 The modern reception of Mulla Sadra is similar to other great thinkers of the past and one can discern at least four types of scholars who engage in his thought. First, there are the traditional Shi‘i seminarians who consider themselves to be disciples of Mulla Sadra and hence continuing a scholastic tradition that goes back to the 17th century. They do not engage his thought critically, nor do they take later critiques of him seriously. We might call them the traditionalists. Second, we find thinkers influenced by analytic philosophy who wish to champion his thought and who attempt to reformulate his ideas in terms that would be comprehensible to philosophers from the Anglo-American analytic tradition. In that sense, they treat Mulla Sadra similarly to Kant or Locke or Aristotle. We might call them the analyticisers. Third, we have those who insist that Mulla Sadra’s true inclinations were mystical and that instead of attempting to open a dialogue with analytic philosophy, one might find some common ground with continental philosophers but more fruitfully with those interested in mysticism and the occult. We might call them the theosophers. Finally, we have scholars engaged with Mulla Sadra in order to develop their own pride in the achievements of their Iranian heritage and consider him to be the greatest intellectual contribution of Iran. We might call them the nativists. These types are not mutually exclusive. But what is clear is the many ways in which the legacy of Mulla Sadra is contested and used in the contemporary world. It would be a greater achievement if they took his rejection of adhering to authority more seriously and embraced his idea of the need to rethink and reanalyse philosophical problems freshly for themselves. That would be a fitting legacy for Mulla Sadra in a critical, contemporary age. 