Sabzevari, Chomsky, and the Death of the Institutional Scholar: A Polemic
The Epstein files did not “expose” Chomsky. They merely revealed what has always been true of modern intellectuals: any scholar who feeds from institutions eventually becomes their servant.
Chomsky was never a radical. He was MIT’s house dissident—an approved ornament who critiqued empire while drawing a lifetime salary from it. The shock people now express is simply the shock of a fantasy dissolving. If you want to understand the difference between a real scholar and an institutional product, do not look West. Look to Hajj Mulla Hadi Sabzevari (d. 1873). Sabzevari completed his studies, refused the politicized hawza system, rejected the newly emerging marja‘iyyah, returned to his village, and taught there until his death. He never chased power. He never needed platforms. People came to him. Princes came to him. Scholars came to him. He was the last true heir of Mulla Sadra precisely because he refused to become a bureaucrat of religion.
Now contrast that with Chomsky:
- a man whose “independence” existed only within the limits institutions allowed,
- a radical kept on a leash,
- a critic whose dissent was part of the brand,
- and ultimately a figure so integrated into the elite world that Jeffrey Epstein considered him social capital.
Sabzevari received illumination (ishraq). Chomsky received tenure. Sabzevari taught from the margins of empire. Chomsky taught from its heart. Sabzevari belonged to the lineage of sages. Chomsky belongs to the class of intellectual functionaries. The Akbarian truth is simple: Light comes from Being, not bureaucracy. Illumination descends on the independent, not the salaried.
Modernity wants its radicals house-trained. Systems reward safe dissidents, not illuminated sages. That is why the likes of Chomsky fall—and the likes of Sabzevari never could. One was a vessel of hikma. The other was a product. And that is the whole scandal.
