Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros35Dossier – Les interactions entre ...A Newly Discovered Persian Treati...

Dossier – Les interactions entre šīʿites imāmites et chrétiens

A Newly Discovered Persian Treatise on Biblical ‘Proofs’ of Muḥammad’s Prophethood (ca. 1702) by a Missionary Convert to Šīʿī Islam

Dennis Halft
p. 137-160

Résumés

Le polémiste šīʿite imāmite (duodécimain) ʿAlī-Qulī Ǧadīd al-Islām (m. apr. 1123/1711), communément identifié comme étant l’ancien missionnaire augustinien António de Jesus, est connu pour ses réfutations persanes du christianisme. La présente étude entend montrer que son traité sur les « preuves » bibliques de la prophétie de Muḥammad, Ibāt-i nubuvvat, qui n’avait jamais été identifié auparavant, existe dans les deux exemplaires fragmentaires Qum, Marʿašī 614 et Téhéran, Malik 6348. Ce traité nouvellement découvert, que l’on peut dater environ de 1702, montre des convergences significatives dans son argumentation (enquêtes étymologiques), ses sources textuelles (livres et dictionnaires européens), et ses citations bibliques (sources non-canoniques, 5 Ezra [=2 Esdras 1‒2]) avec les œuvres connues de ʿAlī-Qulī. L’interprétation allégorique que fait l’auteur des Écritures chrétiennes à travers le Coran et le adī šīʿite témoigne d’une exégèse musulmane trans-scripturaire qui transcende les frontières linguistiques, culturelles et religieuses en vue d’authentifier davantage la doctrine šīʿite imāmite à l’aide de la Bible.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

This article was written with the support of the Martin Buber Society of Fellows at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I wish to thank Reza Pourjavady, Jonathan Brack, and the members of the Buber Society’s Islamic Studies Forum for their helpful comments on an earlier draft, as well as Mahdi M. and Sohrab Y. for their help in acquiring reproductions of some of the manuscripts consulted for this study. This study is part of a larger research project on theological writings by Jewish and Christian converts to Šīʿī Islam.

  • 1 See, e.g. Flannery, The Mission of the Portuguese Augustinians; Ǧaʿfariyān, afaviyyah dar ʿarsa-yi (...)
  • 2 See CMR, vol. 10 (Ottoman and Safavid Empires, 1600‒1700), p. 493‒691, and CMR, vol. 12 (Asia, Afri (...)

1The past few decades have seen a growing scholarly interest in cultural and intellectual encounters between Catholic missionaries and Imāmī (Twelver) Šīʿī scholars in early-modern Safavid Iran.1 Two recently published volumes in the series Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History provide us with a state-of-the-art publication on this topic.2 With the continuing efforts of manuscript repositories in Iran in cataloguing and digitizing their collections, more hitherto unknown works that reflect Šīʿī-Catholic interaction during the 17th and early 18th centuries are likely to surface. Studying even fragmentary copies from the vast Iranian (and Indian) collections of Persian manuscripts can further advance our knowledge about the relationship between religions and the inter-cultural dynamics that shaped their respective theologies. In this article, we use a thus far unstudied anti-Christian work by a missionary convert to Islam to explore how the Latin Bible and other books printed in Europe were used to substantiate Šīʿī doctrine.

  • 3 The two copies, none of which possesses a colophon, vary slightly. Each of them has been collated w (...)
  • 4 Az zamān-i ażrat-i ʿĪsā tā āl bi-qawl-i Naārā qarīb bi hazār u haftad u du sāl mī-šavad… See Ti (...)
  • 5 While a portion of the prologue is still extant in Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614 (see fols. 2r:1‒2v:3), Tihr (...)
  • 6 “One of the Popes said that the Trinity, on which the religion is based, consists of Father, Son, a (...)
  • 7 Man ham muddatī az īšān va dar silk-i pādriyān būda va bi-iʿtiqād-i īšān dar ān-vaqt rū al-qudusī (...)

2Two manuscripts preserved in libraries in Iran, namely Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, 85 fols. (own partly corrected foliation), and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, 95 fols. (own foliation), contain an Imāmī Šīʿī treatise (risāla) on Christianity and the Bible.3 The Persian treatise can be dated ca. 1702, as suggested by the following comment by the author: “From the time of Jesus until present, according to the Christian account, nearly 1,702 years have passed…”4 Both manuscripts are defective in the beginning and mention neither the title of the work nor the name of its author.5 However, in the penultimate section of the treatise, the author identifies himself as a former Catholic missionary and Father (pādrī) who converted to Islam. Reporting on the theological disagreement among Christians over the term filioque,6 the author relates that, “for a while, I was also one of them and a Father, and I shared their belief in the Holy Spirit in those days”.7

  • 8 For a discussion of the date of conversion, see Tiburcio, “Muslim-Christian Polemics”, p. 248. A fe (...)
  • 9 On his works, see Tiburcio, “ʿAlī Qulī Jadīd al-Islām”, and the literature cited there, as well as (...)
  • 10 In fact, ʿAlī-Qulī identifies himself in all of his works as a missionary convert to Islam. The fol (...)
  • 11 For his analysis, ʿAlī-Qulī accessed the bilingual Arabic-Latin edition of the Biblia sacra arabica(...)

3Although the two extant manuscripts do not provide conclusive evidence, there are strong indications that the author was the prolific Šīʿī polemicist ʿAlī-Qulī Bayg or, as his name appears in his Persian works, ʿAlī-Qulī ǧadīd al-Islām (“new convert to Islam”, d. after 1123/1711). ʿAlī-Qulī is commonly identified as the former Portuguese Augustinian missionary António de Jesus, one of two late 17th-century missionary converts. He converted in Isfahan between 1694 and 1697.8 ʿAlī-Qulī is well-known for his polemical treatises against Christianity (and Sufism) following his conversion.9 His position as an ex-missionary with expert knowledge on his former religion confers special authority on ʿAlī-Qulī’s works.10 Addressed to Muslim readers, they are particularly significant for the study of cross-cultural exchanges, since they provided indigenous Muslim scholars with arguments against the authenticity of the Christian Scriptures, based on a detailed analysis of textual variants between different versions of the Bible printed in Latin and Arabic.11

  • 12 ʿAlī-Qulī usually gives his name in the introduction of his works, often directly following the baʿ(...)

4The article first discusses evidence supporting ʿAlī-Qulī as the author of this treatise and subsequently presents the structure and contents of the work. The identification of ʿAlī-Qulī as the author of this work remains preliminary until a complete copy of the treatise containing the name of the author is identified.12 The overall purpose of this study is to introduce a hitherto unstudied work to the reader and to stimulate further research on it in the wider context of Muslim-Christian interaction in early-modern Iran.

Authorship and Identification

  • 13 See Mašhad, Āstān-i Quds, MS 12116, fol. 6v:10; Qum, Iḥyāʾ-i Mīrāṯ-i Islāmī, MS 2895, p. 14:3; Tihr (...)
  • 14 See Pourjavady & Schmidtke, “ʿAlī Qulī Jadīd al-Islām”. The anti-Jewish work is extant in Tihrān, D (...)
  • 15 For the approximate dates of composition, see Pourjavady, ‘ʿAlī Qulī Jadīd al-Islām’, p. 3‒4; and t (...)

5In the introduction to his most extensive refutation of Christianity, Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn) wa-taqwiyat al-muʾminīn (Guidance for those who are led [or who lead] astray and strengthening for the believers, composed before ca. 1121/1709), dedicated to Shah Sulṭān Ḥusayn (r. 1105/1694‒1135/1722), ʿAlī-Qulī references an earlier treatise (risāla) he authored on the “proof of prophethood” (ibāt-i nubuvvat).13 Scholars have speculated that this treatise had either been ‘lost’ or is identical with an anti-Jewish work attributed to ʿAlī-Qulī in some secondary literature.14 This article, however, suggests that ʿAlī-Qulī’s Ibāt-i nubuvvat is, in fact, extant in the two untitled manuscripts: Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614 and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348. A comparison between the treatise in these manuscripts and ʿAlī-Qulī’s hitherto known works, namely his Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn), Radd-i ǧamāʿat-i (or ʿaqāʾid-i) ūfiyān (Refutation of the community [or beliefs] of Sufis, composed ca. 1121/1709), Favāʾid-i izdivāǧ (Benefits of marriage, composed before 1123/1711), and Sayf al-muʾminīn fī qitāl al-mušrikīn (Sword of the believers in battling the polytheists, completed in 1122/1710 or early 1123/1711), shows significant parallels, such as the argument structure, the referenced sources, and biblical citations.15

  • 16 For references to the Dictionarium septem linguarum—which must not be confounded with Calepio’s Dic (...)
  • 17 Tiburcio Urquiola, ‘Convert Literature’, p. 84.
  • 18 For what follows, see Alī-Qulī, Sayf al-muʾminīn, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), p. 351‒352.
  • 19 See the entry on “Ammon” in Calepio, Dictionarium, p. 42.
  • 20 For a discussion of other examples for ʿAlī-Qulī’s use of the Dictionarium, see Tiburcio Urquiola, (...)

6ʿAlī-Qulī’s works are heavily informed by European texts, in particular theological books and dictionaries, on which the author draws in order to defeat Christianity with its own hermeneutical arguments. The multi-lingual Dictionarium septem linguarum (hereafter Dictionarium) by the Augustinian lexicographer Ambrogio Calepio (“il Calepino”, 1435‒1510), figures prominently in ʿAlī-Qulī’s writings.16 ʿAlī-Qulī references the Dictionarium for questioning the reliability of the (Latin) Vulgate, the official Bible translation of the Roman Catholic Church (1546). His use of European dictionaries for detailed etymological inquiries is considered “a novelty” in the genre of ‘proofs of prophethood’.17 In his Sayf al-muʾminīn, for instance, ʿAlī-Qulī rejects the interpretation of Ammon as a reference to the “people” (ummat) of the Ammonites (cf. Genesis 19:38).18 He argues, based on Calepio’s Dictionarium, that Ammon is to be understood instead as equivalent to the Greek/Roman deity Jupiter.19 Hence, he accuses the scholar Jerome (347‒420 ce), the assumed translator of the Bible into Latin, of being “a liar” (durūġ-gū) and rejects the Vulgate as unreliable.20

  • 21 For references to the Dictionarium (kitāb-i Kalūpīnu), see Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 22v:14, 52v: (...)
  • 22 For references to the Gazophylacium (kitāb-i Gazfīlās) by “Pādrī Anǧīlū”, see Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, (...)
  • 23 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 52v:13; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 57v:11. For the entries on (...)
  • 24 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 7r:3‒4, 7v:4 and 12, 14r:5, 19r:6 and 8, 20r:1‒2, 22v:15, 65r:2‒3, (...)
  • 25 For references to the Flos sanctorum (kitāb-i Fulus-santurum), see Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 56v:1 (...)
  • 26 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 56v:12‒57r:2; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 62r:9‒14.

7This etymological approach, which is typical for ʿAlī-Qulī, also appears in this treatise on Ibāt-i nubuvvat. The unnamed author draws not only on Calepio’s Dictionarium,21 but also on the Gazophylacium linguae Persarum, the first Persian dictionary based on a European language, by the French Carmelite missionary Ange de Saint-Joseph (Angelus a Sancto Joseph, ca. 1636‒1696, active in Persia 1664‒1678).22 After quoting Matthew 10:23, he claims that both dictionaries support a literal interpretation of the “Son of Man” (Ibn-i umīnis [Filius hominis]) as purely “human” (mard).23 Throughout the treatise, other European dictionaries (kutub-i luġat-i Farangiyyān) and theological books (kutub-i tiyūlūǧiyya) are mentioned,24 but only the multi-volume lives of saints, known as Flos sanctorum, by the Spanish hagiographer Alonso de Villegas (1533‒1603) is explicitly identified.25 The author argues against Matthew 16:28 that all the disciples of Jesus died, as illustrated in the Flos sanctorum, without having seen the Messiah returning to earth.26

  • 27 For what follows, see Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 13v:13‒14 (partly illegible), 20v:1‒5; and Tihrān (...)
  • 28 “If they want to transcribe ʿalay from Hebrew into Latin [script], alif is put instead of ʿayn [and (...)
  • 29 For what follows, see ʿAlī-Qulī, “Risāla dar radd-i ǧamāʿat-i Ṣūfiyān”, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), p. 19‒ (...)
  • 30 See Tiburcio Urquiola’s discussion of this passage in his ‘Convert Literature’, p. 165‒166; and the (...)

8Perhaps most importantly, the same etymological argument on the alleged misreading of Hebrew and Arabic letters and words characterizes ʿAlī-Qulī’s works as well as this treatise. Its author claims that European lexicographers did not distinguish between the letters ʿayn and alif, resulting in a (false) transcription of ʿalay (Heb. “against me”) as ulī [oleum] (Lat. “olive oil”).27 Instead, he suggests reading ʿalay (cf. Psalm 54:5) as the proper name ʿAlī, and thus as direct reference to the first Imām, ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. This very same argument on the confusion between the words ʿalay and ulī appears in ʿAlī-Qulī’s Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn).28 Similarly, in his Radd-i ǧamāʿat-i (or ʿaqāʾid-i) ūfiyān, ʿAlī-Qulī criticizes Calepio for not distinguishing between the letters sīn and ād.29 As a result, the terms Sufi (ūfī) and sophist (sūfī) became mingled together into one single entry in the Dictionarium.30 On the structural level, these examples show that ʿAlī-Qulī and the author of this treatise employ the same etymological strategy, based on the use of European dictionaries, for demonstrating the ‘falsity’ of the arguments of other traditions, whether Christian or Sufi.

  • 31 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 84r:12‒84v:1. However, this reference does not appear in Tihrān, Ma (...)

9While different Šīʿī authors of Catholic background could theoretically have drawn on the same European books and employed the same arguments (or borrowed from each other’s works), the most logical conclusion is that Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614 and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348 contain a treatise by ʿAlī-Qulī, most likely his hitherto unidentified Ibāt-i nubuvvat. Taken together, the argument and sources of the work, as well as the historical circumstances of its composition at the very beginning of the 18th century, produce a strong case for the authorship of this former Augustinian missionary. If this is the case, then this untitled treatise on the biblical ‘proofs of prophethood’ is ʿAlī-Qulī’s hitherto earliest-known Persian work, composed only five to eight years after his conversion to Šīʿism. Yet, he may have authored an even earlier work (kitāb-i dīgar) on the same topic, which the author briefly references at the end of Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614.31 To fully appreciate ʿAlī-Qulī’s œuvre, this newly discovered treatise needs to be studied more closely, together with his later polemical works.

Structure and Contents

  • 32 For the structure of the treatise, see below, Appendix II.
  • 33 In the prologue, as extant in Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 2r:13‒14, the author states explicitly tha (...)
  • 34 Dar dalīlī (or dalāʾilī) ki az Kitāb-i (or Inǧīl-i) […] istiǧ (or āhir or istinbā) šuda
  • 35 Verses are quoted according to the Vulgate chapter divisions; biblical proper names and theological (...)
  • 36 For other examples of a ‘positive’ Muslim exegesis, see, e.g. Mir-Kasimov, “Jesus as Eschatological (...)

10Following the prologue, the treatise consists of a single chapter (bāb), divided into 23 sections (fal, pl. fuūl).32 There is no indication that it was part of a larger, multi-volume work, such as Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn).33 Each section is predominantly devoted to a particular biblical book, introduced by the formula “on the proof [or proofs] extracted [or made evident] from the Book [or the Gospel] of…”.34 All biblical citations are given in a Persian translation of the Latin, probably by the author himself.35 As in his later anti-Christian works, ʿAlī-Qulī offers a ‘positive’ Šīʿī exegesis of the Bible through an allegorical reading of selected passages from the First/Old Testament and the Second/New Testament, as well as extra-canonical material, in favor of Muḥammad and the imāms.36 In contrast, the common Muslim accusation of Christian (and Jewish) tampering (tarīf) with the Scriptures is not addressed, with the exception of the author’s attacks on Jerome’s Latin translation.

  • 37 In section 23, the author quotes verbatim 5 Ezra 1:24‒27a, 30b‒32, and 35‒36; 2:10‒12, 14b‒15a, 16‒ (...)
  • 38 See Longenecker, 2 Esdras, p. 112, 115‒116, and 120. For a translation of 5 Ezra (=2 Esdras 1‒2), s (...)
  • 39 For 5 Ezra 1:24‒27, for instance, compare Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 78r:6‒11, and Tihrān, Malik, M (...)
  • 40 The fact that the section dealing with 5 Ezra is placed last in the treatise suggests that ʿAlī-Qul (...)

11ʿAlī-Qulī quotes, inter alia, from the comparatively little-known Book of 5 Ezra (=2 Esdras 1‒2),37 a Christian text in two chapters, most likely authored by a Jewish Christian sometime between 130 and 250 ce, that has come to be attached to the pseudepigraphic Jewish apocalypse of 4 Ezra (=2 Esdras 3‒14).38 Some of these citations also appear, albeit in a slightly revised form, in ʿAlī-Qulī’s Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn) and Sayf al-muʾminīn.39 He probably had access to 5 Ezra (as well as the canonical books) through the Sixto-Clementine edition of the Vulgate (1592, corrected in 1593 and 1598), in which 5 Ezra is printed for the first time in a separate appendix, along with other extra-canonical texts.40 By quoting from this printed edition in a Persian translation, ʿAlī-Qulī was likely the first to introduce 5 Ezra to Šīʿī scholarship.

  • 41 For details, see Longenecker, 2 Esdras, p. 114‒121, and the literature cited there.
  • 42 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 79r:15‒85r:11; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 88v:10‒95v:13.
  • 43 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 80v:14‒81r:8 (incomplete); and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 90v:1‒1 (...)
  • 44 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 84r:2‒7; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 94r:12‒94v:2.
  • 45 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 82r:12‒83r:4; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 92r:14‒93r:10.
  • 46 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 83v:3‒84r:2; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 93v:12‒94r:11.

12The theological intention of 5 Ezra is to strengthen the faith of the Christian community of the 2nd or 3rd century by arguing that God transferred His blessings to the Church as a result of Israel’s ‘unfaithfulness’ to the Mosaic law.41 In a Muslim reading of the text, ʿAlī-Qulī refutes the Christian claims on thirty points, and considers Muḥammad’s community as God’s elected people.42 The “other nation” (cf. 5 Ezra 1:24), to which God has turned and which Ezra asks to “wait for [its] shepherd” (cf. 5 Ezra 2:34), is identified as the Muslim people, with Muḥammad as their “own prophet” (payġambar-i vud).43 To prove Imāmī Šīʿī doctrine, the author interprets the metaphors of “twelve trees” (davāzdah dirat) and “twelve springs” (davāzdah čašma), mentioned in 5 Ezra 2:19, as predicting the mission of the twelve Imāms.44 ʿAlī-Qulī combines these metaphors with qurʾānic and Šīʿī adī material that associates the imāms with the tree of Ṭūbā in paradise (cf. Q XIII, 29), arising from the house (āna) of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib.45 God’s “servants Isaiah and Jeremiah”, mentioned in 5 Ezra 2:18, are interpreted as references to ʿAlī’s sons, the Imāms Ḥasan and Ḥusayn.46

  • 47 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 7v:6‒7, 19r:9‒10, 20r:9, 21v:5‒6, 22r:2‒3 and 12‒13, 22v:11, 24r:2, (...)
  • 48 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 66r:10; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 73r:3. For Ibn Bābawayh’s ʿ(...)
  • 49 Compare Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 82r:12‒83r:4, and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 92r:14‒93r:10, (...)
  • 50 See ʿAlī-Qulī, “Risāla dar radd-i ǧamāʿat-i Ṣūfiyān”, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), p. 35; and Pourjavady, ‘ (...)

13This strategy of interpreting the Bible through a cross-scriptural reading is employed throughout the treatise. ʿAlī-Qulī frequently references Šīʿī adī collections,47 among them Ibn Bābawayh’s (“Šayḫ al-Ṣadūq”, d. 381/991) ʿUyūn abār al-Riā, which is devoted to reporting the sayings and deeds of the eighth imām, ʿAlī b. Mūsā al-Riḍā.48 Moreover, he appears to draw on Muḥammad Bāqir Maǧlisī’s (d. between 1110/1699 and 1111/1700) ayāt al-qulūb (Life of hearts), as suggested by textual parallels in the above-mentioned report on the tree of Ṭūbā.49 As we know from ʿAlī-Qulī’s Radd-i ǧamāʿat-i (or ʿaqāʾid-i) ūfiyān, the ex-missionary studied Šīʿī adī intensely and was deeply influenced by Maǧlisī, who died only a few years after ʿAlī-Qulī’s conversion to Islam.50 Hence, ʿAlī-Qulī’s strategy of reading biblical passages allegorically and in combination with Šīʿī traditions, also figures prominently in his later polemical works. Ibāt-i nubuvvat is an early example of this cross-scriptural approach.

Conclusion

14As a missionary convert to Islam, ʿAlī-Qulī was familiar with both Christian and Muslim traditions. Having access to Latin books printed in Europe and available in the Christian convents in Isfahan, he generated supplementary arguments against his former beliefs and in favor of Imāmī Šīʿī doctrines, and thus expanded and enriched the Muslim polemical debate. Although only partially preserved, this treatise, which should likely be identified as his Ibāt-i nubuvvat, is important for our understanding of the history of inter-religious controversies in Iran. ʿAlī-Qulī’s cross-scriptural reading of the Bible, in which he combined materials from both Šīʿī and Christian traditions, testifies to his significant role as an intermediary between early-modern Europe and Safavid Iran. Still, further research on apologetic and polemical works in Persian is required to fully assess the originality of his approach and his importance for the transfer of religious knowledge, both within Šīʿī-Catholic as well as in comparison to (later) Šīʿī-Protestant interaction. Likewise, the possible impact of ʿAlī-Qulī’s Ibāt-i nubuvvat on works by indigenous Muslim scholars of the 18th and 19th century has yet to be determined.

Appendix I

  • 51 See DINĀ, vol. 10, p. 1151‒1152; FANḪĀ, vol. 34, p. 670‒671; Ǧaʿfariyān & Ṣiddīqī, Az Darband tā Qa(...)
  • 52 See Ḥusaynī, Fihrist-i Kitābāna, vol. 29, p. 106, no. 119; DINĀ, vol. 10, p. 1151, no. 298403; and (...)
  • 53 Compare Qum, Marʿašī, MS 11479 with the edition based on Tihrān, Millī, MS 1623/3, fols. 209‒277, a (...)

15ʿAlī-Qulī’s Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn) wa-taqwiyat al-muʾminīn (Guidance for those who are led [or who lead] astray and strengthening for the believers, composed before ca. 1121/1709) is extant in eight manuscripts known so far, all of which are held by libraries in Iran and India. Since neither the union catalogues of manuscripts in Iran nor recent entries published elsewhere list all extant copies of the work, they are indicated below.51 The undated manuscript preserved in Qum, Marʿašī, MS 11479, 67 fols., which is listed in the catalogues, has been misidentified.52 It contains, in fact, ʿAlī-Qulī’s Radd-i ǧamāʿat-i (or ʿaqāʾid-i) ūfiyān (Refutation of the community [or beliefs] of Sufis, composed ca. 1121/1709) and is thus the second known copy of this anti-Sufi work.53

  • 54 As mentioned in the prologue of Volume One, the titles of the 4 volumes are as follows (see also Po (...)

16ʿAlī-Qulī’s Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn) is laid out in 4 volumes (ǧild, pl. ǧulūd). All manuscripts indicated below contain a part of Volume One, entitled Radd-i uūl-i dīn-i Naārā va ibāt-i uūl-i dīn-i Islām az rū-yi kitābhā-yi īšān (Refutation of the principles of Christianity and proof of the principles of Islam according to their books).54 Until today, no manuscript of volume two, three or four of ʿAlī-Qulī’s work has been identified. Volume One is structured in two chapters (bāb, pl. abwāb). The first chapter is entitled Radd-i uūl-i dīn-i Naārā (Refutation of the principles of Christianity) and is divided into 14 sections (fal, pl. fuūl). They discuss issues related to the oneness of God, the sacred Scriptures, the unity of the Father and the Son, the Trinity, God’s attributes, and the Incarnation. The title of the second chapter reads ubūt-i uūl-i dīn-i mubīn-i Muammadī (Proof of the principles of Muammad’s true religion). It is structured in 5 sections (fal, pl. fuūl), which are arranged according to the principles of Islam, namely divine unicity (tawīd), the justice of God (ʿadl), Muḥammad’s prophethood (nubuvvat), the Imāmate (imāmat), and resurrection (maʿād).

17The eight manuscripts of Volume One of Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn), listed here in chronological order, are as follows:

  1. Mumbai, K.R. Cama, MS 85 [not seen by me], number of folios unknown, no dedication mentioned in the library catalogue, completed in 1222/[1807‒1808]. The title reads as follows: Hidāyat al-muillīn wa-taqwiyat al-muʾminīn. It is unclear from the catalogue whether the manuscript contains the complete text of Volume One, i.e. the first and second chapter, or the first chapter only.55
  2. Qum, Marʿašī, MS 12021/1, fols. 1‒128 (defective at the beginning, the title of the work and the name of its author are not indicated), completed (in Karbala?) on 9 Šaʿbān 1234/[3 June 1819] by ʿAbbās b. ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn [Dihdaštī], who is also the copyist of Qum, Marʿašī, MS 12021/2, fols. 128‒163, completed in Karbala on 10 Ṣafar 1234/[9 December 1818]. The manuscript contains parts of the second chapter of Volume One, beginning in the middle of the first section.56 The title mentioned in the library catalogue, Radd-i Naārā, was chosen by the editor and does not correspond to the manuscript.57
  3. Mašhad, Āstān-i Quds, MS 12116, 302 fols., dedicated to Shah Sulṭān Ḥusayn (r. 1105/1694‒1135/1722), undated copy, with an endowment note on the last folio, dated to Šaʿbān 1250/[December 1834‒January 1835], along with a seal impression, dated 1227/[1812-1813]. The title reads as follows: Hidāyat al-āllīn wa-taqwiyat al-muʾminīn (fol. 3v:12). The manuscript contains the entire first chapter of Volume One.58
  4. Tihrān, Maǧlis, MS 2089, 307 fols. (paginated), dedicated to Shah Sulṭān Ḥusayn, undated copy, with an ownership statement on the last folio, dated 1 Rabīʿ I 1260/[21 March 1844], and another ownership statement on the front page, dated 18 Ǧumādā I 1281/[19 October 1864]. The title reads as follows: Hidāyat al-āllīn wa-taqwiyat al-muʾminīn (p. 6:5‒6). The manuscript contains the entire first chapter of Volume One. Photographs of the manuscript are available in Qum, Iḥyāʾ-i Mīrāṯ-i Islāmī, MS 864 (ʿaksī).59
  5. Patna, Khuda Bakhsh, MS 1318 [not seen by me], 433 fols., dedicated to Shah Sulṭān Ḥusayn, completed on 14 Ḏū al-Ḥiǧǧa 1266/[21 October 1850] at the request of Navvāb Akbar ʿAlī Ḫān, son of Navvāb Fayyāż ʿAlī Ḫān b. Navvāb Ḥayāt Ṣāḥib. The title reads as follows: Hidāyat al-muillīn wa-taqwiyat al-muʾminīn. It is unclear from the library catalogue whether the manuscript contains the complete text of Volume One, i.e. the first and second chapter, or the first chapter only.60
  6. Qum, Iḥyāʾ-i Mīrāṯ-i Islāmī, MS 2895, 348 folios (paginated), dedicated to Shah Sulṭān Ḥusayn, completed in 1325/[1907‒1908] by Ṣādiq b. Mahdī b. ʿAbbās-Qulī Naḫǧavānī. The title reads as follows: Hidāyat al-āllīn wa-taqwiyat al-muʾminīn (p. 7:12). The manuscript contains the entire first chapter of Volume One. It used to be preserved in the private collection of Ǧalāl Muḥaddiṯ in Tihrān, as suggested by his seal impression on the last folio, dated 1319/[1359‒1360]/[1940‒1941].61
  7. Qum, Marʿašī, MS 3651, 135 fols. (defective at the beginning), undated copy, with a marginal note on the last folio, dated to Rabīʿ II 1339/[December 1920‒January 1921]. The title reads as follows: Hidāyat al-āllīn (fol. 1r, margin). The manuscript contains parts of the second chapter of Volume One, beginning with the third section.62
  8. Tihrān, Malik, MS 5438, 376 fols. (paginated), dedicated to Shah Sulṭān Ḥusayn, undated copy. The title reads as follows: Hidāyat al-āllīn wa-taqwiyat al-muʾminīn (p. 8:7). The manuscript contains the entire first chapter of Volume One.63

Appendix II

  • 64 In what follows I indicate, for each section, the name of the adduced biblical book/s, followed by (...)

18The 23 sections of ʿAlī-Qulī’s Ibāt-i nubuvvat (Proof of prophethood, ca. 1702), given here in order of appearance, are as follows:64

  • 65 The only reference to Exodus (Īzūd), Exodus 4:14‒16, appears in section 22 (see Qum, Marʿašī, MS 61 (...)
  • 66 The author considers 1 Chronicles as one of the “books of the Torah” (kutub-i Tawrāt). See Qum, Mar (...)

Section 1: Pentateuch (Tawrāt-i Mūsā): Genesis (Ǧinizīs), Numbers (Tūmirī [sic] [Numeri]), Deuteronomy (Duturnāmī [Deuteronomium]),65 and 1 Chronicles (Kitāb-i avval Paralipūminū [Paralipomenon I])66 [see Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 2v:4‒6r:10/Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 1r:1 (defective at the beginning)‒4v:8];

Section 2: Isaiah (Šaʿ [Isaias]) [see fols. 6r:10-9r:9/fols. 4v:8‒7v:10];

Section 3: Ezra (ʿUzayr [Esdras]) [see fols. 9r:9‒10r:3/fols. 7v:10‒8v:3];

Section 4: Daniel (Dāniyāl) [see fols. 10r:4‒11v:8/fols. 8v:3‒10r:13];

Section 5: Zechariah (Zakariyyā [Zacharias]) [see fols. 11v:8‒15r:12/fols. 10r:14‒14r:11];

Section 6: Haggai (Izhī [Aggæus]) [see fols. 15r:12‒16r:2/fols. 14r:11‒15r:6];

Section 7: Habakkuk (ayaqūq [sic] [Habacuc]) [see fols. 16r:2‒17r:5/fols. 15r:6‒16r:13];

Section 8: Psalms (Zabūr [Psalmi]) [see fols. 17r:6‒24v:10/fols. 16r:13‒23v:11];

  • 67 Ecclesiastes and Proverbs were traditionally attributed to King Solomon.

Section 9: The “books of Solomon” (kutub-i Sulaymān): Ecclesiastes (Ikliziyatistī [sic]) and Proverbs (Parūrpiyārum [Proverbia])67 [see fols. 24v:10‒30r:16/fols. 23v:11‒31r:8];

Section 10: Jeremiah (Irmiyā [Jeremias]) [see fols. 30r:16‒33v:9/fols. 31r:8‒35v:6];

Section 11: Micah (Mīkayas [Michæas]) [see fols. 33v:9‒35r:8/fols. 35v:6‒37r:14];

Section 12: Nahum (Nāhūm) [see fols. 35r:8‒35v:10/fols. 37v:1‒38r:7];

Section 13: Amos (Amus) [see fols. 35v:10‒36v:9/fols. 38r:7‒39r:11];

  • 68 In fact, this section draws heavily on Malachi and quotes verbatim Malachi 4:1‒2a (see Qum, Marʿašī (...)

Section 14: Micah (Mīkayas)68 [see fols. 36v:9‒38v:3/fols. 39r:11‒41v:6];

Section 15: Ezekiel (Azikyāl [Ezechielis]) [see fols. 38v:3‒40v:2/fols. 41v:6‒43v:14];

Section 16: Zephaniah (Sufuniyā [Sophonias]) [see fols. 40v:3‒43r:1/fols. 44r:1‒46v:8];

Section 17: Joel (Ǧuʾal) [see fols. 43r:1‒50r:11/fols. 46v:8‒54v:13];

Section 18: Matthew (Mattā [Matthæus]) [see fols. 50r:11‒58v:10/fols. 54v:13‒64v:1];

Section 19: Mark (Marqus [Marcus]) [see fols. 58v:10‒59v:11/fols. 64v:1‒65v:7];

Section 20: Luke (Lūqā [Lucas]) [see fols. 59v:11‒61v:4/fols. 65v:7‒67v:9];

Section 21: John (annā [Ioannes]) [see fols. 61v:4‒69v:10/fols. 67v:9‒76v:11];

Section 22: Revelation (Apukalīpsī [Apocalypsis]) [see fols. 69v:11‒78r:2/fols. 76v:11‒87r:4];

Section 23: 5 Ezra (=2 Esdras 1‒2) (Izhdrās [Esdras]) [see fols. 78r:2‒85r:11/fols. 87r:4‒95v:13].

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Primary Sources

ʿAlī b. Muḥammad Ǧadīd al-Islām, [Radd bar Yahūd], Tihrān, Dānišgāh, MS 1186/5.

ʿAlī-Qulī Ǧadīd al-Islām (d. after 1123/1711), “Favāʾid-i izdivāǧ”, Muḥammad Riżā Zāʾirī (ed.), in Rasūl Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), Mīrā-i Islāmī-i Īrān 1, Qum, Marʿašī, 1373/[1994‒1995], p. 291‒310.

ʿAlī-Qulī Ǧadīd al-Islām, Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn) wa-taqwiyat al-muʾminīn, Mašhad, Āstān-i Quds, MS 12116.

ʿAlī-Qulī Ǧadīd al-Islām, Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn) wa-taqwiyat al-muʾminīn, Qum, Iḥyāʾ-i Mīrāṯ-i Islāmī, MS 2895.

ʿAlī-Qulī Ǧadīd al-Islām, Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn) wa-taqwiyat al-muʾminīn, Qum, Marʿašī, MS 3651.

ʿAlī-Qulī Ǧadīd al-Islām, Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn) wa-taqwiyat al-muʾminīn, Qum, Marʿašī, MS 12021/1.

ʿAlī-Qulī Ǧadīd al-Islām, Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn) wa-taqwiyat al-muʾminīn, Tihrān, Maǧlis, MS 2089.

ʿAlī-Qulī Ǧadīd al-Islām, Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn) wa-taqwiyat al-muʾminīn, Tihrān, Malik, MS 5438.

ʿAlī-Qulī Ǧadīd al-Islām, [Ibāt-i nubuvvat], Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614.

ʿAlī-Qulī Ǧadīd al-Islām, [Ibāt-i nubuvvat], Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348.

ʿAlī-Qulī Ǧadīd al-Islām, Radd-i ǧamāʿat-i (or ʿaqāʾid-i) ūfiyān, Qum, Marʿašī, MS 11479.

ʿAlī-Qulī Ǧadīd al-Islām, “Risāla dar radd-i ǧamāʿat-i Ṣūfiyān”, Rasūl Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), in idem (ed.), Mīrā-i Islāmī-i Īrān 7, Qum, Marʿašī, 1377/1419/[1998‒1999], p. 11‒54.

ʿAlī-Qulī Ǧadīd al-Islām, Sayf al-muʾminīn fī qitāl al-mušrikīn, published under the title Tarǧuma, šar va naqd-i sifr-i paydāyiš-i Tawrāt (Sayf al-muʾminīn fī qitāl al-mušrikīn), Rasūl Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), Qum, Anṣāriyān, 1375/[1996]; reprint Qum, Anṣāriyān, 1382/[2003].

Ange de Saint-Joseph (d. 1696), Gazophylacium linguae Persarum…, Amstelodami, Jansson-Waesberge, 1684.

Biblia sacra vulgatæ editionis Sixti V. P. M. iussu recognita atque edita, Romæ, Typographia Vaticana, 1598.

Bruyn, Cornelis de (d. 1726 or 1727), Reizen over Moskovie door Persie en Indie, Amsterdam, Wetstein, 2nd edition, 1714.

Calepio [Calepino] (d. 1510), Ambrogio, Dictionarium septem linguarum…, Venetia, 1689.

Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī (d. 381/991), Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, ʿUyūn abār al-Riā, 2 vols., Ḥusayn al-Aʿlamī (ed.), Bayrūt, Muʾassasat al-Aʿlamī lil-Maṭbūʿāt, 1404/[1984].

Maǧlisī (d. between 1110/1699 and 1111/1700), Muḥammad Bāqir, The Life and Religion of Mohammed, as Contained in the Sheeãh Traditions of the Hyât-ul-Kuloob, James L. Merrick (trans.), Boston, Phillips-Sampson, 1850.

Maǧlisī, Muḥammad Bāqir, ayāt al-qulūb, vol. 3: Tārī-i payāmbar-i Islām (Makka), ʿAlī Imāmiyān (ed.), Qum, Surūr, 1384/[2005‒2006].

Secondary Sources

Afšār, Īraǧ & Dānišpazhūh, Muḥammad T., Fihrist-i kitābhā-yi aṭṭī-yi Kitābāna-yi Millī-yi Malik, 12 vols., Tihrān, Malik, 1352‒1375/[1973‒1996].

Āstān-i Quds-i Rażavī, Fihrist-i kutub-i Kitābāna-yi Āstān-i Quds-i Rażavī, vol. 1‒, Mašhad, Nū Bihār, 1305‒/[1926‒].

Bastiaensen, Michel, “La Persia safavide vista da un lessicografo europeo. Presentazione del ‘Gazophylacium’”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 48, 1973‒1974, p. 175‒203.

Clines, Robert J., “The Converting Sea: Religious Change and Cross-Cultural Interaction in the Early Modern Mediterranean”, History Compass 17, January 2019, e12512, <https://doi.org/10.1111/hic3.12512>, accessed on September 25, 2019.

CMR = David Thomas et al. (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, vol. 1‒, Leiden, Brill, 2009‒.

Ḏarīʿa = Āġā Buzurg al-Ṭihrānī, al-arīʿa ilā taānīf al-Šīʿa, 26 vols., Bayrūt, al-Aḍwāʾ, 1403‒1406/[1983‒1986].

DINĀ = Muṣṭafā Dirāyatī, Fihristvāra-yi dastnivišthā-yi Īrān (Dinā), 12 vols., Tihrān, Maǧlis, 1389/[2010].

FANḪĀ = Muṣṭafā Dirāyatī, Fihristgān: Nusahā-yi aṭṭī-i Īrān (Fanā), 45 vols., Tihrān, Millī, 1390‒1394/[2012‒2015].

Flannery, John, The Mission of the Portuguese Augustinians to Persia and Beyond (1602‒1747), (Studies in Christian Mission, 43), Leiden, Brill, 2013.

Ǧaʿfariyān, Rasūl, “Pidar-i Āntūniyū du Zhizū, raʾīs-i asbaq-i dayr-i Āgūstīnhā-yi Iṣfahān, va kitāb-i vay dar naqd-i Sifr-i Paydāyiš (2)”, Tārī va farhang-i muʿāir 3‒4, 1376/[1997], p. 94‒120.

Ǧaʿfariyān, Rasūl, afaviyyah dar ʿarsa-yi dīn, farhang va siyāsat, 3 vols., Qum, Pizhūhiškada-yi Ḥawzah va Dānišgāh, 1379/[2000‒2001].

Ǧaʿfariyān, Rasūl & Ṣiddīqī, Maryam, Az Darband tā Qaīf. Guzārišī az guftugūhā-yi Masīī-Islāmī dar dawrah-i afavī va Qāǧārī (bi żamīmah-i 5 risāla), Tihrān, ʿIlm, 1395/[2016].

Gore-Jones, Lydia, “The Unity and Coherence of 4 Ezra: Crisis, Response, and Authorial Intention”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 47, 2016, p. 212‒235.

Ḥusaynī, Aḥmad, Fihrist-i Kitābāna-yi ʿUmūmī-i ażrat Āyat Allāh al-ʿumā Naǧafī Marʿašī, vol. 1‒, Qum, Mihr-i Ustuvār, 1354‒/[1975‒1976‒].

Ḥusaynī Iškivarī, Aḥmad, Fihrist-i nusahā-yi aṭṭī-i Markaz-i Iʾ-i Mīrā-i Islāmī, 8 vols., Qum, Sitāra, 1377‒1384/1419‒1426/[1998‒2006].

Ḥusaynī Iškivarī, Ǧaʿfar & Ḥusaynī Iškivarī, Ṣādiq, Fihrist-i nusahā-yi ʿaksī-i Markaz-i Iʾ-i Mīrā-i Islāmī, vol. 1‒, [Qum], Sitāra, 1377‒/1419‒/[1998‒].

Iʿtiṣāmī, Yūsuf et al., Fihrist-i nusahā-yi aṭṭī-i Kitābāna-yi Maǧlis-i Šūrā-yi Millī, vol. 1‒, Tihrān, Maǧlis, 1305‒/[1926‒].

Longenecker, Bruce W., 2 Esdras, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Matthee, Rudi, “Poverty and Perseverance. The Jesuit Mission of Isfahan and Shamakhi in Late Safavid Iran”, Al-Qanara 36, 2015, p. 463‒501.

Matthee, Rudi, “I. Confessions of an Armenian Convert: The Iʿtirafnama of Akbar (ʿAli Akbar) Armani”, in Hani Khafipour (ed.), The Empires of the Near East and India: Source Studies of the Safavid, Ottoman, and Mughal Literate Communities, New York, Columbia University Press, 2019, p. 11‒31.

Mir-Kasimov, Orkhan, “Jesus as Eschatological Saviour in Islam: An Example of the ‘Positive’ Apologetic Interpretation of the Christian Apocalyptic Texts in an Islamic Messianic Milieu”, Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 6, 2018, p. 332‒358.

Munzavī, ʿAlī N. & Dānišpazhūh, Muḥammad T. et al., Fihrist-i nusahā-yi aṭṭī-i Kitābāna-yi Markazī va Markaz-i Asnād-i Dānišgāh-i Tihrān, vol. 1‒, Tihrān, Dānišgāh, 1330‒/[1951‒].

Piemontese, Angelo M., Persica vaticana. Roma e Persia tra codici e testi, (Studi e testi, 512), Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2017.

Pourjavady, Reza, ‘ʿAlī Qulī Jadīd al-Islām and his Polemical Writings Against Christianity’, unpublished manuscript, 2015.

Pourjavady, Reza & Schmidtke, Sabine, art. “ʿAlī Qulī Jadīd al-Islām”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Three (online edition, 2009).

Rehatsek, Edward, Catalogue Raisonné of the Arabic, Hindostani, Persian, and Turkish Mss. in the Mulla Firuz Library, [Mumbai], Mulla Firuz, 1873.

Richard, Francis, “Catholicisme et Islam chiite au ‘grand siècle’. Autour de quelques documents concernant les Missions catholiques au xviie siècle”, Euntes docete 33, 1980, p. 339‒403.

Richard, Francis, “Un Augustin portugais renégat apologiste de l’islam chiite au début du xviiie siècle”, Moyen Orient et Océan Indien 1, 1984, p. 73‒85.

Richard, Francis, Raphaël du Mans, missionnaire en Perse au XVIIe s., vol. 1: Biographie. Correspondance, vol. 2: Estats et Mémoire, (Moyen Orient & Océan Indien xvie-xixe s., 9/1 and 2), Paris, L’Harmattan, 1995.

Rodríguez de Gracia, Hilario, art. “Villegas, Alonso de”, Diccionario biográfico español e hispano-americano, <http://dbe.rah.es/biografias/5813/alonso-de-villegas>, accessed on August 22, 2019.

Ross, Edward D. et al., Catalogue of the Arabic and Persian Manuscripts in the Oriental Public Library at Bankipore, 25 vols., Calcutta, Khuda Bakhsh, 1908‒1942.

Rota, Giorgio, “Conversion to Islam (and Sometimes a Return to Christianity) in Safavid Persia in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, in Claire Norton (ed.), Conversion and Islam in the Early Modern Mediterranean: The Lure of the Other, London, Routledge, 2017, p. 50‒76.

Soldi Rondinini, Gigliola & De Mauro, Tullio, art. “Calepio, Ambrogio, detto il Calepino”, Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 16 (1973), p. 669‒670.

Tiburcio, Alberto, “Muslim-Christian Polemics and Scriptural Translation in Safavid Iran: ʿAli-Qoli Jadid al-Eslām and his Interlocutors”, Iranian Studies 50, 2017, p. 247‒269.

Tiburcio, Alberto, art. “ʿAlī Qulī Jadīd al-Islām, António de Jesus”, in CMR, vol. 12 (2018), p. 266‒273.

Tiburcio Urquiola, Alberto, ‘Convert Literature, Interreligious Polemics, and the ‘Signs of Prophethood’ Genre in Late Safavid Iran (1694‒1722): The Work of ʿAlī Qulī Jadīd al-Islām (d. circa 1722)’, PhD dissertation, McGill University, 2014, <http://digitool.Library.McGill.CA:80/R/-?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=130439&silo_library=GEN01>, accessed on August 10, 2019.

Windler, Christian, Missionare in Persien. Kulturelle Diversität und Normenkonkurrenz im globalen Katholizismus (17.‒18. Jahrhundert), (Geschichte der Außenbeziehungen in neuen Perspektiven, 12), Köln, Böhlau, 2018.

Haut de page

Notes

1 See, e.g. Flannery, The Mission of the Portuguese Augustinians; Ǧaʿfariyān, afaviyyah dar ʿarsa-yi dīn, vol. 3; Matthee, “Poverty and Perseverance”, as well as his essay in this issue; Piemontese, Persica vaticana; Richard, “Catholicisme et Islam chiite”; Raphaël du Mans; and Windler, Missionare in Persien.

2 See CMR, vol. 10 (Ottoman and Safavid Empires, 1600‒1700), p. 493‒691, and CMR, vol. 12 (Asia, Africa, and the Americas, 1700‒1800), p. 243‒312, and the literature cited there.

3 The two copies, none of which possesses a colophon, vary slightly. Each of them has been collated with its original Vorlage, as suggested by collation notes in the margins. For descriptions of the manuscripts, see Ḥusaynī, Fihrist-i Kitābāna, vol. 2, p. 213‒214; Afšār & Dānišpazhūh, Fihrist-i kitābhā-yi aṭṭī, vol. 3, p. 405‒406; DINĀ, vol. 4, p. 1240, no. 117943, and vol. 5, p. 596, no. 133943; FANḪĀ, vol. 14, p. 762, and vol. 16, p. 408. The titles mentioned in the catalogues, Dalāʾil-i nubuvvat u imāmat and Radd-i Yahūd, were chosen by the editors and do not correspond to the manuscripts.

4 Az zamān-i ażrat-i ʿĪsā tā āl bi-qawl-i Naārā qarīb bi hazār u haftad u du sāl mī-šavad… See Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 77r:12‒14. By contrast, the same passage reads “nearly 1,700 years” (qarīb bi hazār u haftad sāl) in Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 70r:10‒11. The lectio difficilior, i.e. 1,702 years, is probably to be preferred.

5 While a portion of the prologue is still extant in Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614 (see fols. 2r:1‒2v:3), Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348 begins a few lines after the beginning of the first section (equivalent to Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 2v:12). For the structure of the treatise, see below.

6 “One of the Popes said that the Trinity, on which the religion is based, consists of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father did not come forth from anyone, the Son came forth from the Father, and the Holy Spirit came forth from the Son alone. […] A few years later, another Pope came and said that the Holy Spirit did not come forth from the Son alone, but from the Father and the Son [my italics]” (yakī az Rīm-pāpāyān gufta ki ula [sic] ki banā-yi mahab rā bar ān guāšta-and, pidar u pisar u rū al-qudus ast, va pidar az hīč kas bi-ham na-rasīda, va pisar az pidar bi-ham rasīda, va rū al-qudus az pisar tanhā bi-ham rasīda […] va baʿd az čand sāl Rīm-pāpāī-i dīgar āmada va gufta ki rū al-qudus na tanhā az pisar balka az pidar u pisar bi-ham rasīda). See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 68r:6‒11; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 74v:13‒75r:4.

7 Man ham muddatī az īšān va dar silk-i pādriyān būda va bi-iʿtiqād-i īšān dar ān-vaqt rū al-qudusī [sic] dāštam. See Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 76r:6‒8. The same passage has been erased in Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 69r:8‒10, apparently by a reader who felt uncomfortable about the Christian past of the author.

8 For a discussion of the date of conversion, see Tiburcio, “Muslim-Christian Polemics”, p. 248. A few years earlier, another Portuguese Augustinian missionary, Manuel de Santa Maria, had converted to Islam, changing his name to Ḥasan- or Ḥusayn-Qulī Bayg (for the latter name, see Bruyn, Reizen, p. 187). In contrast to ʿAlī-Qulī, Ḥasan-/Ḥusayn-Qulī is not known to have authored Šīʿī polemical works. On the conversion of the two missionaries, see Richard, “Un Augustin portugais renégat”, p. 73‒74; Flannery, The Mission of the Portuguese Augustinians, p. 94‒98; Rota, “Conversion to Islam”, p. 59; and Windler, Missionare in Persien, p. 272‒278. For an overview on conversion in Safavid Iran, see Matthee, “I. Confessions of an Armenian Convert”, p. 11‒18, 27‒30.

9 On his works, see Tiburcio, “ʿAlī Qulī Jadīd al-Islām”, and the literature cited there, as well as Ǧaʿfariyān, “Pidar-i Āntūniyū du Zhizū”, and Pourjavady, ‘ʿAlī Qulī Jadīd al-Islām’.

10 In fact, ʿAlī-Qulī identifies himself in all of his works as a missionary convert to Islam. The following statement in his Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn) is almost identical to the one in the treatise mentioned above: “For a while, I was a Father and I shared their belief in this Holy Spirit” (banda muddatī pādrī būdam va bi-iʿtiqād-i īšān īn rū al-qudus bi-āmin būd). See Tihrān, Malik, MS 5438, p. 141:1‒2 (no foliation). For similar passages in Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn), see Mašhad, Āstān-i Quds, MS 12116, fol. 2v:13‒14; Qum, Iḥyāʾ-i Mīrāṯ-i Islāmī, MS 2895, p. 4:14‒15 (no foliation); Tihrān, Maǧlis, MS 2089, p. 4:2‒4 (no foliation); and Tihrān, Malik, MS 5438, p. 4:14‒15, 176:14‒177:2. For ʿAlī-Qulī’s edited works, see his “Risāla dar radd-i ǧamāʿat-i Ṣūfiyān”, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), p. 24, 28‒29, 44; “Favāʾid-i izdivāǧ”, M.R. Zāʾirī (ed.), p. 301; and Sayf al-muʾminīn, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), published under the title Tarǧuma, šar va naqd-i sifr-i paydāyiš-i Tawrāt, p. 56.

11 For his analysis, ʿAlī-Qulī accessed the bilingual Arabic-Latin edition of the Biblia sacra arabica (=al-Kutub al-muqaddasa bi-l-lisān al-ʿarabī), printed in three volumes by the Propaganda Fide between 1671 and 1673. For details, see Ǧaʿfariyān, “Pidar-i Āntūniyū du Zhizū”, p. 94‒101. On converts as cross-cultural brokers, see Clines, “The Converting Sea”, and the literature cited there.

12 ʿAlī-Qulī usually gives his name in the introduction of his works, often directly following the baʿdiyya. For his Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn), see Mašhad, Āstān-i Quds, MS 12116, fol. 2v:8; Qum, Iḥyāʾ-i Mīrāṯ-i Islāmī, MS 2895, p. 4:7; Tihrān, Maǧlis, MS 2089, p. 3:12; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 5438, p. 4:7. For his edited works, see ʿAlī-Qulī, “Risāla dar radd-i ǧamāʿat-i Ṣūfiyān”, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), p. 17; “Favāʾid-i izdivāǧ”, M.R. Zāʾirī (ed.), p. 301; and Sayf al-muʾminīn, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), p. 56.

13 See Mašhad, Āstān-i Quds, MS 12116, fol. 6v:10; Qum, Iḥyāʾ-i Mīrāṯ-i Islāmī, MS 2895, p. 14:3; Tihrān, Maǧlis, MS 2089, p. 12:4‒5; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 5438, p. 15:3. Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn) still remains to be researched and edited. For a preliminary study, see Richard, “Un Augustin portugais renégat”, p. 75‒77. For descriptions of the extant manuscripts of the work, see below, Appendix I.

14 See Pourjavady & Schmidtke, “ʿAlī Qulī Jadīd al-Islām”. The anti-Jewish work is extant in Tihrān, Dānišgāh, MS 1186/5, fols. 101v‒112r. The untitled and undated copy, known under the title Radd bar Yahūd, contains extensive citations from the Hebrew Bible represented in Arabic (fols. 101v‒110v) as well as Hebrew letters (fol. 111r). It is part of a codex that was copied in ca. 1278/1862. The name of the author reads as ʿAlī b. Muḥammad ǧadīd al-Islām (fol. 101v:1). Unlike ʿAlī-Qulī, the author does not identify himself as a former missionary. For a description of this manuscript, see Munzavī & Dānišpazhūh, Fihrist-i nusahā-yi aṭṭī, vol. 6, p. 2254.

15 For the approximate dates of composition, see Pourjavady, ‘ʿAlī Qulī Jadīd al-Islām’, p. 3‒4; and the editor’s introduction in ʿAlī-Qulī, Sayf al-muʾminīn, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), p. 28‒31, 53. Since Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn) is referenced in Radd-i ǧamāʿat-i (or ʿaqāʾid-i) ūfiyān, it can be dated before ca. 1121/1709 (see ʿAlī-Qulī, “Risāla dar radd-i ǧamāʿat-i Ṣūfiyān”, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), p. 17, 46‒47).

16 For references to the Dictionarium septem linguarum—which must not be confounded with Calepio’s Dictionarium latinum—in Alī-Qulī’s Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn), see Tihrān, Malik, MS 5438, p. 172:1, 173:3 and 11, 180:14. For his edited works, see ʿAlī-Qulī, “Risāla dar radd-i ǧamāʿat-i Ṣūfiyān”, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), p. 19, 25, 41‒42; and Sayf al-muʾminīn, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), p. 124, 196, 258, 351‒352, 597. The multi-lingual Dictionarium was accessible to me in a copy printed in Venice in 1689 and preserved under the shelf mark 2 Polygl. 20 in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich (see Calepio, Dictionarium). On Calepio and his works, see Soldi Rondinini & De Mauro, “Calepio, Ambrogio”.

17 Tiburcio Urquiola, ‘Convert Literature’, p. 84.

18 For what follows, see Alī-Qulī, Sayf al-muʾminīn, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), p. 351‒352.

19 See the entry on “Ammon” in Calepio, Dictionarium, p. 42.

20 For a discussion of other examples for ʿAlī-Qulī’s use of the Dictionarium, see Tiburcio Urquiola, ‘Convert Literature’, p. 84 (“angelus”), 165‒168 (“sophista/sophistes”).

21 For references to the Dictionarium (kitāb-i Kalūpīnu), see Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 22v:14, 52v:12; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 22r:1, 57v:10.

22 For references to the Gazophylacium (kitāb-i Gazfīlās) by “Pādrī Anǧīlū”, see Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 52v:12; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 57v:10. For the Gazophylacium, printed in Amsterdam in 1684, see Ange de Saint-Joseph, Gazophylacium. On him and his work, see Bastiaensen, “La Persia safavide”; and Windler, Missionare in Persien, p. 230‒231, 574‒581.

23 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 52v:13; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 57v:11. For the entries on “filius/figlio”, see Calepio, Dictionarium, p. 281; and Ange de Saint-Joseph, Gazophylacium, p. 122.

24 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 7r:3‒4, 7v:4 and 12, 14r:5, 19r:6 and 8, 20r:1‒2, 22v:15, 65r:2‒3, 65v:2‒3, 68v:6, 72v:8, 80r:1; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 5v:5, 6r:5 and 12, 12v:14, 18r:14, 18v:2, 19r:10, 22r:2, 71v:6, 72r:8‒9, 75v:2, 80r:9, 89r:12‒13.

25 For references to the Flos sanctorum (kitāb-i Fulus-santurum), see Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 56v:14; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 62r:12. There are various editions of the Flos sanctorum, printed from the late 16th century onwards. On Alonso de Villegas and his work, see Rodríguez de Gracia, “Villegas, Alonso de”.

26 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 56v:12‒57r:2; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 62r:9‒14.

27 For what follows, see Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 13v:13‒14 (partly illegible), 20v:1‒5; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 12v:6‒9, 19v:8‒11. See the entry on “oleum” in Calepio, Dictionarium, p. 556.

28 “If they want to transcribe ʿalay from Hebrew into Latin [script], alif is put instead of ʿayn [and] they read ulī [oleum]” (agar vāhand ʿalay rā az ʿibrī bi lātīn tarǧuma kunand, bi-ǧā-yi ʿayn alif guāšta ulī mī-gūyand). Quoted in Ǧaʿfariyān, “Pidar-i Āntūniyū du Zhizū”, p. 98 (without indicating the folio of the manuscript consulted).

29 For what follows, see ʿAlī-Qulī, “Risāla dar radd-i ǧamāʿat-i Ṣūfiyān”, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), p. 19‒20.

30 See Tiburcio Urquiola’s discussion of this passage in his ‘Convert Literature’, p. 165‒166; and the entry on “sophista/sophistes” in Calepio, Dictionarium, p. 766. For a similar argument in ʿAlī-Qulī’s Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn), see Richard, “Un Augustin portugais renégat”, 76‒77.

31 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 84r:12‒84v:1. However, this reference does not appear in Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 95v.

32 For the structure of the treatise, see below, Appendix II.

33 In the prologue, as extant in Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 2r:13‒14, the author states explicitly that “this treatise comprises one chapter with several sections” (īn risāla muštamilā [sic] bar yak bāb va tatavī bar čand fal kardīd). In the colophon of Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 95v, the scribe makes clear that he copied the entire treatise (tammat hāihi al-risāla). For the structure of Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn), see below, Appendix I.

34 Dar dalīlī (or dalāʾilī) ki az Kitāb-i (or Inǧīl-i) […] istiǧ (or āhir or istinbā) šuda

35 Verses are quoted according to the Vulgate chapter divisions; biblical proper names and theological terms are indicated in a Persian transcription of the Latin (e.g. Firaziyīn [Pharisæi]; Krīstūs [Christus]; Pidrūs [Petrus]; sīnbulu/sīnbulū [symbolum]). For an explicit reference to Latin as the “language of the Franks” (zabān-i farangī), see Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 37v (margin); and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 40r:12‒13.

36 For other examples of a ‘positive’ Muslim exegesis, see, e.g. Mir-Kasimov, “Jesus as Eschatological Saviour”, as well as Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi’s essay in this issue.

37 In section 23, the author quotes verbatim 5 Ezra 1:24‒27a, 30b‒32, and 35‒36; 2:10‒12, 14b‒15a, 16‒19a, 23b, 29‒31a, and 33‒34, as extant in Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 78r:6‒11, 78r:12‒78v:1, 2‒5, 6‒11, 11‒13, 78v:13‒79r:3, 4‒5, 5‒9, 9‒14; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 87r:8‒14, 87v:1‒5, 7‒10, 87v:11‒88r:2, 3‒4, 5‒10, 11, 88r:12‒88v:2, 3‒7.

38 See Longenecker, 2 Esdras, p. 112, 115‒116, and 120. For a translation of 5 Ezra (=2 Esdras 1‒2), see, e.g. the New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. For a general introduction to 4 Ezra—which is not quoted in the treatise—see Gore-Jones, “Unity and Coherence”, and the literature cited there.

39 For 5 Ezra 1:24‒27, for instance, compare Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 78r:6‒11, and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 87r:8‒14, with ʿAlī-Qulī’s Hidāyat al-āllīn (or al-muillīn), as it appears in Qum, Marʿašī, MS 3651, fols. 77v:13-78r:9, and Qum, Marʿašī, MS 12021/1, fol. 78r:6‒78v:2, as well as his Sayf al-muʾminīn, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), p. 250.

40 The fact that the section dealing with 5 Ezra is placed last in the treatise suggests that ʿAlī-Qulī adopted the arrangement of the Sixto-Clementine edition. See Biblia sacra vulgatæ, Appendix, Liber Quartus Esdræ, chapters 1‒2.

41 For details, see Longenecker, 2 Esdras, p. 114‒121, and the literature cited there.

42 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 79r:15‒85r:11; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 88v:10‒95v:13.

43 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 80v:14‒81r:8 (incomplete); and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 90v:1‒12.

44 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 84r:2‒7; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 94r:12‒94v:2.

45 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 82r:12‒83r:4; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 92r:14‒93r:10.

46 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 83v:3‒84r:2; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 93v:12‒94r:11.

47 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 7v:6‒7, 19r:9‒10, 20r:9, 21v:5‒6, 22r:2‒3 and 12‒13, 22v:11, 24r:2, 25r:7, 35r:14, 39r:14, 45v:9‒10, 58v:8; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 6r:7, 18v:3, 19v:2, 20v:8, 21r:5‒6 and 14, 21v:12, 23r:4, 24r:7‒8, 37v:7, 42v:6, 50r:4, 64r:12.

48 See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 66r:10; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 73r:3. For Ibn Bābawayh’s ʿUyūn, see, for instance, the edition by Ḥ. al-Aʿlamī.

49 Compare Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 82r:12‒83r:4, and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fols. 92r:14‒93r:10, with Maǧlisī’s ayāt al-qulūb, vol. 3, p. 774‒775, and Life and Religion, p. 207 (translation). Other Muslim sources used by the author still remain to be researched and identified.

50 See ʿAlī-Qulī, “Risāla dar radd-i ǧamāʿat-i Ṣūfiyān”, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.), p. 35; and Pourjavady, ‘ʿAlī Qulī Jadīd al-Islām’, p. 1.

51 See DINĀ, vol. 10, p. 1151‒1152; FANḪĀ, vol. 34, p. 670‒671; Ǧaʿfariyān & Ṣiddīqī, Az Darband tā Qaīf, p. 77; and Tiburcio, “ʿAlī Qulī Jadīd al-Islām”, p. 268‒269.

52 See Ḥusaynī, Fihrist-i Kitābāna, vol. 29, p. 106, no. 119; DINĀ, vol. 10, p. 1151, no. 298403; and FANḪĀ, vol. 34, p. 671.

53 Compare Qum, Marʿašī, MS 11479 with the edition based on Tihrān, Millī, MS 1623/3, fols. 209‒277, and published in ʿAlī-Qulī, “Risāla dar radd-i ǧamāʿat-i Ṣūfiyān”, R. Ǧaʿfariyān (ed.).

54 As mentioned in the prologue of Volume One, the titles of the 4 volumes are as follows (see also Pourjavady & Schmidtke, “ʿAlī Qulī Jadīd al-Islām”): (1) Radd-i uūl-i dīn-i Naārā u ibāt-i uūl-i dīn-i Islām az rū-yi kitābhā-yi īšān (Refutation of the principles of Christianity and proof of the principles of Islam according to their books); (2) Radd-i furūʿ-i dīn-i Naārā u ibāt-i furūʿ-i dīn-i Islām az rū-yi kitābhā-yi īšān (Refutation of the branches of Christianity and proof of the branches of Islam according to their books); (3) Ibāt-i payāmbarī u ātamiyyat az kitābhā-yi īšān (Proof of the prophethood of Muammad and that he is the seal of prophethood according to their books); and (4) Ibāt-i imāmat u mahdaviyyat az kitābhā-yi īšān (Proof of the Imāmate and the Mahdism according to their books).

55 For a description of this manuscript, see Rehatsek, Catalogue Raisonné, p. 214, no. 85.

56 Compare Qum, Marʿašī, MS 12021/1 with Qum, Marʿašī, MS 3651 (see below, no. 7).

57 For a description of this manuscript, see Ḥusaynī, Fihrist-i Kitābāna, vol. 30, p. 373, no. 389.

58 For a description of this manuscript, see Āstān-i Quds-i Rażavī, Fihrist-i kutub-i Kitābāna, vol. 11, p. 426‒427.

59 For descriptions of this manuscript, see Iʿtiṣāmī, Fihrist-i nusahā-yi aṭṭī, vol. 6, p. 75‒76; Ḥusaynī Iškivarī, Ǧ. & Ḥusaynī Iškivarī, Ṣ., Fihrist-i nusahā-yi ʿaksī, vol. 3, p. 53‒54.

60 For a description of this manuscript, see Ross, Catalogue of the Arabic and Persian Manuscripts, vol. 14, p. 157‒158.

61 For descriptions of this manuscript, see Ḏarīʿa, vol. 25, p. 179, no. 142; Ḥusaynī Iškivarī, Fihrist-i nusahā-yi aṭṭī, vol. 7, p. 332‒333.

62 For a description of this manuscript, see Ḥusaynī, Fihrist-i Kitābāna, vol. 10, p. 47.

63 For a description of this manuscript, see Afšār & Dānišpazhūh, Fihrist-i kitābhā-yi aṭṭī, vol. 4, p. 844.

64 In what follows I indicate, for each section, the name of the adduced biblical book/s, followed by a transcription of its/their Persian equivalent in parentheses and italics, as found in the manuscripts. The original Latin names, as they appear in the Vulgate, are indicated in square brackets, if different from the English.

65 The only reference to Exodus (Īzūd), Exodus 4:14‒16, appears in section 22 (see Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 75r:13‒75v:2; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 83v:7‒13). The treatise makes no reference to Leviticus.

66 The author considers 1 Chronicles as one of the “books of the Torah” (kutub-i Tawrāt). See Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 5r:6; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 3v:3. Tawrāt might refer here to the First/Old Testament as a whole.

67 Ecclesiastes and Proverbs were traditionally attributed to King Solomon.

68 In fact, this section draws heavily on Malachi and quotes verbatim Malachi 4:1‒2a (see Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fol. 36v:11‒15; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 39r:14‒39v:4). In addition, it references Malachi 4:5 (see Qum, Marʿašī, MS 614, fols. 36v:15‒37r:1; and Tihrān, Malik, MS 6348, fol. 39v:4‒5).

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Dennis Halft, « A Newly Discovered Persian Treatise on Biblical ‘Proofs’ of Muḥammad’s Prophethood (ca. 1702) by a Missionary Convert to Šīʿī Islam »MIDÉO, 35 | 2020, 137-160.

Référence électronique

Dennis Halft, « A Newly Discovered Persian Treatise on Biblical ‘Proofs’ of Muḥammad’s Prophethood (ca. 1702) by a Missionary Convert to Šīʿī Islam »MIDÉO [En ligne], 35 | 2020, mis en ligne le 29 octobre 2020, consulté le 04 juillet 2022. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/mideo/5142

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Institut Dominicain d'Études Orientales

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search