ʿAzīz-i Nasafī and Persianate Sufism

ʿAzīz-i Nasafī emerged as a prominent Muslim intellectual of the Persianate Mongol world in the 7^th/13^th century, garnering recognition throughout the Muslim world. Nasafī's writings were translated into languages such as Latin and Turkish, gaining readership not only in the Persianate world but also reaching as far as the Ottoman Empire and Europe.Footnote ¹ Nasafī lived in a distinct intellectual era, serving as an observer of the rise of the Persianate Mongol world and the decline of the ʿAbbāsid caliphate.Footnote ² He also witnessed the emergence of new intellectual orientations in Islamic spirituality, as exemplified by influential figures such as Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 638/1240) and Nasafī's mentor, Saʿd al-Dīn Ḥammūya (d. 650/1260), among others.Footnote ³ However, Nasafī's writings have received relatively little scholarly scrutiny, and his views and ties to the Sufi tradition have not been critically examined.Footnote ⁴

This paper examines Nasafī's engagement with Sufism, contending that, although he incorporated a wide range of Sufi concepts into his writings, he consistently strived to distinguish between monists (ahl-i vaḥdat) and Sufis (ahl-i taṣavvuf) and aligned himself closely with the former.Footnote ⁵ The boundary between these two groups in Nasafī's writings is indicative of his intellectual endeavor to theorize the broader developments of his era and their relation to or derivation from earlier currents in Islamic thought. As discussed in this paper, Nasafī's preference for monism over Sufism finds a parallel in the work of Timurid scholar Ibn Turka Iṣfahānī (d. 835/1432), who replaced Sufism with lettrism as the universal form of knowledge and most reliable metaphysical model. While other Muslim thinkers such as Sayyid Ḥaydar Āmulī (d. ca. 787/1385) strived to uphold Sufism as the universal expression of Islamic spirituality, examples such as Nasafī and Ibn Turka underscore Sufism's limitations as a universal category and its contested status in pre-modern and early modern Islamic intellectual history.

Sufism boasts a rich and enduring tradition in Islamic history. Although there is no agreement among scholars as to how to define Sufism, William Chittick describes it as “the living spirit of the Islamic tradition” and “Islam's living heart.”Footnote ⁶ Carl Ernst has argued that the word “Sufism” was a construct of British Orientalists aiming to identify and highlight the mystical aspects of Islamic traditions that appealed to their European taste.Footnote ⁷ Historically, the earliest Sufis had their roots in urban hubs like Basra and Kufa in Iraq, where groups such as ascetics (zuhhād), renouncers (nussāk), and worshippers (ʿubbād) emerged in the 2^nd/8^th and 3^rd/9^th centuries. These groups would soon be recognized as Sufis, eventually spreading to Baghdad.Footnote ⁸ Among these, early figures such as Maʿrūf al-Karkhī (d. 200/815), al-Ḥārith al-Muḥāsibī (d. 243/857), al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 11/728), Junayd al-Baghdādī (d. 298/910), and Rābiʿa al-ʿAdwiyya (d. ca. 185/801) are better known, primarily via later sources that documented statements attributed to them.Footnote ⁹ These early figures did not formulate structured intellectual frameworks, and Western observers have frequently characterized them as ascetic and renunciatory due to their deliberate detachment from worldly pleasures and material indulgences.Footnote ¹⁰

Sufism quickly spread to the eastern regions of the Islamic world, notably Khurāsān. ʿAzīz-i Nasafī originated from Nasaf, a prominent city in Transoxiana, which neighbored Khurāsān.Footnote ¹¹ By Nasafī's era, Sufism in Khurāsān had already matured and reached its zenith.Footnote ¹² Starting with early Khurāsānī Sufis such as ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Sulamī (d. 412/1021) and culminating with figures such as Ḥakīm al-Qushayrī (d. 465/1074), we witness Sufism's gradual evolution in Khurāsān, along with the emergence of the term ahl al-taṣawwuf to describe medieval Sufis.Footnote ¹³ Khurāsānī Sufism played a crucial role in shaping Nasafī's path, as many Sufis in this area had already employed Persian to compose a diverse array of Sufi literature, contributing significantly to the broader trend of Persian's ascendance as a dominant cultural and literary medium across the Islamic sphere. As Leonard Lewisohn writes,

Historian Marshall Hodgson also highlights the enduring influence of the Persian language and culture on the Islamic world, especially from the 4^th/10^th to 10^th/16^th centuries. He emphasizes that, in this period, Persian became the language of refinement and scholarship in much of the Islamic world, serving as a model for the development of other languages in the literary realm and forming the foundation of many cultural traditions referred to as “Persianate.”Footnote ¹⁵ Khurāsānī Sufism, in particular, played a significant role in Persian's ascent to becoming the lingua franca of the intellectual elite throughout Persia. The renowned Kashf al-maḥjūb by ʿAlī Hujvirī (d. ca. 465/1071–72) is, for example, frequently acknowledged as the earliest comprehensive guide to Sufism written in Persian.Footnote ¹⁶ To expand this roster, one can also include other notable individuals such as Aḥmad al-Ghazālī (d. ca. 520/1126) and Khwāja ʿAbd Allāh Anṣārī (d. 481/1088), who played significant roles in diffusing Persian as the standard language of Sufism. Similarly, Rashīd al-Dīn Maybudī (fl. early 6^th/12^th century) emerged as another significant figure from this period, contributing, through his commentary, to the establishment of the Sufi and mystical tradition of Qurʾanic exegesis in the Persian language.Footnote ¹⁷

Persian poetry also played a significant role in shaping Islamic spirituality and Sufism in Khurāsān during this era. Sanāʾī Ghaznavī (d. ca. 1087/1130), who originated from Ghazna in the eastern part of Khurāsān, holds paramount importance in this regard, as he served as a trailblazer in incorporating Sufi and mystical ideas into Persian poetry. Sanāʾī also skillfully wove these elements into shaping his conception of an ideal ruler, effectively establishing a connection between sainthood and kingship.Footnote ¹⁸ Equally significant in this context was the celebrated Persian poet ʿAṭṭār (d. ca. 618/1221), who was born in Nishāpūr, a key cultural center and hub in Khurāsān. ʿAṭṭār indisputably stands as the epitome of utilizing Persian in both poetry and prose, serving as another medium for articulating Sufi and mystical creations.Footnote ¹⁹

The synergy of Persian poetry and Islamic mysticism achieved a new zenith in the works of Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī (d. 672/1273), the prominent icon of Persian poetry, who hailed from Balkh in the eastern part of Khurāsān.Footnote ²⁰ Notably, ʿAzīz-i Nasafī was acquainted with the writings of these three Persian poetry masters and incorporated their verses into his works, further anchoring himself in the intellectual milieu of Persianate Khurāsān.Footnote ²¹ Indeed, Nasafī's works feature poems from a diverse array of poets, including Rashīd al-Dīn Maybudī, Bābā Afżal Kāshānī (d. 7^th/13^th century), Niẓāmī Ganjavī (d. 605/1209), Avḥad al-Dīn Muḥammad Anvarī (fl. 6^th/12^th century), Kamāl al-Dīn Iṣfahānī (d. ca. 635/1237), Saʿdī-yi Shīrāzī (d. 691/1292), and Avḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī (d. 635/1238).Footnote ²² These engagements place Nasafī's works not only within the Persianate Sufi tradition of Khurāsān, but also within the broader context of Persian literature, showcasing his familiarity even with his contemporary Persian poets.

Thus, by Nasafī's era, Persian had already established itself as a standard language of the Islamic mystical canon. He, in particular, inherited the legacy of the Sufis of Khurāsān and continued their tradition of employing Persian as a language of Sufi expression. Much like Shihāb al-Dīn Suhravardī (d. 1191/587), Nasafī also incorporated elements from ancient Iranian mythology into his writings.Footnote ²³ For example, he utilized metaphors such as the universe-reflecting mirror (āʾīna-yi gītī-namā) and the world-reflecting goblet (jām-i jahān- namā) to explain the concept of the perfect human (al-insān al-kāmil), further enriching Sufi and mystical thought with Persian influences.Footnote ²⁴

The ideas put forth by the renowned Muslim philosopher and mystic Ibn al-ʿArabī also transformed various principles and doctrines in Islamic spirituality during Nasafī's era. Al-Shaykh al-Akbar's impact on the wider fabric of Islamic thought during this period is noteworthy, and Nasafī's testimony provides insight into the magnitude of this influence. Describing the elevated position of sainthood (valāyat) over prophethood (nubuvvat), a concept extensively explored by Ibn al-ʿArabī in his body of work, Nasafī recalls that this discourse held sway in his native town and throughout Transoxiana.Footnote ²⁵ He also mentions that he observed, while visiting his master Saʿd al-Dīn Ḥammūya (d. 650/1252), that Ḥammūya and his students were actively participating in this ongoing debate; a debate that continued among Ḥammūya's students even after his passing.Footnote ²⁶ This narrative aligns with our understanding of the development of the Akbarian school of thought in the Persianate world, as various Iranian Sufis and mystics—such as Muʾayyad al-Dīn al-Jandī (d. 700/1300), ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī (d. 736/1335), and Sayyid Ḥaydar Āmulī—played pivotal roles in introducing and propagating Akbarian ideas and doctrines.Footnote ²⁷ Nasafī himself, in conjunction with these authors, made significant contributions to the development of monist philosophy or waḥdat al-wujūd, to the development of monist philosophy or waḥdat al-wujūd as a distinctive feature of pre-modern and early modern Islamic intellectual history.Footnote ²⁸

While Nasafī was not simply an Akbarian thinker, he played a major role in transmitting a wide range of Akbarian ideas in Persian, making them accessible to a wider readership across the Persianate world.Footnote ²⁹ Nasafī is undoubtedly the most prominent student of Saʿd al-Dīn Ḥammūya and, as Nasafī states, he “was under the shadow of his spiritual nurturing” (dar sāya-yi tarbiyat-i vay mī-bāshīdam).Footnote ³⁰ Ḥammūya was also the disciple of Najm al-Dīn Kubrā (d. 618/1221), the eponymous founder of the Kubravī Sufi order.Footnote ³¹ Although Kubrā's followers were proficient and produced scholarly works in Arabic, many of them also demonstrated excellence utilizing Persian to articulate their thoughts. Certainly Kubrā's disciples, including ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla Simnānī (d. 736/1336) and Najm al-Dīn Rāzī (d. 654/1256), who authored the renowned Mirṣād al-ʿIbād, a foundational and highly esteemed work in Persian prose, as well as Ḥammūya himself, had already created noteworthy works in Persian.

Nasafī, however, did not have a formal association with the Kubravīs, maintaining his status as an autonomous and innovative thinker. Yet, his intellectual connections with them provide further insight into the influence of the Persianate Sufi tradition on him. Nasafī's works are also laden with discussions of Sufi ideas and practices. He wrote separate treatises on practices commonly found in Sufi circles, such as solitude (khalvat), spiritual audition (samāʿ), poverty (faqr), Sufi hospices (khānaqāh), asceticism (zuhd), and reliance on God (tavakkul).Footnote ³² Hence, Nasafī's selection of the Persian language and his incorporation of a diverse array of Sufi concepts and practices mark a pivotal juncture in the evolution of Persianate Sufism during the Mongol era.

Nasafī between Sufism and monism

Throughout his writings, Nasafī focuses on three distinct groups that embody different approaches to Islamic thought: the people of Sharia (ahl-i sharīʿat); the people of wisdom (ahl-i ḥikmat), who encompass Muslim philosophers; and the people of unity or monists (ahl-i vaḥdat).Footnote ³³ Although Sufis or ahl-i taṣavvuf make appearances in Nasafī's works, they do not hold as central a position as the first three groups. For instance, while these three groups are frequently mentioned in Nasafī's Bayān al-tanzīl, ahl-i taṣavvuf are mentioned only three times in this text, as a distinct group and separate from the rest.Footnote ³⁴ In Nasafī's Kashf al-ḥaqāʾiq, a work dedicated to explaining the views of various Muslim factions, we encounter additional information about the Sufis or ahl-i taṣavvuf, but they still receive notably less attention than the other three groups.Footnote ³⁵

Nasafī categorizes traditional Sufis, such as ʿUmar al-Suhrawardī (d. 587/1191), as belonging to ahl-i taṣavvuf.Footnote ³⁶ According to Nasafī, the term Sufi (ṣūfī) derives its origins from wool (ṣūf) or purity (ṣafvat), encompassing a broad spectrum of meanings within, such as solitude (ʿuzlat), companionship (ṣuḥbat), obedience (imtithāl), asceticism (taqvā va parhīzkārī), giving other people ease (rāḥat), maintaining anonymity (gumnāmī), and other related concepts.Footnote ³⁷ Nasafī outlines a general framework for Sufism, which consists of four levels. The initial stage involves aspiring (irādat) to become a disciple (murīd) under the guidance of a master (shaykh) and being entirely receptive to the master's teachings, emptying oneself of all else. The second level entails dedicating time to serve (khidmat), while the third level is embarking on a spiritual journey (sulūk). The fourth level of Sufism diverges into two paths: one involving companionship (ṣuḥbat) with others and the other embracing solitude (ʿuzlat). These two represent distinct approaches within Sufism—one emphasizing inner contemplation and the other focusing on worldly activities.Footnote ³⁸ Here, Nasafī is likely referring to two dominant modes in Sufi tradition, identified by Ahmet Karamustafa as “world-embracing” and “world-rejecting attitudes.”Footnote ³⁹ As Karamustafa argues, many Sufis gradually disapproved of the latter and “principles of asceticism, such as seclusion (khalvat, ʿuzlat) abstinence (jūʿ), and silence (ṣamt), were transformed into mere techniques of spiritual discipline.”Footnote ⁴⁰

While references to ahl-i taṣavvuf are rather limited in Nasafī's works, we frequently encounter ahl-i vaḥdat in his oeuvre, introduced as the embodiments of the unity of being (vaḥdat-i vujūd, Arabic waḥdat al-wujūd). He seems to be the pioneer in employing this terminology in its technical sense.Footnote ⁴¹ As one of the earliest Muslim thinkers to employ the concept of monism in its technical sense, Nasafī not only used it to refer to the ideas of Ibn al-ʿArabī and his followers, but he also viewed this notion as hiéro-histoire, a sacred school of thought that transcends time.Footnote ⁴² This school encompasses a diverse range of individuals who contributed to the understanding of the unity of being, including Shihāb al-Dīn Suhravardī and Khwāja ʿAbd Allāh Anṣārī.Footnote ⁴³ While Nasafī explicitly counts these figures as ahl-i vaḥdat, he also includes statements from a wide range of earlier figures such as Abū Bakr Shiblī, Junayd al-Baghdādī, and the first Shiʿi imam ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, as their alleged statements uphold monism.Footnote ⁴⁴ Nasafī was one of the earliest figures who contributed to the formation of monism as an independent intellectual school, particularly through articulating the people of unity or ahl-i vaḥdat as the upholders of this doctrine. He maintained that ahl-i vaḥdat represent the highest form of monotheism (tavḥīd), allowing people to live peacefully and harmonically with the world:

This passage emphasizes two forms of unity. The first form is a unity that comes before multiplicity, indicating an understanding of the inherent oneness and unity preceding the diversity of the world. The second form of unity is characterized as one surpassing multiplicity, demanding effort for its attainment. True monotheists represent this higher form of unity. The relevance to unity is particularly evident in the passage above: those who reach the end of monotheism perceive conflicting figures, such as Nimrūd and Abraham or Pharaoh and Moses, as one. Nasafī's emphasis on viewing conflicting figures as a singular entity, despite their apparent discord, underscores a superior form of unity transcending differences and conflicts. It demonstrates that true monotheists embody monism and peace, exemplified by Nasafī's statement that those with true knowledge of God “reach peace with the entirety of humanity in an instant” (bā khalq-i ʿālam bi-yikbār ṣulḥ kard).Footnote ⁴⁶ Ahl-i vaḥdat, therefore, attain the elevated form of unity, serving as the cornerstone of Nasafī's distinctive intellectual contribution to a peace-centric and monist interpretation of monotheism. In short, Nasafī embraced the concept of ahl-i vaḥdat, the people of unity, as a distinct collective to articulate a model that integrates monotheism, monism, and peace through their ideas.

Nasafī distinguishes between ahl-i vaḥdat and ahl-i taṣavvuf in his works, separately explaining their views on matters such as the journey (sulūk) or spiritual audition (samāʿ).Footnote ⁴⁷ The following passage is a sample of how Nasafī distinguishes these two in his work:

In this passage, Nasafī discusses the distinctions between ahl-i taṣavvuf and ahl-i vaḥdat regarding the spiritual states experienced during spiritual auditions and sermons. According to ahl-i taṣavvuf, these states can arise from either deep contemplative thoughts or a fragile disposition. Seekers may be overwhelmed by thoughts, leading to prolonged absorption in prayer or other activities. Fragile temperaments, influenced by extreme emotions, can also result in trance-like states, with some Sufis exhibiting irregular sounds and movements. Nasafī's narrative in this context carries a critical undertone, as he asserts that many Sufis, especially those with sensitive temperaments, leverage these manifestations to acquire the prestigious title of Shaykh. However, Nasafī's depiction of ahl-i vaḥdat refrains from any criticism. He states that they attribute their spiritual states to a single cause—the entry of the spirit from an external source into the body. This results in a temporary disruption of the senses, similar to a state of slumber. The four primary triggers for this occurrence include exhaustion or boredom, contemplative thoughts, extreme joy, and intense pain or fear. As evident from this passage, Nasafī presents ahl-i taṣavvuf and ahl-i vaḥdat as distinct groups and delves into their individual perspectives on the spiritual audition, demonstrating that they represent two different approaches to Islamic spirituality. Nevertheless, there are instances illustrating that even though these two groups are distinct in Nasafī's works, some of their ideas bear striking resemblance to each other. For instance, Nasafī interprets the principle of annihilation within annihilation (fanāʾ dar fanāʾ), which he attributes to ahl-i taṣavvuf, as completely synonymous with the perspective of ahl-i vaḥdat. As he writes:

Nasafī outlines the four stages of spiritual invocation (zikr). In the first stage, seekers verbally recite invocations but remain unaware of their deeper significance. The second stage involves seekers vocalizing invocations to God but struggling to maintain focus. In the third stage, seekers synchronize their tongues and hearts in invoking God, experiencing profound serenity in His presence. The fourth stage is marked by the dominant presence of the invoked (mazkūr) in the hearts of seekers. This stage is associated with ahl-i taṣavvuf, where the invoked holds such dominance that seekers become oblivious to anything other than the Divine. Ahl-i taṣavvuf regard this stage to be one of annihilation (fanāʾ). Should seekers advance beyond this point, they may even forget their own selves, a state known as annihilation within annihilation (fanāʾ dar fanāʾ). At this point, all distinctions dissolve, revealing the unity of God to the seekers. Thus, Nasafī asserts that the Sufi concept of annihilation within annihilation underscores the notion that seekers should ultimately attain a state in which they not only perceive nothing and no one except God but also lose their sense of self, becoming entirely one with Him. This view is identical to the ahl-i vaḥdat’s approach to the world:

While the conventional understanding of monotheism typically involves belief in a single God and the rejection of other deities, Nasafī's interpretation of monism goes beyond this definition. For Nasafī, monism signifies not only the impossibility of the existence of other deities but also the absence of any other being alongside God. In other words, Nasafī's monism asserts that God's existence is the sole reality, leaving no room for any other independent existence or entity. This analysis of monism dovetails with ahl-i taṣavvuf's views of annihilation within annihilation, as Nasafī takes both narratives to mean that all existence is absorbed and unified in the Divine, with no independent or separate entities apart from God. In this analysis, the worldviews of ahl-i vaḥdat and ahl-i taṣavvuf align quite closely and do not represent entirely distinct approaches.Footnote ⁵⁴

This example illustrates that ahl-i taṣavvuf and ahl-i vaḥdat possess some points of overlap, but it should not be concluded that these two groups are entirely indistinguishable. Nasafī's decision to employ two distinct names for these groups is not merely a matter of semantic and linguistic variation, but more indicative of substantial intellectual differences. This is because, as previously discussed, Nasafī distinctly separates these two groups in his writings and places significantly greater emphasis on ahl-i vaḥdat, with comparatively less focus on ahl-i taṣavvuf. Additionally, there are instances in which Nasafī clearly places ahl-i taṣavvuf in a less favorable light than ahl-i vaḥdat, further demonstrating that ahl-i taṣavvuf and ahl-i vaḥdat do not represent identical groups in his work, and should be understood as such. A useful example is the following passage:

In this context, Nasafī recognizes ahl-i vaḥdat as those who possess a proper understanding of the cosmos and ahl-i taṣavvuf as attaining only a virtual form of unity, implying they remain entangled in the ontological multiplicity that ahl-i vaḥdat have transcended. There are also other instances where ahl-i taṣavvuf are depicted as holding beliefs of a lower rank than ahl-i vaḥdat. For instance, when explaining the four ranks of the world, Nasafī employs the metaphor of the sea (daryā).Footnote ⁵⁶ He explains that the first sea represents the essence of God, akin to a hidden treasure (ganj-i makhfī).Footnote ⁵⁷ The second sea corresponds to the related spirit (rūḥ-i iżāfī) or the First Intellect (ʿaql-i avval), while the third and fourth seas signify the angelic world (malakūt) and the kingship world (mulk).Footnote ⁵⁸ According to Nasafī, ahl-i taṣavvuf believe that these four worlds unfold sequentially in both temporal (zamānī) and external (khārijī) ways. He then asserts that this represents an exoteric notion (ẓāhir), while the select group among ahl-i vaḥdat (khavāṣṣ-i ahl-i vaḥdat) hold a more intricate narrative that is challenging to comprehend. In this alternate account, there exists only a single, boundless light—an infinite manifestation of God's essence. This light manifests (tajallī) into the lower worlds, residing within them much like the spirit dwells in the body.Footnote ⁵⁹

In contrast to ahl-i taṣavvuf, who conceptually separate God's light from the lower realms, ahl-i vaḥdat argue that these lower realms are merely outward and exoteric expressions of this limitless light; they do not constitute distinct ontological realities that surpass or exist independent of the light.Footnote ⁶⁰ That is why, in alignment with the monist perspective, Nasafī asserts that if seekers aspire to comprehend God's essence and attributes, their search should be directed inward, to their own selves. Within oneself, one can discover not only God but the entire macrocosm, encompassing everything from angels and devils to the First Intellect.Footnote ⁶¹ Hence, Nasafī unmistakably categorizes ahl-i taṣavvuf and ahl-i vaḥdat as distinct intellectual groups. While ahl-i vaḥdat hold a central position in Nasafī's works and are frequently referenced, mentions of ahl-i taṣavvuf are comparatively infrequent, as Nasafī regards them as occupying a lower status than ahl-i vaḥdat. This illustrates that Nasafī, in his work, substitutes ahl-i taṣavvuf with ahl-i vaḥdat, portraying them as the new authoritative voice of Islamic spirituality. This group upholds the unity of being as the cornerstone of thought, clearly drawing its intellectual foundation from the Akbarian school of thought, a perspective absent from earlier Sufi writings. In this regard, Nasafī's differentiation between ahl-i taṣavvuf and ahl-i vaḥdat highlights the significant changes occurring in his era, and this distinction should be viewed within the broader intellectual landscape from which it originated.

Nasafī in the pre-modern and early modern Shiʿi-Sunni cosmopolis

While Sufism is often employed as a universal or blanket term to describe the entirety of mystical, esoteric, and occult dimensions within Islamic traditions, Nasafī's works serve as a compelling case study, offering insight into the intricate ways in which Muslim intellectuals engaged with Sufi tradition in the pre-modern and early modern eras. Nasafī's writings bear the influence of Sufi concepts and practices, but his notable shift away from Sufism towards monism signifies the broader discursive turn of his intellectual milieu. This shift underscores waḥdat al-wujūd as one of the fundamental characteristics of Islamic intellectual history in the pre-modern and early modern world. Nasafī's displacement of Sufism represents the gradual ascension of monism as a predominant intellectual model, signifying the rise of competing and diverse intellectual paradigms of Islamic mysticism during this period. These paradigms and various modes of spirituality could not be only encapsulated by Sufism, which served as the dominant form of spirituality in Khurāsān in the 5^th/11^th and 6^th/12^th centuries. In Nasafī's writings, we observe a distinct discursive shift illustrating the nuanced transformations within the intellectual environment of the Persianate Mongol world. Nasafī's works exhibit significant parallels with the Sufism prominent in Khurāsān in the 5^th/11^th and 6^th/12^th centuries. However, this shift sets his works apart from the earlier Khurāsānī tradition in which Sufism remained the supreme form of mystical expression, as Nasafī positions monism at the forefront of Islamic mysticism, often relegating Sufism to a marginalized or lower position in comparison.

Nasafī's approach to Sufism is also similar to the esteemed Timurid thinker Ibn Turka Iṣfahānī (d. 835/1432). While conventionally portrayed as a Sufi and mystic in Islamic esotericism, Matthew Melvin-Koushki has argued that Ibn Turka pursued a distinct project centered around the establishment of lettrism (ʿilm al-ḥurūf) as a new metaphysical framework, as “only the letter [ḥarf] encompasses all that is and is not, all that can and cannot be; it alone is the coincidentia oppositorum [taʿānuq al-aḍdād]; hence lettrism is the only valid form of metaphysics.”Footnote ⁶² As Melvin-Koushki further explains, Ibn Turka challenged Sufism's prevailing status as the dominant epistemological force, instead establishing his own lettrist metaphysics as the primary framework, dethroning Sufism from its customary position and ambitiously aiming to establish lettrism as a universal and imperial science.Footnote ⁶³ In this regard, both Nasafī and Ibn Turka undertook parallel endeavors to supplant Sufism: Nasafī championed monism and Ibn Turka advocated for lettrism as innovative intellectual frameworks intended to function as universal sciences, capable of deciphering the cosmos comprehensively, from the celestial realms down to the earthly domain. Therefore, the Nasafī and Ibn Turka cases highlight the importance of maintaining a justifiable philological basis when employing the term “Sufism” as an emic epistemological category, allowing for contextual utilization rather than imposing it universally on our sources.Footnote ⁶⁴

In contrast to Nasafī and Ibn Turka, one can see an attempt to re-throne Sufism in the work of Twelver Shiʿi philosopher Sayyid Ḥaydar Āmulī.Footnote ⁶⁵ Indeed, throughout his body of writings, Āmulī consistently and methodically endeavors to establish a state of rapprochement between Shiʿism and Sufism, presenting them as two intellectually compatible models. He employs the term Sufism specifically to encompass Sunni spirituality in a broad sense, arguing extensively that Sufis are the true adherents of the esoteric teachings of the Shiʿi imams and highlighting the harmony between their doctrines. As an illustrative example, Āmulī writes:

While Āmulī's ambitious undertaking is frequently celebrated as an endeavor to harmonize Shiʿism and Sufism as two compatible traditions, it can be argued that he also sought to elevate Sufism to the pinnacle, positioning it as the ultimate and most elevated manifestation of esoteric Islam and the rightful bāṭinī essence of the teachings of the Shiʿi imams. These examples exemplify the extensive shifts in understandings of Sufism taking place in the pre-modern and early modern eras, which fostered a diverse array of intellectual discourses. Hence, Nasafī's linguistic and conceptual portrayal of monism as well as his inclination to favor it over Sufism serve as significant reflections of the broader evolution in the intellectual landscape of this era; an era that witnessed the gradual ascent of various competing intellectual models, prompting the need for novel theoretical frameworks to accommodate these changes.

Concluding Remarks

Nasafī's examination of Sufis or ahl-i taṣavvuf reflects the evolving views about Sufism in the pre-modern and early modern Persianate world. While Sufism experienced a resurgence in Khurāsān, where it thrived and reached its zenith in the late medieval period (5^th/11^th and 6^th/12^th centuries), we also observe diverse and conflicting narratives emerging in subsequent periods. ʿAzīz-i Nasafī's approach to Sufism is an illustrative example of this phenomenon. In his body of work, Nasafī establishes a pivotal linguistic and conceptual delineation between Sufis or ahl-i taṣavvuf and monists or ahl-i vaḥdat, which is consistently well-defined and organized throughout his writings. As emphasized in this paper, Nasafī positions ahl-i vaḥdat above ahl-i taṣavvuf, portraying the former as the paramount embodiment of Islamic spirituality. In his works, Nasafī dedicates notably less attention to ahl-i taṣavvuf, resulting in their reduced significance when compared to ahl-i vaḥdat, marking a pivotal transformation in the Persianate Mongol world.

Nasafī presents monism as the pinnacle of Islamic spirituality, selecting this group as the vehicle to convey his own monist philosophy, which presents a significant juncture in its consolidation and recognition in the annals of Islamic intellectual history during the pre-modern and early modern eras.Footnote ⁶⁷ Scholarly understanding of the development of monism during this era remains limited, leaving us with significant gaps in our understanding of how Muslim intellectuals of this period perceived monism in relation not only to Sufism, but also to emerging currents in Islamic thought, such as lettrism, or larger imperial undertakings in the early modern Islamic world.Footnote ⁶⁸ Nasafī's writings, however, contribute to a deeper understanding of the intellectual diversity of this era and the development of novel intellectual paradigms that demanded unique linguistic and conceptual formulations. Rather than attempting to mediate between Sufism and the concept of the unity of being or monism, Nasafī opted to introduce ahl-i vaḥdat as an entirely novel epistemological category for the exposition of monist philosophy. Thereby, Nasafī's elevation of ahl-i vaḥdat over ahl-i taṣavvuf represents a notable discursive shift, facilitating the establishment of the unity of being as a unique conceptual framework; a framework soon to emerge as a dominant intellectual paradigm throughout the Islamic world.