Friday, January 05, 2007

In a message dated 9/8/00 2:56:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Nasir Shamsi ( shamsin@aol.com ) writes

Dear Frank,
Thank you for your response. It has always been a common practice among the Shia scholars to study the major books of the other schools, for comparative purpose . It is in fact a requirement for a ' faqih ' to know other fiqh's to be fully credentialed because in daily life he has to answer questions relating to and coming from different people. I have not met an eminent Shia scholar who has not read Imam Bukkhari's Sahih or al-Shahristani's Kitab al-milal wal nihal or al-Hakim's Mustadrak or Imam Hanbal's Musnad, or Imam Malik's Muta, just to name a few. I was myself born in a Shia family. We had practically every major Sunni book in my father's great library. Besides reading the Shia authors- I am not a faqih or a scholar- I have read at least 30 to 40 books by Sunni authors. I have even read almost all books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad,the founder of Ahamadis to find out what this new sect stood for. I enjoyed reading the six volumes of " Tafheemul Quran " by the late Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi, one of the most outstanding contemporary Sunni scholars and I deeply revere his scholarship. I also read his other titles, including " Khilafat-o-Malukiat ".

I have quoted from these books and admitted having read them in the several articles I have written. I have even eulogised and drawn favorable conclusion from these books. It will be ridiculous if somebody based on my reading of these books and my quoting from it ,or even from my critical review of the state of Shias concludes that I must be a Sunni, a Hanafi or a Shafei.These readings did not make me a Sunni. They may have influenced my thought, enhanced my knowledge and enriched me as a believer but the more I studied the Sunni books, the more I was convinced about the need to understand Islam through the eyes of the Prophet and the members of his immediate family, including Ali and Fatima and their children who gave supreme sacrifices and who accepted to suffer for the glory of Islam. Yet when I am sitting in a largely Sunni gathering and there is a talk on religion, I prefer to talk of and quote from their books because they are more familiar with those books and it is easier to communicate with them.

I have read Maqalate Shams. The content and substanceof Shams 's conversations with Rumi and his entourage, the diction and the style and method of arguing, his citing of specific examples and eipsodes- typicaly Shiite-that are conspicuously absent in the Sunni books, bears eloquent testimony to the proven fact that Shams Tabriz was a Shia ( I'll revert to you on that). Shams Tabriz must have shared some of his beliefs with Rumi ( that do surface only in his post-Shams writings) but he certainly kept it from the Koniyans. A closer study of that period will show you it was particulary diffficult time for the Shias. I do not think that the Hanafi majority even tolerated Shafei among them beacuse elsewhere, probably in Aleppo , there were physical clashes between them during the same period. I do not agree with Ibrahim that Ali was generally revered among the sunnis of that period. It is easier said than done. Ibrahim has failed to provide any evidence to support that Ali's name figured in any of the contemporay writings of the period, including Molana's pre Shams writings, his father's al-Muaraf, Shahabuddin Suhrawarthy's Awariful Muaraf , Fakkaruddin Iraqi's Lama'at, even Ibne Arabi's legendary books, Fatuhatul Makkia and Fususul Hikm. Remember, Ali's name was made subject of official rebuke (sab-o shitam)by Muavia in the congregational prayes of Salatul Juma. This most ignoble practicecontinued for 70 years until it was discontinued by Umar bin Abdul Aziz, much to the chagrin of the Sunnis of that time. In Rumi's period, because of the eulogisation of Ali by the Fatimid rulers and almost divinisation by the rulers of Alamut, a heretic branch of Ismaili Shias, the Sunni authors and scholars avoided talking of Ali in favourable terms, lest they were taken for a Shia. A prime example is that of Hallaj. One of the reasons,the contemporary jurists, Junaid and Shibli distanced themselves from him in his predictament was his alleged association, through his cousin's marriage, with the the Shias; this was among the accusations that led to his violent death.
That Rumi was critical of Shias of Aleppo in one single verse does not mean he disliked Shia beliefs. I can give you a dozen examples of Shia publications, including Shia poetry which criticises Shia's own rituals and practices. For example,Tahreefat'e Ashoora ( The aberrations of Ashoora ) by Murtaza Mutahhari, one of the greatest Iranian scholars and right hand man of Ayatullah Khomeini and Ali Moosavi's recent book, Islah hus Shia (The Reform of Shia).Rumi's isolated couplet lamenting Allepoian's mourning at ashura pales in comparison to a famous poem of Malak Bahar, the poet laureate of Iran (died 1959 ?), under the caption, " dar azadari-e riya karana Teherani-ha" . Bitterly critical of the hypocrisy of the Shias of Teheran of his time, Bahar admonishes them by saying, " Shias of Teheran ( Ahle Ray) are devastated with ' Aah-o fagha(n) and 'matam-e zanjeer '. If Muhammad and Ali enter the city, they will hand them over to the police. " Self criticism has been the hall mark of the Shias and that is what has made them survive over 14 centuries in the face of oppression and persecution by the ruling majority. Any intelligent Shia will agree to Rumi's critique of a senseless ritual. It cannot therefore be used as an argument to prove his or his teacher's beliefs.I appreciate your very candidly admitting that there would be mistakes in a book of that size. I hope you'll further look into the matter and correct this aberation, based on insufficient grounds unless you wish to go into history for imposing an unresearched title for a man who, even though born in a Shia family, kept himself, whether to avoid persecution or for scholastic reasons, above all schisms. Sincerely,Nasir Shamsi

In a message dated 9/8/00 2:56:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Frank Lewis ( flewis@emory.edu ) writes:

Subj: Re: Shamsi Tabriz was not a Shafe'i
Date: 9/8/00 2:56:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: flewis@emory.edu (Frank Lewis)
To: SHAMSIN@aol.com

Dear Shamsi:
Thank you very much for your interest in this matter and for taking the time to read my book, and for forwarding the posts from Ruminations on to me (which I have not been checking for some time). I think we will have to agree to disagree on this matter ;-) I am sure that there are many errors in my book, and I am grateful for those who point them out, and do wish, as you suggest, that in the interest of scholarship correct information be disseminated. However, I do not think your argument is convincing. I really don't wish to become involved in a long debate on this, but let me respond to a few of your points. First of all, I wish I could claim that I was the first one to discover that Shams was a Shafe`i. Mohammad-`Ali Movahhed pointed this out before I did, and he realized it from editing the Maqaalaat of Shams. I would have to look around in the books to be certain, but I think that Foruzanfar or Zarrinkub or Este`lami also mention this. So I am not alone on this position, and it is really not an issue of Orientalism a la Edward Said, as you suggested. The reason previous scholars did not mention it, anyway, is because they did not have access to a collated, critically edited text of the Maqaalaat of Shams. We now do. Even if we suppose, as you have, that Shams' statement I am a Shafe`i were a theoretical statement on the part of Shams - "for example, suppose I am/was a Shafe'i" - it leaves the question Ibrahim raised. Why then would Shams specifically study a Shafe`ite law text, as he claims he did? It was not unheard of for Hanafi scholars to read Shafe`ite texts or vice-versa, but it was rather uncommon for Sunni fuqaha to read Shiite legal texts at this period, so the fact that Shams read Shafeite law, from a Shafe`i Qazi, with the original intention of becoming a faqih, makes it rather unlikely that he was a Shi`ite. It does make it rather likely that he was a Shafe`ite. Furthermore, I do not accept your reading of the Persian passage in question. It is true that people proverbially say "if I were an infidel, or "man kaafar-am agar.... " I'm an infidel if ...., by which they mean to say that X is not true any more than it is true that I am an infidel, but "suppose I were a Shafe`ite" is not a Persian proverb. Furthermore, if this were a conditional sentence, it should come with the conditional mood, which would be *budami* or *bovam* or *mi-budam*, not "am". Furthermore, we would normally expect *agar* (if) or *farz kon* (suppose) or some other particle indicative of the irrealis (contrary to fact) mood, if we are to read the sentence as you suggest. The point Shams is making is that he does not think allegiance to a particular mazhab should pre-determine our views - it is an indictment of *taqlid*, which he repeatedly condemns in the Maqaalaat. I believe he is saying, Take me for an example, I am Shafe`i, but I would not let that stand in the way of accepting something in the teachings of Abu Hanifa. The reason that he brings this up at all, I suspect, is because Rumi's disciples probably followed him in the Hanafi rites, and Shams is trying to show he is not prejudiced against Hanafi views (Hosam al-Din Chelebi even wanted to change his affiliation to Hanafi for Mowlana Rumi's sake, but Rumi counseled against it, according to Aflaki). If Shams were a Hanafi himself, he would not need to make this argument. If he were a Shiite, he would not probably be having this discussion at all. If we read it at face value, though, it makes sense. He means: for example, I am a Shafe`i but i would not let that stand in the way of accepting something from Hanafi law that made sense So, as I say, I disagree with your conclusion about Shams not being a Shafe`ite. As for the idea that he was a Shiite, you have not yet given the evidence why you think that is the case. Again, I would like to caution that the fact that someone says something favorable about Hazrat `Ali does not and did not mean that they were Shiite or crypto-Shiite. All but the most sectarian Sunnis (perhaps the Marwanids) had great respect for `Ali as one of the Rashidun caliphs. Ali was proverbial for his bravery. Among Sunni Sufis, Hazrat `Ali was revered for his esoteric knowledge. So, to show that Shams was a Shiite, we would need to produce evidence other than favorable mention of `Ali (otherwise nearly every Iranian Sunni poet would have been a crypto-Shiite, which is manifestly untrue). Also, please remember that Mowlana speaks unfavorably of the Shiites in the Masnavi, and praises `Umar and Mu`awiyya repeatedly, and explicitly says that you won't find any Shiites willing to do this. I find it hard to believe that, if Shams had been a Shiite, Rumi could turn around 15 years later and write things that Shams would have found derogatory. yours, Frank
***********************
Franklin D. Lewis
Middle Eastern Studies S-312 Callaway Center
Emory University
Atlanta , GA 30322
tel: 404-727-0801
fax: 404-727-2133
email: flewis@emory.edu
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 SHAMSIN@aol.com wrote:

Dear Frank,
I do not know if you are reading the Rumination post. Please allow me to forward complete thread of a recent discussion on Shamsi Tabriz's beliefs since it essentially relates to your book. Shams was in no way a Shafe'i. It seems someone gave you a partial quote.Hence this error. But I am sure you'll correct it before the book's second edition goes to the press. You said in your last post on May 26, that in Maqalat, you had " found no evidence that Shams was a Shiite, nor have others who have looked at the Maqalat. " You'll be pleasantly surprised to know that I have discovered absolutely credible pieces of evidence in the Maqalat which adequately corroborate my research over the alst 40 years that ledme to believe that Shamsi Tabriz was a Shiite who did not disclose his beliefs to Konyans to avoid persecution. It was an exceptionally treacherous period for the Shias who continuously moved from one place to the other to escape otherwise imminent death. Many of them, particularly the decendents of the Prophet, through his daughter Fatima and her husband Ali, migrated to India in those years, to ecape persecution. Congratulations for a remarkable book that will surely contribute toward understanding of Rumi and his times.
Sincerely,
Nasir Shamsi
Subj: Re: [ruminations] Re:Rumi's Teachers
Date: 9/7/00 10:40:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: SHAMSIN
To: ruminations@egroups.com

In a message dated 9/2/00 10:23:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gmrd@redshift.com writes:

The quote from Shams:
"I'm a Shâf`ite" [man shaf`awî-m]

Dear Ibrahim,
The following excerpts from Maqalate Shams Tabriz clearly illustrate that the above inference drawn by Frank Lewis is contrary to the intent and purpose of the actual speech of Shams Tabriz. This quote did not conform to the actual text. The words separated from the whole sentence can completely change the meanings.
Maqalat (118) " Mulhadam agar tu me' dani keh man cheh me' goyem " ( I am a heretic, if you know what I said). Maqalat (143) " man kafram wa too musalman. Musalman dar kafar darj ast. dar alam kafar ko ta sajoodash kunam we sad bosah-ash daham " ( He said, " I am an unbeliever and you are a Muslim; the unbeliever is indeed in the Muslim. Where is the unbeliever in the world so that I prostrate before him and give him a hundred kisses ". ( The translation is mine ). Just as his use of the words, "mulhadam" (I am heretic) and "man kafram" ( I am unbeliever) has no bearing on the beliefs of Shamsi Tabriz, in the same manner, his saying, " masalan man Shafi'em ( For example, I was a Shafie ) did not make him a Shafi'e, per se. You will agree with me that such expressions are no admission of belief; they are strictly used metaphorically, as a figure of speech. They cannot and must not be quoted out of context. They are strictly to be read with the complete text. A single omission can altogether change the meanings. In the Kalima-e Tawheed, " La ilah il-Allah ", the key to Islamic belief, La ilah (there is no God) cannot be understood until it is read with " il-Allah " (except Allah). I sincerely hope that Frank Lewis, in the spirit of scholarship, will instruct his publisher to correct this obvious error ["Shams was a Shâf`i (Maq 182)" [Lewis, p. 142] , in the next edition of his otherwise great book.
Sincerely,
Nasir Shamsi

In a message dated 9/2/00 10:23:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gmrd@redshift.com (Ibrahim) writes: "Shams was a Shâf`i (Maq 182)" [Lewis, p. 142] [= a Sunni Muslim of the Shâf`i school of Islamic law].The quote from Shams: "I'm a Shâf`ite" [man shaf`awî-m]

Dear Ibrahim,
Thank you for picking up the thread where we left it in June (?). I have enjoyed reading Franklin Lewis's book. Simultaneously I have been reading and translating "Maqalaate Shamsi Tabrizi" in English and Urdu. my mother tongue. It is nothing less than a celestial experience to read the conversations of one of the greatest mystics of all times who was gifted with divine grace as well as extensive knowledge of Quran. Shamsi Tabriz cannot be taken lightly. He is a minaret of light and guidance, a consummate master of the secrets of man's relationship with God.
The reading of Maqalaat (Muvehhed's edition) and Sahibzamani's " Khatte Sewwem " has been a most delightful experience for me. It inspired as well as facilitated my understanding and comprehension of the classical Farsi. I am enjoying every moment of it. I beg to differ with Lewis's rather hastily drawn and incorrect conclusion, based on an erroneous understanding of a persian expression. This is a common problem with the translated matter. This is precisely the basis of Edward Saeed's critique of the Orientalists, even though I do not fully agree with him. The business of translation from languages not known to us is delicate and demands great caution. While a reader ought to understand the intent and the substance of a sentence before quoting it, it is equally important that the words or sentences are not quoted out of context. If Lewis's so called discovery that Shams was a Shafei is taken on its face value, then it is unbelievable that in the last 800 years, nobody other than him had the fortune to figure out that Shams was a Shafei and that includes, Rumi, Aflaki.Sepah Salar, Nicholson, Brown, Anne Marie Shimmell, Arberry, Coleman and everybody else who has written about Shams and Rumi. Hence it is really a ' fantastic ' discovery. Interestingly Shamsi Tabriz does not figure anywhere in the writings of any of the Shafei authors. The followers of Shafei madhhab have never claimed Shams to be one of them. Nor is there any trace of Shafei beliefs in Shams's teachings.
Now let us get to the core of the matter. On page 142, Lewis declares: " Shams was a Shafei (Maq 182). Ibrahim conceded by further adding: [ The quote from Shams: "I'm a Shâf`ite" [man shaf`awî-m] ". He too also for some reason omitted the preceding word which is key to the whole sentence. You cannot mince words. The actual expression in the " Maqalaate Shamsi Tabriz " is " Maslan man Shafiem " (For example, I am a Shafei). That is a manner of speech, not a definite statement, a technique often used by the teacher trying to make a point or explain some thing. It is particularly common in Persian and Arabic. It is like my saying , ' Suppose I was a Bosnian and I had to take my family to a safer place '. Does that make me a Bosnian ? Shams was making a point;he was discussing a serious matter: Pursuit of the path of reason: So he gives an example and advances a supposition (mafroozeh) by saying, Suppose I was a Shafei but I found some thing good in the Hanafi madhhab, which solved a problem for me , I'll accept it. What he meant was that goodness or wisdom was nobody's monopoly and it ought to be accepted regardless of where it is coming from. Ali, the Prophet's cousin , said the same thing in another way, " See what is being said, not who is saying it ". So that all of you can better appreciate the essence of Rumi's Teacher and Spiritual Guide and also realize that we are talking of a one of the greatest Travellers on the path of Truth, not a self proclaimed 'murshad ' or ' Pir', let me quote here the entire paragraph from the Maqalat, with its English translation. I'll let you figure out if Frank Lewis and Ibrahim were fair in reaching a conclusion, never before mentioned by any students or writers on Rumi and Shams, including Sultan Valed, Sepah Salar( both their contemporaries ) or Aflaki or Ferishtah.
Shams-e Tabriz, like a consummate teacher questions his disciples/students:
" Beya bego ein taloo-e aftab-o dor-e falak dar tasawwar too chegoona neshista ast ?
Aa(n) no-e keh munajjaman taqrir me dehand ?
Az zahir chuna(n) mafhoom nami shood. Beya ta benigreem, al mumin Mufattish. Aknoo)n) aancheh maaqool ast az najoom qabool bayaed kardan. Maslan man Shafi'em, dar madhahb-e Abu Hanifa cheezi yafatamkeh kare man beda(n) pesh me rawad wa neku-ast. agar qubool nakunam lajaj bashed Translation: " Let us talk: this rising if the sun and its rotation in the skies (space) ! How is it ingrained (perceived) in your thoughts (tasawwar) ? The way it is described by the astronomers , (right ) ? From the external Quran, the (actual) meaning is not (fully)understood. Let us think about it! A believer enquires; if what the Astronomer theorises appeals to (his) reason, he accepts it. (Now) as an example (maslan....from mesal maeaning example) (or sppose) I was a Shafaei and I found some thing good in the school of Abu Hanifa that will (help me) go forward and it was good, if I did not accept it it would be stubbornness. " ( Maqalat-page 182). The translation is mine.
There is nothing in the above paragraph as well as in rest of the the Maqalat to show that Shams was a Shafei. To the contrary, I have found several pieces of authentic evidence in the Maqalat to support my thesis that Shams was without any doubt a Shia who certainly shared his Shiite thoughts and his love for the Prophet and his family with Rumi (to the exclusion of others for fear of persecution) and that is abundantly clear from his manifest expressions of love and adoration of Ali and his family after his meeting with Shams, a phenomenon totally eclipsed in his earlier writiings of the period before the legendary meeting between the two super stars of the Muslim world. Mowlana Rumi's son, Sultan Valed has quite appropriately compared it to meeting of Moses and Khizr. I'll go at this moment, to address Shams's beliefs in the next post. Nasir Shamsi

Dear Nasir,
Some new Persian books arrived recently, and I've been having a wonderful experience of looking up the original Persian from some selections translated by Frank Lewis' wonderfully informative book ("Rumi-- Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teaching and Poetry of Jalâl al-Din Rumi," Oneworld, Oxford England, 2000, www.oneworld-publications.com). Last night I began reading his translated selections from the "Discourses" (Ma`arif) of Rumi's first sufi teacher (of nine years), Sayyid Burhanuddin. And during the past week, I was able to read all the translated selections from the "Discourses" (Maqaalaat) of Shams-i Tabriz. Frank Lewis' 68 page chapter on Shams is, in my opinion, one of the most significant contributions to Rumi studies in recent times, because it makes available information about Shams which has never been made available in English before-- and in the words of Shams himself (as recorded by his disciples). It clears up many of the inaccurate mystifications promoted about who Shams was and his relationship to Rumi.
There are some astonishing quotes from Shams which Frank
Lewis has translated:
"I first came to Mowlânâ [= Rumi]with the understanding that I would not be his shaykh [= spiritual guide]. God has not yet brought into being on this earth one who could be Mowlânâ's shaykh; he would not be a mortal. But nor am I one to be a disciple. It's no longer in me. Now I come for friendship, relief. It must be such that I do not need to dissimulate (nefâq).... (Maq 777) [Lewis, p. 163]
"By God, I am deficient in knowing Mowlânâ. There is no hypocrisy or politesse or interpretation in these words; I am deficient in knowing him! Every day I realize something about his state and his deeds which I didn't know yesterday. Discover Mowlânâ better, so you do not later grow confused.... This handsome appearance and this fine speech he makes, don't be content with these, for beyond them there is something. Seek that out. (Maq 104)" [Lewis, p. 166] ("[= xxx]" are my own added explanations)
"Shams was a Shâf`i (Maq 182)" [Lewis, p. 142] [= a Sunni Muslim of the Shâf`i school of Islamic law]. The quote from Shams: "I'm a Shâf`ite" [man shaf`awî-m]

"Nor was Shams fanatical about his denominational affiliation.
Shams specifically says he would not allow it to stand in the way of his accepting useful things in the works of Abu Hanifa (Maq 183)" [Lewis, p. 143] [= the Sunni founder of the Hanifi school of Islamic law]. The quote from Shams: "In the school of Abu Haneefa I found something by which my (spiritual) affairs continue going forward; and it is good. (And) if I do not accept [such useful teachings] it would be stubbornness." [dar maZhab-é abû Hanîfa chêzê yâft-am ke kâr-é man ba-d-ân pêsh mê-raw-ad-o nêkô-st, agar qabûl na-kon-am lajâj bâsh-ad]. (my translation)

I'm quoting the above per our previous discussions about Shams, and your thesis that he was a "secret Shi'ite" and not a Sunni Muslim.
There are also some wonderful quotes from the teachings of Shams, including one which grabbed my attention and then I found that Frank had translated it: "What's a shaykh? Being. What's a disciple? Non-existence. Until a disciple ceases to exist, he is not a disciple. (Maq 739)" [Lewis, p. 201] Here's the original Persian: shaykh chî-st? hastî. murîd chî-st? nêstî. tâ murîd nêst na-shaw-ad, murîd na-bâsh-ad.
I had two editions of Shams' Maqaalaat before, but I needed to order the one which Frank Lewis used for his translation, and I was very happy when it arrived in the mail. Sincerely,
Ibrahim

Nasir Shamsi wrote:

Dear Ibrahim,
My intrinsic interest lies in study of Mowlana Rumi and his teacher, Shams Tabriz. Ironically, of late, there is hardly any thing said about them on this site. While I crave to hear from Ibrahim, Frank, Hafeez and yourself on the subject, I am making a humble effort to learn classical Farsi to be able to better appreciate the words of Rumi and Shams Tabriz. I plan to spend a week at Cambridge Oriental Studies Library in end September during my visit to England. This is to learn about cetain hidden areas of Rumi's life, made more ambiguous by the Orientalists who knew little about Islam and Quran, which are the very basis of Rumi's works.
Nasir Shamsi