The Maghreb Review. Vol. 43, 2. 2018 © The Maghreb Review 201$ This publication is printed on FSC Mix paper from responsible sources ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL SHI’IsM OF NAsIR AD-DIN TUSI MOHAMMAD AZADPUR* I. Introduction In this essay, I want to challenge an aspect of Wilferd Madelung’s insightful interpretation of Khawja Nasir ad-Din TUsi’s Nasirean Ethics in his essay, “Nasir ad-Din Tusi’s Ethics: Between Philosophy, Shi’ism, and Sufism.” Of course, I say an aspect because much of what Madelung writes in that essay is eminently reasonable. He writes of Ttisi’s profound interest in philosophy and his attempt to relate his philosophical acumen to the esoteric and ta’ITrnF tradition of Heptatic Shi’ism (Ism’ilism). He also writes of Tusi’s later departure from ta’h,n Shi’ism, his repudiation of his earlier laudatory dedication of ethics to the Isma’ili governor of Qohistn, and his claim that that dedication was “motivated by the necessity of self-preservation.” One cannot help but be puzzled by Tusi’s relationship to Isma’ilism. Was he an opportunist, shaping and directing his writings towards patrons who supported him and repudiating his earlier sponsors if expediency demanded? Did he remain an Ismã’ili but concealed it because he had to align himself with the conquering Mongols? (That may explain his failure to edit the Ism’ili content of Nasirean Ethics.) Or was he always a Duodecimen Shi’a, as evidenced by his return to that sect after his departure from the service of Muhtasham Nair ad-Din Abi MansUr, the Heptatic governor of Qohistn? It is in an attempt to sort through the complexity of Tusi’s conflicting allegiances while allowing him intellectual and personal integrity that Madelung presents what I would like to challenge in this essay. Madelung argues that “there is no good reason to doubt the sincerity of Tsi’s assertion in his new preamble to the Nasirean Ethics, that philosophy was unrelated to all religious schools and communities. The so-called philosophy of the Ismi’ilis was a fake and their devotion to the pure truth a pretense.” My dissent from this thesis is different from Herman Landolt’s attempt to show the philosophical relevance of Ismä’ilism. Landolt’s argument, in “Khwaja Nair al-Din al-Tusi, Ismä’ilism, and Ishraqt Philosophy,” is on par with Madelung’s characterization of philosophy as abstract rational discourse. I maintain that abstract reasoning on metaphysical and cosmological issues is only an aspect of San Francisco State University This is a revision and extension of the paper that I presented at the 2017 Pacific Division meeting of the American Philosophical Association, “The Imam and the Perfect State: Peripatetic Tsm’ilism in Nasirean Ethics.” The changes are in large part due to the queries of the participants in the session. Madelung, “Nasir ad-Din Tttsi’s Ethics: Between Philosophy, Shi’ism. and Sufism,” in Ethics in Islam, ed. Michael Hovanissian (Malibu, CA: Undena, 1984), 85. 2 Ibid., 88.