Eliza Tasbihi
I hold a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Concordia University and an M.A. in Islamic Studies from McGill University. My research specializations are early modern Islamicate intellectual history and theology with a focus on textual analysis of Sufi literature and theological writings in Ottoman and Persian, Iran, and the broader Persianate world up to the 19th century.
less
InterestsView All (32)
Uploads
Encyclopedia Articles
Papers
https://themaydan.com/2020/03/rumis-book-seven-of-the-mathnawi-intra-sufi-debates-in-the-seventeenth-century-ottoman-empire/?fbclid=IwAR2piDiPtKqAJOlFnVTcH8M8MrUi2Xfoc7Ibhdv3pkAQVmup-6vfSGm7OsY
methodology in unravelling Rūmī’s mystical teachings, I have provided
a translation and short study of his Arabic preface to this Commentary.
After presenting a brief biography1 of Sabzawārī, I offer an introduction
into previous research and scholarship on the Sharḥ-i Asrār-i Mathnawī,
followed by an overview of its theosophical approach and key concepts. I then give a translation of the key passages of his Arabic preface, followed by an examination of the ideas in those passages. In the conclusion, I revisit and explore the reasons for his claim that the Mathnawī is overall a philosophical text in the tradition of mystical ḥikmat. The Arabic text of the preface is featured as an appendix at the end.
Book Reviews
Conference Presentations
In my paper, I will focus on the writings of Ismā‘īl Anqarawī (d. 1631). He was the Shaykh of the Ghālātā Mevlevīhāneh in Istanbul for 23 years and taught the Mathnawī along with the sharḥ he composed for it, the Majmū‘at al-Laṭā’if wa Matmūrat al-Ma‘ārif. This sharḥ remains, even today, one of the most influential and widely used commentaries on the Mathnawī and the only Ottoman sharḥ to be officially used in Mathnawī-khānas. I will examine various copies of Anqarawī’s work from the Mevelvī archives of the Ghālātā Mevlevīhāneh, Murād Mullā, Qāsim Pāşā and Yenikāpī tekkes, now preserved in Turkish manuscript libraries. These documents form a unique resource, which was originally designed for pedagogical usage among the Sufis studying in the lodges.
Copyists of the Majmū‘at al-Laṭā’if wa Matmūrat al-Ma‘ārif include prominent Ottoman intellectuals such as Ghanim Dede (d. 1625), Cevrī Ibrāḥīm Çelebī (d. 1655), Vecdī (d. 1661), Osmān Sīnārçāk (d. 1645), Dervish Şehlā (d. 1669), Aḥmet Çelebī (d. 1640) and Dervīsh Yūsuf Bağbān (d. 1638). All had taken Persian lessons from Mevelvī dervishes and the marginal notes and glosses in their manuscripts often reflect their own political and religious views. Indeed, these previously unedited ḥāwāshī provide us with very useful information about the text and its authorship, ownership, waqf status and the patronage it received from the Ottoman Sulṭāns. Most importantly, these documents provide us with vital information about the major conflicts that were taking place between Sufis and orthodox ‘ulamā’ in 17th-Century Istanbul. They allow us to better comprehend the nature of Ottoman religious conflict, while also verifying which groups of scholars benefited from royal patronage. This opens a new window onto the inner conflicts among Mevlevīs, as well as the external confrontations they had with the ‘ulamā’ of their age. This new data thus allows for a more meaningful study of the Mevlevī Order as it confronted the social turmoil and political unrest of 17th-century Ottoman Anatolia.
https://themaydan.com/2020/03/rumis-book-seven-of-the-mathnawi-intra-sufi-debates-in-the-seventeenth-century-ottoman-empire/?fbclid=IwAR2piDiPtKqAJOlFnVTcH8M8MrUi2Xfoc7Ibhdv3pkAQVmup-6vfSGm7OsY
methodology in unravelling Rūmī’s mystical teachings, I have provided
a translation and short study of his Arabic preface to this Commentary.
After presenting a brief biography1 of Sabzawārī, I offer an introduction
into previous research and scholarship on the Sharḥ-i Asrār-i Mathnawī,
followed by an overview of its theosophical approach and key concepts. I then give a translation of the key passages of his Arabic preface, followed by an examination of the ideas in those passages. In the conclusion, I revisit and explore the reasons for his claim that the Mathnawī is overall a philosophical text in the tradition of mystical ḥikmat. The Arabic text of the preface is featured as an appendix at the end.
In my paper, I will focus on the writings of Ismā‘īl Anqarawī (d. 1631). He was the Shaykh of the Ghālātā Mevlevīhāneh in Istanbul for 23 years and taught the Mathnawī along with the sharḥ he composed for it, the Majmū‘at al-Laṭā’if wa Matmūrat al-Ma‘ārif. This sharḥ remains, even today, one of the most influential and widely used commentaries on the Mathnawī and the only Ottoman sharḥ to be officially used in Mathnawī-khānas. I will examine various copies of Anqarawī’s work from the Mevelvī archives of the Ghālātā Mevlevīhāneh, Murād Mullā, Qāsim Pāşā and Yenikāpī tekkes, now preserved in Turkish manuscript libraries. These documents form a unique resource, which was originally designed for pedagogical usage among the Sufis studying in the lodges.
Copyists of the Majmū‘at al-Laṭā’if wa Matmūrat al-Ma‘ārif include prominent Ottoman intellectuals such as Ghanim Dede (d. 1625), Cevrī Ibrāḥīm Çelebī (d. 1655), Vecdī (d. 1661), Osmān Sīnārçāk (d. 1645), Dervish Şehlā (d. 1669), Aḥmet Çelebī (d. 1640) and Dervīsh Yūsuf Bağbān (d. 1638). All had taken Persian lessons from Mevelvī dervishes and the marginal notes and glosses in their manuscripts often reflect their own political and religious views. Indeed, these previously unedited ḥāwāshī provide us with very useful information about the text and its authorship, ownership, waqf status and the patronage it received from the Ottoman Sulṭāns. Most importantly, these documents provide us with vital information about the major conflicts that were taking place between Sufis and orthodox ‘ulamā’ in 17th-Century Istanbul. They allow us to better comprehend the nature of Ottoman religious conflict, while also verifying which groups of scholars benefited from royal patronage. This opens a new window onto the inner conflicts among Mevlevīs, as well as the external confrontations they had with the ‘ulamā’ of their age. This new data thus allows for a more meaningful study of the Mevlevī Order as it confronted the social turmoil and political unrest of 17th-century Ottoman Anatolia.
The Qāḍīzādeh family also vehemently opposed the heavy reliance on the teachings of Ibn ‘Aarbī by Sufis. My paper’s objective is to examine the influence of Ibn ‘Aarbī in the Sharḥ-i Mathnawī of the prominent Mevlevī shaykh, Ismā‘il Rusūkhī Anqarawī (d. 1040/1630), a respected Ottoman theologian and commentator of both the Fusus al-hikam and the Mathnawī. An expert and heavy promoter of Mevlevī teachings, Anqarawī was also a deeply knowledgeable follower of the Akbarian School. There are numerous references to the latter work and to Ibn ‘Arabī’s Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya in the commentary he wrote on Rūmī’s Mathnawī. I will examine Anqarawī’s advocacy of the concept of Pharaoh’s faith, which is discussed favorably by Ibn ‘Arabī—and the unfavorable reception he received from his detractors—mainly the Qāḍīzādeh—who held Ibn ‘Arabī responsible for a decline of morals in Islamic society.
Anqarawī defends Ibn ‘Arabī at many points in his commentary, both subtly and not so subtly, on single points and in relation to the major controversies concerning the faith of Pharaoh. I will demonstrate that Anqarawī was well aware of the accusations of heresy directed at Ibn’ Arabī, yet he never appears to be less than a strong advocate of Akbarian doctrine, trying to justify the verses for which Ibn ‘Arabī was harshly criticized.
This study will shed light on various aspects of the social and religious debates among ‘ulamā’ in the 17th-century Ottoman Empire. It will also allow for a better understanding of the intellectual milieu of the empire, the social status and political roles of the ‘ulamā’ and the power wielded by official religious institutions and their affiliated scholars.
However, a few sources indicate the possibility of an extra volume known as “Book Seven” of the Mathnawī. One notable example is a manuscript by the famous Ottoman commentator, Ismā‘īl Anqarawī (d. 1631) penned in 1310 A.H. He not only added a seventh volume to the original six of the Mathnawī, but also presented his commentary in seven books and discussed the alleged seventh volume—the true authorship of which has yet to be established—extensively. As related by Kātip Çelebi, among early Mathnawī commentators, only Anqarawī attributed a seventh book to Rūmī. This book, however, was likely forge and was based on a text copied in 814 A.H. (Kashf al-Ẓunūn, Istanbul: vol II, p. 1587-1588). Nevertheless, several copies of the volume in question survive in manuscript form in the Suleymanieh and Konya libraries in Turkey among others.
It is the aim of this paper to examine this alleged “Book Seven” and outline its differences with the rest of the Mathnawī. I will also endeavor to explain why this extra book of the Mathnawī might have been penned and why Anqarawī included it in his commentary. I will point out to the major grammatical flaws and the difference in the style of poetry in the seventh book in comparison with the rest of the Mathnawī. I will also examine the Sufi expressions attributed to Rumi, which were commonly used by Mevlevis after Rūmī’s death that appear in “Book Seven.” Anqarawi was a high-ranking Mevlevi shaykh, an esteemed teacher of the Mathnawī and preacher in mosques and madrasahs, thus an active expositor and, as it were, practitioner of the text. Anqarawi exemplifies the relation between the Mevlevi Sufi Order and Ottoman government; he benefited greatly from Ottoman patronage and his commentary on the Mathnawī was, in fact, commissioned by the Sultan. Thus, I argue that production of a “spurious” text along with absorption of it into the tradition through detailed commentary is a further dimension of the license of mystical exegesis, as well as part of the ongoing intellectual movement through which the Mevlevis sought to validate and expand their religious and political authority, and, hence, extend their popularity and influence both amongst the masses and the Ottoman rulers.
Basing himself on the Qur’anic account, Rumi describes how Bilqis became intoxicated with a longing for faith, and how, at the moment of her spiritual emigration, her desire became severed from the whole of her kingdom except from her throne. Bilqis’s throne is a metaphor for worldly attachment through which Rumi commences a profound discussion of the complicated subject of resurrection, which includes some of the Mathnawi’s most difficult verses. To describe Solomon’s wisdom, admonitions and guidance, Rumi employs the metaphor of the language of the birds and explains how Solomon delivers his wisdom to everyone according to their knowledge and capacity for understanding. He concludes that Solomon’s knowledge is vahy (divine revelation), not from human intellect. This intellect can be taught, but only prophets can teach it.
Anqarawi, for his part, relies heavily on the thought of Ibn ‘Arabi (d. 1244) in his Mathnawi exegesis. Thus, the paper will examine how Anqarawi uses Ibn ‘Arabi’s discussion of Solomon’s wisdom in the Fusus al-Hikam to complete a theosophical analysis of Rumi’s version of the story. It will also seek to explain the reasons behind this heavy reliance on and extensive usage of the Akbarian tradition in the Sharh-i Mathnawi, despite Rumi and Ibn ‘Arabi’s differing interpretations of Solomon’s prophetic gifts.
rhyming couplets.
The current study explores the symbols of nay and nayistān through a textual analysis of the well-known Persian sharḥ written by Badī‘al-Zamān Furūzānfar (d.1970). Furūzānfar’s commentary demonstrates a modern approach to the reading of Rūmī’s Mathnawī centered on the poetical aspects of the poems. His commentary will be compared with two other commentaries: The first one is an Ottoman-era Sufi commentary on the Mathnawī written by Ismā‘īl Anqarawī (d. 1631) a Mawlawī shaykh, whose sharḥ exemplifies the mystical approach to the Mathnawī. The second commentary is a philosophical interpretation by Mullā Hādī Sabzawārī (d.1873), a philosopher following the School of Illumination founded by Suhrawardī (d.1191). His is a rationalistic approach, relying heavily on the Akbarian terminologies explicating Rūmī’s poetry.
The paper attempts to elucidate the role of the commentators in understanding Rūmī’s poetry. It attempts to answer the question to what extent a commentator remains faithful to the original text, and what kind of audience is he addressing. Highlighting the distinctive contributions of the three authors, it emphasizes the need for a more
comprehensive approach towards Rūmī’s mystical poetry, since literary analysis alone is insufficient for its appreciation.
It is commonly accepted by Rūmī scholars that Rūmī’s Mathnawī is composed of six volumes. However, a few sources indicate the possibility of an extra volume known as “Book Seven” of the Mathnawī. My study particularly focuses on the unpublished commentary (sharḥ) on Book Seven written by Ismā‘īl Anqarawī (d. 1631), the most important Ottoman commentator on the Mathnawī. It is an addendum to his commentary on the Mathnawī entitled Majmū‘at al-Laṭā’if wa Maṭmūrat al-Ma‘ārif (Collection of Subtleties and Hidden Store of Knowledge). Since the commentary and its publication received major criticism from Sufis belonging to the Mevlevī order, it is the aim of this study to explore the reasons for the composition of the commentary. Why did Anqarawī, a respected Mevlevī shaykh who was in charge of Gālātā Sufi lodge and taught the Mathnawīfor several years, devote his energy to writing a separate commentary on a text widely considered to be spurious? My study is based primarily on the textual analysis and close examination of 45 Ottoman manuscripts of Anqarawī’s sharḥ, which I consulted in the Süleymāniye library, Konya’s Mevlānā Museum, Bursa’s Inebey Manuscript Library, and Ankara’s Mellī Library. I argue that the debate in which Anqarawī engaged can be divided into two parts: First, that the sharḥ encountered heavy criticism within the Mevlevī circle for its falsification and spurious nature, and second, that the subjects discussed in the sharḥ resulted in strong opposition from orthodox ‘ulamā’ on the grounds that it promoted bid‘a (“innovation” or “heresy”). By examining Anqarawī’s introduction, which presents a detailed account of his debate with Mevlevī Sufis and Shaykhs, I argue that Anqarawī claimed authority as the ultimate commentator and Mathnawī-khān (Mathnawī-reciter) among the Mevlevī Sufis, a claim that was bolstered by his closeness to Sulṭān Murād IV (d. 1640). Given that Anqarawī scholarship is only recently emerging and his monumental commentary has not been studied properly, the present work contributes to the study of Rūmī and reception of his Mathnawī not only in the Persian speaking regions, but also within Ottoman society. This study will shed light on various aspects of the social and religious debates among the ‘ulamā’ in the 17th-century Ottoman Empire. It will also allow for a better understanding of the intellectual milieu of the empire, the social status and political roles of the ‘ulamā’ and the power wielded by official religious institutions and their affiliated scholars.