Editors’ Introduction The seventeenth century has been characterized by scholars of Ottoman and Savafid history alike as a period when religious fanaticism rose and eventually triumphed over the rational sciences and/or Sufism. It has been suggested, for example, that the study of rational sciences in Ottoman madrasas diminished significantly in the face of a puritanical movement spearheaded by a preacher named Meḥmed Ḳāzīzāde (d. 1044/1635) and propagated by his followers in the first half of the century.1 Similarly, it is said that in the second half of the century, a successful campaign was waged against Sufism and philosophy in the Safavid realm by scholar/preachers like Muḥammad-Ṭāhir Qummī (d. 1100/1689), Muḥammad-Bāqir Majlisī (d. 1110/1699), and Mīr Muḥammad Lawḥī (d. after 1081/1671). Their campaign, which was supported by the last Safavid king, Shāh Sulṭān Ḥusayn (r. 1105/1694-1135/1722), resulted in the near total eradication of Sufism2 and a precipitous and significant decline in the study of Islamic philosophy. As the intellectual history of the early modern era receives more attention, however, it has become increasingly clear that the picture is more complicated than these narratives suggest. In a recent monograph devoted to scholarly currents in the Ottoman Empire and the Maghreb in the seventeenth cen- tury, Khaled El-Rouayheb challenges the existing scholarly paradigm, arguing that the evidence for the purported decline in the study of rational sciences in the seventeenth century Ottoman madrasa system does not withstand critical scrutiny.3 The proponents of Ḳāzīzādelī movement, he says, were a minority group within the Ottoman religious establishment, and their role in the decline of practices of which they did not approve should not be exag- gerated. Moreover, El-Rouayheb provides detailed evidence that the position of important Ḳāzīzādelī figures, including Meḥmed Birgevī (d. 981/1573), who has been considered the intellectual forefather of the movement, was more nuanced than previously allowed and did not entail wholesale abandonment of the rational sciences.4 Based on the existing bio-bibliographic evidence, El-Rouayheb concludes that, “the study of philosophy and the rational sci- 1 See El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History, 13 (footnote 1). 2 For the latest example of such a claim see Matthee, Crisis in Persia, 202. Interestingly, Matthee acknowledges how little evidence exists in support of this huge claim. 3 El-Rouayheb, Islamic Intellectual History, 13-20. 4 Ibid., 17-18. 2 Editors’ Introduction ences continued unabated in Ottoman scholarly circles throughout the seven- teenth century.”5 Similarly, recent studies have revealed that while the organized networks of major Sufi orders were indeed significantly weakened by the end of Safavid rule, the extent to which this was caused by active persecution of Sufis has been exaggerated.6 I have argued somewhere else, for example, that the decline of organized Sufi networks is better attributed to an epistemic shift that took place in the hearts and minds of the Safavid populous as it went through the protracted socio-political process of conversion to Twelver Shiʿism. This pro- cess did not result in a wholesale rejection of Sufism as an undesirable ves- tige of Iran’s Sunni past. Instead, important aspects of the social functions and intellectual components of Sufism were adopted by Twelver religious scholars.7 Popular scholars like Shaykh Bahāʾī (d. 1030/1621) and the Majlisīs, both father and son, were often treated by the public much as Sufi pīrs were treated by their followers.8 Other mystically-minded religious scholars, includ- ing Mulla Ṣadrā (1045/1635) and Fayż Kāshānī (1090/1680), incorporated fundamental elements of the Sufi worldview into Savafid Shiʿi thought. This synthesis was so successful that even the most controversial of Sufi doctrines, the unity of existence (waḥdat al-wujūd), was discussed and debated in Qajar madrasas through the teaching of, and commentary on, Mullā Ṣadrā and Ibn ʿArabī. Therefore, although it is fair to say that the traditional social structure of Sufism was marginalized over the course of the seventeenth century, this period was one of success for the Sufi worldview, which had significant impact on—and was incorporated into— Safavid Shiʿi piety. The decline narrative has also been popular when it comes to Islamic phi- losophy in the Safavid period. The standard conception is that the study and practice of philosophy experienced a renaissance in the early part of the sev- enteenth century with the emergence of the so-called School of Isfahan, which was led by towering figures like Mīr Dāmād (d. 1040/1631-2), Mīr Findiriskī (d. 1050/1640), and Mulla Ṣadrā.9 This renaissance did not last long, however, and 5 Ibid., 26. 6 For a fascinating study of the Naqshbandiyyah Sufi order from this perspective, see Le Gall, A Culture of Sufism, chapter 1. For a similar analysis focused on the Safavid realm, and espe- cially the Nūrbakhshiyyah and Dhahabiyyah Sufi orders, see Anzali, “Mysticism” in Iran. Jaʿfariyān also offers an insightful analysis focusing on the ʿulama and their positions vis-à- vis Sufism. See Jaʿfariyān, Ṣafaviyyah. 7 See Anzali, “Mysticism” in Iran, 24-29 and 69-116. Also see Arjomand, The Shadow of God, chapters 5 and 6. 8 See Babayan, Mystics, 465. 9 For more, see Rizvi, “Isfahan School of Philosophy.”.