 Hi, I'm Peter Adamson and you're listening to the History of Philosophy podcast, brought to you with the support of King's College London and the Leverhulme Trust, online at www.historyoffilosophy.net. Today's episode will be an interview about the Ismailis and philosophy with Dr. Farhad Dafthari, who is director of the Institute of Ismaili Studies in London. Hi, Dr. Dafthari. Hello, Peter. Thank you very much for coming on the series. I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to have this conversation with you. I said something in the last episode about who the Ismailis were and a little bit about their use of Greek philosophical sources, but I was wondering if you could just start by saying a bit about Ismailism and what differentiates Ismailism from other kinds of Islam. As you know, the Ismailis are one of the major Shi'i communities. As such, they were of the opinion that after the Prophet, the leadership of the Muslim ummah or community belonged to his cousin and son-in-law Ali, whom they regard as their first spiritual leader or Imam. And furthermore, they held that this appointment had been sanctioned divinely. But then later on, the Shi'i themselves did not agree as to who were the rightful successors to Ali, especially after he was succeeded by two of his sons. On that basis, they became split into a number of groups and communities, each one actually recognizing a different line of Imams who descended from Ali. One of the main communities which evolved during this early period of Islam were the so-called Imami Shi'is. And the Imami Shi'is in the year 765 on the death of the contemporary Imam, a very well-known figure and also a scholar, Imam Jafar al-Sadik, when he died in 765, his succession was disputed amongst his sons. One group followed his eldest son who had been actually originally appointed as his successor, his name was Ismail, and those who now came to recognize Ismail and his descendants as their Imams became known as the Ismaili or Ismailis, named after Ismail. Whereas another group eventually evolved what is known today as the Esnashari or the Twelver Shi'a. They followed Ismail's younger half-brother Musa. And they're called Twelver Shi'ites because... They believe only in the line of 12 Imams, which ended in the occultation of the 12 Imams and his Shi'a have continued to await his reappearance as the Mahdi before the end of time. Can you just say something quickly about this idea of occultation? So the thought is that ideally the Imam is present and alive and available and is both a secular and religious ruler, but sometimes the Imam goes off into occultation, is no longer available, but he's not dead. So where does this idea come from and does it play a part in Ismaili thinking? All the various Shi'ite groups and communities at one time or another have had this idea of a Mahdi Imam, an Imam who has gone into occultation and who would reappear in the imminent future. But the whole idea of Mahdi-ship itself, it actually evolved over time and it served various purposes. For instance, at times when a certain Imam had no progeny, he was regarded by his community as the Mahdi, as the Imam who had gone into occultation and would reappear. Sometimes when the circumstances were not right for the Imam to be active openly, he chose to go into a temporary concealment, which is quite different from the type of occultation of the 12th Imam of the 12th verse. That was an expedient measure, so to speak, to protect the Imam under unfavorable conditions and circumstances. You have explained to us the difference then between Ismaili Shi'ism and other types of Shi'ism, but just to make things even more complicated, there's more than one kind of Ismailism. Can you so quickly explain why you get different strands of Ismaili Islam? Yes. The Ismailis were more or less a unified community until the year 1094. Most of these splits amongst the various Shi'i communities always revolved around the question of succession to an Imam. In that year, when the 8th Fatimid caliph who ruled from Cairo, he was a Fatimid caliph and at the same time he was the Imam of the Ismailis. When he died in 1094, his succession was disputed between two of his sons, Nizar and Al-Musta'ili. As a result, the entire Ismaili community also split into two rival factions named after these two sons, Nizari and Mustalians. The Mustalians were in Egypt and they recognized the later Fatimid caliphs as their Imams, whereas the Nizaris had their stronghold in Iran and they really were consolidated under the initial efforts of a famous diy or missionary by the name of Hassan Sabba, who is well known in history. These two communities of course had different historical trajectories, but the Mustalian Ismailis who eventually found their stronghold in Yemen and the Nizaris who initially concentrated in Iran and then Syria and then much later in Central Asia and still much later in South Asia, both of these main communities of the Ismailis survived the downfall of the Fatimid caliphate in 1171. Therefore, Ismailism has continued down to our times in its two forms, the Ta'i'ibi Mustalian form in Yemen and then India where they are known as the Boras and the Nizari Ismailis who are scattered today in more than 25 countries of the world and they have had a continuous line of Imams. The present Imam, His Highness the Aghachan, is the 49th Imam in the series and the main regions of concentration of that branch of Ismailism in Central Asia, Afghanistan, South Asia, Iran, Syria and since the early 1970s also immigrants from East Africa and other parts of Africa to various Western countries. And politically speaking the high point of secular power for the Ismailis has been the Fatimid caliphate. Do you say that's right? The Fatimid caliphate, I wouldn't call it as, I mean I wouldn't use the word secular in this context because as you know it's very difficult to separate the religious from secular although the two sort of domains have their own sort of mandate and so on. But the Fatimid caliphs were at the same time the Ismaili Imams and it was in fact in the person of the Fatimid caliph that the institution of the Ismaili dawah or mission and head of the state, these two positions came together because the Fatimid caliph Imam in fact was at the same time the head of the Fatimid state, the dawah or the state and the government apparatus and at the same time the supreme spiritual leader of the Ismaili dawah and in that capacity he articulated the religious policies of the mission which was active also outside of the Fatimid state and in fact had its most lasting and most significant success outside of the Fatimid state. And as a result we see that Ismailism disappeared in Egypt on the downfall of the Fatimids but it survived in the lands beyond the Fatimid state up until now. Maybe we can go on now to talking about the relationship between Ismailism and philosophy then. One of the striking things about Ismailism and their use of philosophical ideas is how much they drew on Hellenic sources, so sources that were originally Greek and in particular Neoplatonic sources, for example the Arabic versions of Plotinus. I'm wondering why you think they were so attracted to these texts in particular, for example why did they go for Plotinus rather than say Aristotle or Aristotelian logic which would have been seen as more primary by someone like Al-Farabi or the other Baghdad school Peripatetics. The great translation movement which really took off under the early Abbasids and really reached a peak under Zimamun. The Muslims for the first time now came into contact with Arabic translations of a whole host of Greek works from logic, medicine and also metaphysics and the works which modern scholars have called Neoplatonic. Together with the works of the great masters like Aristotle and Plato. These works in translation influenced a variety of Muslim scholars and thinkers. One should count amongst the foremost people who were influenced by this new kind of knowledge were Ismaili authors of the Iranian lands where Neoplatonism and other philosophical traditions became fashionable amongst educated classes, amongst the elite of the society. Now at the time the Ismaili dyes or missionaries who were at the same time the scholars and the authors of the community had adopted a particular policy of addressing their message to the educated strata of the society and to the elite. In order to do that they wanted to use the most intellectually fashionable language and idioms available to them and that was Neoplatonism which had already become quite popular amongst the Muslims of Khorasan and other regions of Central Asia and Iran. But what one must always keep in mind that in trying to harmonize the Ismaili theology with this type of philosophical tradition they continue to remain theologians. Deep down, deep in their hearts they would never consider themselves as part of the philosopher or the philosophers. They remain theologians but they garb their theological message in this intellectually fashionable language in order to maximize the intellectual appeal of their message to the educated elite and strata of the society without compromising their basic theological message which revolved around the central she-i doctrine of the Emomats. That actually was the next thing I was going to ask you because I think that's very interesting what you just said. So it's not so much that they selected Neoplatonism as a good match for Ismailism, it's that the audience they were speaking to had already acquired an interest in Neoplatonism. But still it seems to me like there is a good match between one central idea of Ismailism and Emomism in general and Neoplatonism which is the idea that some souls achieve a kind of union with higher divine principles. So in the case of Neoplatonism that would be the intellect and this is what knowledge is. So most souls remain as it were down here in the physical world trapped in sensation and imagination but the souls who Plotinus would consider to be philosophers achieve union with the intelligible world. And it is fair to say isn't it that the Ismailis are adapting that kind of epistemology to explain prophecy and Emomism. In order to have a better appreciation of the Ismailis appropriation and adoption of Neoplatonism and other philosophical traditions is to really stop and look back and to realize that from early on as a sheikh community the Ismailis were of the opinion that man or I would say human kind cannot come to know God and cannot come to have access to the truths of religion through his act or intellect alone and that he needed a guide. This was really the starting point of the Shia and they furthermore held that the message of Islam in fact came from the sources which were beyond the comprehension of our dream and hence the need for an Imam or a spiritual guide. And this actually did fit rather well with the Neoplatonism which they adopted and in fact what they did adopt that in a very creative manner to suit their own message which was in a sense also connected to their cyclical view of history which they had combined with their doctrine of Imamat. They believed that the sacred history of mankind would be consummated in seven eras, each era beginning with a speaker, a nateq or a prophet who would bring a new religious law. He would be succeeded by a legacy or a vasih and seven imams. The seventh imam of each era would rise in trying to become the nateq, the prophet of the following era. But the bottom line here is that in each era including the era of Islam whose prophet was Muhammad and then his was he an immediate successor Ali and then the imams recognized by the Ismailis, these were the sole sources or wellsprings of wisdom. They were the ones who were qualified to interpret the religious message of that era to the rank and file. In the era of Islam, the people who had that knowledge were, of course after the prophet and Ali were the imams recognized by the Ismailis and they were the ones whose guidance would also provide the believers with the sort of knowledge which they needed in order to purify their souls and acquire salvation. This idea that humankind requires a guide, not just the prophet but also Ali following the prophet Muhammad and then the imams, what is their argument for this? Because this is a position that was attacked by philosophical thinkers, for example, Abu Bakr al-Razi and Al-Ghazali, two people who aren't usually put in the same class together but they both accused the Ismailis of what's called taqlid which is uncritical acceptance of authority basically. And it seems like the Ismailis are making a very bold epistemological claim here which is that for most of us, so everyone other than one of these imams or prophets, it's impossible to achieve knowledge on one's own. So one needs an external guide. Do they have any kind of argument for convincing us of that? From our vantage point today, it's difficult to perhaps fully understand the situation of the early Muslims and the early Shia which provided the milieu in which this doctrine was actually articulated. At the time, they were thinking of a particular type of religious knowledge which was not available to everybody. That religious knowledge was possessed by the prophet and as part of his heritage had been passed on to Ali and then to the imams who were from the progeny of Ali. This was a type of divinely sanctioned knowledge. It was not, for instance, a knowledge of a type that one would acquire by enrolling in a course today. It was a very special type and we should really make a distinction between that type of religious knowledge or elm which is really the focal point of the doctrine of Imam ad which is passed on from imam to imam. So the idea isn't that you couldn't learn the rules of geometry without consulting an imam. It's that there's a specific knowledge. Exactly. Which mankind needs for its spiritual guidance. But then I guess even then it seems like a philosopher might object to that and say that without an argument to this effect, there's no reason to think that there's any kind of knowledge which is absolutely crucial for us to acquire that we can't achieve just using reason. In fact, there are alternative views in the context. Most of the Mu'athazila arguably think that reason is adequate to achieve understanding of the most important truths of Islam and his agreement with Islam and certainly that seems to be the position of numerous philosophers including al-Kindi al-Farabi. So what would the Ismailis say against that sort of view? The Ismailis would say what every other Shi'i or every member of any other Shi'i group would say that as I just tried to explain, we are not here talking about an ordinary type of knowledge. This is a type of knowledge which is the pre-recursive of the Ahlul Bayt, the people of the house, of the members of the Prophet's family. By the membership in the family in a sense, it's through that channel that they in fact inherit this knowledge. It's not a knowledge that can be acquired through education or election and this is why they did not agree with the way the bulk of the Muslim community at the time, later as the Sunnis, came to elect a successor to the Prophet. So maybe the idea then is just that it's not the sort of knowledge that anyone could have just by recourse to reason because it's too particular or contingent. Exactly. It's of a very, very special kind really. And so, I mean just to take an example, you wouldn't be able to use reason to know that you should pray five times a day facing Mecca, right? Because it's not the sort of reason you could ever discover by itself. So you have to have a prophet. It's also implied by the doctrine of the Imam that each Imam of the time should interpret the religious edicts, prohibitions, and commandments, and so on, according to the changing circumstances of the time. Which is one reason why you need continued guidance. So, that's built into the mechanism for progress is really embedded in the very doctrine of Imam. It's not a rigid, frozen type of institution. So I suppose that from a Shi'i point of view, they would accuse Sunnis of always having to go back to just the text of the Quran and the Hadith. Exactly. Exactly. And so you would have no way of adapting the religious teaching for... The Sunnis in fact may continue to use the fatwas of the dead scholars, but the Shi'i do not believe in that. So it's like a continuous living revelation all the time. It's a living Imam. It's the living Imam, the present Imam, particularly for the Ismailis, who is the foundation of the knowledge and the source of the guidance in every age. And his authority, his teaching authority, his guidance authority, in a sense, is independent of the authority of the previous Imams. That seems though to bring us to a problem, and this is I guess the last thing I'd like to ask you about, which is that also the Ismailis and other Shis get themselves into a similar situation because if the Imam is in occultation and you have no access to the Imam, then in fact you don't have this access to living revelation. So don't you wind up back in the same situation? That has happened. That has happened. In fact, that has happened for the 12 Shis since the time of the occultation of their 12th Imam in the year 874. And for the other branch of the Ismailis who do not recognize the Al-Ahman as the Imam, the succession of the Imams, they all have remained in concealment since the year 1130. And in the absence of the Imams, the Ta'ib, the Ismailis, have been led by Dais, or the supreme leaders with absolute power. And gradually, in all but name, these Dais have taken over the functions and the attributes of the Imams. And to a large extent, the Mujtahids, or the religious leaders and scholars of the Tuareg community, gradually have also appropriated the various functions that were reserved only for the Imams of that community. It's almost like you start with the Prophet Muhammad and then you have as a successor Ali, and then after the death of Ali you have Imams, and then when the Imams are in occultation you have Dais, but there's always someone to leave the community. And so you're never, as it were, the community is never abandoned and on their own. One of the early Hadiths of the Shi' community goes this way, that it's so important at all times to have an Imam that the earth, because he is the proof of God on earth. The Imam is the proof of God on earth, and the earth can never be without an Imam. It goes on to say that even if two men were left on the face of the earth, one of them had to be the Imam. So the presence of the Imam on earth is that important. Now whether he is a manifest Imam or an Imam in hiding, that's of course a different matter. Well that seems like a good note to end on. Next time I'll actually be looking at the Sunni side of the story to some extent, because I'll be speaking about Asharism, which becomes a dominant form of theology or kalam in the Sunni tradition as the centuries roll forward. For now I will thank Farhad Daftehri very much for coming on. Thank you very much for having me. And please join me next time when I will be talking about Asharism, here on The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps.