Page 1
Suhrawardi
First published Wed Dec 26, 2007; substantive revision Wed Apr 4, 2012
Trained in Avicennan Peripateticism, Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi (1154–1191)
became the founder of an Illuminationist (ishraqi) philosophical tradition in the
Islamic East. Since none of his works were translated into Latin, he remained
unknown in the West; but from the 13th century onwards, his works were studied in
a number of philosophical circles in the Islamic East. In the mid-20th century,
Henry Corbin worked relentlessly to edit and study his writings, which led to
renewed interest in Suhrawardi's works and thought, especially in the later part of
the 20th century.
Suhrawardi provided an original Platonic criticism of the dominant Avicennan
Peripateticism of the time in the fields of logic, epistemology, psychology, and
metaphysics, while simultaneously elaborating his own epistemological (logic and
psychology) and metaphysical (ontology and cosmology) Illuminationist theories.
His new epistemological perspective led him to critique the Avicennan Peripatetic
theory of definition, introduce a theory of ‘presential’ knowledge, elaborate a
complex ontology of lights, and add a fourth ‘imaginal’ world.
1. Life and Works
o 1.1 Life
o 1.2 Works
o 1.3 Influences on Suhrawardi
2. Logic
o 2.1 Role of Logic
o 2.2 Definition
3. Physics
o 3.1 Psychology
o 3.2 Epistemology
4. Metaphysics
o 4.1 Essence and Existence
o 4.2 Ontology of Lights
o 4.3 Imaginal World
5. Politics and Ethics
6. Legacy of the Illuminationist Tradition
o 6.1 Post-Suhrawadian Traditions
o 6.2 Historiography
Bibliography
o Primary Sources: Editions, Translations, Commentaries
o Secondary Sources
Academic Tools
Page 2
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
1. Life and Works
1.1 Life
Biographical data on the life of Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi, the ‘master of
illumination’ (shaykh al-ishraq), is scarce. Born in the northwestern Iranian village
of Suhraward in 1154, he pursued his education in nearby Maraghah with Majd al-
Din al-Jili, one of the teachers of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d.1209). He then traveled to
Isfahan, where he studied with the logician Zahir al-Farisi with whom he read a text
on logic written by Ibn Sahlan al-Sawi (d.ca.1170). Suhrawardi then embarked on a
journey that led him to Anatolia. Shams al-Din al-Shahrazuri (d.ca.1288) identifies
this period as his quest for spiritual guidance, a period when he would have met a
number of Sufi masters, such as Fakhr al-Din al-Maridini (d.1198), and would have
sought patrons among the local rulers of Anatolia.
In 1183, Suhrawardi arrived in Aleppo, the year Saladin (d.1193) conquered that
city and handed it over to his son al-Zahir (d.1216). Suhrawardi, a Shafi‘i Sunni,
made a name for himself among religious scholars of the city, such as Iftikhar al-
Din. He eventually managed to secure an audience at the palace and to befriend al-
Zahir. In 1186, he completed his most important work, the Philosophy of
Illumination (hereafter, PI), at the age of thirty-three. Unfortunately, he also
succeeded in alienating the powerful religious elite of Aleppo on whom the
Ayyubids depended for the legitimacy of their rule over the city.
A combination of religious and political factors led to Suhrawardi's downfall. On
the one hand, he was accused of holding heretical beliefs, a vague charge easily
sustained with pre-Islamic Persian names and symbols that some of his works
contain, his claim to divine-like inspiration, and his questioning, in light of God's
omnipotence, the logical finality of Prophethood. On the other hand, his earlier and
close relationships with the rulers of the recently conquered Artuqids of southwest
Anatolia or with al-Zahir, the Ayyubid ruler, may have been interpreted as political
intrigue. In the end, Suhrawardi's fate was sealed with accusations of heresy (rather
than treason). Biographers and historians remain at odds over the exact charges and
course of events that led to his execution at the end of 1191 (or early1192)
(Marcotte 2001a).
1.2 Works
Page 3
Suhrawardi's works are traditionally divided into four categories: several early
works, a number of mystical or allegorical texts, many written in Persian
(Suhrawardi 1976; 1993c; 1999b), minor works which often present Peripatetic
ideas and methods, but which also contain distinctive Illuminationist theses, e.g.,
his Temples of Light(Suhrawardi 1996), and, finally, his four major Arabic works
which Suhrawardi intended to be studied in the following order:
the Intimations (Suhrawardi, 2009 [logic, physics, metaphysics]; cf. Ibn Kammuna
2003, 2009), the Oppositions (Suhrawardi 1993a), the Paths and
Conversations (Suhrawardi 1993a), and the Philosophy of Illumination (Suhrawardi
1993b; 1999a; 1986). In the latter work, Suhrawardi developed his Illuminationist
philosophy in detail, wherein the symbolism of Light becomes central in his
reconfigurations of cosmology and ontology.
Needless to say, such a classification, as well as the theory of two distinct periods
in Suhrawardi's life and works — Peripatetic, followed by Illuminationist — poses
some difficulties. The classification may well be merely heuristic, as it fails to
account for a number of works that expound Peripatetic principles and methods and
yet include a number of Illuminationist principles, e.g., in his Tablets Dedicated to
‘Imad al-Din (Suhrawardi 1976: 99-116) and in his Temples of Light (Suhrawardi
1996; 1976: 139–47). Although Suhrawardi mentions that he was “once zealous in
defense of the Peripatetic path” (PI, 108.8–9), a period during which time he may
have written such works as the Flashes of Light (a précis of Avicennan Peripatetic
theses) whose attribution to a specifically identifiable ‘pre-inspiration’ period
remains problematic; TheFlashes of Light, however, mentions both
the Intimations and the Philosophy of Illumination as completed works (Suhrawardi
1993a: 70.3–7). Although Suhrawardi asserts that his Intimations was a work
written according to the Peripatetic tradition, the work contains some of his more
distinctive Illuminationist positions (Suhrawardi 1993a: 70–7 and 105–21).
Suhrawardi composed most of his treatises over a very short span of time, most
probably during the course of about ten years. The brevity of this period would not
have left him much time to undergo a radical transformation through two different
and successive stages in which he would have espoused two distinct styles and
modes of thought. For Suhrawardi, a great number of valid Peripatetic principles
remain necessary for understanding his Illuminationist Philosophy. Henry Corbin
(d.1978) noted that there may not have been a purely Peripatetic period, though
Suhrawardi confessed he once defended the Peripatetic approach. Very few of his
works can, in fact, be dated; whereas a number of his works were written
simultaneously.
Suhrawardi's works circulated mainly within the traditional philosophical circles of
learning of the Islamic East until the end of the 19th and the beginning of the
Page 4
20thcenturies when, in the wake of the works of Carra de Vaux, Max Horten (1912),
Louis Massignon, Otto Spies and Khatak (1935), and Helmut Ritter, the French
Iranologist Henry Corbin began to study and edit a great number of his works. A
first volume, published in Istanbul in 1945, contained the metaphysics of
Suhrawardi's first three major Arabic works (Suhrawardi 1993a). In 1952, Corbin
then edited Suhrawardi's magnum opus, the Arabic Philosophy of
Illumination (Suhrawardi 1993b; 1999a; 1986), together with two minor works.
Corbin then went on to write his major study on Suhrawardi et les platoniciens de
Perse (Corbin 1971; cf. Abu Rayyan 1969). In 1970, Seyyed Hossein Nasr edited
fourteen of Suhrawardi's Persian texts (two attributed to him), many of which are
allegorical or mystical in nature (Suhrawardi 1993c).
1.3 Influences on Suhrawardi
Mapping Suhrawardi's intellectual trajectory and identifying the sources which he
may have used has proven exceedingly difficult (Walbridge 2000, 2001; cf. Gutas
2003). Suhrawardi was undoubtedly instructed in the Avicennan Peripatetic
tradition (in Maragha and Isfahan), but this would have also included the study of
the ideas of Aristotle, Plato and, most importantly, of the Neoplatonists and earlier
philosophers who wrote in Arabic. Avicenna's (d.1037) works were undoubtedly
central. Much work still needs to be done to assess the real significance of
Avicenna's Discussions (1992) and his Notes on Aristotle's De anima (1984) on
Suhrawardi, as well as the nature of the influence exerted on him by post-
Avicennan philosophers, in particular, Abu al-Barakat al-Baghdadi (d.ca.1150), the
original, yet eclectic critic of Avicenna's logic, psychology and metaphysics, and
the logician Ibn Sahlan al-Sawi.
The influence of both Plato and Aristotle remains readily identifiable in
Suhrawardi's works. Attempts have been made to trace the Greek influences of
such figures as Empedocles, Pythagoras, and the Stoics, an exercise which has led
to Suhrawardi being labeled a ‘Pythagoreanizing Neoplatonist’ (Walbridge 2000;
2001), but with more or less success (see Gutas 2003: 308). Notwithstanding
Suhrawardi's frequent appeals to the authority of Plato, another, more fruitful area
of research might rest with such works as the Arabic Theology of Aristotle (a
paraphrase of parts of Books IV-VI of Plotinus’ Enneads), in particular, the
passages it contains from EnneadsIV, 8.1, where the names of many philosophers
of the Greek tradition important to Suhrawardi are mentioned.
Charting Suhrawardi's intellectual journey and encounters with mysticism, ancient
Greek Gnosticism and Hermeticism, or ancient Persian Zoroastrian traditions, to
whose symbols he often appeals, remains exceedingly difficult. In addition, no one
has as yet fully explored the possible influences of Ismailism or Sufism on
Suhrawardi; his Illuminationist doctrine could have more affinity with Ismaili
Page 5
thought (such as the hierarchical notion of being in the works of 10th century Abu
Ya‘qub al-Sijistani) than with the doctrines of classical Sufis whom he claims to be
following (Landolt 1987), although similarities with certain Sufi theories have been
noted (Landolt 2007). Medieval biographers, on the other hand, readily reported
Suhrawardi's mystical inclination, his association with mystics, his ascetic practices
and (hagiographic) wondrous deeds. Suhrawardi himself considered spiritual
exercises a necessary preparation for the advent of presential knowledge and vision
of the Lights. He often appealed to ancient Zoroastrian motifs, terminology and
mythical figures, even Mazdean theology, e.g., in his Invocations and
Prayers (Suhrawardi, 1976; cf. with occult and devotional works unearthed by
Walbridge, 2011). His appeal to angels as embodiments of the intellective
principles, for example, shares much with ancient Zoroastrian angelology (Corbin
1972: 111–3, 124–5), but also with the angelology found in Abu al-Barakat al-
Baghdadi's Considerations (1939, vol. 2: 157; cf. Pines 1979: 253–5), the latter,
however, being devoid of any ancient Persian symbolism. Without any clear
historical filiations to particular textual traditions, one can only rely on
Suhrawardi's own claims to having intended to provide a synthesis of these ancient
Western and Eastern intellectual traditions. Why Suhrawardi “presented himself as
following these ancient philosophers, and especially Plato, rather than Avicenna”
has yet to be elucidated and adequately explained (Gutas 2003: 309).
2. Logic
2.1 Role of Logic
Very little has been written about Suhrawardi's logical treatises or his logic in
general. Ziai (1990) provides perhaps the only general overview of Suhrawardi's
logic, his criticism of Peripatetic (Aristotelian) essentialist definitions and his own
elaboration of an Illuminationist theory of definition. While Suhrawardi includes
logical discussions in his major Arabic works, in his Philosophy of Illumination, he
ventures a criticism and a restructuring of some elements of Avicennan Peripatetic
logic.
The Philosophy of Illumination does not follow the customary Avicennan tripartite
division into logic, physics, and metaphysics which was standard in Post-
Avicennan Peripatetic works. Instead, Suhrawardi begins with a small number of
useful ‘Rules of Thought’ (PI, 14–105) that cover not only logic, but also elements
of physics and metaphysics which, according to his 13th century commentator
Shahrazuri, are rules derived from the Avicennan Peripatetic corpus (Ziai 1990:
41–76). Suhrawardi first introduces elements of semantics, where he discusses
problems of meaning, conception, assent and the nature, the definition and the
description of ‘reality’ (haqiqa), the latter being equated by Qutb al-Din Shirazi
(d.1311) with quiddity (mahiyya). Suhrawardi also discusses accidents, universals
Page 6
(adopting a more or less nominalist position), innate (fitriyya) and non innate
human knowledge and the notion of definition and its elements (PI, 8.20–11.9). He
then proceeds with short discussions on the conditions of proofs, on defining
propositions, their classes and modalities, and includes a number of discussions on
contradiction, conversion, and some syllogisms (reductio ad absurdum and
demonstrative syllogisms). Suhrawardi identifies some errors of formal and
material logic with the logic of the Peripatetics (an epitome of theSophistical
Refutations). He even includes brief discussions on dialectics, rhetoric, and poetics
whose premises he considers non-scientific and thus part of non demonstrative
syllogisms (Ziai 1990: 41–74). He criticizes the Peripatetics’ understanding of
negation, as well as the second and third figures of the syllogism. He reduces all
types of propositions to necessary affirmative propositions and discusses some of
the differences between the Peripatetics and the Illuminationists regarding a
number of sophisms. Suhrawardi even revisits the classical theory of the ten
Categories which (as with the Stoics) he lumps together and reduces to five:
substance, quality, quantity, relation, and motion, of which the latter four are
accidental categories. The Categories now become ‘degrees of intensity’ (or
perfection) of light that entities possess and that they emit, rather than being merely
distinct ‘ontic entities’ (Ziai 2003: 452). As such, the degree of intensity (with its
corollary ‘weakness’) of light becomes a property of substances as well as of
accidents.
2.2 Definition
Suhrawardi criticizes the Peripatetic theory of definition and the inductive approach
it advocates as a foundation for scientific knowledge and demonstration. He uses
logical and semantic arguments to question ‘essentialist’ types of definitions
(Aristotelian) on which Avicenna's own ‘complete (essentialist) definition’
depends. He rejects the claims that it is possible to obtain a complete definition that
could encompass all the essential constituents needed to lead to the knowledge of
that which is previously unknown and in need of a definition (Ziai 1990: 77–114).
Suhrawardi writes that “it is clear that it is impossible for a human being to
construct an essential definition in the way the Peripatetics require—a difficulty
which even their master [Aristotle] admits. Therefore, we have definition only by
means of things that specify conjunction” (PI, 11.5–9). He insists that a definition
should enumerate, in some kind of unitary formula, all the essential elements of the
described object. He therefore includes elements of definition by extension
(enumeration of members of a ‘class’) and of definition by intension (enumeration
of defining property or properties), for example, that “the essence of man, which is
the truth underlying the symbol ‘man’, is recoverable only in the subject. The act of
‘recovery’ is the translation of the symbol to its equivalent in the consciousness or
the self of the subject” (Ziai 2003: 448–9). Suhrawardi explains his ‘conceptualist’
Page 7
notion of definition at greater length in his Paths and Conversations(Ziai 1990:
110). His epistemological critique of the Peripatetic theory of definition is
undoubtedly inspired by Abu al-Barakat al-Baghdadi's own critical evaluation of
theIsagoge which was developed in his Considerations (1939: vol. 1, 55–7; cf. Ziai
1990: 183–4), but also by Suhrawardi's own understanding of the epistemic role of
self-knowledge.
Suhrawardi proceeds by introducing his reformulation of an Illuminationist theory
of definition that signals what some have identified as a ‘Platonic’ or ‘Neoplatonic’
turn (Ziai 1990: 114–128). Now, only direct experience guarantees acquisition of
true knowledge, such that epistemological considerations are at the heart of his
reconceptualization of the definition. Suhrawardi's theory of definition thus builds
on a Platonic epistemology. Knowledge of the reality of things occurs through the
direct apprehension of the intrinsic light-nature (the thing as it is) of all entities (see
metaphysics below). Direct knowledge occurs through ‘vision-illumination’, as a
person realizes that what is to be defined becomes available to one's self through
self-consciousness. At such time, the soul becomes directly aware of the reality of
that which is to be defined. The soul is then able to grasp directly these essences
whose elements can then be translated using proofs and demonstrations to develop
a discursive type of knowledge about that original apperception of reality.
Suhrawardi writes that, in and of itself, light is not in need of any definition,
because all that is required is for light to be experienced, as there is nothing more
evident than light. In his Paths and Conversations, Suhrawardi writes that to define
something is to actually ‘see’ the thing as it really is (Ziai 1990: 104–14).
Suhrawardi begins the second part of his Philosophy of Illumination by stating that
“anything in existence that requires no definition or explanation is evident. Since
there is nothing more evident than light, there is nothing less in need of definition”
(PI, 76), thereby establishing the centrality of the concept of light for his
Illuminationist ontology and epistemology. Suhrawardi argues that only direct
intuitive experience can lead to knowledge of the reality (haqiqa) of things, which
definitions can only attempt to describe and explain via a posteriori rational
investigations or demonstrations (Ziai 1990: 81). Qutb al-Din Shirazi noted that
Illuminationist epistemology relied on this type of personal and intuitive
knowledge, itself not in need of any definition (Ziai 1990: 133).
3. Physics
Suhrawardi's Intimations, Paths and Conversations, and Oppositions contain
substantial sections on physics, although all have remained unstudied. At present,
only the physics of the Intimations has been edited, together with a commentary by
Ibn Kammuna (2003). In the Philosophy of Illumination, Suhrawardi deals mainly
with some general principles of physics, but not with any kind of detail. With his
Page 8
philosophy of lights, he manages, nonetheless, to reconfigure some elements of
physics. He criticizes, for example, the Peripatetic hylomorphic division of matter
and form, since hylomorphism becomes incompatible with the ontic luminosity of
reality. Immaterial entities and material bodies that are composed of varying
degrees of light remain ‘unitary concrete entities’. The physical world is composed
of dusky substances with dark accidents, while self-subsistent magnitude appears to
replace prime matter which, like a number of traditional physical notions, becomes
a mere mental concept that has no reality outside the mind. It is no longer the
perception of the form of objects, but their constitutive lights that becomes the true
object of knowledge (Walbridge 2000: 22–3).
3.1 Psychology
Suhrawardi equally revisits Avicenna's psychology. The soul remains an
immaterial, self-subsisting, living, knowing substance, capable of ruling over the
body, but now defined in terms of its luminosity. A relation of dominion and desire
is established between the luminous substance of the soul and the tenebrous
substance of the body. Between the two, the psychic pneuma functions as an
intermediary that is able to receive images, forms or ‘icons’ of metaphysical
realities that it then reflects and manifests into the soul.
Vision remains the most important sense. It is integrated into Suhrawardi's
Illuminationist theory of vision and incorporated into his theory of knowledge by
presence. Suhrawardi begins with a criticism and a rejection of the prevalent
‘extramissive’ and ‘intromissive’ theories of vision on account of the materialist
implications of the imprinting of forms in the material substratum of the eye.
Although mediated by a physical organ, vision remains primarily an activity of the
human soul, whereby the soul accesses directly the reality of the objects of vision.
In the Philosophy of Illumination, the vision of physical objects requires, first, a
‘presential’ face-to-face encounter of that which perceives, both the physical organ
and the human soul, and the illuminated object; second, the absence of obstacles
between subject and object, often described in mystical terms as the absence of
veils, whereby the soul becomes illuminated by the (substantial or accidental) light
of the object; and finally, the presence of light, the necessary condition for the
establishment of an Illuminationist relation. Vision thus unfolds simultaneously on
two different planes, physical visual perception being reduced to the soul's
perception or awareness of the intrinsic and essential light possessed by the object.
True vision does not require the presence and transmission of forms, but occurs
through the soul's ability to be aware of the essential light-reality of the object.
Physics and metaphysics thus merge, as objects have the ability to receive and emit
light, though only in an accidental manner, light being precisely what the light-soul,
Page 9
the Isfahbad-light, is able to perceive, whether it be through the senses, the
intellect, intuition, or dreams (PI, 240.4–241.4).
Suhrawardi criticizes the localization of the internal faculties in different parts of
the brain, as their localization in a material organ again naturalizes the process of
representation. Internal faculties now become shadows (or functions) of the soul,
lumped together into a single faculty responsible for representation. The Isfahbad-
light principle accesses the supernal lights, rules over the active imagination, and
reflects onto it the lights it receives. The faculty of representation perceives
particulars, while the ruling light, the Isfahbad-light principle guaranteeing the
unity of the soul, perceives universals and immaterial entities. The new emphasis
on the totality of the soul, as the main perceiving entity, and the reduction of the
Avicennan faculties traditionally responsible for representation to a single faculty
could find their origin in Abu al-Barakat al-Baghdadi's Considerations (1939, vol.
2: 318-24; cf. Pines 1979: 227–31). As for recollection, Suhrawardi defines it in a
rather Platonic manner, whereby it becomes the retrieval of images (or concepts)
whose existence lies in the ‘world of memorial’, accessible only to the luminous
part of the soul.
Illumination becomes a metaphor for the intellective process. Illuminative relations
are established between metaphysical active light principles and the human soul.
Whereas only the (rational) Isfahbad-light part of the soul is immortal, Suhrawardi,
nevertheless, notes the possibility for the imaginative faculty of souls that have not
yet achieved perfection to perhaps survive, something that is required for the
experiencing of divine retribution and for the perfecting of souls in the afterlife.
The spheres of Ether and Zamharir, both situated below the Moon and associated
with the world of elements, are identified as possible ‘pneumatic’ substrata for the
posthumous activities of the imaginative faculties of those souls (Suhrawardi
1993c: 245.5–7). Suhrawardi attempted, therefore, to postulate the existence of an
independent eschatological realm with the assistance of which sensitive perceptions
could occur in the form of imaginal representations (Marcotte, 2011). Finally, he
does not appear to completely reject the possibility of some kind of transmigration
of souls, especially of miserable souls, in spite of the fact that he does not overtly
affirm it and that many other passages seem to deny it (Schmidtke 1999).
3.2 Epistemology
Suhrawardi's Illuminationist epistemology revolves around his theory of
‘presential’ (huduri) knowledge that one is able to achieve through intuitive
apprehension or contemplative vision (mushahada). Qutb al-Din Shirazi noted the
importance of continuous practice of spiritual exercises for the occurrence of such
intuitive and mystical aptitudes to access true reality. The ‘Plotinian’
(cf. Enneads V 3.6) Aristotle figure of Suhrawardi's famous dream-vision found in
Page 10
his Intimations (cf. Walbridge 2000: 225–9) provides us with an illustrious
example of what constitutes, for Suhrawardi, real knowledge based on immediate
and intuitive knowledge. Whereas the Peripatetics had extolled intellection,
Suhrawardi brings direct intuition or mystical contemplation (heightened by ascetic
components) to the forefront, as an alternative — albeit more reliable — foundation
of certainty. Intuitive knowledge provides access to a priori truths of which
discursive knowledge can only be subsequently validated through a
posteriori demonstrations (Dinani 1985; Ha’iri Yazdi 1992; Aminrazavi 1997;
2003).
Suhrawardi explores some of the issues raised by the hypothetical example of the
‘suspended’ person found in Avicenna's Discussions and his Notes on
Aristotle's De anima, and his treatments of the soul in the Cure and the Salvation.
He analyzes the notions of apperception and self-awareness and alludes to a pre-
logical mode of perception that remains distinct from intellection. He discusses the
primary awareness of the soul's existence, its self-identity, the unmediated
character of this particular type of knowledge and issues of individuation. He
provides various arguments to demonstrate the existence of a type of knowledge
that is self-evident, a priori and unmediated through any type of abstraction and
representation of forms, whether it be through an image, a form, a notion or an
attribute of the self. The perception of pain becomes paradigmatic of self-
knowledge as unmediated perception, i.e., a non discursive, non-conceptual and
non-propositional type of knowledge that, nonetheless, does constitute a mode of
knowing distinct from discursive knowledge. Similar to pain, self-knowledge
provides yet another illustration of the type of epistemic process that Suhrawardi
considers being at the heart of intuitive knowledge. The unmediated nature of this
process characterizes both the soul's self-knowledge and the soul's knowledge of
supernal entities and the glimpses of the Light of Lights it may obtain (Marcotte
2006; see the more recent studies of Kaukua, 2011 and Eichner, 2011).
In Suhrawardi's ‘science of lights’, the object of perception — light — cannot be
known discursively, but only through an immediate presence or awareness of its
luminosity. Mystical vision and contemplation operate through this intuitive
process of knowing metaphysical lights. Individuals achieve such states through
spiritual and ascetic practices that enable them to detach themselves from the
darknesses of the world in their quest for the apperception of those lights. Intuitive
knowledge thus constitutes a superior means of accessing the luminous reality and
the divine realm of metaphysical truths.
Suhrawardi appears to spiritualize Avicenna's Peripatetic epistemology with a
greatly Platonic reading, now that the access to the ultimate reality is guaranteed
through divine photic illumination. His classification of learned men according to
Page 11
their respective merits in discursive (philosophy) and intuitive (mystical)
knowledge is revealing. Direct intuition or mystical contemplation plays a
predominant role, even for prophets. Prophetic knowledge relies on the functions of
the faculty of imagination, i.e., its mimetic function and its role in the
particularization of universal truths. Prophecy becomes the ‘direct’ experience of
the world of lights. Suhrawardi also introduces an independent imaginal realm to
account for the ability of prophets and other gifted individuals to access divine
metaphysical realms where imaginal forms already exist. Such individuals are
either commissioned or uncommissioned to receive and transmit God's message,
the prophets being those who are among the privileged commissioned.
Direct intuition lies at the heart of Suhrawardi's prophetology, inasmuch as only the
most perfect sage who witnesses those truths, whether he be a prophet or not,
deserves God's viceregency, by being either a living proof or in occultation.
Individuals who have access to those metaphysical lights can be invested with the
viceregency of God, depending on the degree of their receptivity and the purity of
their hearts. On the whole, however, the epistemic process by which mystics such
as Abu Yazid al-Bistami (d.874), Sahl al-Tustari (d.896) and Hallaj (d.912), sages
such as Zarathustra and Empedocles, philosophers such as Pythagoras and Plato, or
Suhrawardi himself have all had access to those metaphysical truths and divine
realms remains quite similar to the process by which prophets have accessed the
same divine and metaphysical truths. Liberated from the enslavement of the
material world, their Isfahbad-light souls become receptive to illumination and
perceive truths similar to those perceived by prophets. Prophetic and mystical
knowledge only occur once the human soul is able to conjoin with those
metaphysical lights. The soul is able to acquire a luminous and theurgic power,
mediated by the active imagination which existentiates images and forms that have
been reflected, in a mirror-like manner, onto it. It can imitate and reproduce forms
that it has received from non-sensible realms, as it short-circuits all incoming
external and sensible data. The faculty of active imagination then projects those
matters onto the ‘common sense’ which provides a sensible form to those divine
metaphysical realities that they did not originally possess.
4. Metaphysics
In his Philosophy of Illumination, Suhrawardi develops a complex metaphysic of
‘divine’ lights. Light, the lynchpin of his metaphysics, structures his ontology and
cosmology at the heart of which lies a spectrum of light and darkness that shapes
the whole of reality. In his Intimations (1993a: 2.11–3.16), philosophy is divided
into theoretical and practical components, where the practical includes ethics,
economics and politics, while the theoretical is concerned with immaterial realities,
the highest theoretical component being concerned with absolute being (wujud).
Page 12
4.1 Essence and Existence
The concept of light manages to ‘disrupt’ classical Peripatetic ontology by
somehow rendering irrelevant the Avicennan distinction between essence and
existence in contingent beings (Rizvi 2000). Perhaps following Aristotle, Avicenna
favored the primacy of essence over existence, the latter considered an abstract
concept. Suhrawardi criticized and rejected the Peripatetic logical distinction
between the two concepts, insisting that the concept of existence is added to
quiddity in re, such that the general extension of the concept of existence remains a
mental predicate, not a real one. For Suhrawardi, concepts such as essence and
existence considered a prioriand real were “merely mental considerations (i‘tibari)
with no corresponding reality” (Rizvi 1999: 222).
The primacy of light signals a shift in the understanding of the very nature of the
‘essence’ of things. The degree or intensity of light of essences makes them distinct
from one another, although they all share in the same light whose origins remain
with the Light of Lights. Everything partakes in and of light, in an almost infinite
manner. The distinction between essence and existence no longer becomes
appropriate to assert contingency and only remains notional, since the difference
between necessary and contingent beings now depends on whether a being
possesses light in itself or light for other than itself (Rizvi 1999: 223). In
his Philosophy of Illumination (83.24–7), Suhrawardi writes: “Light is divided into
light of itself and in itself and light of itself but in another. You know that
accidental light is light in another. Thus, it is not a light initself although it is a
light of itself”.
Rizvi showed how later philosophers ascribed the ontological primacy of essence
(or quiddity) thesis to Suhrawardi and noted that he “clearly states that
quiddity/essence in itself is a conceptual and unreal a notion as existence” (Rizvi
1999: 224), Suhrawardi noting that “the quiddity of luminosity [i.e., the same as
light] is a mental universal” (PI, 92.4–5). But it is also true that Suhrawardi's
“phenomenological epistemology of eidetic vision” could easily imply a primacy of
essence (Rizvi 1999: 224). Suhrawardi's position, therefore, is greatly nominalist,
now that both existence and essence are considered mere mental concepts, reality
having been redefined with the new primacy of light. Light and essence cannot,
however, be synonymous. Both light and darkness exist: “light is the being of
things as their instantiating principle in concreto and not their essences” (Rizvi
1999: 224). By the same token, light is not identical with substance, since both dark
substances and accidental lights exist (Walbridge 2000: 24). Rizvi (1999: 224)
notes that entities grasped as essences through presential knowledge are “apparent
aspects of what one might regard as ‘light monads’”, an idea whose source appears
to be greatly Platonic.
Page 13
For Suhrawardi, being is grasped through the (non-sensible) vision of lights that lie
beyond the essences, as even the existence of bodies depends upon incorporeal
lights (PI, 78.10–79.18). In his Philosophy of Illumination (79.19–22), Suhrawardi
writes that “Nothing that has an essence [dhat] of which it is not unconscious is
dusky, for its essence is evident to it. It cannot be a dark state in something else,
since even the luminous state is not a self-subsistent light, let alone the dark state.
Therefore, it is nonspatial pure incorporeal light”. Access to this ultimate reality of
beings is achieved through the direct experience of its ontic light reality, rendering
intuitive and non-discursive knowledge (logically) prior to any other type of
knowledge. Later, Mulla Sadra (d.1640) noted Suhrawardi's confusion between the
concept of existence and the reality of existence and replaced Suhrawardi's notion
of light with the notion of being, blending Avicenna's ontology of contingency with
Suhrawardi's Illuminationist hierarchy of lights (Rizvi 1999: 225).
4.2 Ontology of Lights
In the Niche of Lights (1998), Muhammad al-Ghazali (d.1111) discussed mystical
epistemology using Qur’anic light terminology, whereas Suhrawardi, in
his Philosophy of Illumination, developed a truly original light ontology. While
light always remains in itself identical, its proximity or distance from the Light of
Lights determines the ontic light reality of all beings. Light operates through the
activities of dominion of the higher ‘triumphal’ or ‘victorial’ lights, as well as the
desire of the lower lights for the higher ones, operating at all levels and hierarchies
of reality (PI, 97.7–98.11). Reality proceeds from the Light of Lights and unfolds
via the First Light and all the subsequent lights whose exponential interactions
bring about the existence of all entities. As each new light interacts with other
existing lights, more light and dark substances are generated. Light produces both
immaterial and substantial lights, such as immaterial intellects (angels), human and
animal souls. Light produces dusky substances, such as bodies. Light can generate
both luminous accidents, such as those in immaterial lights, physical lights or rays,
and dark accidents, whether it be in immaterial lights or in bodies (PI, 77.1–78.9).
Suhrawardi's metaphysics of lights rests on at least two central principles which
account for all the basic classes of beings (light and darkness, substance and state,
independent and dependent beings). A first principle, Walbridge notes, “is a form
of the principle of sufficient reason, ‘the principle of the most noble contingency’
[…] which asserts that nothing can exist without a cause of higher ontological
level” (PI, 90.1–92.25). A second principle is the Aristotelian “impossibility of an
ordered, actual infinity” which, with the first principle, guarantees that “there
cannot be an infinite number of levels of being and that there must be one being
whose existence is necessary in itself—Avicenna's ‘Necessary of Existence’ (wajib
al-wujud)”, the Light of Lights (Walbridge 2000: 24–5; PI, 87.1–89.8).
Page 14
With the notion of intensity of light, Suhrawardi then develops his two-fold process
of light production. A vertical and a horizontal hierarchy of pure immaterial lights
structure his Illuminationist metaphysics. From the Light of Lights proceeds a first
vertical hierarchy of lights: from the Light of Lights proceeds a First Light
(following the classical principle that from the one only the one proceeds) from
which proceeds a Second Light and the all-encompassing barzakh (i.e., a ethereal
body), from the second a Third Light and the Second barzakh, or the Sphere of
Fixed Stars, and so forth. The first vertical hierarchy of lights mirrors the
Avicennan Peripatetic process of emanation of Intelligences. Suhrawardi, however,
increases the number of active principles, something that Averroes denounced in
Avicenna's Neoplatonic ontology. Suhrawardi's ‘triumphal’ or ‘victorial’ lights are
now as numerous as there are stars in the fixed heavens. While no longer limited to
the ten Peripatetic Intelligences and now indefinite in number, they are not infinite
(PI, 99.20–100.19).
The vertical hierarchy of lights interacts with a horizontal hierarchy of lights. This
second hierarchy of ‘ruling’ lights incorporates, amongst other things, ancient
angelologies (Semitic angelic hierarchies and Zoroastrian mythology) and some
type of Platonic Forms. Each of these horizontal lights becomes a ‘Lord of
Species’, i.e., a luminous self-subsisting and fixed species, whose function is
analogous to the Platonic Forms in so far as it ‘governs’ the species under it (rather
than being a mere universal), such as the species of bodies that move the celestial
spheres and all matters sublunar, including human souls. Out of the interaction of
the vertical and the horizontal lights, the bodies of the lower world are generated.
These horizontal or vertical lights are all structurally interrelated through the
principle of love that the lower lights have for the higher lights and the principle of
domination that the higher lights have over the lower ones (PI, 101.12–103.31).
The two dimensional hierarchy of lights introduces a new non linear notion of
metaphysical causation.
The multiplication of metaphysical entities serves to increase the ontological
distance that exists between the Light of Lights and the sublunar world, while
simultaneously providing a greater holistic view of reality, since light lies at its
core. Notions of intensity and gradation of light, together with notions of presence
and self-manifestation, are thus central to Suhrawardi's metaphysics. The intensity
of light corresponds to the degree of their self-awareness, such that the self-
awareness of the Light of Lights encompasses all of reality (in terms of intensity).
Later, Mulla Sadra (d.1640) takes up Suhrawardi's insight about the gradation and
intensity of light and develops an ontology based on the gradation of existence
(rather than light) of all beings, somehow reversing Suhrawardi's ontology with his
primacy of existence and his understanding of essence as a mental concept.
Page 15
4.3 Imaginal World
About half a century earlier than Ibn ‘Arabi (d.1240), Suhrawardi introduced his
own independent ‘imaginal world’, what Corbin has called the mundus imaginalis,
a fourth ‘imaginal’ world, alongside the intelligible, the spiritual and the material.
This imaginal world, a substance made of shadows, operates like an ‘isthmus’ or an
intermediary realm between the world of pure light and the physical world of
darkness, lying somewhere between this physical world and the world of the
species and of Platonic Forms (the horizontal lights), perhaps at the lower threshold
of the world of souls.
In the imaginal world, entities somehow possess an existence of their own (some,
prior to their coming into existence in this world). The imaginal world contains
images that are not embedded in matter, a plane of “ghosts, of the forms in mirrors,
dreams, and worlds of wonder beyond our own” which light can existentiate
(Walbridge 2000: 26). The imaginal world provides the material for the miraculous.
It is where the ‘metahistorical’ (Corbin's term) visions of Imams occur, where
eschatological forms and images will perhaps be existentiated for the souls of the
deceased, so that they may continue to perfect their souls (PI, 148.29–150.17), as
well as where elements not fitting conveniently into the Aristotelian scheme of
forms in matter are found. Suhrawardi did not, however, systematically develop the
concept. This was left to his followers.
5. Politics and Ethics
Suhrawardi's Philosophy of Illumination carries a political dimension. Ziai (1992)
provides an overview of what he calls the ‘Illuminationist political doctrine’ which
establishes a connection between political authority, just rule, and the ruler's access
to divine light. This is particularly manifest in the Tablets Dedicated to ‘Imad al-
Din(Suhrawardi 1993c: 184.12–188.4) and the Book of Radiance (Suhrawardi
1998: 84–5), where Suhrawardi appeals to ancient Persian notions of royal glory
(kharrah) and of luminous divine light (farrah), two signs of the divine authority of
ancient kings of Iranian mythology, the divine lights that instructed Kay Khusraw
and Zarathustra (PI, 156.3–157.3).
Suhrawardi may, in fact, appeal to a somewhat ‘mythological’ genealogy of the
transmission of ancient Illuminationist philosophies from the Greek/West and the
Iranian/East which he claims to revive. Ziai speculates that Suhrawardi tried to put
into practice the political dimension of his Illuminationist philosophy (Ziai 1992:
337; cf. Walbridge 2000: 201–10), based mainly on passages from Suhrawardi's
works and the possible circumstances of his demise and execution. Historical data
supporting the thesis, Suhrawardi's relationship with his many patrons and the
Page 16
purpose of passages relating to these Illuminationist political doctrines need further
examination.
The ethics underlying Suhrawardi's Illuminationist system has yet to be adequately
investigated, but the political doctrines can provide indications of the conditions
that would guarantee the reign of a just rule, thus providing some elements of an
Illuminationist political ethic. Suhrawardi's particularly Platonic understanding of
the mystic quaruler and his political role, coupled with the role of intuitive or
‘mystical’ access to the ‘divine’ lights by prophets, mystics and sages might,
however, not leave Suhrawardi immune to the same criticism Popper leveled
against Plato.
One needs to turn to Suhrawardi's eschatology and his discussions on the fate of the
soul in the afterlife to obtain a glimpse of what might constitute a ‘good’ and
ethical life in this world. In line with Avicenna's classification of souls in the
hereafter according to their worldly acquisition of practical and theoretical
knowledge, the moral qualities developed in this life determine the fate of souls in
the afterlife (PI, 148.27–150.17). In search of felicity, souls must attempt to detach
themselves from their tenebrous bodies and all that is worldly and material and to
access the world of immaterial lights. Souls engrossed in matter in this life partially
determine their fate in the afterlife and Suhrawardi, in this respect, does not depart
greatly from Peripatetic eschatology.
Prophets, saints and exceptionally gifted mystics are able to achieve conjunction
with the world of pure lights. Ascetic practices in this life become a means to attain
self-consciousness of the ontic luminosity of the soul. Some of Suhrawardi's
allegorical and mystical treatises, such as The Treatise of the Bird, A Tale of
Occidental Exile orA Day with a Group of Sufis (Suhrawardi 1982; cf. Landolt
1987), provide examples of the pedagogical role and instruction of the guide figure,
of the Lord of the human species, or of spiritual entities to the novice in his or her
quest for the immaterial world of lights in which salvation lies. The posthumous
life of individual souls and their ability to perceive the promised other-worldly
rewards and punishments become conditions for divine retribution.
6. Legacy of the Illuminationist Tradition
6.1 Post-Suhrawadian Traditions
The tragic end of Suhrawardi marked the birth of the Illuminationist tradition. By
the end of the 13th century, at least two of Suhrawardi's works were readily
available and studied in the major centers of learning of Syria (Damascus and
Aleppo), Iraq (Baghdad) and Iran (Maraghah), some of which circulated most
probably even before his death. Ziai (2003: 473–87) identifies at least two trends
Page 17
within the Illuminationist tradition of the 13th century that were to shape later
developments: Ibn Kammuna (d.1284), on the one hand, emphasized the purely
discursive and the more systematically philosophical aspects of Suhrawardi's
Illuminationist philosophy, while Shahrazuri, on the other hand, focused and
expanded on the symbolic and the allegorical aspects of the tradition. Ibn
Kammuna, a Jewish philosopher greatly influenced by both Avicenna and
Suhrawardi is the first commentator (Langermann 2005: 297–301; Pourjavady and
Schmidtke 2006: 23–32). While in Baghdad, Ibn Kammuna (2003) wrote his
commentary on the physics and the psychology of Suhrawardi's Intimations (in
1268). Having resided in Aleppo, Ibn Kammuna could well be, with such works as
his al-Kashif (al-Jadid fi al-Hikma) completed in 1278, the link between
Suhrawardi and Shahrazuri (d.ca.1288) who wrote the earliest commentary on
the Philosophy of Illumination (Shahrazuri 1993; cf. Marcotte 2002) and whose
encyclopedic The Divine Tree (Shahrazuri, 2004 and 2005 [a better edition];
Marcotte 2001b) and his Book of Symbols (Privot 2004) can readily be labeled
Illuminationist works, although much work is needed to determine the extent of
Shahrazuri's contribution to the Illuminationist tradition. In 1295, Qutb al-Din
Shirazi wrote his own commentary on the Philosophy of Illumination (Shirazi
2001; Suhrawardi 1986), based on Shahrazuri's work (Walbridge 1992).
Authors that incorporated Illuminationist ideas include Muhammad Ibn Rizi
(fl.ca.1280), in his Life of Souls (Marcotte 2004); Athir al-Din al-Abhari (d.1242)
in hisUncovering of the Realities; Ibn Abi Jumhur Ahsa’i (d.1501) (Schmidtke
2000); the two theologians Jalal al-Din Dawwani (d.1501) and Ghiyath al-Din
Dashtaki (d.1541) who both wrote commentaries on Suhrawardi's Temples of
light (Dawwani 1953; Dashtaki 2003; Suhrawardi 1996); and Mir Damad (d.1631),
especially in his Spiritual Attractions (2001) and his Embers (1977). Mulla Sadra
(Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi) (d.1640) was most interested in Suhrawardi's critique of
Avicennan Peripateticism (existence as a being of reason, the Platonic Forms, and
knowledge by presence) and wrote marginal glosses on Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi's
commentary on the Philosophy of Illumination (Mulla Sadra, 2010; cf. with
Suhrawardi 1986). Mulla Sadra positioned himself in opposition to what he
understood to be Suhrawardi's view that quiddity was primary, a view shared by
Mir Damad (d.1631), and instead held, such as Hadi Sabzawari (d.1873) after him,
that existence was primary.
During the same period, Suhrawardi's works entered the Turkish Ottoman and
Persian Indian philosophical traditions. In the Ottoman world, Isma‘il Ankaravi
(d.1631), a member of the Mevlevi Sufi order, translated and commented
Suhrawardi Temples of Light (Kuspinar 1996). In the 17th century, the enigmatic
Ahmad Ibn al-Harawi (probably from Herat) living in the Indian subcontinent,
translated into Persian the Philosophy of Illumination on which he wrote a
Page 18
commentary (Harawi 1979). Azar Kayvan (d.ca.1615), a Zoroastrian high priest
from Fars who emigrated to Gujurat in Mughal India during the reign of Emperor
Akbar (ruled 1556–1605), started a Zoroastrian Illuminationist school (Walbridge
2001: 91–3). Even thinkers of the twentieth century, such as Muhammad Kazim
‘Assar, have been influenced by the Illuminationist tradition (Ziai 2003: 472).
Cataloguing and making accessible hundreds of philosophical works in Arabic and
Persian from the 12th-19th century, such as the recent publication of the Persian
work of Shihab al-Din Kumijani (d.1895), the Nur al-Fu'ad, or the Inner Light, are
bound to shed new light on the legacy of Suhrawardi's works. On the whole,
however, almost nothing has been written on the history of the philosophical legacy
of Suhrawardi's Philosophy of Illumination.
6.2 Historiography
Historiography of the Illuminationist tradition has been dominated by two main
schools of thought. The first, older and more prevalent school, views Suhrawardi as
the founder of a mystical, esoteric and ‘theosophical’ tradition. Its roots are found
in Corbin's mystical or ‘theosophical’ paradigm (Gutas 2002: 16–9). The adoption
of an ‘esoteric’ wisdom or ‘theosophy’ (Corbin), or even a philosophia
perennis approach (Nasr), to Suhrawardi's work often overemphasizes the mystical
at the expense of the philosophical and somehow blurs the distinction between
philosophy, theology and mysticism. Proponents of this approach highlight
Suhrawardi's aim to expound on Avicenna's incomplete project to develop an
‘Eastern’ (not ‘illuminative’) philosophy of Khurasan (mashriqiyya), in spite of the
fact that Avicenna's ‘Eastern’ philosophy was not a mystical enterprise, but merely
a philosophical tradition distinct from the one of the school of Baghdad (Gutas
2000). More generally, the proponents of the mystical approach interpret
Illuminationist philosophy as a break or a departure from Avicennan Peripateticism
(Mehdi H. Yazdi, Hossein Nasr, Ashtiyani), rather than seeing it as its extension
and critique. Scholars have often overlooked the fact that Suhrawardi's major works
are largely devoted to technical philosophical questions, of which his allegorical or
minor works are not devoid.
Some, such as Fakhry (1982), have gone so far as to question the originality of
Suhrawardi's Philosophy of Illumination, deeming it a mere transposition of
Avicennan philosophy into a light terminology. Izutsu (1971) was one of the first to
explore the analytical aspect of Suhrawardi's work, followed especially by Ziai
(1990), but also by Walbridge (2000, 2001) who have focused on some of the
analytical and philosophical elements of Suhrawardi's Philosophy of Illumination.
While some, such as Henry Corbin and Mohammad Mo’in, have viewed
Suhrawardi as the reviver of some ancient form of Persian philosophy, others, such
as Ziai (2003: 443), are more skeptical and note the absence of textual evidence for
Page 19
such an independent Persian philosophical tradition. Similarly, Gutas (2003) notes
the absence of textual evidence to support the claim that Suhrawardi attempted to
revive ancient Western Greek, Gnostic and Hermetic traditions. Research should
perhaps focus on the reasons why Suhrawardi appealed to the authority of the
‘Ancients’, East and West, rather than on trying to find ‘real’ historical filiations to
sources to which Suhrawardi might have had access.
More studies are needed on the works of authors who belonged to, or who were
influenced by the Illuminationist tradition (see e.g., Schmidtke 2000; Pourjavadi &
Schmidtke 2006). This will provide the much needed accounts of the complex
historical and philosophical developments of the Illuminationist tradition. Although
recent scholarship highlights Suhrawardi's critique of Avicennan Peripatetic logic,
epistemology and metaphysics (Ziai 1990) and even psychology, more studies are
needed that explore specific logical, epistemological, physical, and metaphysical
issues found in Suhrawardi's four major Arabic texts and that compare
systematically Suhrawardi'sPhilosophy of Illumination with Avicenna's major
works, such as the Cure. This will undoubtedly provide new insight into
Suhrawardi's greatly Platonic reworking of Avicennan Peripateticism, what Gutas
(2002) has identified as Suhrawardi's Illuminationist Avicennism.
Bibliography
Primary Sources: Editions, Translations, Commentaries
Al-Baghdadi, Abu al-Barakat (1939). Al-Mu‘tabar fi al-Hikmah, 3 vols, ed. S.
Yaltkaya, Haydarabad: Jam‘iyyat Da’irat al-Ma‘arif al-‘Uthmaniyya.
Avicenna (Ibn Sina) (1992). Al-Mubahathat, ed. and commentary M. Bidar, Qum:
Bidar.
––– (1984). Al-Ta‘liqat, ed. and commentary A. Badawi, Qum: Maktab al-I‘lam al-
Islami [reprint of the Cairo ed.].
Dawwani, M. (1953). Shawakil al-Hur fi Sharh Hayakil al-Nur, ed. T.
Chandrasekharan, critical ed. M. Abdul Haq and M. Y. Kokan, Madras:
Government Oriental Manuscripts Library.
Dashtaki, G. D. (2003). Ishraq Hayakil al-Nur li-Kashf Zulumat Shawakil al-
Gharur, ed. A. Awjabi, Tehran: Mirath-i Maktub.
Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid Muhammad (1998). The Niche of Lights [Mishkat al-
Anwar], A Parallel English-Arabic Text, trans., intro., and notes D. Buchman,
Provo (UT): Brigham Young University Press.
Harawi, M. (1979). Anwariyya: Tarjuma va Sharh-i Hikmat al-Ishraq-i
Suhrawardi, ed. H. Ziai, Tehran: Amir Kabir [Persian translation and commentary
of Suhrawardi's Philosophy of Illumination].
Ibn Kammuna (2009), Sharh al- al-Tawihat al-Lawhiyya wa al-‘Arshiyya, 3 vols,
ed. and into. Najaf Quli Habibi, Tehran: Mirath-I Maktub.
Page 20
––– (2008), al-Kashif (al-Jadid fi al-Hikma) , ed. and intro. Hamid Naji Isfahani,
Tehran: Institute of Islamic Studies, Free University of Berlin / Mu'assasa
Pazuhishi Hikmat va Falsafa-yi Iran.
––– (2003). Al-Tanqihat fi Sharh al-Talwihat (Refinement and Commentary on
Suhrawardi's Intimations. A Thirteenth Century Text on Natural Philosophy and
Psychology), critical ed., intro. and analysis H. Ziai and A. Alwishah, Costa Mesa
(CA): Mazda.
Kumijani, Shihab al-Din (2012). Inner Light [Nur al-Fu'ad]: A 19th Century
Persian Text in Illuminationist Philosophy, ed., intro. and notes H. Siai and M.K.
Zanjani Asl, Costa Mesa(CA): Mazda.
Kuspinar, B. (1996). Isma‘il Ankaravi on the Illuminative Philosophy, Kuala
Lumpur: ISTAC [Ottoman text of Ankaravi with English translation of
Suhrawardi'sTemples of Light].
Mir Damad (1977). Al-Qabasat, ed. M. Mohaghegh, T. Izutsu et al., Tehran:
University of Tehran/McGill University, Institute of Islamic Studies, Tehran
Branch.
––– (2001). Jadhawat wa Mawaqit, ed. A. Nuri and A. Awjabi, Tehran: Mirath-i
Maktub.
Mulla Sadra (Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi) (2010), Addenda on the commentary on the
Philosophy of illumination: Part One on the Rules of Thought (al-Taʻliqat ʻala
Sharh Hikmat al-Ishraq), critical ed., into. Hossein Ziai, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda.
Shirazi, Qutb al-Din (2001). Sharh-i Hikmat al-Ishraq, ed. A. Nourani and M.
Mohaghegh, Tehran: University of Tehran/McGill University, Institute of Islamic
Studies, Tehran Branch [commentary on Suhrawardi's Philosophy of Illumination].
Shahrazuri, Shams al-Din (2005), Rasa'il al-Shajara al-Ilahiyya fi ‘ulum al-Haqa'il
al-Rabbaniyya, 3vols, ed., intro and notes Najafquli Habibi, Tehran: Iranian
Institute of Philosophy.
––– (2004), , Rasa'il al-Shajara al-Ilahiyya fi ‘ulum al-Haqa'il al-Rabbaniyya, 3
vols., ed., Necip Görgün, Istanbul: Elif Yayınları.
––– (1993). Sharh-i Hikmat al-Ishraq, critical ed., intro. and notes H. Ziai, Tehran:
Mu’assasah-yi Mutali‘at wa Tahqiqat-i Farhangi [commentary on
Suhrawardi'sPhilosophy of Illumination].
Spies, O. and S. K. Khatak (1935). Three Treatises on Mysticism by Shihabuddin
Suhrawerdi Maqul; with an account of his Life and Poetry, ed. and trans. O. Spies
and S. K. Khatak, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din (2009), al-Tawihat al-Lawhiyya wa al-‘Arshiyya , ed.
and intro. Najaf Quli Habibi, Tehran: Mu'assasa-yi Pazhuhishi Hikmat va Falsafa-
yi Iran.
–––(1999a). The Philosophy of Illumination. A New Critical Edition of the Text
of Hikmat al-Ishraq, with English trans., notes, commentary and intro. J. Walbridge
and H. Ziai, Provo (UT): Brigham Young University Press.
Page 21
––– (1999b). The Philosophical Allegories and Mystical Treatises. A Parallel
Persian-English Text, ed., trans. and intro. W. M. Thackston, Costa Mesa (CA):
Mazda.
––– (1998). The Book of Radiance (Partu-Nama). A Parallel English-Persian Text,
ed., trans. and intro. H. Ziai, Costa Mesa (CA): Mazda.
––– (1996). Temples of Lights, trans. Bilal Kuspinar, Kuala Lumpur: ISTAC.
––– (1993a). [1945] Opera metaphysica et mystica I, ed. and intro. H. Corbin,
Tehran: Mu’assasah-yi Mutali‘at va Tahqiqat-i Farhangi [reprint of the 1945 ed.].
––– (1993b). [1952] Opera Metaphysica et mystica II, ed. and intro. H. Corbin,
Tehran: Mu’assasah-yi Mutali‘at va Tahqiqat-i Farhangi [reprint of the 1952 ed.].
––– (1993c). [1970] Opera Metaphysica et mystica III, ed. and English intro. S. H.
Nasr, French intro. H. Corbin, Tehran: Mu’assasah-yi Mutali‘at va Tahqiqat-i
Farhangi [reprint of the 1970 ed].
––– (1986). Le livre de la Sagesse Orientale (Kitab hikmat al-ishraq)
commentaires de Qotboddin Shirazi et Molla Sadra Shirazi, trans. and notes H.
Corbin, with intro. C. Jambet, Paris: Verdier.
––– (1982). The Mystical and Visionary Treatises of Shihabuddin Yahya
Suhrawardi, trans. W. M. Thackston, London: The Octagon Press.
––– (1976). L'archange empourpré: quinze traités et récits mystiques, trans., intro.
and notes H. Corbin, Paris: Fayard.
Secondary Sources
Abu Rayyan, M. (1969). Usul al-Falsafa al-Ishraqiyya, Beirut: Dar al-Talaba al-
‘Arab.
Aminrazavi, M. (2003), “How Ibn Sinian is Suhrawardi's Theory of
Knowledge?” Philosophy East and West, 53(2): 203–14.
––– (1997). Suhrawardi and the School of Illumination, London: Curzon.
Corbin, H. (1971). Sohravardi et les platoniciens de Perse, Paris: Gallimard [vol. 2
of H. Corbin (1971–2). En Islam iranien, 4 vols, Paris: Gallimard]
Dinani, I. (1985). Shu‘a‘-i Andisha va Shuhud dar Falsafah-yi Suhrawardi, Tehran:
Hikmat.
Eichner, H. (2011), “‘Knowledge by Presence’, Apperception in the Mind-Body
Relationship: Fakhr al-Dīn al-Razi and al-Suhrawardi as Representatives and
Precursors of a Thirteenth-Century Discussion“, in The Age of Averroes: Arabic
Philosophy in the Sixth/Twelfth Century , ed. P. Adamson, London: Warburg
Institute / Turin: Nino Aragno Editore, 117–40.
Fakhry, M. (1982). “Al-Suhrawardi's Critique of the Muslim Peripatetics (al-
Mashsha’un)”, in Philosophies of Existence, Ancient and Modern, ed. P.
Morewedge, New York: Fordham University Press, 279–84.
Gutas, D. (2003). “Essay-Review: Suhrawardi and Greek Philosophy”, Arabic
Sciences and Philosophy, 13: 303–9.
Page 22
––– (2002). “The Study of Arabic Philosophy in the Twentieth Century. An Essay
on the Historiography of Arabic philosophy”, British Journal of Middle Eastern
Studies, 29(1): 5–29.
––– (2000). “Avicenna's Eastern (“Oriental”) Philosophy. Nature, Contents,
Transmission”, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 10: 159–180.
Ha’iri Yazdi, M. (1992). The Principles of Epistemology in Islamic Philosophy:
Knowledge by Presence, Albany (NY): State University of New York Press.
Horten, M. (1912). Die Philosophie der Erleuchtung nach Suhrawardi (1191),
Halle: Strauss and Cramer [reprint in Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1981].
Izutsu, T. (1971). The Concept and Reality of Existence, Tokyo: Keio Institute of
Cultural and Linguistic Studies.
Kaukua, J. (2011), “I in the Light of God: Selfhood and Self-Awareness in
Suhrawardi's Hikmat al-ishraq “, The Age of Averroes: Arabic Philosophy in the
Sixth/Twelfth Century , ed. by Peter Adamson, London: Warburg Institute / Turin:
Nino Aragno Editore), 141–157, esp. 141 n.3.
Landolt, H. (2007). “Les idées platoniciennes et le monde de l'image dans la pensée
du Šaykh al-išrāq Yahyā al-Suhrawardi (ca.1155–1191)”, in Miroir et Savoir. La
transmission d’un thème platonicien, des Alexandrins à la philosophie arabo-
musulmane , eds. D. De Smet and M. Sebti, Leuven: Peeters.
––– (1987). “Suhrawardi's Tales of Initiation’.” Journal of the American Oriental
Society, 107(3): 475–86 [review essay on Thackston's translation of Suhrawardi's
(1982) Mystical and Visionary Treatises].
Langermann, Y. T. (2005). “Ibn Kammuna and the “New Wisdom” of the
Thirteenth Century”, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 15: 277–327.
Marcotte, R.D. (2011), “ Suhrawardi's Realm of the Imaginal“, in Ishraq: Islamic
Philosophy Yearbook (No. 2), ed. Y. Eshots, Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura,
2011), 68–79.
––– (2006). “L'aperception de soi chez Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi et l'héritage
avicennien”, Laval théologique et philosophique, 62(3): 529–51.
––– (2004). “Resurrection (ma‘ad) in the Persian Hayat al-Nufus of Isma‘il
Muhammad Ibn Rizi (fl. ca. 679 / 1280): The Avicennan Background”,
in Interpreting Avicenna: Science and Philosophy in Medieval Islam, ed. J.
McGinnis, with D. Reisman, Leiden: Brill, 213–35.
––– (2002). “Les facultés internes selon le commentaire de Shahrazûrî (m. ca.
1288) du Hikmat al-Ishrâq de Suhrawardî (m. 1191) – notes préliminaires”, in Iran.
Questions et connaissances, 3 vols, ed. M. Szuppe, Leuven: Peeters, vol. 2, 411–
25.
––– (2001a). “Suhrawardi al-Maqtul, The Martyr of Aleppo”, Al-Qantara, 22(2):
395-419.
––– (2001b). “L'anthropologie philosophique de Shams al-Dîn Shahrazûrî et ses
racines suhrawardiennes — les facultés internes”, Quaderni di Studi Arabi, 19:
135–46.
Page 23
Pines, S. (1979) “La conception de la conscience de soi chez Abu ‘l-Barakat al-
Baghdadi,” in Studies in Abu’l-Barakat al-Baghdadi. Physics and Metaphysics, S.
Pines (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, the Hebrew University), 181–59/
Pourjavadi, R. and S. Schmidtke (2006), A Jewish Philosopher of Baghdad; ‘Izz al-
Dawla Ibn Kammuna (d. 683/1284), Leiden: Brill.
Privot, M. (2004). “Le moi d’Ibn Sina au Kitab al-rumuz d’al-Šahrazuri al-išraqi.
Éléments de comparaison”, in Ultra Mare. Mélanges de langue arabe et
d’islamologie offerts à Aubert Martin, ed. F. Bauden, Louvain: Peeters, 289–99.
Rizvi, S.H. (2000). “Roots of an Aporia in Later Islamic Philosophy: the Existence-
Essence Distinction in the Philosophies of Avicenna and Suhrawardi”, Studia
Iranica, 29: 61–108.
––– (1999). “An Islamic Subversion of the Existence-Essence Distinction?
Suhrawardi's Visionary Hierarchy of Lights”, Asian Philosophy, 9(3): 219–27.
Schmidtke, S. (2000). Theologie, Philosophie und Mystik im zwölferschiitischen
Islam des 9./15. Jahrhunderts: die Gedankenwelten des Ibn Abi Gumhur al-Ahsai
(um 838/1434-35-nach 905/1501), Leiden: Brill.
––– (1999). “The Doctrine of Transmigration of the Soul according to Shihab al-
Din al-Suhrawardi (killed 587/1191) and his Followers”, Studia Iranica, 28: 237–
54.
Walbridge, J. (2011). “ The Devotional and Occult Works of Suhrawardi the
Illuminationist “, in Ishraq: Islamic Philosophy Yearbook, No 2, ed. Y. Eshots,
Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura, 2011), 80–97.
––– (2001) The Wisdom of the Mystic East: Suhrawardi and Platonic Orientalism,
Albany (NY): State University of New York Press.
––– (2000). The Leaven of the Ancients: Suhrawardi and the Heritage of the
Greeks, Albany (NY): State University of New York Press.
––– (1992). The Science of Mystic Lights: Qutb al-Din Shirazi and the
Illuminationist Tradition in Islamic Philosophy, Cambridge: Harvard Center for
Middle Eastern Studies.
Ziai, H. (2003). [1996]. “The Illuminationist Tradition”, in History of Islamic
Philosophy, eds. S. H. Nasr and O. Leaman, London: Routledge, 465–96.
––– (1992). “The Source and Nature of Political Authority in Suhrawardi's
Philosophy of Illumination”, in Aspects of Islamic Philosophy, ed. Charles
Butterworth, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
––– (1990). Knowledge and Illumination: A Study of Suhrawardi's Hikmat al-
Ishraq, Atlanta: Scholars Press.