Suﬁsm in the Contemporary Shii Seminary?

: This paper investigates the intersection of Suﬁsm and philosophy in the Shii context during the post-Mulla S ˙ adr¯a era. Speciﬁcally, it traces the scholars who emphasized S ˙ adrian philosophical and mystical approaches on both theoretical and practical levels and identiﬁes the roots of the S ˙ ¯uf¯ı order in the Shia seminary after 1850, namely the S ˙ ¯uf¯ı school of Najaf. I argue that these scholars were connected to S ˙ ¯uf¯ı orders such as the Dhahab¯ıyya and the Ni ‘ matull¯ah¯ı order, contrary to the claim that they were not afﬁliated with any formal S ˙ ¯uf¯ı order. Furthermore, I highlight the reluctance of the masters and followers of the contemporary “S ˙ ¯uf¯ı School of Najaf” to reveal their S ˙ ¯uf¯ı connections in the anti-S ˙ ¯uf¯ı dominant environment of the seminary. Ultimately, this paper provides a comprehensive understanding of the connections between philosophy and S ˙ ¯uf¯ısm in the post-Mulla S ˙ adr¯a era and speculates on the roots, origin, and development of such a school in the contemporary Sh¯ı “ ¯ı seminary.


Introduction
The Shī " ī seminary is generally known as a religious institution emphasizing instruction in the Islamic sciences, particularly Islamic law (fiqh).Within these parameters, the seminary aims to prepare jurists (mujtahids).The official mission of the al-Hawzat al-" ilmiya (communities of learning/seminaries) is to educate and cultivate students in the religious sciences, preparing them for the role of "Mujtahids," thereby fortifying them with the capacity for Ijtihād or independent reasoning.
In some respects, the official curriculum of those seminaries is comparable to a modern study of law to become an expert in civil or criminal law.Yet, this is the exact point that Mullā S ˙adrā (1572Mullā S ˙adrā ( -1641) ) and his followers stressed when they criticized and opposed what they deemed the reduction of the definition of fiqh merely to law.In their understanding, fiqh should not be limited and restricted to exercising independent reasoning in extracting Islamic law or legal reasoning.It should rather be extended far beyond these narrow parameters.Rather than restricting law to its outward dimensions, real or exalted forms of fiqh should display an in-depth involvement with the reality of things or present an in-depth understanding of the revelation and transforming souls to purity and proximity to God, thereby encompassing both the internal as well as the external layers of revelation is the real meaning of fiqh.According to this understanding, the outer fiqh consists of a mere introduction to the law that should not be mistaken for its ultimate telos.The ultimate aim of religion consists in the gnosis of the Real.One cannot reach the inner realities of revelation without recognizing that this "lesser" fiqh (fiqh as .ghar) constitutes an introduction and not an ultimate purpose.
In the contemporary Shia seminary, a trace of a Sufi and philosophical approach to the study and practice of religion is visible.This paper undertakes a historical investigation to contextualize the emergence of Sufism within the contemporary Shī " ī seminary.It seeks to trace the evolution of Sufism in the context of Shia Islam, drawing insights from an analysis of primary sources to elucidate and offer informed speculation regarding the origins of this transformative movement (See Figures 1 and 2).The tendency that this research is pointing to is often referred to by various designations and is perhaps most renowned as the "Maktab-i Najaf " (the School of Najaf) or Maktab-i akhlāqiy ūn-i Najaf (School of Ethicists of Najaf) (See Figure 3 for a chronological view of the masters of this school).Masters of the school of Najaf, in the Shia seminary, were promoting practical Sufism along with the study of religious sciences.They believed that practical Sufism is necessary for cultivating the self in the path to return to God.Probably the most known figure among them in Western scholarship is Muh . ammad H ˙usayn T ˙abāt . abā' ī (1321Muh . ammad H ˙usayn T ˙abāt . abā' ī ( /1904Muh . ammad H ˙usayn T ˙abāt . abā' ī ( -1402Muh . ammad H ˙usayn T ˙abāt . abā' ī ( /1981).This research is not studying the School of Najaf.It instead speculates on the roots, origin, and development of such a school in the contemporary Shia seminary.Hence, our examination will delve into the resurgence and progression of the two main Sufi orders within the Shia tradition: the Ni'matullāhī Order and the Dhahabīyya S ˙ūfī Order, encompassing both the pre-modern and modern eras.By immersing ourselves in this historical context, we aim to gain an understanding that will facilitate the potential origins, emergence, and evolutions of the Sufi movement within the Shia seminary.
A scholarly lacuna exists regarding this Sufi tendency within the seminary.Our knowledge about it is, therefore, in a state of flux.Kāmil Mus .tafā al-Shaybī, in his al-S ˙ila bayn al-tas .awwuf wa-al-tashayyu

"
, provides us with some historical and conceptual background information.) and states that he was "a renowned mystic associated with Dhahabī order who also did much to spread 'irfiān in the shrine cities of Iraq."Rizvī, however, does not provide more detail on how Sayyid Kāshif caused the spread of 'irfiān (Sufism) in the shrine cities of Iraq, in which the leading Shī " ī seminaries were located.
Several figures in the post-Mulla S ˙adrā era emphasized expanding and promoting his teachings or following his footsteps in the mystical and philosophical approach both on the theoretical (naz ˙arī) and practical ( " amalī) levels.Sad ūqī Suhā in his Tah .rīr-i s ¯ānī-i tārīkh-i h .ukamā' va 'urafā-yi muta' akhkhir (The Second Compilation of the History of Philosophers and Mystics) mentions multiple chains of those who taught or followed S ˙adrā's philosophical methodology and approach, or rather his philosophical mysticism up to the present day.To clearly understand the ground upon which the later Shii-S ˙ūfī school in the seminary was founded, it is necessary to study those figures.Among these scholars, some are betterknown members or masters of the Dhahabīyya S ˙ūfī order, such as Shāh Muhammad Dārābī (d.ca.1717), Qut . b al-Dīn Nayrīzī (1689-1760) (Pourjavady 2018).These reports confirm the existence of a tradition in which philosophy and S ˙ūfīsm continued to pass from one generation to another.In an attempt to describe the group of Shī " ī-S ˙ūfī scholars, Murtad .ā Mut . ahharī (1919Mut . ahharī ( -1979) ) denies their connection to any S ˙ūfī order, instead calling them "scholars who were not members of any formal S ˙ūfī order" and who "began to show profound learning in the theoretical " irfān of Ibn " Arabī, such that none from amongst the S ˙ūfī orders could match them."(Mut . ahharī 1999).According to Mut .ahharī, these "individuals" first had high expertise in philosophy and the theoretical S ˙ūfīsm of Ibn Arabi, but they were also detached from S ˙ūfī orders.It is understandable if some of these individuals had no S ˙ūfī affiliations, but the question is whether this claim is all-inclusive regarding these figures.
It is important to note that almost all the masters and followers of the S ˙ūfī School of Najaf have been careful not to reveal their S ˙ūfī connection, background, and roots.For those familiar with the history of S ˙ūfīsm, the reason for such performance within the anti-S ˙ūfī dominant environment of the seminary is understandable.Subsequently, I delve into an investigation of the school's origins, foundations, and interconnections.

Research Method
This study conducts a comprehensive analysis of Sufism within the Shia context, employing a historical methodology to discern the origins and foundational sources of subsequent Sufi developments within the Shia seminary.Our research encompasses a thorough examination of a wide array of source materials, including Sufi monographs, travelogues, manuscripts, diaries, and other relevant literature, predominantly in the Persian language.Through this multifaceted investigation, we aim to shed light on the emergence and evolution of Sufi traditions within the contemporary Shia seminary, offering valuable insights into this intricate aspect of Shia scholarship and spirituality.

Revival of the Ni'matullāhī Order
It was during the time of Shāh Sultan Hussain 1694-1722 that the anti-S ˙ūfī polemics were dominated by the presence of the three grand jurists in Isfahan, Mashhad, and Qom.2020) was a disciple of the above-mentioned Muh .ammad Bāqir Bihbihānī.This historical moment occurred when the Ni " matullāhī order developed a more elite or scholarly side, even among the scholars in the seminary where some of the Fuqahā constituted opponents of S ˙ūfīsm.Hamadānī authored several works on fiqh and us .ūl and other books, chief among them being the Bah .r al-ma'arif (Ocean of Knowledge), dealing with ethics and spiritual wayfaring.He was a Shi'i Mujtahid (jurist) based in Karbala and was eventually killed in the Wahhāis' attack on the Shī " ī shrine city of Karbala in Iraq that attempted to destroy the shrine of al-H ˙ussayn, the third Shī " ī Imam.

Bah . r al-'Ul ūm and his Risālah fī Sayr wa al-Sul ūk (Treatise on Journey and Spiritual Path)
According to Ni " matullāhī sources, Mullā " Abd al-S ˙amad Hamadānī facilitated several visits between N ūr " Alī Shāh Is .fahānī (the Ni " matullāhī Shaykh,) and Sayyid Mahdī T ˙abāt .abā'ī (d.1212/1797), known as Bah .r al-'Ul ūm (Sea of Knowledge/Science).Ma's .ūm 'Alī Shāh 1970) The latter was a well-known and respected Shī " ī authority.We know that Bah .r al-'Ul ūm did not support an anti-S ˙ūfī fatwa that was promoted by a group of anti-S ˙ūfī clerics in Karbala.As Litvak puts it, The 'ulama' of Karbala' appealed to Bahr al-'Ulum to lend his signature to the takfir, to give it greater authority.But, according to S ˙ūfī sources, Bahr al-'Ulum was sympathetic toward the S ˙ūfī activists, and arranged for them to leave the shrine cities unharmed (Litvak 1998, p. 48).
The significance of this gathering resides in the realization that the favorability towards Bah .r al-'Ul ūm subsequently serves as a rationale for subsequent Shī " ī clerics inclined towards S ˙ūfīsm." matullāhī order.However, the treatise's content exhibits a noticeable affinity with the teachings of the order.The author's treatise highlights the essential role of a spiritual guide for a wayfarer, indicating that if the author himself was a "Sālik," he likely had a guiding master on his spiritual journey.As he puts it, A wayfarer is never without the need of the particular (Khās .s .) master, even if he achieves his desired destination.That is because even the destination that he has reached has certain rites and manners that should be observed, and these rites and manners are taught by none other than the particular master.No matter how high is the realm that the wayfarer achieves, it is still under the guardianship of the particular master.Thus, the companionship of the particular master is a universal requirement for every stage of the journey.Even at the last stage of the journey, where the manifestation of the Divine Names and Essence occurs, the particular master is present (Bah .r al-'Ul ūm 2013).While Bah .r al-'Ul ūm's Risālah Fī Sayr wa al-Sul ūk serves as a guidebook for spiritual seekers, critics of S ˙ūfīsm, along with certain pro-S ˙ūfī clerics, cast doubt on the authenticity of the treatise's final section.This section relates a description of S ˙ūfī practice in the request for a blessing from the spirituality of Mercury.Its author mentions that he used to resort to the spirituality of Mercury, and he adds that, indeed, those initiated into esoteric knowledge draw assistance from the ethereal essence of Mercury.It is prudent for neophytes to observe Mercury's celestial presence, ideally after sunset and before sunrise when its luminance graces the horizon.Initiating this observation, the practitioner is advised to offer a greeting of "Salaam" to the celestial body, followed by a step back, wherein the recitation continues: Oh, Mercury!Long have I yearned and sighed, Through days and nights, for your presence to abide.Now, here I stand, seeking your guiding light, Grant me aid in my quest from dark to sight.
Stepping back once more, a whispered appeal, By heavenly decree, unravel the key.
Bestow upon me blessings, rich and clean, Lord of earth and heaven, let abundance assured (Bah .r al-'Ul ūm 1388).
Opponents state that this practice does not follow the taste of religion, and even if the treatise is attributed to Bah .r al-'Ul ūm, this section is not from him.In fact, the transcriber added his own experience right at the end of the treatise.This confused some readers.The transcriber did not identify himself except by saying that he was the father of Sayyid Mus .3).Apart from the absence of any historical evidence or record of relationships between these two, it is hard to imagine a meeting based on the dates mentioned.First, Sh ūshtarī was very young at the time.Secondly, he entered the Najaf Seminary while already known as a well-versed scholar in his city of origin, Sh ūshtar in Iran.
Based on what has been discussed, it is evident that the Ni " matullāhī order had contacts and members amongst clerics in the Shī " ī seminary and that the Ni " matullāhī works were valuable for those pro-S ˙ūfī religious scholars.Yet there is no historical evidence that this order was the root of the S ˙ūfī order in the Shia seminary, namely the S ˙ūfī school of Najaf.

Post-Sadra Dhahabīyya Ṣ ūfī Order and Shīʿī-Ṣ ūfī Convergence
We already mentioned the existence of post-Sadrian Ṣ ūfī-philosophers who promoted Sadra s interpretation of religion, presenting an interrelated version of Shīʿīsm and Ṣ ūfīsm.We also discussed the revival of the Niʿmatullāhī Ṣ ūfī order to investigate the aforementioned tradition and to uncover its possible relationship to the Ṣ ūfī School of Najaf in the Shīʿī seminary.

The Kubrawīyya Order, Kubrā, and Ismāʿīl Qaṣrī
In what follows, we shall study the continuation and developments of the Dhahabīyya order in Iran.In fact, the Dhahabīyyais represented a continuation of the Kubrawīyya order.Yet, before entering into our Dhahabīyya discussion, it is worth mentioning some recent scholarship on the Kubrawīyya order.Despite some scholars connecting Najm al-Dīn Kubrā (d.ca.618/1221) to the Suhravardīyya order, thereby regarding Kubrawiyya as a branch of the Suhrawardian genealogy, Aydogan Kars, in his Ismāʿīl al- In what follows, we shall study the continuation and developments of the Dhahabīyya order in Iran.In fact, the Dhahabīyyais represented a continuation of the Kubrawīyya order.Yet, before entering into our Dhahabīyya discussion, it is worth mentioning some recent scholarship on the Kubrawīyya order.Despite some scholars connecting Najm al-Dīn Kubrā (d.ca.618/1221) to the Suhravardīyya order, thereby regarding Kubrawiyya as a branch of the Suhrawardian genealogy, Aydogan Kars, in his Ismā " īl al-Qas .rī, Kubrawiyya and S ˙ūfī Genealogies, draws attention to a potentially overlooked correlation and critiques prior scholarly discourse as a "misidentification of Kubrawiyya as an offshoot of Suhrawardiyya"(Kars 2021).Furthermore, he articulates that "the authentic spiritual genealogy of the Kubrawiyya is yet to be identified"(Kars 2021).What is essential in our discussion is that in his identification of the spiritual chain of Najm al-Dīn Kubrā, he reminds us about the neglected mark of Khuzestan in the Western scholarship on the Kubrawīyya order.Khuzistan is a province located in the southwest of Iran.It is not only, as Kars states, critical in the identification of Kubrā's S ˙ūfī connection, but it is also significant in the study of the S ˙ūfī School of Najaf, as we will see in the coming pages.Ismā " īl Qas .rī is the central figure that Kars focuses on as Kubrā's master and the one who passed him "the foremost robe of discipleship" (Khirqayi As .l).Today, Qas .rī's graveyard has been restored and is now located in the old bazaar of Dezful, a historic city in Khuzistan province. 3 ī Islam and a loyal companion to Ali.There is a conversation attributed to him and Ali, known as hadith al-h .aqīqa (the Truth), and a long supplication, known as "Du " ā " al-Kumayl" that Ali taught to him.It is well established that the hadith al-h .aqīqa (the tradition of reality) has garnered commentary from a multitude of scholars who share a common affinity for both philosophy and S ˙ūfīsm.Moreover, Kumayl plays an essential role in connecting many S ˙ūfī orders to Ali and thus to the Prophet, among them Kumaylīyya and Kubrawīyya or Dhabīyyah.I posit that the inclusion of Kumayl adds heightened significance to the lineage of this order, particularly when viewed from a Shī " ī perspective.Therefore, we can interpret the continuation of the Kubrawīyya order in Iran, known as Z ¯ahabiyya/Dhahabīyya, as occurring within a more general Shī " ī superstructure.Yet, we do not intend to discuss the emergence and early developments of the Kubrawīyya order here.Instead, we try to identify any connection between the Dhahabīyya order in its later period and the S ˙ūfī School of Najaf.

Revival of The Dhahabīyya Order in Iran after the Safavid Era
We shall focus here on the development of the revival of the Dhahabīyya order in Iran after the Safavid era.We know that Barāzishābādī (d. 872/1467-68) (Anzali 2013).
Both of the previously mentioned masters from Anzali had established their presence prior to the era of Qut . b al-Dīn Muh . ammad Nayrīzī (d. 1173/1795).At any rate, for the purpose of this research, it is significant that all historians of the Dhahabīyya order agree that Nayrīzī, with his powerful and charismatic personality, played an essential role in the revival of the order in Iran in the late Safavid period.There is a lineage in the tradition of Islamic philosophy that connects Nayrīz to Mulla Sadra (Pourjavady 2018).

Nayrīzī and Bīdābādī
Qut .b al-Dīn Muh .ammad Nayrīzī's (d.1173/1795) works represent without a doubt another instance of his fused Shī " ī-S ˙ūfī understanding.He was not solely a S ˙ūfī master; rather, he encompassed the roles of a scholar and educator (i.e., among his disciples was Āqā Muh .ammad Bīdābādī (d.1197/1783)).Both Shīrazī in his T ˙arā " iq and Khāverī in Dhahabīyya confirm Bīdābādī's connection to Nayrīzī.His contemporary, Mīrzā Muh .ammad Akhbārī Nīsāb ūrī, refers to him as a philosopher, mystical sage ( " ārif ), and trustworthy narrator of hadiths.Bīdābādī's intriguing aspect lies in the prevalent motif across most of his writings, which portrays him as a spiritual mentor.He pursued his studies within the seminary and exhibited remarkable proficiency in religious sciences.H ˙abībābādī, in his Makārim al-āthār (Noble Traits), calls Mulla Ali N ūrī a philosopher concerned with theology (h .ukamā " -i ilāhiyyīn). 5The same source informs us that N ūrī studied in the city of Isfahan with Āqā Muh .ammad Bīdābādī (d.1197Bīdābādī (d. /1783)).It is important to mention that N ūrī, as one of the most prominent revivers of Sadrian philosophy, was the teacher of Mullā Hādī Sabzavārī (d.1289/1873), whose school of philosophy and S ˙ūfīsm in Sabzavar remained a formative force in shaping an important era of intellectual activity in the history of philosophy and S ˙ūfīsm.This relationship places Mullā Hādī among those who can be considered at least followers of the Dhahabīyya order.
As mentioned earlier, an important dimension of Bīdābādī's oeuvre was his mystical philosophy and theology.A number of his treatises correspond with other scholars who asked him for Dast ūr al-" amal (Letters to Followers Indicating the Path to Spiritual Perfection).He was connected to the Dhahabīyya order through Nayrīzī.His Ādāb al-sayr wa al-sul ūk and Du risāla dar sayr wa sul ūk (two treatises on journey and spiritual path) are of the nature of Dast ūr al-" amals.'Alī S ˙adrā' ī, in his Taz ¯kirat al-sālikīn: nāmah hā-yi 'irfānī-i Āqā Muh .ammad Bīd ābādī (Remembrance of the Seekers: Mystical Letters of Āqā Muh .ammad Bīd ābādī), collected Bīdābādī's letters with eighteen of his contemporaries.In some of those letters, he teaches them a number of Arba'īnāt. 6One of those letters was written in response to a request of Sayyid S ˙adr al-Dīn Kāshif al-Dizf ūlī (1760-1842) for a mystical invocation (Dhikr) (Bīdābādī 2011, Sadra'i Kh ū' ī 1391).There also existed a collection of his manuscripts written to S ˙adr al-Dīn Kāshif al-Dizf ūlī.Unfortunately, we do not have any information about their whereabouts now.˙ūfī light.This was enough for Kirmānshāhī and his followers to accuse Sayyid Kāshif of an affinity to S ˙ūfīsm, which constituted, in their eyes, a deviation from the teaching of Islam.We do not have details of this incident.Yet, we know that Sayyid Kāshif wrote his Risālah Qās .im al-Jabbārīn in response to those accusations.
As previously indicated, the sanctuary of Ismā'īl Qas .rī is situated in Dezful.Sayyid Kāshif also resided in the same city, guiding disciples and adherents along the spiritual journey.A descendent of his, namely Sayyid Ali Kamāli Dizf ūlī (1329/1911-1426/2005) ˙ūfī terminology.Rizvi, in his chapter on Mullā 'Alī N ūrī, a disciple of Bīdābādī, very briefly mentions Sayyid Kāshif and states that he was "a renowned mystic associated with Dhahabī order who also did much to spread 'Irfiān in the shrine cities of Iraq" (Rizvi 2018).Rizvi, however, does not provide more details on how Sayyid Kāshif caused the spread of 'Irfiān in the shrine cities of Iraq, in which the main Shī " ī seminaries were located.To explain some key points, we must emphasize Sayyid Kāshif's numerous visits to those cities and, consequently, the seminaries and scholars there.Secondly and more importantly, we should emphasize his particular relationships with two significant individuals who later reached the highest rank in their fields and are widely revered until today in the Shī " ī communities and beyond.These two figures are Sayyid 'Alī Sh ūshtarī (d.1281/1866-67) and Shaykh Murtad .ā Ansārī (1214/1799-1281/1864).Both individuals were born in Dizf ūl, the same city where Sayyid Kashif was living and where he attended seminary for the introductory levels.At that time, Sayyid Kāshif was a known S ˙ūfī master and religious scholar.Their relationship with Sayyid Kāshif is one of the main impetuses for the founding of the S ˙ūfī/'Irfiānī school in the Najaf Seminary.The emergence and expansion of the S ˙ūfī School of Najaf as reflected by its diverse array of masters and their explication of complex S ˙ūfī and philosophical ideas.

Conclusions
It can be broadly inferred that throughout their historical trajectory, S ˙ūfī orders typically established their distinct institutional frameworks.On the other hand, scholars of religion (or those deemed to be 'Ulemā'/experts of religious sciences) also had their own communities of learning termed the al-Hawzat al-" Ilmīyyah (seminaries).However, both groups dealt with the same Qur " ānic revelation and its attendant religious sciences; their distinct approaches to interpreting those resources rendered them unequivocally distinct.While the 'Ulema' accused S ˙ūfīs of merely tolerating the religious Law or having deviated from the righteous path, S ˙ūfīs in return, accused 'Ulemā of holding onto the outer dimensions of Islam.Yet, there have also been attempts to reconcile the two currents in history, such as in the thought of Sayyid H ˙aydar Āmulī (b.720/1320).Āmulī stressed the notion of convergence between Shī " īsm and S ˙ūfīsm.His application of common concepts such as wilāyah and reference to the inner meanings of revelation in both schools, at least for some scholars, demonstrates the proximity of the two currents of thought and the need to rethink their unity.This paper has studied the roots, history and emergence of Sufi trends within the contemporary Shia seminaries by examining post-S ˙adrā figures and movements.It does appear, however, that these seminarians and mystics were inclined to conceal their S ˙ūfī affiliation.The reasoning behind this is relatively straightforward, namely the existence of powerful opposition to the S ˙ūfīs along with philosophical methods in the interpretation of revelation and hadith amongst the " Ulemā.The Shah and his court had occasionally backed that opposition.Therefore, the S ˙ūfīs had no choice but to conceal their identities within the Shī " ī seminary to protect both the continuity of their T ˙arīqa (order) and their mystical approaches to revelation and law.This story reveals Sayyid Kāshif as a known and respected spiritual man and, more importantly, names Sayyid 'Alī Sh ūshtarī as a mediator and spiritual master for Ansari.There are many narrations of how Sh ūshtarī and Ansārī, who later moved to Najaf, were connected.This was indeed the beginning of the creation of the S ˙ūfī School of Najaf.The historical background and developments discussed in this paper expand our knowledge regarding those individuals and schools by insisting on the coeval nature of Shiism and S ˙ūfīsm.Finally, moving from the historical roots of this fissure and little-known thinkers prefiguring more recent debates, we examined the origins and history of the S ˙ūfī and philosophical school of Najaf in addition to the late and post-Safavid eras in Iran.This investigation led our research into the following three areas pertaining to (A) the dominance of the fiqhī-centered and anti-S ˙ūfī environment in the Shī'ī seminary on the one hand and (B) the re-emergence of the Ni'matullāhī and (C) Dhahabīyya S ˙ūfī orders in Iran on the other.Furthermore, our exploration has underscored the substantial role played by the three aforementioned regions in the formation of both S ˙ūfī and anti-S ˙ūfī schools within the context of the Shī'ī seminary.The S ˙ūfī facet within this school tends to remain predominantly inconspicuous, primarily in response to the accusations and hostilities of opposing factions.On certain occasions, mentors and followers were compelled to disavow their affiliations publicly.In his written works, Muh .ammad H ˙usayn H ˙ikmatfar elucidates his dedicated efforts spanning three decades towards the restoration and revitalization of Qas .rī's khaniqāh and cemetery in Dezful.For references pertinent to our discourse, see (H ˙ikmatfar 2015).See also (z ˙ahīr al-Islām Dizf ūlī 2016). 4 Our present intention does not encompass delving into the origins of the Kubrawīyya order.Nevertheless, certain Shī " ī scholars endeavor to suggest the existence of an obscured Shī " ī facet within the Kubrawīyya order. 5 For more on N ūrī, see (Mu'allim H ˙abīb ābādī 1958).Additionally, Sajjad Rizvi, in his chapter on Mullā " Alī N ūrī narrates that the Ni " matullāhī S ˙ūfī Muh .ammad Ja " far Kab ūdarāhangī, known as Majdh ūb " Alī-Shāh (d.1238/1823), indicates that "the Bīdābādī circle was renowned for their mystical and spiritual practices (riyād .at u mujāhada-yi nafsānī) alongside their " irfān (mystical) orientation in their study of metaphysics."See (Rizvi 2018).
6 Forty days of prayer and seclusion are a particular demand on those committed to Sufism.The Qur " ānīc root of this exhortation is indicated in the story of Moses and his forty nights of seclusion.It is sometimes called "Arba " īn Kalīmī" to refer to its prophetic tradition.

7
Refering to G ūshah village in north Dizf ūl in Iran where their first great grandfather Sayyid Kamāl al-Dīn Walī (b.975/1568), who migrated from Medina, is buried.Several of his descendants who were religious scholars were affiliated to the Dhahabīyya order.For more on this family, see (Muhammad Ali Imāmahwāzī (1413)

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The pre-modern Niʻmatullāhī order revival in Iran.
Kāshif al-Dizf ūlī (1174/1760-1258/1842) (Sayyid Kāshif) played an essential role in the development of the S ˙ūfī School in the Najaf Seminary.He explicitly asserts that he attained the level of Ijtihād in Islamic studies and completed his education at age 21. (Kāshif al-Dizf ūlī 1385) This indicates his extraordinary intellectual ability, which prompted his father to invite him from the seminary in Najaf to Kermanshah in the west of Iran.His temporary residency in Kermanshah was troublesome for him.We already mentioned that Aqā Muh .ammad " Alī Kirmānshāhī (d.1216/1801), known as the S ˙ūfī-killer (S ˙ūfī-kush), established a solid anti-S ˙ūfī movement that cost the life of the Ni " matullāhi master Ma " s ūm " Ali Shāh.It appears that Sayyid Kāshif's treatise, namely, Mis .bāh .al-'ārifīn (Kāshif al-Dizf ūlī 1385), presented his allegiances in a S

Figure 3 .
Figure 3.The Sufi School of Najaf. 3 Seyed Hossein Nasr, in his chapter entitled Shī " īsm and S ˙ūfīsm and their Relationship in Essense and in History within Sufi Essays, expands on the notion Anzalī, in his The Emergence of the Z ¯ahabiyya in Safavid Iran, presents the development of this order in the Safavid and post-Safavid era based on studies of specific manuscripts.Philosophy in Qajar Iran, edited by Reza Pourjavadi, elaborates on some of the prominent philosophers/mystics, such as Mullā Hādī Sabzawārī, Mullā " Alī N ūrī, and others that are understudied in the Western scholarship.None of the mentioned works have paid attention to the emergence and the development of the S ˙ūfī schools in the Shī ˙ūfī conversations and interrelations.Reza Tabandeh and Leonard Lewisohn, in their edited volume, S ˙ūfīs and their Opponents in the Persianate World, touch on some of the modern features of the Ni " matullāhī order." Atā Anzalī, in his Mysticism in Iran, depicts some of those opponents to S ˙ūfīsm both during and after the Safavid era.Furthermore, Mullā Hādī Sabziwārī, Bahr al-'Ul ūm, and others.There are also some other scholars connected to the Ni'matullāhī order, such as Mullā 'Abd al-S ˙amad Hamadānī (d.1216/1802).In addition to Saduqi Suha's chronology, Purjavadi, in his introduction to Philosophy in Qajar Iran, describes that Gobineau, the French ambassador to Iran, under the influence of Āqā " Alī T ˙ihrānī, points to Mullā S ˙adrā (d.1045/1635-36) as the person who revived the philosophical tradition in Safavid Iran (De Gobineau 1923).Additionally, following Mullā S ˙adrā, Gobineau named and gave short biographical accounts of forty-nine other philosophers

Shāh Dakkanī and Aqā Muh . ammad " Alī Kirmānshāhī
(Bayat 1982)9), known as the S ˙ūfī-killer (S ˙ūfī-kush).(Bayat1982)Thisopposition resulted in the issuance of a fatwa and the killing of the Ma " s .ūm " Alī Shāh Dakanī.The short fatwa indicates that his teaching engendered discontent and corrupt people.Aqā Muh .ammad " Alī Kirmānshāhī, the one who issued the fatwa, was the son of Muh .ammad Bāqir Bihbihānī (known as Wah .īd Bihbihānī), who in turn was the leading Us .ūlī scholar in the Shī " ī seminary in the fight against Akhbāris.Alī Shāh, expanded the Ni'matullāhī order, in particular among some Shī " ī clerics.As Tabandeh puts it, Sufism in Persia was primarily understood through the practices of wandering dervishes.The Ni " matullāhī masters recognized this perception, which was unfavorable, and sought to reinvigorate their order by educating people about the unique intellectual and practical aspects of Ni ˙amad Hamadānī, Mullā Muh .ammad Nas .īr Dārābī, and Shaykh Zāhid Gīlānī into the order.(Tabandeh 2022) Among the mentioned religious scholars, Mullā " Abd al-S ˙amad Hamadānī (d.1216/1801) (Mangol On the other hand, as much as pro-S ˙ūfī clerics tended to affiliate Bah .r al-'Ul ūm with S ˙ūfīsm, opponents of S ˙ūfīsm made every effort to deny this affiliation.The Risālah Fī Sayr wa al-Sul ūk (Treatise on Spiritual Journeying and Wayfaring) attributed to Bah .r al-'Ul ūm is obviously in the S I came across a copy of the treatise when I was studying in Tabriz, from which I made my own transcription, although that version had many mistakes.When I had the grace to go to Najaf, I found that my master, the late Āyatullāh Sayyid " Ali Qād .ī, had a copy of the treatise that was very similar to mine. ..Later on, I found a very correct version of the treatise, which was written in beautiful handwriting . ..it was the copy of my astronomy and mathematics teacher, the late Sayyid Ab ū al-Qāsim Kh ūnsārī.Thus, I borrowed his copy and transcribed it in 1354 AH (1936 CE).His copy was transcribed ninety years before that time (Bah .r al-'Ul ūm 2013).discussion on the matter in his introduction, this quotation informs us that Bah .r al-'Ul ūm's Risālah fī Sayr wa al-Sul ūk was circulated and copied by scholars during and after his life.T ˙abāt .abā'ī transcribed his copy in 1936 from a copy that was transcribed ninety years before that in 1846.This is about forty-nine years after its author died in 1797.treatise, leading them to produce commentaries on it.Risālah fī Sayr wa al-Sul ūk provides both guidance and an overview of the spiritual journey.Shahram Pazouki contends that Bah .r al-'Ul ūm composed this treatise after his encounter with Ni " matullāhī Shaykh, N ūr " Alī Shāh Is .fahānī.Historical records do not substantiate whether Bah .r al-'Ul ūm underwent initiation into the Ni 1 As T ˙ihrānī, in his introduction to Risālah Fī Sayr wa al-Sul ūk, indicates, Muh .ammad H ˙usayn T ˙abāt .abā'ī transcribed his copy from the author's (Bahr al-'Ulum) own copy. 2 As T ˙ihrānī narrates, T ˙abāt .abā'ī explained to him, "I have a copy of the treatise based on a very correct version of the manuscript that I have transcribed with my own hands."T ˙abāt .abā'ī then acknowledges that, t .afā Khawansārī.Yet, another hint may help us to identify the transcriber.Rah .mat AliShāh, who composed a short treatise in response to a question about the unity of being (Wah .dat al-Wuj ūd) written in 1247/1831, he adds that "and I saw his transcription of Bah .r al-'Ul ūm's Risālah Fī Sayr wa al-Sul ūk in S ˙ūfīsm ( Days of Spiritual Retreat)".(Ma's .ūm 'Alī Shāh 1970).This narration sheds light on the ambiguity of the Mercury prayer in Bah .r al-'Ul ūm's Risālah Fī Sayr wa al-Sul ūk and who might be the possible author of it.Hamadānī and Bah .r al-'Ul ūm as the originators of this S ˙ūfī movement in the seminary.He refers to the visits mentioned between Bah .r al-'Ul ūm and N ūr " Alī Shāh Is .fahānī, using Bah .r al-'Ul ūm's Risālah fī Sayr wa al-Sul ūk to make this connection.Pazouki states that, Sayyid Ali Sh ūshtarī, as the great master of the Najaf order, died in 1281/1864 (Figure As Kars relates, In his Shajaranāma, AZ ¯kānī [690-778/1291-1376] states that Kubrā had three masters, all of whom were pupils of Ab ū al-Najīb.He notes that al-Qas .rī had a different chain of transmission through Kumayl, and quickly moves to introduce the names in al-Bidlīsī's Ab ū al-Najīb-based genealogy (Kars 2021).Kubrā and his disciple had mentioned the Qas .rī lineage in their silsila. 4An essential aspect of the Qas .rī linage is the presence of Kumayl, b.Ziyād Nakha " ī, killed in 81/701.Kumayl was a significant figure in Shī " and his disciple Sayyid Ah .mad Lālā are a starting point for turning the Kubrawīyya into the Dhahabīyya order and changing its geographic focus from Central Asia to Iran.Yet, DeWeese, in his Studies on S ˙ūfīsm in Central Asia, states that a significant ambiguity exists regarding the time it became Shīite (DeWeese 2012).Lewisohn, in his An Introduction to the History of Modern Persian S ˙ūfīsm, states that the Dhahabīyya order's revival in Iran took place several decades earlier Risālah Fī Sayr wa al-Sul ūk attributed to him.Lewisohn, in his footnote, adds that Khāvarī, in his Dhahabīyya, casts doubt on whether the last two had met him (Lewisohn 1999).On the other hand, Anzali, in his The Emergence of the Z ¯ahabiyya in Safavid Iran, based on his manuscript studies, informs us that, the official spiritual lineage of the order (the mashīkha) is likewise a late eleventh/ seventeenth-century construction, a product of the joint efforts of the Z , in his 'irfān va sul ūki Islāmī, provides a history of Sayyid Kāshif's family.In his account, we learn that the family was replete with religious scholars and Sayyids descending from the Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Sayyid Kāshif's family is recognized in Iran by the title "Sādāti G ūshih." 7 Notes about him acknowledge his simple and contented life, avoiding all luxury.Sayyid Kāshif was held in high regard among the people, and the Iranian king of the time, Fath ."alīShāhQājar (1772-1834), visited him.Some court members respected Sayyid Kāshif, but simultaneously, he had opponents among scholars and local governing officials.Most of the over sixty treatises attributed to (Bīdābādī 2011) Sayyid Kāshif remain unpublished and are preserved in multiple libraries and collections in Iran.His Mis .bāh .al-'ārifīn is an exploration of the S ˙ūfī path and practices.The subject of his other work, namely H ˙aqq al-h .aqīqah li-arbāb al-t .arīqah (The Truth of the Truth for the Masters of the Path), once again centers on the importance of the spiritual wayfaring with emphasis on Shī " ī doctrines and explanations of S By examining the revival of the Ni'matullāhī and Dhahabīyya S ˙ūfī orders, we traced back the connections between Sufis and jurists.We learned that Sayyid Kāshif, disciple of Āqā Muh .ammadBīdābādī, was a significant figure in promoting the Sufi thought and practice in the seminary.He inspired both Sayyid 'Alī Sh ūshtarī (d.1281/1866-67) and Shaykh Murtad .āAnsārī (1214-1281/1800-1865).We can speculate that Sayyid 'Alī Sh ūshtarī must have been one of the khalifas of Sayyid Kāshif.There are indications of this claim in the stories narrated by some of the followers of Sayyid Kāshif.Shaykh Murtad .āAnsārī was the most eminent figure in the Shī'ī seminary and Shī'īte Islam as a whole in the 13/19th century.Hairi's description of Ansārī's position in the Shī'ī seminary can help us to better understand and place the following account of the relationship between Ansārī' and Sayyid Kāshif."Despitebeing rather unknown in the West, he is considered to have Rashah .ātn ūrīyya and Sayyid 'Alī Sayyid in his introduction to Sayyid Kāshif's H ˙aqq al-h .aqīqahli-arbāb al-t .arīqahnarrate this visit.This indicates a connection between Sayyid Kāshif as a Dhahabīyya Shaykh (who also was a religious scholar) with the eminent figure of the seminary."WhenShaykh Murtad .a Ans .ārī decided to move to Najaf from Dezful to pursue his advanced studies in the seminary, he thought that it would be better to get mystical advice and dhikr from S ˙adr al-Dīn Kāshif al-Dizf ūlī and ask for his blessing and commands for dhikr and fikr [meditation]. ... Kāshif prays for him and adds that, "because your intention from travel is the gaining knowledge, an endowment in knowledge is a worship per se.Nevertheless, be sure that you will advance this [dhikr and fikr] through Sayyid 'Alī Sh ūshtarī in Najaf, who is from us." 8 ). ˙adr al-Dīn Kāshif al-Dizf ūlī (1335).H ˙aqq al-h .aqīqah li-arbāb al-t .arīqah..The account of this meeting also narrated by z ˙ahīr al-Islām Dizf ūlī, in his Rashah .āt-i n ūrīyya.It should be noted that z ˙ahīr al-Islām (1274/1858-1337/1919) himself was a Dhahabī Shaykh in Dizf ūl as well as a mujtahid in Shī'ī religious studies.
8 S