Alâüddevle-i Simnânî (ö. 736/1336), İlhanlılar döneminde, bugünkü İran topraklarında yaşamış bir Kübrevî şeyhidir. Gençlik yıllarında İlhanlı sarayında, Argun Han’ın hizmetinde bulunmuş, daha sonra tasavvufa meylederek saraydan ayrılmıştır. Bir müddet kendi kendine ibadet ve riyâzatla meşgul olduktan sonra Bağdat’ta bulunan Kübrevî şeyhi Nûreddin Abdurrahman el-İsferâyînî’ye (ö. 717/1317) mürid olarak kendisinden irşad icâzeti almıştır. Ardından şeyhinin emriyle memleketine dönmüş, Sûfîâbâd’daki hankâhında mürid yetiştirmek ve eser telif etmekle meşgul olmuştur. Günümüze ulaşmayanlarla birlikte eserlerinin sayısı doksan civarındadır. Farklı hacimlerdeki bu eserlerin bir kısmı Arapça, bir kısmıysa Farsçadır. Simnânî, Beyânu zikri’l-hafiyyi’l-müsteclib li’l-ecri’l-vefî isimli Farsça risalesini vefatından sonra müridlerine bir kılavuz olması gayesiyle kaleme almıştır. Müridlerinden bu eseri ezberleyip haftada bir kez tekrar etmelerini istemesi ve bu eserde yazılanlarla amel etmeyen müridlerinin kendisiyle bağını koparmış olacağını söylemesi, onun bu esere verdiği ehemmiyeti göstermektedir. Bu çalışmada ilk olarak müellifin hayatına dair kısa bilgiler verilecek, ardından söz konusu eser değerlendirilerek son bölümde ise metnin tahkikli neşri dikkatlere sunulacaktır.

One of the famous names in the Kubrawī tradition, ‘Alā’ al-Dawla al-Simnānī is a sheikh who lived in the city of Simnān in modern-day Iran between 659-736/1261-1336. In his youth, he served under Arghūn Khan (r. 1284-1291) in the Īlkhānid Palace; Simnānī later left the palace after a spiritual experience and embarked on the life of a Sufi. He left Arghun for his hometown Simnān on the pretext of having been inflicted with a grave illness. For some period of time, he carried on worshipping and engaging in spiritual discipline (riyāđa) unsupervised, and eventually in Baghdad he met with a disciple of the Kubrawī sheikh, Nūr al-Dīn Abd al-Raḥmān Isfarāyīnī (d. 717/1317), and thereafter became Isfarāyīnī’s disciple. After obtaining an ijāza (licensure) for irshād (teaching and guiding the people), upon the instruction of his sheikh, he returned back to Simnān; he spent the rest of his life instructing his disciples and writing scholarly works in his lodge in Śūfīābād. He authored around ninety works in Arabic and Persian in various fields of Sufism. Simnānī retains an eminent position both in terms of Sufi history and the Kubrawiyya tariqah. His contribution to the Sufi tradition includes his ideas on unity, laŧā’if, rijāl al-ghayb, wāqi‘a and tajallī. Simnānī is also known for his criticism of Ibn al-‘Arabī on his conception of unity, which is often the first line of critique concerning Ibn al-Arabī among the Sufis. Simnānī’s thoughts on unity had a great deal of influence on Aĥmad al-Sirhindī (d. 1034/1624), as well as on Sirhindī’s sheikh Bāqībillāh (d. 1012/1603). Notwithstanding, his doctrine of laŧā’if also had an impact on Naqshbandiyya. He had a particular influence on Muĥammad Pārsā (d. 822/1240), a leading Naqshbandī author, and his thoughts on rijāl al-ghayb. Moreover, the extant branches of the Kubrawiyya come through Simnānī’s chain, and he is also known to have influenced other eminent figures such as Sayyid ‘Alī Hamadānī (d. 786/1385) and Muĥammad Nūrbakhsh (d. 869/1464). These examples serve as evidence of his importance among the Kubrawiyya tariqah. As is the case for other Sufi sheikhs, dhikr (remembrance) is at the heart of mystical training according to Simnānī. His most common dhikr is “lā ilāha illā Allāh.” He preferred the silent dhikr and also ordered his disciples in this regard and prevented them from performing the loud dhikr. In addition to endorsing in various works of his the silent dhikr based on the Quran, prophetic narrations, and rational arguments, he authored a short treatise dedicated to the topic of the silent dhikr, and had also instructed his disciples to memorize it. This particular treatise, which forms the subject of the present critical edition, is registered as Bayān dhikr al-khafiyy al-mustajlib li’l-ajr al-wafī and Dhikr al-khafiyy al-mustajlib li ajr al-wafī. As its title suggests, the main theme of this work revolves around the silent dhikr. Its importance emanates from two main causes: First, Simnānī had asked his disciples to write down below this work, Mā lā budda minh fī al-dīn, and first to also teach novices, Mā lā budda minh fī al-dīn, and then to read this treatise. Moreover, he advised them to read this work routinely once a week. Second, Simnānī writes that those of among his disciples who do not act upon this treatise would be as if they severed their relationship with Simnānī. Accordingly, it seems fairly evident that Simnānī had compiled in this short treatise an important part of the duties of which his disciples were to carry out. The author of this treatise which is centered on the silent dhikr presents ten evidences, both narrative and rational, about why the silent dhikr should be performed. There are also other advice that Simnānī offers to his disciples and these include not to lie and to protect one’s eyes and ears from immorality. The author links the ability to perform these advice to eating what is permissible (ĥalāl) and emphasizes his expectation from his disciples to be sensitive with regards to this particular issue. One of the most striking advice Simnānī gives is to remain unmarried for those of his disciples who have yet to marry. There are three manuscript copies of the work that I was able to locate, two of which are located in Istanbul while the other one, an incomplete copy, is in Tehran. None of the extant manuscripts were personally written by the author, and moreover none were copied during his lifetime or anywhere near his time. The Istanbul manuscripts are housed in the Nuruosmaniye Library nr. 5007 (113b-122b) and in the Istanbul University Library Persian Manuscripts Collection nr. 1056 (104b-109a). The Tehran manuscript is located at the Malik National Library. Since the incomplete Tehran manuscript does not contribute much to the critical edition, it was not included in the editing process. This study follows the “preferential method” of ISAM’s (Turkish Religious Foundation Center for Islamic Studies) critical edition principles. For this reason, instead of choosing a principal manuscript, both copies are considered as if they are original copies. In the event that differences between the two manuscripts occur, the one that contains more meaning is included in the edited text, while the other expressions are shown in the footnotes. Folio numbers are given according to the Nuruosmaniye copy since its copier, the place, and the date of copy is known. In the completion of the present critical edition, we have found that there were no significant differences between both manuscripts in terms of the overall meaning of the text.