A Critical Review of Three Interpretations of Suhrawardī's Genealogy

The threefold readings of Suhrawardī's Illuminationist philosophical genealogy by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Henry Corbin, and John Walbridge, despite their methodological differences, all suffer from fundamental shortcomings: conflating mythical and historical layers, neglecting the key concepts of Sakīnah and Walāyah, and overlooking the role of "those who speak of Sakīnah" as the connecting link between the eastern (Iranian) and western (Greek) branches of wisdom. These deficiencies render a critical reassessment of the aforementioned scholarly paradigms unavoidable.

Adopting a comparative-analytical method and employing a synthetic-critical approach—comprising three interrelated strategies of comparative analysis—this study systematically critiques the models of Nasr, Corbin, and Walbridge. Drawing upon Suhrawardī's oeuvre (Al-Mashāriʿ wa al-Muṭāraḥāt, Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq, and his symbolic treatises), it emphasizes the centrality of Sakīnah and Walāyah as the axis of convergence between the two traditions.

The findings demonstrate that: first, Hermes must be positioned solely within the western (Greek) branch of wisdom, not both branches, while Kayūmarṯ is redefined as the head of the eastern (Khusrawānī) branch. Second, Abū al-ʿAbbās Qaṣṣāb Āmulī, based on syntactic-historical evidence from the phrase "Sayyār Āmul wa Kharaqān," emerges as a missing link in the genealogical chain—one overlooked in all three previous models. Third, the Ḥakīmiyyah—particularly al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī—with his coherent system of Walāyah and conceptual interpretation of Sakīnah, constitutes the primary intermediary for the synthesis of the two leavens and their transmission to Suhrawardī. Fourth, Walbridge's model, by neglecting the doctrine of Farr-e Kiyānī and Iranian kingship, offers a one-sided and incomplete picture of Illuminationist genealogy.