became the Khorasani discourse. Gradually, the work progressed to the point where most Sufists were Persian-speaking; As far as the likes of Attar preferred to write in Farsi. It is a fact that Persian language became the language of most Sufis after the first centuries of Sufism. If we consider the mysticism of Khorasan as lacking theoretical and practical elements and foundations, this combination is more related to a certain area of geography where Iranian Sufism once flourished. Therefore, it is not possible to recognize a specific mystical school or current under this name, and if the elders had the opposite approach, it was not without tolerance. The claim of this research is that the mysticism of Khorasan has prominent features that have been criticized even by personalities such as Shams Tabrizi. Before entering Shams' critiques, we should better understand Khorasan mysticism and at least the number of characteristics of this mysticism that Shams criticized. After the organization and identification of the Khorasan school by Ahmad Ghazali and the official announcement of "love" as the main principle of this school, famous Sufis are often included in two groups: Iraqi and Khorasani. Sahv prevailed in Iraqi Sufism and Sokr in Khorasani. Of course, this does not mean that all Khorasan mystics followed Sokr and all Iraqi Sufis followed Sahv, but the dominant approach among Khorasanis was Sokr, and among Iraqis Sahv. The term Khorasan and Iraqi does not mean assigning it to a specific geography or a precise and logical division of mystics into Sokr and Sahv, but it indicates the predominance of Sokr concepts in Khorasan and Sahv in Iraq; in the works of each of the above schools, you can find both Sokr and Sahv.Literature ReviewDespite the fame of "Khorasan Mystical School", no significant research background can be found for the current topic, and examining the points of view of Shams in this regard is a new topic worthy of study, and at the same time, it shows the necessity of the current discussion. Of course, two scientific research articles related to Khorasan mysticism have been published by the author:- Roodger, Mohammad, "Irfan Khorasan and Ibn Arabi, Practical Differences", Research Journal of Islamic Religions, 2016.- Roodger, Mohammad, "Irfan of Khorasan and Ibn Arabi, theoretical differences", Irfan Research Journal, 2017.The above articles deal with the practical and theoretical distinction between Khorasan mysticism and Ibn Arabi and not Shams' criticisms. The fact that no book was found that independently deals with practical mysticism in Khorasan Sufism and mysticism is not a research about introducing the elders of Khorasan, but about proving Khorasan Sufism as an independent movement or school from a practical and theoretical point of view. In addition to the articles that refer to this topic sporadically in some works, the articles that were searched refer to a corner of this topic; for example:- Khayatian, Qadratullah and Seyyed Hamid Delavar (2013) "An investigation into the well-known division of Sufism and Mysticism schools in Baghdad and Khorasan", History of philosophy magazine.This research basically questions the distinction between Khorasani mysticism and Baghdadi mysticism and is not related to the Khorasani Sunnah and the opinions of Shams Tabrizi.- Sadri, Jamshid and Ghasmetali Samadi (2007) "Sufism in the Khorasan School", Persian Literature Quarterly of Mashhad Islamic Azad University.This writing and similar ones also have a historical approach to the discussion, without paying close attention to the practical tradition of Khorasan mysticism and especially the personality of Shams Tabrizi. Regarding Shams and the book of essays, there have been good researches in recent years, but none of them are about Khorasan mysticism and Shams's criticisms.MethodologyThe research method is descriptive and analytical and documented in library sources.ConclusionAlthough Ahmad Ghazali founded and popularized the Khorasani mysticism, the organization of monastic networks by Abu Saeed Abul Khair made the original teachings of Ahmad Ghazali find another direction. The practical tradition of Shams Tabrizi is a return to the practical tradition of Ahmad Ghazali's school. He was affiliated with the practical circle of the Tabriz school, about which there is not much information. From the limited information obtained from Shams's words, we find that he denied the exhausting austerities that were prevalent in the monasteries of the Khorasan school, and this made becoming a mentor and becoming mortal in the mentor stand out as the most important goal, because talking to the guru and absorbing in him is continuous austerity. Annihilation in the Prophet has also raised his position to the highest position in Khorasani's practical and romantic mysticism. Shams's opposition to the Kherqe and the Khanqah is because she considers the original cloak to be a spiritual connection with the spiritual guardianship of the Prophet. This connection is of companionship, speech and mystical absorption, which are included in the form of the practical teaching of annihilation in the guru. Shams does not agree with Sokr of Khorasan, nor with Sahv of Iraq. He considered Sokr to be an unfinished stage in his journey, and spoke of "Sahv along with Sokr".
Keywords
