Content

Camilla Adang, Sabine Schmidtke (Ed.)

Contracts and Controversies between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Pre-Modern Iran

1. Edition 2010, ISBN print: 978-3-89913-738-5, ISBN online: 978-3-95650-682-6, https://doi.org/10.5771/9783956506826

Series: Istanbuler Texte und Studien (ITS), vol. 21

CC-BY-NC-ND

Bibliographic information
Contacts and Controversies between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Pre-Modern Iran © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ISTANBULER TEXTE UND STUDIEN HERAUSGEGEBEN VOM ORIENT-INSTITUT ISTANBUL BAND 21 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Contacts and Controversies between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Pre-Modern Iran edited by Camilla Adang Sabine Schmidtke WÜRZBURG 2016 ERGON VERLAG WÜRZBURG IN KOMMISSION © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Umschlaggestaltung: Taline Yozgatian Umschlagbild: Beginn der Risālat ilzām al-yahūd fīmā zaʿamū fī l-tawrāt min qibal ʿilm al-kalām des al-Salām ʿAbd al-ʿAllām (Handschrift Fatih 2994, ff. 1b-2a, mit freundlicher Genehmigung) Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-95650-194-4 ISSN 1863-9461 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul (Max Weber Stiftung) Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung des Werkes außerhalb des Urheberrechtsgesetzes bedarf der Zustimmung des Orient-Instituts Istanbul. Dies gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen jeder Art, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmung sowie für die Einspeicherung in elektronische Systeme. Gedruckt mit Unterstützung des Orient-Instituts Istanbul, gegründet von der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, aus Mitteln des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung. Ergon-Verlag GmbH Keesburgstr. 11, D-97074 Würzburg © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Contents List of Contributors ................................................................................................. 7 Preface .................................................................................................................... 11 Judith Pfeiffer Confessional polarization in the 17th century Ottoman Empire and Yūsuf İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān’s Keşfü’l-esrār fī ilzāmi’l-Yehūd ve’l-aḥbār..................................................................... 15 Camilla Adang Guided to Islam by the Torah: The Risāla al-hādiya by ʿAbd al-Salām al-Muhtadī al-Muḥammadī .................... 57 Sabine Schmidtke Epistle forcing the Jews [to admit their error] with regard to what they contend about the Torah, by dialectical reasoning (Risālat ilzām al-yahūd fīmā zaʿamū fī l-tawrāt min qibal ʿilm al-kalām) by al-Salām ʿAbd al-ʿAllām. A critical edition .................................................................................................... 73 Monika Hasenmüller Die Beschreibung Muḥammads im Evangelium. Eine muslimische Polemik gegen die Christen aus dem osmanischen Reich (Anfang 18. Jhdt.) ................................................... 83 Paolo Lucca Šabbetay Ṣewi and the Messianic Temptations of Ottoman Jews in the Seventeenth Century According to Christian Armenian Sources .......... 197 Elisabetta Borromeo Le clergé catholique face au pouvoir ottoman. Les brevets de nomination (berât) des évêques et des archevêques (17ème siècle) .......................................................................... 207 Heleen Murre-van den Berg Apostasy or ‘a House Built on Sand’. Jews, Muslims and Christians in East-Syriac texts (1500-1850) ......................... 223 Rudi Matthee The Politics of Protection. Iberian Missionaries in Safavid Iran under Shāh ʿAbbās I (1587-1629)............. 245 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONTENTS 6 Dennis Halft Schiitische Polemik gegen das Christentum im safawidischen Iran des 11./17. Jhdts. Sayyid Aḥmad ʿAlawīs Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī dar radd-i šubha-yi naṣrānī.................. 273 Reza Pourjavady & Sabine Schmidtke Sayyid Muḥammad Mahdī al-Burūjirdī al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s (d. 1212/1797) debate with the Jews of Dhu l-Kifl. A survey of its transmission, with critical editions of its Arabic and Persian versions........................................................................ 335 Vera B. Moreen Iranian Jewish History Reflected in Judaeo-Persian Literature........................... 397 Index..................................................................................................................... 413 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul List of Contributors C a m i l l a Ad a n g is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Tel Aviv University. Her fields of specialization include interreligious polemics and classical Islamic religious thought. She is the author of Islam frente a Judaismo. La polémica de Ibn Ḥazm de Córdoba (Madrid 1994) and Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm (Leiden 1996) and coeditor, with Sabine Schmidtke and David Sklare, of A Common Rationality. Muʿtazilism in Islam and Judaism (Würzburg 2007). She is one of the editors of the Series “Studies in the Children of Abraham”, published by Brill, Leiden. She is currently preparing a monograph on the creed of Ibn Ḥazm. E l i s a b e t t a B o r r o m e o is attached to the Laboratoire Etudes turques et ottomanes led by Gilles Veinstein at the Collège de France (Paris). A specialist on the travel history of the Levant, she is the author of Voyageurs occidentaux dans l’Empire ottoman (1600-1644) (Paris 2007). She has also published several articles on a number of travellers as well as on the image of the “Turk” in Europe. She is particularly interested in the Ottoman Catholics and in their rapport with the two powers they depended upon: the temporal power of the Sultan and the spiritual power of the Holy See. She is currently preparing a study on the relationship between Islam and Christendom in the Modern Age. De n n i s H a l f t has studied Islamic, Comparative Religious and Iranian Studies at Freie Universität Berlin, the Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales in Paris and the Institut Français d’Études Arabes in Damascus. Between 2006 and 2007 he worked as advisor on Lebanon, under the auspices of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2008 he was researcher at the Dominican Institut M.-Dominique Chenu, Berlin, and joined the Order of Preachers in 2009. His current research concentrates on Christian-Muslim polemical writings in Safavid Iran and Mughal India. Mo n i k a H a s e n m ü l l e r earned her master’s degree in Islamic studies from Freie Universität Berlin in 2008 after studying Islamic and Arabic studies as well as Political Science in Bamberg, Cairo and Berlin. Until January 2009 she worked at C.H.Beck publishing house, Munich. Her edition of a polemical tract against Christianity published in this volume is a revised version of her master’s thesis. P a o l o L u c c a holds a doctorate in Oriental Studies (2007) from the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, where he is currently Teaching Fellow in Hebrew Language and Literature. During his doctoral program he specialized in ancient Armenian and Syriac. He has published on the textual criticism of the Armenian Bible and is working on a critical edition of the Armenian books of Chronicles. He is a member of the translation group preparing the Italian version of the Septuagint led by Paolo Sacchi. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 8 Ru d i M a t t h e e is Unidel distinguished Professor of Middle Eastern History at the University of Delaware. He received his PhD in Islamic Studies from UCLA, 1991. He has published extensively on early modern Iranian history and is the author of the award-winning books The Politics of Trade in Safavid Iran: Silk for Silver, 1600-1730 (1999) and The Pursuit of Pleasure: Drugs and Stimulants in Iranian History, 1500-1900 (2005). He is co-editor (with Beth Baron), of Iran and Beyond: Essays in Honor of Nikki R. Keddie (Mazda 2000); and (with Nikki Keddie), of Iran and the Surrounding World: Interactions in Culture and Cultural Politics (University of Washington Press 2002). His most recent book, Persia in Crisis: The Decline of the Safavids and the Fall of Isfahan, will be published by I.B. Tauris in 2010. Ve r a B . Mo r e e n received her PhD from Harvard University. She has been a Visiting Associate Professor at Swarthmore College and the University of Pennsylvania. Her primary research areas are the cultural world of Iranian Jewry as depicted in medieval and pre-modern Judeo-Persian literature and history, Iranian Jewish history and the interface between Muslim and Jewish religious, literary, and artistic topoi. She is the author of Miniature Paintings in Judaeo-Persian Manuscripts (Cincinnati 1985), of Iranian Jewry’s hour of peril and heroism. A study of Bābāī ibn Luṭf ’s chronicle, 1617-1662 (New York 1987) and of In Queen Esther’s Garden: An Anthology of Judeo-Persian Literature (New Haven/London 2000). She is co-editor of the Encyclopaedia of Jews in the Islamic World (Leiden: Brill). He l e e n Mu r r e - v a n d e n B e r g is Professor for the History of Modern World Christianity at Leiden University. Her research is focused on ‘non-western’ forms of Christianity and her current projects concentrate on the Christianity of Iraq (especially concerning the Church of the East, Assyrian and Chaldean), as well as on Christian views of the ‘Holy Land’. She is the author of From a Spoken to a Written Language. The Introduction and Development of Literary Urmia Aramaic in the Nineteenth Century (Leiden 1999) and has edited New Faith in Ancient Lands. Western Missions in the Middle East in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (Leiden 2006). Ju d i t h P f e i f f e r teaches Islamic history at the University of Oxford. Her current research focuses on conversion processes, in particular conversion to Islam in the Mongol Empire, and the interaction between the local and Mongol elites. She has published widely on religion and politics during the Mongol period and is coeditor of History and Historiography of Post-Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East. Studies in Honor of John E. Woods (Wiesbaden 2006, with Sholeh A. Quinn) and of Theoretical Approaches to the Transmission and Edition of Oriental Manuscripts (Würzburg 2007, with Manfred Kropp). Re z a Po u r j a v a d y is a research associate at McGill University (Montreal) for “The Post-classical Islamic Philosophical Database Initiative”. He obtained his PhD degree at Freie Universität Berlin in 2008 with a study on the life and work of Najm al-Dīn Ḥājjī Maḥmūd al-Nayrīzī, an Iranian philosopher from the early © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 9 Safavid period, after studying philosophy and Islamic Studies in Tehran, Leeds and Berlin. Together with Sabine Schmidtke, he has published A Jewish Philosopher of Baghdad. ʿIzz al-Dawla Ibn Kammūna and his writings (Leiden 2006) and edited Critical Remarks by Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī on the Kitāb al-Maʿālim by Fakhr al-Dīn al- Rāzī, together with the Commentaries by ʿIzz al-Dawla Ibn Kammūna (Tehran 2007). S a b i n e S ch m i d t k e is Professor of Islamic Studies at Freie Universität Berlin. She is sectional editor (theology & philosophy) of The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd ed. and co-founder and -coordinator of the Muʿtazilite Manuscripts Group (established 2003). She has published extensively on Islamic and Jewish intellectual history. Her works include Theologie, Philosophie und Mystik im zwölferschiitischen Islam des 9./15. Jahrhunderts. Die Gedankenwelt des Ibn Abī Jumhūr al-Aḥsāʾī (um 838/1434- 35 – nach 906/1501) (Leiden 2000) and, together with Reza Pourjavady, A Jewish Philosopher of Baghdad. ʿIzz al-Dawla Ibn Kammūna and his Writings (Leiden 2006) and Critical Remarks by Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī on the Kitāb al-Maʿālim by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, together with the Commentaries by ʿIzz al-Dawla Ibn Kammūna (Tehran 2007). She has co-edited, with Camilla Adang and David Sklare, A Common Rationality. Muʿtazilism in Islam and Judaism (Würzburg 2007). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Preface The relations between the Muslim majority and members of the Jewish and Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire as well as in pre-modern Iran received a series of new impulses from the 15th and 16th centuries onwards, which were reflected in intensified encounters in the intellectual and literary, as well as the social and political spheres. The most important impulse in the Ottoman Empire for a new social and intellectual flourishing of the Jews in particular was the immigration of Jewish exiles from the Iberian Peninsula in the aftermath of the Spanish Reconquista of 1492, while by the mid-17th century it was especially the sweeping but short-lived messianic movement that arose around Shabbetai Zvi (1626-1672) that had a major impact on the Jewish communities within the Empire and beyond, and that affected relations between Jews and Muslims. In Safavid and Qajar Iran, by contrast, it was the increasing presence of Christian, initially mostly Catholic, missionaries that constituted the main impetus for interreligious intellectual encounters. From the 19th century onwards they were joined by Protestant missionaries, mainly from Britain. In the Ottoman Empire, where native Christians of different denominations were numerous, the foreign missionary effort seems to have had less of an impact than in Iran. On the other hand, the Jewish communities in the latter country did not experience the same kind of renaissance enjoyed by their coreligionists in the Ottoman lands. The purpose of the present volume is to bring into focus new textual materials that shed fresh light on the intellectual and social exchanges between Muslims and non-Muslims both in the Ottoman lands and in pre-modern Iran and to foster intensified cooperation between scholars from a variety of disciplines. One type of source that has hitherto been insufficiently explored is Muslim polemical and apologetical literature and the response it elicited. In more than one respect this genre of writings can supply information about the intellectual as well as the social position of the religious minorities. The arguments used, the events and persons referred to (even if at times only obliquely), as well as the literary sources quoted allow us to draw conclusions concerning the position of the respective minority. Moreover, the statements with which the authors preface or justify their works, the multiplication of polemical and apologetical tracts and the proliferation of manuscript copies of these same tracts, inform us about the socio-historical contexts in which these texts were written, received and subsequently reproduced. Judith Pfeiffer discusses a detailed refutation of Judaism written in Ottoman Turkish that was composed during the late 16th, early 17th century and attributed to Yūsuf Ibn Abī ʿAbd al-Dayyān, a Jewish convert to Islam. The comparatively large number of extant manuscripts and their geographical distribution suggest that the tract, which has so far completely escaped the attention of scholars, was very popular. Camilla Adang offers a translation and analysis of another © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PREFACE 12 evidently widely received polemical tract by a Jewish convert to Islam, al-Risāla al- Hādiya, by one ʿAbd al-Salām al-Muhtadī. The introduction to the text includes a brief conversion account by the author who refers to Bāyazīd II (reigned 886/1481-918/1512) as the sultan ruling at the time of composition. Additional polemical tracts by converts from the Ottoman lands are offered in editio princeps by Monika Hasenmüller and Sabine Schmidtke. The first is a comprehensive tract against Christians by one Darwīsh ʿAlī, composed at the beginning of the 18th century; the second is a shorter epistle entitled Risālat Ilzām al-yahūd fīmā zaʿamū fī l-tawrāt min qibal ʿilm al-kalām by one al-Salām ʿAbd al-ʿAllām, a former Jew who apparently also wrote at the time of Bāyazīd II. Dennis Halft’s contribution is a detailed study of the history and transmission of a popular 17th century Muslim polemical reply to Pietro Della Valle’s Epistola ad nobilem Persam, Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī dar radd-i shubha-yi naṣrānī by the Persian Twelver Shīʿī author Sayyid Aḥmad ʿAlawī. The contribution by Reza Pourjavady and Sabine Schmidtke likewise focusses on a Twelver Shīʿī text that was widely received among Iranian readers although it originated in Iraq; on the basis of most extant manuscripts of the account of Baḥr al-ʿUlūm’s (d. 1797) famous debate with the Jews of Dhu l-Kifl the transmission of the account is studied and critical editions of the original Arabic version and its Persian translation are given. Paolo Lucca discusses the messianic movement of Shabbetai Zvi from a highly original point of view: that of two Armenian Christian chroniclers writing at the time of the events. An English translation is added to the Armenian texts, which show one of the authors to be sympathetic with the disillusioned Jews. Elisabetta Borromeo offers a close analysis of a series of 17th century nomination documents for Catholic bishops and archbishops in the Ottoman realm and discusses what these documents tell us about the relations between the Ottoman authorities and the official representatives of a religious minority. Heleen Murre-van den Berg analyses a chapter in the history of the Nestorian Syriac Church of the East, viz. its relations with its Muslim neighbours as reflected in a number of mostly unpublished texts in East-Syriac mainly from the 19th century. Rudi Matthee provides a detailed discussion of the changing attitudes of the Safavid rulers and the Iranian elite to Iberian missionaries. Although at first the latter were admired and appreciated as intellectuals and mediators between Iran and Catholic European rulers, support for them waned as the political and religious reality in Iran changed. Vera Moreen examines a number of representative, yet little studied texts in Judaeo-Persian from the Safavid period for what they tell us about the attitudes of Iranian Jews towards Islam and Muslims. Some of the papers were presented at a workshop funded by the European Science Foundation and held in June 2007 at the German Orient Institute in Istanbul, and whose theme was “The Position of Religious Minorities in the Ottoman Empire and early modern Iran”. Most of the manuscript materials for the contributions of Camilla Adang, Monika Hasenmüller, Judith Pfeiffer, Reza Pourjavady and © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PREFACE 13 Sabine Schmidtke were purchased with the support of a research grant from the Gerda Henkel Foundation. We thank all the above-mentioned institutions and organizations for their generous financial support. We also thank the Süleimaniye Library and especially its director, Dr. Emir Es, for having granted us the permission to reproduce MS Fatih 2994, ff. 1b-2a on the title page of this volume. In addition, we thank Wilferd Madelung for his kind help with some of the editions contained in this volume, Jan Thiele and Josephine Gehlhar for their editorial assistance, Thomas Breier (Ergon) and Barbara Pusch (Orient Institut Istanbul) for seeing the volume through the press, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. The Editors © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Confessional polarization in the 17th century Ottoman Empire and Yūsuf İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān’s Keşfü’l-esrār fī ilzāmi’l-Yehūd ve’l-aḥbār1 Judith Pfeiffer Introductory remarks Due to the great number of documents that have survived from the Ottoman period, and thanks to an increasing scholarly interest in religious minorities over the past decades, the social, economic, and legal history of the Jewish communities in the pre-modern Ottoman Empire has been relatively well researched. By contrast, the religious and intellectual history of these groups has on the whole received less attention. Here, especially the 17th century still presents the largest lacuna in the area. To my knowledge, and despite the fact that conversion looms large in most studies on the 17th century Ottoman Empire, the text (or, for that matter, the kind of text) that the present article is concerned with has so far attracted less scholarly attention than it deserves.2 1 I am indebted to Sabine Schmidtke who directed me to the relevant manuscripts; and to Tijana Krstić, who in 2008 made available to me a copy of the Sofia manuscript of İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān’s treatise, which I had not seen up to that point. An earlier version of this paper, entitled “The View of an Insider: Ibn Abī ʿAbd al-Dayyān’s [Kitāb] Kashf al-asrār fī ilzām al-Yahūd wa al-aḥbār” was presented at the European Science Foundation Workshop on “The Position of Religious Minorities in the Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Iran, as Reflected in Muslim Polemical and Apologetical Literature,” German Oriental Institute, Istanbul, June 14-16, 2007. I am greatly indebted to İlker Evrim Binbaş for his help in interpreting difficult passages of the Ottoman text, and for saving me from several misinterpretations. Robert Dankoff, Adam Gacek, and Vera Moreen kindly responded to individual questions, and I am grateful for their suggestions. Any remaining errors are, of course, my own. – Research for this paper was made possible by the Gerda Henkel Stiftung and the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, to both of whom I am grateful for their support. 2 For some of the relevant literature, see the bibliographies in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society 1-2, eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, New York 1982, vol. 2; Minna Rozen, Jewish Identity and Society in the Seventeenth Century: Reflections on the Life and Work of Refael Mordekhai Malki, Tübingen 1992; eadem, A History of the Jewish Community in Istanbul. The Formative Years, 1453-1566, Leiden 2002; Avigdor Levy (ed.), The Jews of the Ottoman Empire, Princeton, N.J. / Washington, D.C. 1994; Yaron Ben-Naeh, Jews in the Realm of the Sultans: Ottoman Jewish Society in the Seventeenth Century, Tübingen 2008; Marc D. Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam: Conversion and Conquest in Ottoman Europe, New York / Oxford 2008. As far as I could see, none of these has made use of İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān’s Keşfü’l-esrār. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 16 The work in question is a polemical treatise against Judaism in Ottoman Turkish, which was composed in 1651. According to the lengthy introduction that is prefaced to it, the author was a Jewish convert to Islam by the name Yūsuf İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān. The contents of the treatise, which is entitled Keşfü’l-esrār fī ilzāmi’l-Yehūd ve’l-aḥbār (‘Unveiling the secrets of compelling the Jews and the rabbis,’ viz. to accept the proofs of Islam),3 are by no means a novelty: addressing the abrogation of the law or religion of Moses, extolling the prophethood of Muḥammad, and denouncing the corruption of the Torah by the Jews, it faithfully follows the general structure and contents of the Islamic polemical tradition.4 More than that, in its core it is largely based on a very similar treatise by the 16th century Ottoman polymath and biographer Taşköprü(lü)zade (d. 968/1561), entitled Risāla fī l-radd ʿalā l-Yahūd.5 Within the Ottoman context, these two texts are by no means an isolated phenomenon – similar treatises against both Judaism and Christianity from the 16th through 18th centuries survive in multiple copies, and seem to be a much more widespread phenomenon than was previously assumed. Given the state of manuscript catalogues of the collections pertaining to the Ottoman Empire, it is more than likely that further discoveries will be made.6 What is new is the specific historical and political context, and the fact that – for the first time in this tradition, as far as I am aware – this treatise uses arguments from inner-Jewish debates in a Muslim polemical text that are based on au- 3 MS Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022, f. 120 b. 4 The main motifs of Muslim polemics against Judaism have been analyzed by Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds. Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism, Princeton 1992, and Camilla Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible. From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm, Leiden 1996. For an overview of similar works, see Moshe Perlmann’s “The Medieval Polemics Between Islam and Judaism” (in Religion in a Religious Age, ed. S.D. Goitein, Cambridge, MA 1974, pp. 136-38), which contains a chronological-bibliographical survey listing the primary and secondary Jewish-Islamic polemical literature from the 9th through the 15th centuries, with peaks in the 11th and 13th centuries. 5 Sabine Schmidtke and Camilla Adang, “Aḥmad b. Muṣṭafā Ṭāshkubrīzāde’s (d. 968/1561) Polemical Tract Against Judaism,” Al-Qanṭara 29 (2008), pp. 79-113, 537-38, with references on Taşköprüzade, ibid., p. 80 n. 1. 6 For a selection of such texts, including the treatise under discussion, see Camilla Adang, İlker Evrim Binbaş, Judith Pfeiffer, and Sabine Schmidtke, Ottoman Intellectuals on Judaism: A Collection of Texts from the Early Modern Period (in preparation). In addition, numerous autobiographical conversion narratives by Christians converting to Islam were produced in the Ottoman Empire during this period, of which the Papāsnāme (wr. 1062/1653) is chronologically closest to the Keşfü’l-esrār; see Tijana Krstić, “Illuminated by the Light of Islam and the Glory of the Ottoman Sultanate: Self-Narratives of Conversion to Islam in the Age of Confessionalization,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 51 i (2009), pp. 59-60. I am grateful to the author for providing me with a copy of her paper prior to its publication. – I have not had access to Mehmet Aydın’s Müslümanların Hristiyanlara Karşı Yazdığı Reddiyeler ve Tartışma Konuları, Ankara 1998. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 17 thorities that are not usually found in such treatises.7 The author also translated quotations from the Hebrew Bible into Ottoman Turkish in support of his argument, which appears to be one of the earliest such attempts, predating by several years the translation efforts of the Polish convert ʿAlī Ufkī (previously known as Albertus Bobovius, 1610-1675),8 and even the so far earliest known translation by the Istanbuliot Jew known as Ḫākī (fl. 1695).9 This possibly makes the passages translated by İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān the currently earliest known (partial) translations of passages from the Hebrew Bible into Ottoman Turkish. Apart from references in catalogues and hand-lists, the only publications to my knowledge that mention İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān’s treatise (albeit briefly) are Eleazar Birnbaum’s 1984 bibliographical survey of uncatalogued Ottoman manu- 7 A close textual analysis based on all known manuscripts will reveal the extent of such quotations; for now, see n. 58 of this paper. 8 On him, see Cem Behar, Ali Ufkî ve Mezmurlar. Beşiktaş, İstanbul 1990, and ʿAlī Ufkī [Albertus Bobovius] (1610-1675). Topkapi: Relation du sérail du Grand Seigneur. Édition présentée et annotée par Annie Berthier et Stéphane Yerasimos, Arles 1999 (Introduction). The early 18th century editor of one of ʿAlī Ufkī’s epistles wrote in his introduction that “about the year 1653. at the deſire of Mr. Basire, [Ufki] turn’d the English Church-Catechism into Turkiſh; and tranſlated the whole Bible into the ſame Language for Levinus Warnerus, who tranſmitted it to Leyden, that it might be printed; and the Manuſcript Copy is at preſent kept in the Library of that Place. I have the Psalms of David in Turkish, writ with his own Hand.” Four Treatises Concerning the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of the Mahometans, London [Printed by J. Darby for B. Lintott at the Cross-Keys, and E. Sanger at the Post-House in Fleetstreet] 1712, “Preface to the reader,” p. 106. 9 On Yaḥyā b. Isḥāḳ Ḫākī, see H[annah] Neudecker, The Turkish Bible Translation by Yaḥya Bin ʾIsḥaḳ, also called Haki (1659), Leiden 1994. Prior to Bobovius, and also at the behest of Warner, the less well known Ḫākī had completed his translation of the Pentateuch into Turkish in 1659 (ibid., p. 280). While carried out in very different contexts (Warner, in whose service both Ḥākī and Ufkī worked, pursued the conversion of Muslims to Christianity, whereas İbn Ebī ‘Abdü’d-Deyyān’s treatise deals with the conversion of Jews to Islam), the fact that the works of İbn Ebī ‘Abdü’d-Deyyān, Ḫākī, and Ufkī were completed within barely more than a decade is striking, and may have been more than a coincidence during this time of confessional polarization and international contacts: Just as clearly as İbn Ebī ‘Abdü’d-Deyyān expressed that his treatise was meant to be used as a conversion manual, so did the powerful mentors who asked Warner to translate (or rather have translated) into Turkish the Old and New Testament leave little doubt about their aims. Writing to Warner in 1663, his patron, the Bohemian Protestant reformer Comenius (d. 1670), expressed great satisfaction that by his act of translation Warner had finally moved on from busying himself with human affairs to “being used now for divine affairs as well. Is it not given to you, my dear Sir, to be a chosen vessel to carry the Name of the Lord in the sight of the Nations? to open their eyes and to convert them from the darkness to the light?” (ibid., p. 376 n. 65). Fostering Bible translations for potential (future) Muslim and Jewish converts, whose mass conversions to Protestantism were anticipated as one of the signs of the end of the world was one way in which Protestants with chiliastic expectations such as Comenius prepared for the future (ibid., p. 380, with references). – On the relationship between Warner, Ḫākī, and Ufkī, and the wider context of the intellectual circles of the 17th century Ottoman Empire and Ottoman-European relations, see Robert Dankoff, An Ottoman Mentality. The World of Evliya Çelebi. With an afterword by Gottfried Hagen, Leiden 2006, esp. p. 167, and Gottfried Hagen, “Afterword. Ottoman Understandings of the World in the Seventeenth Century,” in Dankoff, An Ottoman Mentality, esp. p. 251. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 18 scripts in Turkey,10 and a 2009 article by Tijana Krstić on Ottoman conversion narratives in the seventeenth century.11 The present author agrees with Krstić’s observation that Ottoman ‘confessionalization’12 was closely related to fundamental societal changes as well as politics, and that by the 17th century, conversion to Islam in the Ottoman Empire, as well as to ‘orthodoxy’ within Islam, were effected from the bottom up,13 as opposed to a conversion process following primarily the principle of cuius regio, eius religio, starting from the Sultan and his circles from the top down.14 In addition to the Ottoman context, Krstić’s percep- 10 Eleazar Birnbaum, “Turkish Manuscripts: Cataloguing since 1960 and Manuscripts Still Uncatalogued. Part 5: Turkey and Cyprus.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 104 (1984), p. 492. Birnbaum states that this is “an interesting polemical work, Keşf ül-esrār fī ilzām il-Yehūd by Yūsuf b. ʿAbdullāh ed-Deyyān (Dayyān). The author, who had abandoned Judaism for Islam, declares that the purpose of the work is to provide the ʿulemā with information on Judaism, since he has personal knowledge of the Talmud and Jewish writings. The work, which contains many ‘proof texts’ from misinterpreted Jewish works, seeks to show Judaism’s inferiority to Islam. The text is undated but probably 16th or 17th century.” 11 Krstić, “Illuminated by the Light of Islam,” p. 57 n. 92 states “The earliest dated manuscript of Yusuf ’s account I was able to locate is MS #2050, 91a-107b, preserved in the Bulgarian National Library in Sofia, which suggests that the text must have been originally written in or before 1088 A.H. (1677/78).” Indeed, this assumption is confirmed by the colophon of MS Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022, which mentions 1651 (see below). 12 For a definition of the term ‘confessionalization,’ which was “formulated in distinct opposition to the primacy of socio-economic forces […] in German historiography of the 1970s,” see Heinz Schilling, “Confessionalization: Historical and Scholarly Perspectives of a Comparative and Interdisciplinary Paradigm,” in Confessionalization in Europe, 1555-1700. Essays in Honor and Memory of Bodo Nischan, eds. John M. Headley, Hans J. Hillerbrand, and Anthony J. Papalas, Aldershot 2004, p. 24. This is to be distinguished from the ‘formation of confessions’ (“Konfessionsbildung”), as it embraces, beyond the narrowly religious and ecclesiastical phenomena considered by the former, “a universal perspective that encompasses all of society. It understands the confessional element as the leading category of early modern socialization and thereby as the essential element in research on early modern society. […] Thus it includes not only early modern church history but also political, social and legal history as well as cultural history in general and the history of literature and art in particular.” To which extent similar forces were at work in the Ottoman Empire has yet to be investigated both in detail and on a large scale, for which treatises such as the one investigated here provide valuable insights and material. 13 Krstić has argued that whereas “in the sixteenth century confession building in the Ottoman Empire was a predominantly top-down process presided over by the sultan and his advisers, […] the situation changed in the seventeenth century when new initiatives for religious reform and definition of ‘orthodoxy’ began to be articulated ‘from below’ in reaction to profound social, political, and economic transformations that the empire was undergoing,” and that by the mid-seventeenth century, a “confessionalization from below” can be observed. Krstić, “Illuminated by the Light of Islam,” pp. 40-41, 60. For a more detailed discussion of such changes in outlook, and the rise of ‘middle class’ intellectuals during the 17th century, see Hagen, “Afterword,” esp. pp. 249-56. 14 The latter appears to be the paradigm suggested by, e.g., the recent study by Baer (Honored by the Glory of Islam), which focuses on the agency of Sultan Meḥmed IV in his role as a “convert maker” during the second half of the 17th century. The author states that “rejecting any attempt to explain Ottoman Islamization in terms of the converts’ motives, the book concentrates on the proselytizers” (abstract). The latter are found at the highest eche- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 19 tive essay locates Ottoman conversion narratives largely in the inter-imperial (Ottoman-Hapsburg; Ottoman- Safavid) space, arguing that they were part of a larger process of confessionalizaton that included not only Europe, for which the phenomenon is well researched, but the Ottoman Empire as well, and that conversion narratives played an important part in inter-imperial confessionalization. However, while Christian and Shīʿī converts to Sunni Islam are accommodated comfortably in such a geography and theoretical framework, those converts to Islam who lacked imperial ‘backing’ – such as former Jews – are more difficult to locate.15 Despite the rather lengthy conversion narrative that is prefaced to his treatise, İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān’s work is therefore only tangentially touched upon in Krstić’s study, which focuses mostly on Christian conversions to Islam. While acknowledging the significance of the larger international context,16 the present article focuses primarily on conversion and conversion narratives within the context of Ottoman internal politics, which included the continuing conversion of Christians to Islam in the Balkans that reached an all-time high in the 17th lons of society, notably Sultan Meḥmed IV himself, his mother, his grand vizier, and the Kadızadeli preacher Vani Efendi, who “actively sought to establish his [Meḥmed IV’s—JP] reputation as a convert-maker,” and who “considered themselves devoted Muslims returning society to the right path, from which it had deviated” (p. 245). 15 This lack of Jewish ‘imperial backing’ was already noticed by the 17th century Christian convert to Islam and keen observer of Ottoman society ʿAlī Ufkī, who stated: “Les juifs […] sont regardés en Turquie avec autant de mépris que dans les autres cantons de l’Europe où ils se sont retirés et qu’ils habitent en fugitifs et vagabonds sans aucune protection, n’y ayant point de souverains sur la terre qui vivent dans leur croyance.” (Emphasis added). Ali Ufki, Topkapi: Relation du sérail du Grand Seigneur, eds. Annie Berthier and Stéphane Yerasomis, Arles 1999, p. 47. – For a discussion of “the lack of a neutral place in early modern society” in the context of Jewish conversions to Christianity in early modern Europe, see Elisheva Carlebach, Divided Souls—Converts from Judaism in Germany, 1500- 1750, New Haven / London 2001, p. 102. 16 Already Madeline C. Zilfi had stressed the importance of the international context for the religious history of the period, which was not only one of imperial competition, but was indeed ‘exported’ to Istanbul, where the “politicking of European ambassadors on behalf of their coreligionists and sympathizers was especially intensive in the first half of the seventeenth century […] some of the Reformation seems to have been fought out in Istanbul, where the Protestant Dutch and English embassies tried to undermine the Catholic French and the latter’s helpmates, the Jesuits.” Madeline C. Zilfi, The Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the Postclassical Age (1600-1800). Minneapolis 1988, p. 178 n. 84. Part of the international context were also, of course, the military failures of the Ottomans during this period, which were often interpreted religiously, and thereby contributed to the confessional polarization within the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century (see below). To the east, this international context included, in the first half of the 17th century, Western European missionaries in major cities in Iran, as discussed in the contributions by Halft and particularly Matthee to this volume, as well as intensive conversion efforts by the Augustine, Cappucine, and other missionaries among the Mandaeans in the Persian Gulf on behalf of the Portuguese, who viewed this as part of their trade politics (with, in particular, the trade route to Goa in mind). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 20 century,17 various individual conversions to Islam within the Ottoman Empire during the same period,18 and the Kadızadeli movement, which peaked several times across the 17th century,19 and notably in the period when the Keşf was composed. Formerly Jewish authors of polemical literature, and İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān in particular, recognized and put to use standardized narrative topoi, and participated just as much in the 17th century confessional polarization as those converts who were initially represented by and then turned their back on an imperial polity representing their faith, such as, e.g., Bobovius/ʿAlī Ufkī vis-à-vis Christian Poland. This preliminary study of the Keşfü’l-esrār is but a small, further contribution to filling the gap in our knowledge on the religious and intellectual history of this period, and in particular our knowledge about inter-religious debates during the 16th and 17th centuries, which are still much uncharted territory, despite the fact that a growing number of treatises dedicated to such debates have been surfacing over the past few years.20 The treatise shows that Ottoman converts from Judaism to Islam, rather than being ‘outsiders’ to the inter-imperial competition because of the lack of an imperial backing for their confession, certainly had several Empires to convert to, including the Ottoman Empire. The author and his historical context The composition date of 1651 locates the Keşfü’l-esrār right in the middle of the Kadızadeli movement, an activist, socio-economic-political pietistic movement that originated from the pulpits of popular preachers who incited the wider Muslim population of the Ottoman Empire to ‘enjoin the right and forbid the wrong,’21 with the double aim and incentive of ‘returning’ to a pure, unadulter- 17 Eyal Ginio, “Childhood, mental capacity and conversion to Islam in the Ottoman state,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 25 (2001), p. 93; Anton Minkov, Conversion to Islam in the Balkans. Kisve Bahasi Petitions and Ottoman Social Life, 1670-1730, Leiden 2004, pp. 194- 96; Krstić, “Illuminated by the Light of Islam,” p. 43. 18 Famous converts during the second half of the 17th century include Sabbetai Svi (d. 1676) and the above mentioned Bobovius/ʿAlī Ufkī (d. 1675). On the former, see Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, the mystical Messiah, 1626-1676, trans. R.J. Zwi Werblowsky, Princeton, NJ 1973; on the latter, see n. 8 above. Among the less famous converts are such individuals as İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān, about whom we only know through their own writings. For similar cases, see also the contributions of Camilla Adang, Monika Hasenmüller and Sabine Schmidtke to this volume. 19 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety; Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, “XVII Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Dinde Tasfiye (Püritanizm) Teşebbüslerine Bir Bakış: Kadızâdeliler Hareketi,” Türk Kültürü Araştırmaları 17–21 i–ii (1979–83), pp. 208-25. 20 See Schmidtke/Adang, “Aḥmad b. Muṣṭafā Ṭāshkubrīzāde’s Polemical Tract,” and the contributions of Adang, Hasenmüller and Schmidtke to this volume. 21 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, pp. 137-43. The central issue were “tensions between innovation and fundamentalism” which “in large part determined the character of politics in the seventeenth century.” Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, p. 134. On the eponymous ‘founder’ of the © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 21 ated, original Islam, and prohibiting ‘innovations’ such as the consumption of coffee, tobacco, and opium; and practices of popular veneration that were perceived as ‘un-Islamic’ (such as the visiting of saints’ tombs, the attendance of Sufi ceremonies, and the pronunciation of blessings after mentioning the name of the prophet Muḥammad),22 while at the same time trying to evict their Sufi practitioners–cum–madrasa–educated competitors from the highly prestigious and lucrative, and hence much coveted, pulpits of Istanbul’s major Friday mosques.23 Such endeavors converged effortlessly with polemics against non-Muslims, as well as conversion efforts focusing on the latter. As Madeline Zilfi has demonstrated, the overall picture was exceedingly complex. By and large, most of the Kadızadelis appear to have enjoyed only a basic education, and those who ever became preachers (vāʿiẓ, pl. vuʿʿāẓ) at one of the Friday mosques of Istanbul in most cases did so by slowly working their way up through a number of positions at provincial and then lesser Friday mosques in Istanbul, and had to prove themselves in competition with others by attracting ever larger crowds. It was the sultans who appointed the şeyhülislam, the highest judiciary in the realm who was in most cases a product of the madrasa system, often close to Sufi circles, and in some cases, though not always, opposed to the Kadızadelis. A famous example of the latter is the notorious şeyhülislam Bahāʾī (d. 1654), who was a heavy smoker himself and issued a fetvā that tobacco was licit, thus taking the opposite stance to the Kadızadelis.24 However, this did not mean that the sultans were not pleased with some of the Kadızadelis’ preachings: the prohibition of coffee – and by extension coffee houses – and opium meant the closure of coffee houses – not only competition of the mosque, but also places where political unrest could brood. The Kadızadeli movement was close to the people, engaging with them physically in the same space (the mosque), much more so than the generally moderate madrasa-educated and -educating religio-political ilmiye elites. It constituted a movement ‘from below,’ while also appealing, in its arguments, to the larger international politics of the empire by making deviant religion responsible for Ottoman military defeat, ever increasing during the 17th century and one of the main reasons why it has become known as a “troubled century” and “period of decline.” movement, Birgeli Meḥmed, see Kâtip Çelebi (1609-1657), The Balance of Truth, translated with an introd. and notes by G.L. Lewis, London [1957], pp. 128-31; Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, pp. 143-46. On his creed, the Ṭarīqa Muḥammadiyya, see Bernd Radtke, “Birgiwīs Ṭarīqa Muḥammadiyya. Einige Bemerkungen und Überlegungen,” Journal of Turkish Studies 26 (2002), pp. 159-74. 22 See Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, especially pp. 133-37. 23 Madeline C. Zilfi, “The Kadizadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45 (1986), pp. 251-69, and eadem, The Politics of Piety, especially Chapter Four, “The Kadizadeli Challenge,” pp. 129-81. 24 For more on Bahāʾī, see Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, pp. 142-43. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 22 Religious interpretations of political, social, and military ‘failures’ were rampant during the 1650’s, when the Ottomans were losing ever more lands to enemy forces, with the capital being almost starved by the Venetians’ overpowering force in the Mediterranean Sea.25 Conversely, conversion of non-Muslims to Islam could be seen as a ‘success.’ This is by no means a new phenomenon. Narratives of conversion and conquest often go hand in hand and long predate the Ottoman Empire in the Islamic context.26 Increasingly, however, politics were interpreted religiously, and vice versa. For example, when, in 1655, the islands of Bozca and Limni fell to the Venetians, the Kadızadelis “blamed the loss of the islands on the fact that Grand Vizier Boynueğri Meḥmed Pasha was a Sufi.”27 Such polarization was exacerbated around 1661 with the rise to power of Sultan Meḥmed’s (r. 1648-87) preceptor and spiritual counselor of the Grand Vizier Köprülüzade Fāẓıl Aḥmed (r. 1661-1676),28 the Kadızadeli leader Vani Meḥmed Efendi (d. 1685).29 During his era, even the welfare of the public became polarized when, against the Sultan’s original order, which was based on the past practice of joint prayers of the Christian and Muslim congregations of Istanbul for the communal good of the city’s inhabitants, Vani Meḥmed argued that communal prayers against the plague should not be performed in an inter-confessional manner.30 Against the current şeyhülislam’s support of the practice of the past, Vani 25 Rycaut’s entry for the year 1651 is full of accounts of Ottoman military failures, and so are the entries for the previous years: almost the entirety of his report on Sultan İbrāhīm’s reign (1640-48) is devoted to military campaigns (and mostly Ottoman defeat). Sir Paul Rycaut (1628-1700), The history of the Turkish empire from the year 1623 to the year 1677. containing the reigns of the three last emperours, viz. Sultan Morat or Amurat IV. Sultan Ibrahim, and Sultan Mahomet IV. his son, the XIII. Emperour now reigning, London 1680, pp. 1-35 (for Sultan Ibrahim’s reign), pp. 42-45 (for the year 1651). 26 Judith Pfeiffer, Conversion to Islam among the Ilkhans in Muslim Narrative Traditions: The Case of Aḥmad Tegüder [d. 682/1284], Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Chicago 2003, Introduction. 27 Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam, p. 71. 28 On the career of this ilmiye-trained son of the Grand Vezir Köprülü Mehmed (d. 1661), see Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, pp. 84-85. 29 On Meḥmed ibn Bisṭām of Van, “Vani” Meḥmed Efendi, and his involvement in politics, including his incitement of a new wave of Kadızâdeli activities, see Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, pp. 146-59. Zilfi locates conversion efforts especially with Vani Meḥmed (pp. 146, 149- 50, 152-53), and points out the parallels between the measures taken by the Kadızâdelis against Sufis and non-Muslims. “With regard to non-Muslims, so visible in Istanbul […], Muslim ‘deviation’ lay in the direction of over-indulgence of the infidel. There had been too much toleration, too much latitude. His [Vani Efendi’s⎯JP] policies toward them were not unlike those toward the Sufis. Both policies were inspired by a similar vision. He set out to curb the public access of both groups.” Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, p. 153. Among others, Vani was personally involved in the interrogation of Sabbetai Svi that led to the latter’s conversion to Islam (Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, pp. 673-86; Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, p. 154). Rycaut described Vani Efendi as “as inveterate and malicious to the Chriſtian Religion, as any Enthuſiaſt or Fanatick is to the Rites of our Church and Religion.” The history of the Turkish empire, p. 105 (under the year 1662). 30 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, p. 157. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 23 Meḥmed argued successfully that the prayers should be performed in a segregated way, and that members of each faith should carry out their prayers separately. He took an even harsher position in interpreting the Great Fire of 1660. According to the contemporary observer Rycaut, Vani Meḥmed attempted to push through his position by using confessional polarization as his main argument: Vanni Effendi […] perſwaded the [Grand] Vezir [Fazıl Aḥmed Köprülüzade, d. 1676] that the terrible Fires in Conſtantinople and Galata in the year 1660, and the laſt years unparalleled Peſtilence, and the inconſiderable advance of the Turks on the Chriſtians for ſome years, were ſo many parts of Divine Judgments thrown on the Muſſulmen, or Believers, in vengeance of their too much Licence given to the Chriſtian Religion […] Wherefore a Command was iſſued, That no Wine sſould be henceforth ſold within the Walls of the City [of Constantinople-JP]. And it was farther intended that Greeks and Armenians, and all other Chriſtians, who had Dwellings or Poſſeſſions within the Walls of the City, ſhould within forty days ſell thoſe habitations, and depart; which otherwise ſhould be confiſcated to the Grand Signior.31 Rycaut also stated with relief that “God who ſupports the Faithful in Tryals of Perſecution, moderated this Decree, and reſerved ſtill his Church in the midſt of Infidels; not ſuffering this City to loſe the Name nor Religion of that Holy Emperor, who both erected, and chriſtened it,”32 and went on to report how Christian prisoners, men who had been incarcerated because of their insubordination to the initial decree – they had started re-building churches – were released through the special intervention of the Sultan mother Hatice Turhan Sultan (d. 1683) in order to help in the building of the Yeni Cami (Yeni Valide) mosque. As Baer has demonstrated, the Jewish community was particularly badly affected by these events. During the Great Fire of 1660, entire quarters of Istanbul that had been largely Jewish had burned down. They were now ‘converted’ into purely Muslim quarters under the new Sultan mother Valide Hatice Turhan Sultan. The completion of the huge Yeni Cami mosque that still overlooks the entrance to the Golden Horn was the ‘flagship’ of this Islamization of urban space in Istanbul under the Valide, which was accompanied and partially made possible by the prohibition to sell properties to Jews in Eminönü, and the relocation of large numbers of Jews outside of the imperial space of old Constantinople (where many of them had been moved in the previous century and a half in the first place)33 to other, already largely Jewish, parts of wider Istanbul, most noticeably Hasköy.34 31 Rycaut, The history of the Turkish empire, p. 105 (for 1662). 32 Rycaut, The history of the Turkish empire, p. 105 (under the year 1662). 33 Uriel Heyd, “The Jewish Communities of Istanbul in the Seventeenth Century,” Oriens 6 (1953), p. 304. 34 Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam, pp. 81-104, parts of which were published earlier as “The Great Fire of 1660 and the Islamization of Christian and Jewish Space in Istanbul,” The International Journal of Middle East Studies 36 (2004), pp. 159-81. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 24 The Kadızadeli movement flared up in several large waves across the seventeenth century, with high points in the decades prior to the composition of the treatise under consideration here, including a famous debate between Kadızade Meḥmed (1582-1635) and the Ḫalvetī şeyh Sivāsī Efendi (d. 1639) which occurred in 1633 in the presence of Sultan Murād IV (r. 1623-40) and resulted in a royal decree for the immediate destruction of all taverns in Istanbul.35 It was followed by a period of countless executions for smoking infractions between the years 1633-1638.36 With the appointment of the Kadızadeli preacher Üstüvānī Meḥmed (d. 1661) as both the palace preacher and vāʿiẓ at Fatih (from 1655 onwards), a rare “official link between Kadızadeli pulpits and the palace” was forged.37 While the movement was eventually suppressed, it was at its very height at the time when the treatise we are concerned with here was written: in 1651, the very same year in which it was composed,38 the Kadızadelis under the leadership of Üstüvānī Meḥmed incited the congregations to attack Sufis and indeed even mere visitors to Sufi lodges, and called for the leveling of the Ḫalvetī lodge at Demirkapı. Under immense Kadızadeli pressure, the Grand Vizier Melek Aḥmed Paşa (d. 1662) issued an order for the destruction of the lodge, which was subsequently leveled.39 How much this meant a ‘changing of the tides’ in favor of the Kadızadelis can be appreciated when we take into account that the previous dowager Kösem Mahpeyker (arguably the most powerful woman in Ottoman history, and not coincidentally also executed in 1651) was well known as a generous benefactress of the Ḫalvetī order.40 By contrast, her successor Hatice Turhan Sultan was going to make the Kadızadeli preacher Vani Efendi the first vāʿiẓ of her newly completed Yeni Cami mosque upon its completion41 – the same mosque whose construction was made possible by prohibiting the Jews to return to Eminönü after the Great Fire of 1660. The second Ḫalvetī lodge that the Kadızadelis attempted to attack in the same year (1651), “was that of [the Ḫalvetī şeyḫ—JP] Sivāsī Efendi’s cousin and disciple Mıṣrī Ömer (d. 1659), who had just been named Friday preacher at Süleyman- 35 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, p. 133. – See Appendix I for the main dates mentioned in this article. 36 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, p. 139. 37 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, p. 141. 38 Some time between 1651 and 1654 was furthermore when Sabbetai Svi was expelled from his birthplace Izmir because of his messianic ambitions; Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, pp. 138- 52. His fate was to be determined by the Kadızâdeli movement a decade later; see below. For a recent interpretation in the context of Ottoman religious and intellectual history, see Gottfried Hagen, “Afterword. Ottoman Understandings of the World in the Seventeenth Century,” in Robert Dankoff, An Ottoman Mentality, Leiden 2006, pp. 215-56. 39 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, p. 142. 40 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, p. 139. As the mother of Sultans Murād IV (r. 1623-40) and İbrāhīm (r. 1640-48), and grandmother of Sultan Meḥmed IV (r. 1648-87), the Valide Sultan Kösem Mahpeyker was a powerful political player. 41 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, p. 147. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 25 iyye.”42 Consequently, Sufis were “given a chance to renounce unbelief by renewing their profession of the faith. If they refused, they would be killed. In any case, the lodges should be leveled without exception.”43 Similarly, and only a decade and a half later, the Jewish claimant to messiahship Sabbetai Svi was given the same ‘chance’ to either renounce his faith or die. He elected to do the former, and famously converted to Islam in 1666.44 It was in this atmosphere, in which religion was highly politicized, and confessional dissimilarities rather than similarities were stressed in order to highlight differences, that İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān translated Taşköprüzade’s 16th century polemical treatise against Judaism from Arabic into Ottoman Turkish and infused it with further examples and an introduction-cum-conversion narrative. While we supposedly know the author’s name,45 it oscillates from manuscript to manuscript, and his historical identity remains elusive.46 His name occurs as 42 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, p. 142. Among the ca. 200 Friday mosques in Istanbul at the time, several of the first-rank (twenty or so) imperial mosques were occupied by Kadızadelis in the early 1650’s (ibid., p. 141), including Aya Sofya, “the premier mosque of the Ottoman Empire and the summit of the vaiz career,” (p. 132). The position of Friday preacher at the Aya Sofia had previously been held by the Ḫalvetī ʿAbdülaḥad Nūrī (d. 1651), the most important şeyḫ of the time, who had been the successor to his maternal uncle Sivāsī Efendi, the already mentioned Ḫalvetī Şeyḫ who represented the Sufi position in opposition to Kadızâde Meḥmed in 1633 43 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, p. 142. 44 Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, pp. 673-86; Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, p. 154. A similar case is reported for a mint director in Ottoman Cairo around 1696, who escaped being beaten to death and burned (as had happened to his predecessor) by converting to Islam. Jane Hathaway, “The Grand Vizier and the False Messiah: The Sabbatai Sevi Controversy and the Ottoman Reform in Egypt,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 117 (1997), p. 670. 45 The term Dey[y]ān may well refer to God (al-Dayyān – both forms occur in the manuscripts), ʿAbdü’d Deyyān thus being the equivalent of ‘servant of God,’ or ʿAbd Allāh, which is one of the most common names of converts to Islam, both in the early centuries of Islam, and in the Middle periods, when calques in other languages, such as Khudābanda (Persian for ‘servant of God’), emerge. See, for instance, the Jewish convert to Islam ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Islāmī’s name, who authored the polemical treatise al-Sayf al-mamdūd fī l-radd ʿalā aḥbār al-yahūd, ed. and trans. E. Alfonso, Madrid 1998, as well as the name of Nūḥ ibn Abdülmannān, an Italian convert to Islam; Hagen, “Afterword,” p. 251. Secondly, it may also refer, if only indirectly, to the position that either İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān himself or his father may have held in the past within the Jewish community, namely as a Dayan, a rabbinic judge. 46 Further research into the archival sources may reveal more about his identity, as conversions are frequently recorded by kadıs, and in his conversion narrative, İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d- Deyyān alludes to his conversion having taken place in the presence of the Sultan (possibly as part of a larger group). On relevant Ottoman archival sources, see Halil İnalcık, “Ottoman Archival Materials on Millets,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society 1-2, eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, New York 1982, vol. 1, pp. 437-49. On public conversions in the presence of the Sultan, see Marc Baer, “The Conversion of Christian and Jewish Souls and Space during the ‘Anti-Dervish Movement of 1656-76’,” in David Shankland (ed.), Archaeology, Anthropology and Heritage in the Balkans and Anatolia: The Life and Times of F.W. Hasluck, 1878-1920. Istanbul 2004, vol. 2, pp. 183-200, here p. 192, fn. 2. Baer has located close to two hundred cases of converts © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 26 Yūsuf b./İbn Abī ʿAbd/ʿUbayd47 ed-Dey(y)ān48 in the introductions of the various manuscripts. In the colophon, his name also fluctuates considerably, between Yūsuf b. ʿAbdü’l-Melik49 ad-Dey(y)ān, as represented by the lead manuscript (MS Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022) and its followers; Yūsuf b. Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Dey(y)ān;50 and Yūsuf b. ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān.51 While the profession of his father (or one of his forefathers) is given as Kepenkçi (‘iron door gate maker’) or Kepenekçi (felt maker) in one of the manuscripts,52 I have so far not been able to establish his identity, or his social, occupational or family context from external sources, which would suggest that he may have been from those educated, though lower, echelons of society who often do not appear in historiographical or reference works until the modern period, if, of course, the author’s ‘name’ is not a pseudonym in the first place. On the other hand, the introduction suggests that İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān had connections to the “gate to the refuge of happiness” (ol südde-yi saʿādet-penāh), a common epithet of the Sultan, and that he had been sheltered under the “bounteous patronage of the shadow of God on earth” (ẓıll Allāh fī arḍınıŋ – again, possibly referring to the Sultan), although this may mean much less than is suggested by the text.53 The author’s connections to the court – if not fictitious – suggest that he may have lived in or close to the capital at the time of the composition of the treatise. Furthermore, we also learn that İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān appears to have been from a wealthy family (he is able to endow his inheritance) and that he originally worked in trade, but gave up much of his wealth in order to live in seclusion. The latter is expressed in a terminology that is well known from Sufi circles – the author says that he wanted to “seclude himself in the corner of renunciation.”54 On the other hand, he encourages his readers to contact him if they have any difficulties when engaged in a polemical argument with Jews (see that are recorded in the Prime Ministry’s Ottoman Archive in Istanbul for Meḥmed IV.’s reign alone, and points out that “several hundred more” are found in documents in Sofia (ibid.). 47 Two of the manuscripts (Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022, ff. 101b, Princeton, Garrett Islamic MS 1183H [Trk Uncatalogued], f. 71a) have “ʿUbayd,” whereas the majority (and mostly later manuscripts Giresun 171/2, f. 30a; Giresun 102, f. 133b; Manisa 2986-8, f. 198b; Sofia, Bulgarian National Library 2050, f. 92a; Leiden Or. 25.756 Ar. 5836, f. 1b) have “ʿAbd.” 48 The Leiden manuscript (Or. 25.756 [= Ar. 5836], f. 1b) vocalizes “al-Dayyān” with a shadda over the yā. 49 The Manisa manuscript has ʿAbd Allāh instead of ʿAbd al-Malik. 50 Sofia, Bulgarian National Library 2050. 51 Leiden Or. 25.756 (= Ar. 5836). 52 Sofia, Bulgarian National Library 2050, f. 92a, where the author is introduced as Kepenk- çizāde/Kepenekçizāde. 53 See Appendix II. However, mass conversions in the presence of the Sultan did apparently occur; see fn. 46. 54 See Appendix II. Krstić ( “Illuminated by the Light of Islam,” p. 57) takes this to mean that “he eventually became a Sufi.” © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 27 below, pp. 27-28). Such apparent inconsistencies do not make it easier to resolve the puzzle of the identity of the author. As no names are mentioned in the preface, a more specific contextualization is not possible from this passage. Regarding the intentions and spiritual journey of İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān, we learn from the introduction (Appendix II) that he was a Jewish convert to Islam who wrote this treatise to demonstrate the superiority of Islam over Judaism, and states that he uses his previous Jewish education in order to do so. Very similar claims had been made by earlier Jewish convert authors of anti-Jewish polemical treatises, such as, e.g., Samawʾal al-Maghribī (d. 570/1175).55 How İbn Ebī ʿAbd- ü’d-Deyyān’s approach differs from these has yet to be investigated in detail. Most noticeably, the Arabic translations from the Hebrew Bible that are presented by Taşköprüzade are found almost verbatim in the Keşfü’l-esrār, and neither appears to be based on or related to other known early translations into Arabic of the Hebrew Bible, though this point also requires further investigation.56 İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān also states that he was quite advanced in his Jewish education when he converted. The treatise demonstrates that the author was indeed well versed in the rabbinical tradition, as is evidenced by the examples from inner-Jewish debates that he adduces, and which are not contained in Taşköprüzade’s treatise.57 It is also supported by the fact that he is capable of providing Hebrew quotations in transliteration in the Arabic alphabet.58 In the conclusion, the author reveals more about the reasons for composing the treatise: Here ends the book Keşfü’l-esrār fī ilzāmi’l-Yehūd ve’l-aḥbār, which Yūsuf b. ʿAbdü’l-Melik ed-Deyyān composed. He says that the purpose of presenting this treatise is not to attain virtue or fame, but rather [to help] those scholars (ʿulemāʾ) who want to debate with the Jews (ol ṭāʾife), but give them the upper hand [in the debate] instead, as they are not informed about the conditions (aḥvāl). [Hence] the zeal for the aim of revealing the 55 Samawʾal had stated: “The ultimate purpose in writing this work [i.e., the Ifḥām al-Yahūd— JP] is to refute that obstinate and stubborn [Jewish—JP] people, and to reveal with what corruption their tenets are beset. It is true that, before my time, leading authorities - may their reward be augmented - applied themselves to this matter and pursued several lines of polemics with the Jews, but the latter hardly understood most of the controversy, nor found it convincing. By using scriptural passages current among the Jews, this book clears the way to silencing them. God made the Jews blind when they tampered with the text; so that these same passages, possessed by the Jews, might thus serve as evidence against the Jews.” Samauʾal al-Maghribī, Ifḥām Al-Yahūd. Silencing the Jews, ed. and introduction by Moshe Perlmann, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 32 (1964), p. 33. 56 In particular, future research should include comparisons with the 1559 translation of the Pentateuch by the Istanbuliot Jew known as Ḫākī (see Neudecker, The Turkish Bible Translation) and the Ottoman translation by ʿAlī Bey/ʿAlī Ufkī, the Polish convert to Islam who worked as chief translator at Mehmet IV’s court, though it appears as though Ufkī’s efforts followed rather than preceded those of İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān (see on him n. 8 above). 57 Appendix III provides examples of this. 58 It is particularly noteworthy that in his arguments the author makes frequent reference to the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, and Jewish exegetes such as Rashi, Abraham ibn Ezra and Nahmanides. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 28 truth arose in this poor one, and those matters that I had studied from its experts, the details and methods of their commentaries (tefsīr) as well as their book known as the Talmud and its branches (furūʿ) and abridgments (muḫtaṣar) were selected and written down as an instance of this, so that when they [the scholars] intend to study [these issues] and debate with a [Jewish] person, they would be knowledgeable about those abovementioned books. It is easy to debate with them (ānlarıŋ gibiler ile baḥs āsāndir), but it is difficult to convince the ignorant ones as they are exceedingly obstinate (muʿāned-i maḥż). If those people (ol ṭāʾife) ask questions and seek answers, let this poor one know. As long as I still have life to live in this world, let their doubts be eliminated. This final paragraph, and especially the concluding sentence, places the treatise squarely into the field of interreligious polemics of the mid-17th century Ottoman Empire. It shows that interconfessional polemics was a highly relevant issue during this time, as it contains an invitation to contemporaries to consult the author if they needed guidance on how to conduct and win a polemical argument. This is what may indeed have happened to the treatise – at least this would explain why there are so many different versions in the surviving manuscripts, especially in the final chapter, representing entirely different recensions of the text: It may have been re-written and/or continued and supplemented with further examples and arguments after further questions were asked, i.e., after someone had ‘tried’ the treatise in a debate, and was faced with counter arguments, to which further responses and examples were then added.59 While the introduction consists in large parts of a seemingly intimate conversion account, it contains several inconsistencies. The author claims to have composed the treatise, without acknowledging anywhere the older Arabic treatise by Taşköprüzade, to which it is deeply indebted. The latter is so clearly not only modeled on Taşköprüzade’s Arabic treatise, but in fact constitutes an Ottoman translation of it, that by today’s standards we would call it plagiarism. Additional confusion about the author’s identity and the time he lived in arises from the main text itself: here, the author mentions that he met someone who had gone to see a certain Şeyhülislam Saʿdī Efendi and engaged with him in a religious debate in his home.60 Given the date, the name, and story, these appear to be a narrative interpolation.61 The only Ottoman şeyhülislam with this name is the şeyhülislam or muftī of Istanbul, Mollā Saʿdullāh b. ʿĪsā, known as Saʿdī Çelebī. Under Süleymān the 59 A similar process explains the different recensions of Samawʾal al-Maghribī’s Ifḥām Al- Yahūd. See the introduction by Moshe Perlmann, p. 26; see also the editors’ introduction to Samawʾal al-Maghribī’s (d. 570/1175) Ifḥām al-yahūd. The Early Recension, eds. Ibrahim Marazka, Reza Pourjavady, Sabine Schmidtke, Wiesbaden 2006. – Another example is provided by Monika Hasenmüller in this volume. 60 For the full story, see Appendix III. The episode occurs in the answer to the sixth proof of the spuriousness of the arguments adduced by the Jews for the eternity of the religion of Moses. Faṣl 1, Tezyīf-i dalīl-i sādis, javāb. 61 See Appendix I for the main dates mentioned in this article. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 29 Magnificent (r. 1520-1566) he held office as şeyhülislam for five years from 1533 until his death on 21 February 1538.62 The life dates of the şeyhülislam are more compatible with the lifetime of Taşköprüzade – except that his treatise, at least in the copies that have come down to us, does not mention this episode. However, Taşköprüzade mentions Saʿdī Efendi in his Shaqāʾiq al-Nuʿmāniyya, which includes the following passage: Mollā Saʿdī Çelebī excelled over his contemporaries as a teacher. As a qāḍī he fulfilled this office in an irreproachable manner, and in his fatwās he always knew how to give an excellent answer. […] His belief was pure, and he held fast onto the sharīʿa. He was one of those learned men who spent all their time studying. He also possessed a large library and had studied all kinds of curious things [emphasis added], of which he had memorized the important passages. He had an excellent memory and also knew by heart a good amount of the manāqib (hagiographies) and history works.63 It is noteworthy that Taşköprüzade states that Mollā Saʿdī “had studied all kinds of curious things, of which he had memorized the important passages.” This might be a hint that he was possibly interested in the kind of inter-religious debate discussed here, though this must remain speculation, as Taşköprüzade does not provide any details on what kinds of “strange books” Saʿdī Efendi read.64 Beyond these clues and references, the text reveals little about the author, and further speculation about his identity, including the possibility that the ‘Jewish convert’ is a fictitious persona invented to lend more credibility to the core text,65 is not productive at this point. What we can be sure about, however, is the continued interest in the treatise as evidenced by the existence of several, mostly later, copies, and the apparent accretional ‘growth’ of the text over time. 62 Abdülkadir Altunsu. Osmanlı Şeyhülislâmları, Ankara 1972, p. 275, provides the exact dates of his office as 17 April 1533 to 21 February 1538. 63 “Saʿdullāh b. ʿĪsā, known as Saʿdī Çelebī;” Ṭaşköprüzade, al-Shaqāʾiq al-Nuʿmāniyya, ed. Ahmed Subhi Furat, [n.p.] 1985, pp. 443-45; German trans. O. Rescher, Konstantinopel- Galata 1927, pp. 282-84. 64 “Wa qad malaka kutuban kathīratan wa-ṭṭalaʿa ʿalā ʿajāʾib min al-kutub.” al-Shaqāʾiq al-Nuʿmāniyya, ed. Furat 1985, p. 444. 65 A similar phenomenon can be observed in contemporary Europe, where 16th century Jewish conversions to Christianity were re-cast in conversion narratives that were stimulated by, if not modeled on, Luther’s ‘conversion narrative.’ “Eventually, the autobiographical narrative became such an integral feature of books written by converts, that when the converts did not provide their own narratives, their Christian editors or publishers would compensate by providing a biography of the convert-author to satisfy their readers.” One eighteenth century editor “worried that the absence of a ‘life’ of the author would diminish the value of his edition of a sixteenth-century convert classic.” Carlebach, Divided Souls, p. 93. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 30 The text and its discursive context While İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān’s treatise and Taşköprüzade’s are very similar in title, contents, and structure, they also differ substantially. Notably, Taşköprüzade does not contain the introduction and conclusion (for obvious reasons – these pertain to İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān as a real or invented convert author/compiler), but also does not contain the story about the şeyhülislam Saʿdī Efendi, and other interpolations (see Appendix III). It becomes easier to analyze this relationship if we think of the text as consisting of three components: (i.) The first component is the core text, which is the Arabic text provided by Taşköprüzade, which İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān translated into Ottoman Turkish a century later. (ii.) The second component is the ‘frame narrative’ which was added later, consisting of the introduction/conversion narrative (Appendix II) and the conclusion/invitation to the readers to consult the author if they face difficulties in a real-life polemical debate (provided here on pp. 27-28). This ‘framing,’ in turn, also lent greater credibility to the treatise itself.66 Both components rely heavily either on previous texts and/or on existing topoi.67 In addition, the combination of a refutation of the Jews and an autobiographical conversion narrative is something of a structural topos, as the similar set-up of ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Islāmī’s and Samawʾal al-Maghribī’s works shows. (iii.) The third component are the many glosses, examples, names, and references that were added to the core text (i.) by İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān and future scribes-cum-commentators, and which were, almost in a ‘zipper’ procedure, integrated with the main text. (i.) The first component or ‘core narrative’ is so obvious and omnipresent that it does not need to be explained here further – a look at Appendix III, which is representative, demonstrates how much İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān owes to Taşköprüzade.68 66 Interestingly, converts appear to be more credible ‘witnesses’ than believers born into a religion. This is even the case for ‘apostates’ (from the narrator’s perspective). Thus, the early 18th century editor of a group of epistles that contains a treatise by ʿAlī Ufkī on The liturgy of the Turks commented: “What he has left in writing concerning the Rites of the Turks, muſt be acceptable to the curious Reader; becauſe theſe things have not been ſo well deſcrib’d by others, nor indeed could they be accurately deſcrib’d by any Chriſtian.” Four Treatises Concerning the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of the Mahometans, p. 105. 67 For examples of such topoi, see Perlmann “The Medieval Polemics Between Islam and Judaism.” Especially Iberian/Sephardic Jews, who eventually constituted the majority of Ottoman Jewish Istanbul, might well have been familiar with the works of Ibn Ḥazm of Cordoba and the refutation of his, or similar, polemical arguments by Ibn Adret, Judah ha- Levi, and Maimonides. – On the ‘sepharadization’ of the Jewish community of Istanbul, see Rozen A History, Chapter Seven, “Interethnic encounters,” pp. 87-99. On Ibn Ḥazm, see Adang, Muslim Writers. 68 Furthermore, most, if not all, of the arguments contained in the text already occur in earlier polemical debates, such as in, e.g., Maimonides, The Epistle to Yemen, tr. and annotated by Abraham Halkin, in Epistles of Maimonides. Crisis and Leadership, Philadelphia / Jerusalem 1985, pp. 107-14. On the arguments used by Samawʾal al-Maghribī, e.g., as well as © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 31 (ii.) Turning to the second component or ‘frame narrative,’ this as well is heavily indebted to various precursors in the Islamic polemical tradition, mostly in the form of topoi. Despite the fact that it looks as though here one convert speaks with his own voice, and the deceptively personal style and ‘confessions’ in the introduction notwithstanding, many of the topics mentioned in the introduction are stock topoi of conversion narratives of Jews to Islam throughout the centuries and indeed pre-date the Ottoman Empire.69 Even the seemingly specific purpose of the treatise and the instructions to the readers in the concluding paragraph, namely to provide arguments for “those scholars (ʿulemāʾ) who want to debate with the Jews,” are not new: for instance, ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Islāmī in his al-Sayf almamdūd fī l-radd ʿalā aḥbār al-Yahūd had proposed exactly the same purpose of the composition of his treatise, which is why Esperanza Alfonso has dubbed it a “manual de polémica.”70 Perhaps surprisingly, such generic topoi did not undermine the credibility of the treatise: on the contrary, they rendered it true and believable precisely because it ‘ticked the right boxes.’71 Part of the ‘cognitive matrix’ of ‘true’ (credible and conother Jewish intellectuals who converted to Islam, see Sarah Stroumsa, “On Jewish Intellectuals Who Converted in the Early Middle Ages,” in The Jews of Medieval Islam. Community, Society, and Identity, ed. Daniel Frank, Leiden 1995, pp. 191-96. It should be pointed out that İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān’s treatise differs from Samawʾal’s in that he asserts the superiority of Islam (as opposed to Samawʾal, who asserted the equality of all religions; Stroumsa, “On Jewish Intellectuals,” pp. 195-96). See also Mercedes García-Arenal, “Dreams and reason: Autobiographies of converts in religious polemics.” In Conversions Islamiques. Identités religieuses en islam méditerranéen = Islamic conversions: religious identities in Mediterranean Islam, ed. Mercedes García-Arenal, Paris 2001, pp. 94-100. 69 Several ‘precursor’ texts (both by converts and non-converts) which used similar arguments are listed in Schmidtke/Adang, “Aḥmad b. Muṣṭafā Ṭāshkubrīzāde’s Polemical Tract,” especially pp. 82-83 n. 9. 70 “Su propósito explícito es dar argumentos que faciliten la polémica con los judíos; en este sentido, lo que trata de escribir no es un relato autobiográfico que transmita su experiencia de conversión, sino un manual de polémica.” ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Islāmī, al-Sayf al-mamdūd, p. 36. Alfonso also pointed out that in addition to earlier, similar, tracts written by Jewish converts to Islam (such as the Ifhām al-Yahūd by Samawʾal al-Maghribī or the Kitāb Masālik al-Naẓār by Saʿīd b. Ḥasan), very similar texts were also written by Muslims against Jews; see ibid., p. 37. A case in point is the Iẓhār in Ibn Ḥazm’s Kitāb al-Fiṣal. On the latter, see especially Adang, Muslim Writers. 71 Using research on conversion narratives from such varied environments as Catholicism and Protestantism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Divine Light Mission, Nichiren Shoshu, Hare Krishna, and others, the social anthropologist Thomas Luckmann has distinguished between the substance of conversions qua act, and conversion as the articulated experience of conversion, and its inter-subjective reconstruction, as expressed in conversion narratives. His careful analysis has demonstrated that conversion narratives are part of the conversion itself, precisely because they are part of a known, recognizable, and expected cognitive matrix which makes conversion narratives believable, and hence, ‘true.’ Thomas Luckmann, “Kanon und Konversion,” in Kanon und Zensur, Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation II, eds. Aleida and Jan Assmann, München 1987, p. 40. See also Carlebach, Divided Souls, p. 88, who (apparently unaware of Luckmann’s study) states that “Conversion © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 32 vincing) conversion narratives, cognates of polemical literature in Islam, is the reliance on reason, which Sarah Stroumsa has identified as “part of the Arabic polemical tradition.”72 This is precisely what the author of the Keşfü’l-esrār stresses in his introduction, where he juxtaposes the incomprehension and intuitive rejection with which he studied the Torah in his youth, with the maturity of his decision to convert to Islam as an adult, which, he claims, was entirely based on deliberate study and rational insight: […] Even as far back as the time of [my] youth when I was applying myself to the study [of] the Torah […], I came across some words which would not please my heart, I could not understand them easily, and they were not agreeable to me because they contradicted common sense. However, I did not reject them because they were written down in the Torah. And because of my young age, I did not attempt to understand them. And whenever they were mentioned, the strength of the aversion in my heart increased and became stronger. And now that I have reached maturity and have become aware of the temporality of the world, I have begun to think about and reflect upon the commands of my religion and the affairs of my future life [āḳıbet]. I did not benefit from the religious authorities [aḥbār] that I consulted [regarding] those matters of doubt. I did not find consolation [for] my mind [tasallī-yi ḫāṭır] in those answers that they provided. I saw complete disorder in the Jewish mode of conduct and perceived the beauty of order in the traditions of Islam. The love for the belief installed itself in my heart and desire for Islam impressed itself upon my soul.73 Being thus affected, I devoted myself to the regular practice of the religious sciences and the study of Theology.74 I set out on a journey in the path of exploring [the manifestation/existence of] God/the truth, and spent the major portion of my efforts in the quest of absolute truth. After a while, when this wretched one became able to read the exegetical works on the Torah, and to see his doubts in their own place, he began to comprehend the words of the experts. I exerted strong efforts and read many books and epistles, but naturally, I was not capable of convincing my heart to accept the matters against which I had an aversion. I even considered as acceptable and adequate the assumption that those parts of the copies of the Torah were the corruptions of copyists and alterations of scribes. I was successful in finding in many other places proof and signs for the prophethood of the seal of prophets Muḥammad Muṣṭafā – may the best of prayers and the most perfect greetings be upon him – and for the truth of the glorious Koran. I became aware of the misrepresentations and the zeal [teʿennüf] of the Jews (may God lead them to the straight path) with regard to the issue of the eternity [taʾbīd] of the religion of Moses (peace be narratives figured prominently among the elements of successful conversions in many traditions.” 72 Stroumsa, “On Jewish Intellectuals,” p. 196. See also Moshe Perlmann’s reflections on Samawʾal al-Maghribī’s role as a “rationalist,” stating that “Again and again Samauʾal harp[ed] on pure logic as the spring of his conversion.” Samauʾal al-Maghribī. Ifḥām Al-Yahūd: Silencing the Jews, pp. 22-24. It should be pointed out that reliance on reason is part of inner-Islamic disputations as well (see Josef van Ess, “Disputationspraxis in der islamischen Theologie. Eine vorläufige Skizze,” Revue des Etudes Islamiques 44 (1976), pp. 23-60). 73 Muḥabbet-i īmān göŋlümde yer ve raġbet-i islām cānıma teʾsīr eyledi. 74 Note that this is not only a theological argument; see below. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 33 upon him). Inevitably, the beliefs that I had inherited from my ancestors began to shake, and my religion that was based on the principle of [unquestioning] tradition (iḳtibās itdüğüm iʿtiḳādātım) began to waver. The incitements of the harbingers of divine guidance triumphed [taġlīb ḳılıb] over my heart in various ways [elvān-ı shittā], and I gradually severed my attachment to the society of my fellows and the company of my friends,75 and turned the reins of self-control to the path of right guidance. The motif of rational insight is a topos also frequently found in the conversion narratives of Jews converting to Christianity in early modern Europe,76 as opposed to dreams which dominated the medieval and late medieval conversion narratives as factors explaining conversion.77 It is beyond the scope and purpose of this article to investigate these parallels in the transition from the late medieval to the early modern in more detail, but they certainly deserve further study in the framework of a larger Mediterranean history that envisions the ‘connecting of the dots’ between areas that are geographically, culturally, and intellectually connected,78 but are often perceived as distinct entities, precisely because religion divides them. Conversion in either direction (conversion to or apostasy from), rather than ‘bridging the gap’ through the adherence of convert individuals to more than one confession across their life time, often fed, and continues to feed, the perception of a gap and distinction rather than similarities between confessions. Conversion in the late medieval and early modern periods was not (only) a matter of personal 75 For a discussion of the notion of the ‘civil death’ that often occurs after a conversion, and examples supporting it, see Ginio, “Childhood,” pp. 95; 113. Part of this process of ‘wiping out’ the former persona is the re-naming after the conversion; on the latter, see Lewis R. Rambo and Charles E. Farhadian. “Converting: stages of religious change,” in Religious Conversion—Contemporary Practices and Controversies, eds. Christopher Lamb and M. Darrol Bryant, London 1999, p. 32. 76 Autobiographical narratives of such converts often include “their experiences of Jewish education, worship, or ritual training.” Carlebach, Divided Souls, pp. 90, 95; for such a narrative, see especially p. 97. 77 For a dream narrative that is pivotal in a Jewish convert to Christianity’s autobiographical conversion narrative (that of Hermannus Judaeus, 1107-1181), see Arnaldo Momigliano, “A Medieval Jewish Autobiography,” in idem, Settimo contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, Rome 1984, pp. 335-36. Notice, however, the ambivalence in the contemporary (likewise 12th century) Samawʾal al-Maghribī’s Ifḥām Al-Yahūd, who stresses that his conversion occurred on the basis of reason, and yet feels that he has to ‘slip in’ a conversion-inducing dream as well, only to assert afterwards that it was not this dream, but reason (based on proof and demonstration) that made him convert: “The reader of these pages should now understand that it was not the dream that had induced me to abandon my first faith. A sensible man will not be deceived about his affairs by dreams and visions, without proof or demonstration.” Samauʾal al-Maghribī, Ifḥām Al-Yahūd, p. 87. For a further example of a reason-induced conversion, in this case of a Christian convert to Islam, see Krstić, “Illuminated by the Light of Islam,” p. 44. See also García-Arenal, “Dreams and reason.” 78 On the concept of ‘connecting the dots,’ see Sanjay Subrahmanyam, “Connecting the Dots: Some Ways of Reframing South Asian History,” Keynote Address at the Annual South Asia Graduate Student Conference at The University of Chicago, April 17th and 18th, 2009, and idem, “Connected histories: notes towards a reconfiguration of early modern Eurasia,” Modern Asian Studies 31.3 (1997), pp. 735-762. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 34 choice and conviction. It was also, and perhaps foremost, highly social, and hence, political. Thus, while conversion narratives are based on literary topoi that have a long tradition in the Islamic polemical literature and beyond, and indeed in order to be convincing have to be based on topoi that are seemingly ‘timeless’ and disconnected from the specific historical context in which they are narrated, they are also intricably connected to this very historical context. In İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d- Deyyān’s case and the context in which he wrote, his conversion narrative feeds into the confessional polarization that can be observed during this time on all fronts: within the Ottoman Empire, between the Kadızadeli movement, several Sufi groups (above all the Ḫalvetiyye and Mevleviyye), and various representatives of the state, who took different positions vis-à-vis these groups over time. In the international context, the (Twelver Shīʿī) Safavid and (Christian) Hapsburg Empires were the major sparring partners of the Ottoman Empire in the arena of religious polemics. Conversion narratives laid stress on the differences – as such, they are highly political, despite the seemingly apolitical, frozen, literary, topical, garb in which they are presented. Moreover, conversion on the basis of reason constitutes not only a theological argument: It is of legal importance as well. As Eyal Ginio has shown for 18th century Ottoman Salonika (Thessaloniki), children under the age of seven were deemed lacking discernment, and conversions undertaken before this age were legally invalid, unless undertaken “following the parents” (ebeveynine tebaʿiyyet ile).79 Discernment between good and evil was of particular importance for the legal confirmation of the validaty of conversion.80 That İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān stresses here his advanced age and full rational grasp of his conversion also implicitly emphasizes its legal validity. Thus, the seemingly topoi-based, perhaps topoi-driven conversion narrative of İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān is a speech act of the first order, and has strong legal, in addition to theological and political implications that should have resonated with several audiences. (iii.) Turning to the third component, it is less obvious than the previous two and can only be extrapolated by a close textual analysis and comparison. There are two kinds of interpolations: Paragraph-long passages that are found in İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān but not Taşköprüzade, and shorter supporting ‘footnotes’ and references that were inserted directly into the (translated) text instead of in the margins where supportive material and examples were required. The text in its 79 Ginio, “Childhood,” pp. 92, 99-101, 109, 113. For children over the age of 10 it was assumed that they had reached the maturity necessary to understand what they were doing, though later re-conversion / apostasy was not punished in the same severe way as for adults. The problematic age group was the 7-10 year olds, who had to be personally interrogated by the kadı, who investigated whether they had sufficient discernment to undertake a legally valid conversion to Islam. 80 Ginio, “Childhood,” p. 101. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 35 present form, of course, may already be the product of a later scribe’s copying efforts. It is not uncommon in the Islamic manuscript tradition that an original text and its commentary are ‘merged’ into one continuous text, though normally the text and its commentary would remain distinguishable through such devices as framing (qāla …) and the use of different script or color to distinguish the text from the commentary or glosses. The following passage is an example for the first, longer, type of interpolation. It is found right at the beginning of the first chapter of the main book, Part One, First Proof. Part One on the refutation of the six strong and well-known reasons [adduced by] the Jews regarding the issue of the eternity [of the law of Moses]. The claim of the eternity [of the Law of Moses] is a recent invention. The modern authors have deceived the imperious (mütekebbir) Jews. In their secluded activities they used and employed the uneducated (ejlāf) and base (erāzil) ones among them, and, protecting their property and children, together with them [and] with the aim of seeking help and assistance, they spent much effort in the matter of making permanent, as they were before, their places that they used to return to for reference. They took great pains, [and] among them they talked [great] nonsense (heẕeyān). But if one were to investigate it thoroughly, they have altogether, and by communal agreement, abandoned like a thing forgotten, most of the rules of the Torah. For instance, according to the rules of the Torah, during the forty days after childbirth (nefās) or during [a woman’s] period (ḥayż), if there is a [certain] amount of purulent matter (midde) apparent among them, the ritual purity of whatever they touch will be nullified (naḳż), and there are many such examples. [...] And if there is found, on the oven or a plate or pot, a beetle or a fly, it becomes canonically unclean (murdār) and is no longer permissible for use and must be scorched. And if someone carries a dead body, they [must] wash all their clothes, and on that day they will not become pure [reach ritual purity again] until the evening. Currently, they have abandoned this and many similar [rules].81 Like the interpolation on the şeyhülislam Saʿdī Efendi, this is a typical example for the ‘third component’ in a lengthy, ‘pure’ form: The reflections on the violation of the purity laws related to menstruation and child-birth, and the touching of beetles and dead bodies are not found in Taşköprüzade’s treatise. Even if we assume that some of this picture is tainted by the author’s polemical intent, this account displays both a vivid disapproval and critique of deviations from the Law and current practice among some of the Jews (which, as our author does not miss to point out, demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders, possibly serving apologetic purposes as well), while also inadvertently providing information on the existence of this usage during the author’s life time.82 81 MS Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022, ff. 103b-104b. Such accounts, if accurate, may also serve as examples of abrogation practised by the same Jews who deny its permissibility. 82 This confirms Suraiya Faroqhi’s observation that “from about the second half of the seventeenth century […] the beginnings of a cultural change [which manifested itself in] an increasing emphasis on everyday life and an interest in the experiences of ‘ordinary’ people” became evident, and that this can be observed particularly in autobiographical texts, © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 36 A different and more complex kind of example, representing the second and more common type of (short) interpolations, is the refutation of the sixth proof in the First Part of the treatise, which is rather representative of the entire treatise in terms of the similarities between the texts of Taşköprüzade and İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d- Deyyān. Because of its length it is quoted in full in Appendix III. The table juxtaposes parallel paragraphs from a sample passage from both treatises. The various degrees of quotations from Hebrew texts, scholarly Jewish arguments, and Muslim counter-arguments illustrate how closely these (the ‘accretional core’ and the later text – almost an integrated text and commentary) are related, and give a sense and somewhat representative insight into the kind of debates that this text engages with. This passage not only puts into context the Saʿdī Efendi story, but it also demonstrates how (and how abundantly) İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān embedded Hebrew quotations in his arguments. Even though the core of this treatise is clearly an Ottoman rendering of Taşköprüzade’s Arabic treatise, this makes the text an important key for understanding Taşköprüzade’s work, as in many cases where Taşköprüzade simply quotes, İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān also provides the source. Thus İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān’s treatment is not merely an appendix (ẕeyl) or an explanation or exegesis (beyān or tefsīr/şerḥ), but also an integrated effort to make Taşköprüzade’s treatise more convincing and accessible in his own time. Together, these three elements beautifully demonstrate the intertextuality and workings of an accretional text in the Muslim polemical tradition, of which Taşköprüzade was apparently one of the first, if not the first, within the Ottoman context. Manuscript witnesses and reception As is evidenced from the copying dates of the manuscripts, İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d- Deyyān’s treatise was popular for a period of two, if not three, centuries, and copies of it are today found in libraries as far apart as Giresun on the Black Sea (two copies, which are clearly not copies of one another); Manisa, in Western Anatolia, near the Aegean; Istanbul, represented by the Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi manuscript, and Sofia in the Balkans. Two further manuscripts are today held in Princeton and Leiden. The text under discussion consists of an introduction, four main parts or chapters of uneven length, and a conclusion.83 Some of the main chapters are further divided into extensive sub-chapters. The parts presented in translation and discussed in this paper are the Introduction, Part 4.6 (Appendix III), and the Conincluding conversion narratives, of which many more were produced than is commonly believed. Suraiya Faroqhi, Subjects of the Sultan: Culture and Daily Life in the Ottoman Empire, London / New York 2000, pp. 202-3. 83 For an overview of the structure of the treatise, see Schmidtke/Adang, “Aḥmad b. Muṣṭafā Ṭāshkubrīzāde’s Polemical Tract,” p. 85. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 37 clusion (above, pp. 27-28). The translation is based on the following four manuscripts:84 A Giresun 171/2, ff. 30a-45b [15 fols.], not dated = أ B Giresun 102, ff. 133b-164a [31 fols.], copied Tuesday Dhū al-Qaʿda = ب 1245/April-May 1830 .C Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022, ff. 101b-120b [20 folios], copied 1177/beg = ج 12 July 1763; the colophon states that the book was completed in Ṣafar 1061/beg. 24 January 1651.85 D Manisa 2986-8, ff. 198b-227a [30 folios], not dated.86 = د The best copy of the text that has come down to us is MS Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022, where it covers 20 folios (fols. 101b-120b). It is both the oldest extant dated copy, and also the copy with the best documented history of the manuscript itself. The colophon states that the treatise was composed in the month of Ṣafar of 1061, corresponding to January/February 1651: ḥurrira87 fī Ṣafar al-khayr li-sanat iḥdā wasittīn wa-alf.88 The specimen in question was copied about a century later, by a scribe with the name “Nedīmī”89 in the year 1177/beg. July 1763.90 Furthermore, the seals at the end of the epistle and in other places of the majmūʿa in which it is preserved show that the manuscript was endowed by a certain Ibn ʿAbd al-Muʿīd al-Dūrī91 yet another 150 years later, in 1331/1912.92 The manuscript also contains fewer scribal errors than some of the later manuscripts (especially Giresun 102). For these reasons, MS Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022 was taken as lead manuscript for the edition and translation.93 84 The manuscripts listed below are the four manuscripts that were used for the paper presented at the ESF workshop in 2007. The remaining three were discovered after this date, and will be included in the forthcoming critical edition and English translation of the text (in preparation). 85 MS Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022, f. 120b. 86 For an early mention and description of this manuscript, see Birnbaum, “Turkish Manuscripts: Cataloguing since 1960,” p. 492, who stated: “The text is undated but probably 16th or 17th century […] It is bound together with other MSS dated 1023, 953 and 952/1615, 1546 and 1545.” Birnbaum identified this manuscript as “MS 2986/8, ff. 198- 297. Author and title near the end, f. 226b (elsewhere Yūsuf b. Ebī ʿUbeyd).” 87 Adam Gacek, The Arabic Manuscript Tradition: A Glossary of Technical Terms & Bibliography, Leiden 2001, p. 30, where the third meaning given for taḥrīr is ‘composition’. 88 MS Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022, f. 120b. 89 Future research, based on improved catalogues and a study of relevant colophons, may reveal more about the identity of this scribe. 90 1177/beg. 1 July 1763. 91 As in the case of the scribe, it is hoped that future research may reveal more about the identity of İbn ʿAbdü’l-Muʿīd ed-Dūrī. 92 Here and on other folios (f. 1a, cover page of the volume, and f. 116b, in the middle of the treatise). The seal is visible in the clearest shape on folio 116b. It reads “ تاب ابن لكاوقف هذا ا يد ادلورى ملعبد ا ١٣٣١و يه . ع .” 1331 Hijrī began on 11 December 1912. 93 In terms of accuracy, Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022 is followed by Manisa 2986-8 and Giresun 171/2. The much later Princeton manuscript shows the efforts of a discerning copyist © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 38 However, towards the end the manuscripts deviate substantially from each other, and we have to assume the existence of three, if not four, different recensions of the work, rather than mere textual variants in the same work.94 The other dated copy (Giresun 102, ff. 133b-164a [31 folios]) is more recent, dating to a Tuesday in the month of Dhū al-Qaʿda of 1245, April-May 1830. Together with the already mentioned endowment seals in MS Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022, this is further evidence showing that the interest in the contents of the work did not abate for at least two, if not three centuries after its composition. This manuscript, however, is an often faulty, late copy by a scribe who was apparently not educated in Ottoman Turkish and did not know Arabic, as he repeatedly made mistakes where someone with an education in Arabic (or Ottoman Turkish, for that matter) would not have hesitated to place the correct form. Examples are the orthography of zeyl for ẕeyl,95 and the consistently inaccurate rendering of Arabic long vowels, which suggests that the scribe may possibly have written ‘by ear’.96 Future research will have to pursue the question of the reception of Taşköprüzade’s and İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān’s treatises. A full critical edition and English translation of the text together with similar texts is currently in preparation. who was trying to make sense of obscure passages, and is overall more accessible to the modern reader. However, this ‘cleaning up’ resulted at times in a rather strong tendency of ‘modernization’ and thus deviation from the older text, which appears best preserved in MS Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022. 94 When this paper was presented in 2007, only two ‘versions’ of the narrative were known to the author, of which MS Giresun 102 deviated most substantially from the manuscript tradition following MS Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022. Since then, one or possibly two further recensions as represented by manuscripts that were discovered later have to be accounted for, though these could no longer be taken into consideration for the present paper. 95 MS Giresun 102, f. 128b. 96 Thus, we find قادير for قادر (MS Giresun 102, f. 129b), يل صوا for واصل (f. 130b), يل خدا for داخل (f. 130b), تفاصىل for يىل صتفا (f. 131a.), مصارف for مصادف (f. 129a), ازعان for اذعان (f. 129a), تلبس for تلبيس (f. 129b), سلرومك نا for سلرميك نيا (f. 130a), خريتدن for حريتدن (f. 130a), تق دم عا for تقادم عا (f. 131a), and many others. There are also cases where the scribe may have copied visually (i.e., from a manuscript) rather than aurally, as in the case where the manuscript has ṣadīqa for ḥadīqa (f. 130b), and the ḥ was mis-read for a ṣ. The scribe had furthermore either little or no knowledge of Persian: MS Giresun 102 has باب ناب/شـرو شـرو for ناىئ شـرو (f. 130a). – Overall, however, it looks almost as though the work was dictated to the scribe, who wrote down what he heard – this is most probably also true for the Hebrew passages, that are transliterated in Arabic characters, where alif and ʿayn are used interchangeably, e.g., and so are thā and tā, thā and sīn, etc. – Similar observations have been made by Joseph Sadan with regard to Risālat ilzām al-yahūd fī-mā zaʿamū fī l-tawrāt min qibal ʿilm al-kalām by al-Salām ʿAbd al-ʿAllām; see his “A Convert in the Service of Ottoman Scholars Writing a Polemic in the Fifteenth-Sixteenth Centuries” [Hebrew], Peʿamim 42 (winter 1990), 91-104, and idem, “Naïveté, verses of Holy Writ, and polemics. Phonemes and sounds as criteria: Biblical verses submitted to Muslim scholars by a converted Jew in the reign of Sultan Bāyazīd (Beyazıt) II (1481-1512),” in O ye Gentlemen. Arabic Studies on Science and Literary Culture in Honour of Remke Kruk, eds. Arnoud Vrolijk and Jan P. Hogendijk, Leiden 2007, pp. 495-510. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 39 It is hoped that together, they will stimulate further investigation into this genre and its role in the confessionalization of the early modern Ottoman Empire. Conclusions and Outlook Polemical literature contributes to the shaping of communal identities. As such, the treatise investigated here contributed, even if indirectly, to the formulation of the early modern notion of the Ottoman plural society as one capable of accommodating a variety of faiths. The treatise presented in this paper sheds further light on conversion to Islam in the 17th century Ottoman Empire, and provides unique insights into the popular and semi-popular debates of the time. Predating the era of the mature Meḥmed IV, which has recently been identified as one of active conversion efforts by the Sultan especially during the years following the Great Fire of 1660, it also puts into perspective such Sultanic efforts: it appears as though here, just as in the earlier case of the Mongol converts to Islam, the ruler, rather than initiating conversion, reacted to a movement that had started from the bottom up and made it his own. Texts such as İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān’s Keşfü’l-esrār also show that despite more integrative, ‘melting pot’ aspirations of the Ottoman ruling elite in the long run,97 there were moments in history when this ideal was seriously challenged. Regardless whether they were written to facilitate ‘a distinct kind of integration’98 and possibly to serve apologetic purposes, or whether they were written with the aim to encourage future conversions, or both: texts such as the one presented here also fostered confessional polarization during the crisis of the mid-seventeenth century. Future appreciations of the period will have to take into account the existence and contents of treatises such as this when investigating its social, religious, and intellectual dynamics. The date of the present treatise, its semi-popular and popular origins and reception and transmission, and the multitude of surviving copies of these and other polemical treatises from the 16th century onwards reflect a reality in which Muslims and non-Muslims lived side by side, and felt that they had to re-assert their identities not only in the courts and everyday life, but also in the spiritual realm – over and over again, despite the fact that most of the arguments they used were almost as old as the polemical traditions of Judaism and Islam themselves. 97 On the view of the 16th century Ottoman intellectual Âli on this issue, see Cornell H. Fleischer, “Muslim and Ottoman. Âli’s view of Rum,” in idem, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire. The Historian Mustafa Âli (1541-1600), Princeton 1986, pp. 253-272. 98 Ginio, “Childhood,” p. 113. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 40 Appendix I: Overview of the most important events and persons mentioned in the paper Saʿdī Saʿdullāh Çelebī Efendi, şeyhülislam (in office): 1533-1538 Taşköprüzade 1495-1561 dictated al-Shaqāʾiq al-Nuʿmāniyya 965/1558 Risāla fī l-radd ʿalā l-Yahūd [undated] Debate between Kadızade Meḥmed and Sivāsī Efendi 1633 Kadızade Meḥmed 1582-1635 Ḫalvetī şeyh Sivāsī Efendi d. 1639 Countless executions for smoking infractions 1633-1638 Sultan Meḥmed IV, ruled: 1648-1687 Execution of dowager Kösem Mahpeykar 1651 Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022, ḥurrira fī 1061/1651 The Great Fire of 1660 1660 Köprülü Meḥmed, grand vizier d. 1661 Üstüvānī Meḥmed d. 1661 Köprülüzade Fāẓıl Aḥmed, grand vizier 1661-1676 Sabbetai Svi, proclaims himself Messiah 1665 Sabbetai Svi, forced to convert to Islam 1666 Vani Meḥmed d. 1685 MS Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022, copied in 1177/1763 MS Bağdatlı Vehbi Efendi 2022, endowed in 1331/1912 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 41 Appendix II: Introduction of İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān’s Keşfü’l-esrār fī ilzāmi’l-Yehūd v’el-aḥbār In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful; praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds, the Beneficent, the Merciful, the Lord of the Day of Judgment, it is You Whom we worship, and it is You Whom we ask for help. Prayer and greetings [be] upon our lord [sayyidinā] Muḥammad and over his entire family and closest kin [ʿalā sayyidinā Muḥammad wa ālihi wa ʿashīratihi ajmaʿīn]. Now [let us] pass to our subject: This poor servant of the all-bounteous God [Melik-i mennān], and the most needy of the creatures of the One to Whom we have recourse, the lowly and submissive Yūsuf b. Abī ʿUbayd ed-Deyyān99 says that even as far back as the time of [my] youth when I was applying myself to the study [of] the Torah, in some of the stories of the prophets (peace and prayers be upon them), I came across some words which would not please my heart, I could not understand them easily, and they were not agreeable to me because they contradicted common sense. However, I did not reject them because they were written down in the Torah. And because of my young age, I did not attempt to understand them. And whenever they were mentioned, the strength of the aversion in my heart increased and became stronger. And now that I have reached maturity and have become aware of the temporality of the world, I have begun to think about and reflect upon the commands of my religion and the affairs of my future life [āḳıbet]. I did not benefit from the religious authorities [aḥbār] that I consulted [regarding] those matters of doubt. I did not find consolation [for] my mind [tasallī-yi ḫāṭır] in those answers that they provided. I saw complete disorder in the Jewish mode of conduct and perceived the beauty of order in the traditions of Islam. The love for the belief installed itself in my heart and desire for Islam impressed itself upon my soul. Being thus affected, I devoted myself to the regular practice of the religious sciences and the study of Theology. I set out on a journey in the path of exploring [the manifestation/existence of] God/the truth, and spent the major portion of my efforts in the quest of absolute truth. After a while, when this wretched one became able to read the exegetical works on the Torah, and to see his doubts in their own place, he began to comprehend the words of the experts. I exerted strong efforts and read many books and epistles, but naturally, I was not capable of convincing my heart to accept the matters against which I had an aversion. I even considered as acceptable and adequate the assumption that those parts of the copies of the Torah were the corruptions of copyists and alterations of scribes. 99 On the importance of (re-)naming individuals as part of their conversion, see above n. 75. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 42 I was successful in finding in many other places proof and signs for the prophethood of the seal of prophets Muḥammad Muṣṭafā – may the best of prayers and the most perfect greetings be upon him – and for the truth of the glorious Koran. I became aware of the misrepresentations and the zeal [teʿennüf] of the Jews (may God lead them to the straight path) with regard to the issue of the eternity [teʾbīd] of the religion of Moses (peace be upon him). Inevitably, the beliefs that I had inherited from my ancestors began to shake, and my religion that was based on the principle of [unquestioning] tradition (iḳtibās itdüğüm iʿtiḳādātım) began to waver. The incitements of the harbingers of divine guidance triumphed [taġlīb ḳılıb] over my heart in various ways [elvān-ı shittā], and I gradually severed my attachment to the society of my fellows and the company of my friends,100 and turned the reins of self-control to the path of right guidance. I was granted success [divine guidance] by the kind and compassionate God [who] saved the foundation of the [one who was] shunning belief and [was] estranged from religion and the community, from the atmosphere of confusion and the gulf of alienation and showed him the path to the plain of the unimpaired state of Islam. He ornamented and adorned the stature of my integrity [istiḳāmetimi] through the state of the pronunciation of the Oneness of God and the permission to follow the Muḥammadan sharīʿah, and with the collyrium of the purity of the phrase “There is no god but God” and the pure collyrium and clean elixir of the phrase “Muḥammad is God’s Messenger” he polishes[d] and cleanses[d] my eyes [‘the sources of my sight’]. “Praise be to God Who has guided us to this. We could not truly have been led aright if God had not guided us.”101 Although there was neither pretension in my effort, nor necessity [compulsion?] in my inner self to attain this eternal fortune and to reach this eternal happiness, only He, the munificent and great Distributor of blessings, granted from His treasury of favors, and in accordance with the book of divine fore-ordination, by virtue of His eternal power [and] with the sign of His eternal will, He exalted this poor, wretched one with the blessing of faith and bestowed upon him the honors of Islam: “Such is the grace of God which He gives to whom He will. God is All-Embracing, All-Knowing.”102 The reasons for composing103 [these] words are the obvious ones [“reasons”] that are summarized at the beginning of the discourse, namely choosing the par- 100 For a discussion of the notion of the ‘civil death’ that occurs after a conversion, and examples supporting it, see above n. 75. 101 Qurʾān 7:43. Here and in the following, the references to the Qurʾān are a modernized rendition of The Meaning of The Glorious Qurʾan. Text and Explanatory Translation by Marmaduke Pickthall, Karachi / Lahore / Rawalpindi [1971]. 102 Qurʾān 5:54. 103 Literally, ‘the cause of the composition of...’ © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 43 ticulars of the causes of the religious rules and precepts [ḳavāʿid] in striving for the ultimate good in obtaining the attained result [namely that] belief without doubt may grow and expand in the garden of equanimity, “Like a good tree, its root set firm, and its branches reaching into heaven.”104 Its fruit is that, out of the purity (ḫulūṣ) of my intentions, I have endowed my lawful property that I had acquired via trade and inheritance as a result of blessings, and I entrusted the affairs of the endowment to the specialists [efḳāfı evliyāsına tefvīz itdim]. I withdrew from [tahfīf idüb] worldly affairs, and with the intention of spending the rest of my life in old age in obedience and prayer, I secluded myself in the corner of renunciation. After performing my obligations, I made it my responsibility and special duty to pray for the prolongation of the bounteous patronage of the shadow of God on earth [ẓıll Allāh fī arżınıŋ], [i.e., the Sultan] under whose wings I was sheltered. I was assiduous in making known that my conversion [(recently acquired) religion: iʿtiḳādım] be known as being based on virtue and sincerity. That “gate to the refuge of happiness” [ol südde-yi saʿādet-penāh: the Sultan] elevated [me] to the might and loftiness of the right course, and “God accomplishes what He wills”105 and “He does command according to His Will and Plan.”106 […] The details of the reasons for the guidance107 are recorded in the[se following] four chapters. The first chapter is on the refutation of the proofs [edille] [adduced by] the Jews regarding the issue of [the] eternity [of the law or religion of Moses]; the second chapter is on the proofs for the Prophethood [of Muḥammad] that are [found] in the books [nuṣūṣ] of the Torah; the third chapter is on incidents of corruption [in the Torah] and on putting forward the principles of doubt; the fourth chapter is on freeing from defect the circumstances of the Prophets [found in] the invectives of the Jews. God is All-Knowing; He is the Supreme Judge.108 104 Qurʾān 14:24. The full verse is as follows: “Don’t you see how God coins a similitude: a good saying, like a good tree, its root set firm, and its branches reaching into heaven.” Befittingly, the context of this verse both in the Qurʾān and in İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān’s work is conversion: the attempts of those believing in God’s signs to convince others to join them. 105 Qurʾān 3:40. 106 Qurʾān 5:1. 107 Or conversion [hidāyet]. 108 See the translation of Taşköprüzade’s treatise by Schmidtke/Adang, “Aḥmad b. Muṣṭafā Ṭāshkubrīzāde’s Polemical Tract,” p. 97, and the subtitles of the sections in the same. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 44 Appendix III: Sample comparison İbn Ebī ʿAbdü’d-Deyyān (108a-111b) Refutation of the sixth proof (Tezyīf-i delīl-i sādis) Taşköprü(lü)zade The sixth proof [of the Jews] [cf. Schmidtke/Adang, “Ṭāshkubrīzāde’s polemical text,” pp. 89-92 (Arabic), 103-105 (English)] Biblical references 1 They say that God Almighty has said in the Torah that It is said in the Torah: 2a [in Hebrew]: “The Children of Israel shall observe the sabbath throughout their generations forever”. ثوت اث ( بث َوسامرو بىن ارسائهل اث َْ ُْ َلَعَ َ ْ ََ َهسُ َ ِ َ َِ ِ َ ُبث دلورومت بريت عولم َ ْ َ ِ َ َ ُ ُ ََ َ ْ ).َهس ./. * Exod. 31:16 2b meaning, [in Arabic]: “The Children of Israel shall observe the sabbath throughout their generations forever”. بت يف دهورمه أبدا( نو إرسائل ا ًيحفظ لس ب )ل “The Children of Israel shall observe the sabbath throughout their generations forever.” بت يف دهورمه أبدا( نو إرسائل ا ًيحفظ سل ب )ل 2c (108b) [In Ottoman]: This verse indicates that God Almighty ordered the Children of Israel to observe the sabbath as long as the World stands. بو آيت داللت ايدركه هللا تعاىل بىن ارسائهل ( متش يا دوردقجه صاقلمق ايهل امر ا يبت كونىن د ن س )اوهل ./. 3 Thus, if another law comes and prohibits the observance of the sabbath, this implies that God commanded the Children of Israel to both observe and abandon the sabbath. This itself is imposing the impossible (teklīf-i mā lā yuṭāq). To the lawgiver (şāriʿ), imposing the im- They say: If we would follow a law other than that of Moses (peace be upon him), this would require the nonobservance of the sabbath, even though the observance of the sabbath is eternally binding on us. This then would imply that we observe the sab- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 45 possible (the teklīf-i mā lā yuṭāq) is not permissible. Therefore Moses’ law (şeriʿat) must be eternal. bath and not observe it at the same time. This is imposing the impossible (taklīf mā lā yuṭāq), which is completely absurd. 4a Response: This ornamented analogy is a result of the wrongdoing of the original wrongdoing. The structure of their proofs, which constitute the basis of the claim of the eternity of the observation of sabbath in the Torah, The [Muslim] reply: This 4b is a lie, because in the verse in question, the word ʿolam is used. The commentators [of the Torah: müfessirler] agree that this word has the meaning of an extended sojourn (meks–i baʿīd) in Hebrew. Avraham b. Ezra says in his commentary of this verse [in Hebrew]: is an obvious lie, for “eternity” is not the sense in which the word ʿolam which occurs in the Torah can be understood. Rather, it has the meaning of an extended sojourn in their language. Ibn Ezra has made this clear in his commentary on some verses َنه عود 5 ْنق َ نمي . قي َعورى سس َِ َس ِ ُبد يَع ]شش شـمي[ِ يو يصه يو ابيو يد يصَه خلقىس خمت ام َآبَه ََ َُ ُ َُ بغَ بغ َ َبع ََ ِ ِ ِ ُ َ ِ َ س تو معو وام امريو مرها َام ابعل اسه هو ويصَه ا ْ َ ْ ُْ َ ُ ُ َ َُ ِ َ يِس ِ ِ َِ ْ َْ َ َ نا لواصد يىت اث آذوىن اث اىس و اث َبد ا َْ َ ََ ََ ب ه ْع ِ ْ َْ َ ََ ِ ِ ُ ِ َ َ َ سو آذوان و ال هاال ومه َخفىس و َ ُ ُ َُ َ َِ َ ََ هفي ُِ ِ َو َ َسوال هدلت اوال مهزوزا ورصع آذوان واث َ َ َِ ُ ُ ُ َُ َ ََ َ َ ْ َ َ َّ ْهف َ ي َ َاذنو ابمر صع َ ْ َ َ ُ بذولع الم ُ َو ُ َ ُ َ َع َ. ./. Exod. 21:2-3, 5-6. 6a (109a) [implying] that the word ʿolam has the meaning of time in an absolute sense. He also quotes some books of the prophets to the effect that ʿolam means absolute time. and he corroborated this by what is found in the books of some of the prophets (peace be upon them), to the effect that [the word] occurs in the absolute sense of time, 6b He says that the phrase haye lolamim ( היה[ ) َلعُوَالميم َهَايه in the Books of [לעלמים Solomon, son of David (peace be upon both of them) has the meaning of “it was like that in the past time.” and he quotes what is found in the books of Solomon, son of David (peace be upon both of them), where past time is indicated, * Referring to Ecc. 1:10 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 46 6c The term found in the Book of David in the verse vayashoshim ad ʿolam (وْيُشو َشم ُعذ ُعوَالَم ) refers to a certain span of time. and what is found in the book of David (peace be upon him), where the meaning of a certain span of time is intended. 6d Rabbi Shlomo Isḥākī [Rashī] said in his commentary on the abovementioned verse that [in Hebrew]: َعْوَالم لعوال موسل ليوو , where the ʿolam is the ʿolam of yovel. He says that the ʿolam in this verse is a time, and its limit is the yovel, which is well known to the experts of the Torah and it happens in every fifty years, when all buying and selling transactions are annulled and slaves are set free. Also, it is stated in the commentary on some verses of the Torah that ʿolam is another expression for yovel, and that yovel stands for a [period of] time which is generally recognized among them and which occurs once every fifty years, when commercial transactions and all other agreements are annulled and slaves are set free. * cf. Lev. 25:10-17 6e In one of their authoritative books called Maḫalnā [Mekhilta], Moshe b. Nahman says that the limit of the ʿolam is fifty years. Hence the term ʿolam does not refer to eternity. It is obvious that these sorts of proofs fall short of proving their claims. (109b) Moshe ben Nahman reported that the maximum limit of ʿolam is fifty years, 6f One day I met one of the prominent members of the Jews, who was coming from a meeting with the Şeyḫülislām Saʿdī Efendi. He told me about a conversation in the house of the Şeyḫülislām and said that Saʿdī Efendi had argued that the term ʿolam in the abovementioned verse does refer to eternity. He asked for my opinion. I said: God said in the Torah that: “…it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.”* [in Hebrew]: َاُذوَناى َبَخل َمسُيو َنَخُم َسْبَت ِهى . whereas [another] one of them attested that with regard to the sabbath, it appears in the sense of eternity, also according to what is said in the Torah concerning the sabbath, where it says: “it is a sabbath for God in all your dwellings”, that is, as long as you dwell in the land.* * Lev. 23:3 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 47 6g I showed the verse in Arabic translation to him. He said that he had said to them that it meant Mā dumtum sākinīn fī larḍ. I replied and asked: “Did you say that because they are not well informed about these issues, or is your understanding also that inadequate?” The signs of anger appeared in his face and he said: “O! Is there any other possibility?” I said: ./. 6h “Did you not know that some famous verses in the Torah refer to Jerusalem, some refer to other places, and some refer to both Jerusalem and other places in general? Therefore, since the meaning of this verse is that the observation of the sabbath is not particular to Jerusalem, it is obvious that it is applicable to wherever you dwell. While all the commentators agree in this explanation, and announce through a circular the mürāḥele and münāzele, where (110a) did you get this wrong meaning and from which words (or Scripture) did you learn it? When you ask whether, contrary to the rules of the Hebrew language, whole places necessitate whole times, I can cite many other examples like this from the Torah.” He was bewildered and could not give any answer. To this will be replied that what is mentioned here [refers to] places in general, which does not require that time in general is meant. The principle underlying this is that some of the rulings of the Torah are specific for Jerusalem, some are specific for other places, and some are generally applicable to all places. The import of His saying “in all your dwellings” is that [keeping] the sabbath belongs to the third category. 7a Some other prominent members of the Jews dared to dispute and debate with me and said: “You say that the term ʿolam refers to the meaning of extended sojourn. What about It may be said: The word ʿolam is mentioned in connection with the Almighty, and cannot, therefore, refer to anything but eternity. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 48 the verse on God, which is also written with the term ʿolam? As there is nothing other than eternity itself.” 7b The proper response given to this question is: The meaning “eternity” comes from the word vaʿeẓ, not from the word ʿolam. The word vāʿeẓ means a “later time” not eternity. * This question and answer proves that they considered the meaning of time certain in [God’s] eye and received the answer. The reply to this is that what is mentioned with regard to the Almighty is the word ʿolam together with a qualification, namely the expression va-ʿed,* and eternity is only to be understood from the expression va-ʿed, not from the word ʿolam. * cf. Exod. 15:18 8a When they asked again: “What about the the word ʿolam, which occurs in the tenth part of the fifth book and refers to God without the word vāʿeẓ? What do you say about this?” * It has been objected to this that the word ʿolam occurs in the tenth part of the fifth book without the qualification of the expression va-ʿed, even though there it also refers to the Almighty.* * Ref. to Deut. 32: 40-41 8b I answered to this question by saying: “It is understood that you are not familiar with the [literature] of commentaries! The word ʿolam written in this instance means neither time nor extended sojourn, nor eternity. We reply that the majority of commentators have stated in general that the word ʿolam in this passage has neither the meaning of time, nor of a lengthy sojourn, nor the meaning of eternity, 8c The meaning of that verse is that God promises and says that (110b) when I raise my hand and order to the Throne and the See (ʿarş ve kürsī) and say that Oh! For the sake of me, God of the Universe, when I whet my sword and grip the butt (ḳabża) of subjugation, I take vengeance from the polytheists and seek justice from the enemies. but rather means “universe”, for the word ʿolam is ambiguous, and there is nothing dishonest about this. But what is referred to in this place is that “God (exalted is He), shall say ‘In the time when I shall lift up my hand to the Throne and the See and shall speak of my being living and lasting forever; in the time when I shall whet my sword and grip it in order to take vengeance, I shall take vengeance from the polytheists * cf. Deut. 32: 40-41 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 49 and demand justice from the enemies’”.* 8d Then let me intoxicate (mest edem) my blades with drink (dem, i.e. by making them drinking blood), and let my sword eat the flesh.* Verses with this meaning are written [in the Torah]. Now, the word ʿolam here means the universe (ʿālem). Thus, the conditions of the common meanings of the term ʿolam are discussed, and similarly the weak questions [of the Jews] are answered. Thus the word ʿolam appears here in the sense of abstract time, and nothing else. * cf. Deut. 32: 40-41. 9 [SUMMARY: Then, Deyyān says that the heart of the problem in the arguments of the Jews is their reluctance to accept abrogation (nesḫ). He goes on to discuss this issue in detail with specific examples of four different cases (vech):] Moreover, the Jewish sect rejects abrogation in the strongest terms, although it occurs in the [very] Torah in numerous places. 10 The first case: In the law (şerīʿat) of the Prophet Adam, the consumption of meat was forbidden, but later, at the time of the Prophet Noah, it was permitted (ḥelāl oldu).* God says in the Torah [in Hebrew]: Thus, for example, the consumption of meat was forbidden according to the law of Adam (peace be upon him),* whereas in the time of Noah (peace be upon him), it was ordered;* * cf. Gen 1:29; Gen 9:3 يه ال خهل قريق 11 َقول هرمس آرشهو ىه لخم ِِّ َ َُ َ َ َهي ُُ َ ْ َ َ َ ْ ثاىن لخم اث قول ُسب ْ َ ُ َ َ ِ َ ن َع َ َ ./. Gen. 9:3 12 The meaning of this verse according to the agreement of all the commentators is that “Oh Noah! I made eating meat permissible while it was forbidden. So that I made eating vegetables and meat permissible to the human being before you.” It is known that the command regarding the (111a) ./. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 50 impermissibility of eating meat was sent to Adam. 13 The second case: The Children of Israel were obliged to get circumcised, but later it was forbidden in the Valley of Tih [at the foot of Mount Sinai]. While it was forbidden in the Valley of Tih, it was ordered again when they left the Valley of Tih.* God says in the book of the Prophets [in Hebrew]: circumcision was first made incumbent upon the Children of Israel,* then its practice was forbidden in the desert, and subsquently they were ordered [to perform it] again after forty years;* * cf. Gen 17:12; Joshua 5:2-7 شَه لح خروث 14 َويومر آذوانى ال هيس◌ع ُ َ ْع َ ْ َ َ َُ َ ْ َ ْ ُ ُ َ شع پث ويمول َصوزمي و شومول بىن ارسائل َ ْهي ُ ْ ََ َ شَ ِ ِ ُ ُ ِ ُ يو هامع ْاث ارسائل بغوعث هرعرلوث ىك مولمي َِ َ َُ َه ِ ُ ُ َُ َ ْ َْ َ َ ِْ َ ِيوص ِامي ممرصمي او تصام عرصمي ال ملوىك َ َُ َ َِ ِِ َِ ِ ُ ه نه هلخو بىن ارسا ِاربعمي َ َُ ْ َ َش ِ ْ تدم قل هذو َ َئل يمز بر َْ َ ُ َ ْ ِع َ َ َ ِانىش مهلحمه َ ِ ِ ِ ./. cf. Joshua 5:2-7 15 The meaning of this verse is that when Joshua left the Valley of Tih, God ordered him to reinstitute circumcision, which was also ordered to Moses before. Because, in the Valley of Tih, the rule of circumcision was abrogated and the Children of Israel were ordered to urinate (lit. su sepmek “scattering the water”) in a position like the Christians. Joshua was ordered to circumcise after forty years. This is also a clear abrogation. ./. 16 The third case: In Jerusalem, daughters were not entitled to inherit, but sons were. However, the daughters of Zelophehad, Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirza came to the beys of the Children of Israel, Eleazar b. Aaaron, who was a seyyid at at first, daughters were not entitled to inherit, but then it was ordered that they be made to inherit, and if there are no daughters, [the inheritance] should be given to their brothers;* * cf. Numbers 27: 1-9 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 51 that time, and Moses, and said that (111b) our father died in the Valley of Tih and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father disappear from his relatives? Include our names with his inheritance together with his brothers so that our father’s name may endure among his relatives.” Moses brought their demand to God, and God gave their father’s inheritance to them. And Moses ordered that if a deceased man has no male offspring, his inheritance should go to his daughters, and if he has no daughter, his inheritance should go to his brothers.* This is also a clear abrogation. 17 The fourth case: At first Aaron was commanded to worship inside the dome/tabernacle (ḳubbe), later he was forbidden to enter the dome more than once in a year. This is mentioned in the Torah and famous and known to the experts. Aaron (peace be upon him) was [at first] ordered to worship inside the tabernacle every day, while later on he was forbidden to enter it except once a year.* *cf. Lev 23:1-8 18 These four cases demonstrate that abrogation is possible according to their religion. There are more examples for this, but since brevity was aimed at here, these examples should suffice. ./. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 52 References ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Islāmī, al-Sayf al-mamdūd fī l-radd ʿalā aḥbār al-yahūd (Espada extendida para refutar a los sabios judíos), ed. and trans. Esperanza Alfonso, Madrid 1998. Adang, Camilla, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible. From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm, Leiden 1996. Adang, Camilla, İlker Evrim Binbaş, Judith Pfeiffer, and Sabine Schmidtke, Ottoman Intellectuals on Judaism: A Collection of Texts from the Early Modern Period (in preparation). Ali Ufki [Albertus Bobovius], Topkapi: Relation du sérail du Grand Seigneur, eds. Annie Berthier and Stéphane Yerasimos, Arles 1999. Altunsu, Abdülkadir, Osmanlı Şeyhülislâmları, Ankara 1972. Aydın, Mehmet, Müslümanların Hristiyanlara Karşı Yazdığı Reddiyeler ve Tartışma Konuları, Ankara 1998. Baer, Marc, “The Conversion of Christian and Jewish Souls and Space during the ‘Anti-Dervish Movement of 1656-76’,” in David Shankland (ed.), Archaeology, Anthropology and Heritage in the Balkans and Anatolia: The Life and Times of F.W. Hasluck, 1878-1920, Istanbul 2004, vol. 2, pp. 183-200. Baer, Marc D., “The Great Fire of 1660 and the Islamization of Christian and Jewish Space in Istanbul,” The International Journal of Middle East Studies 36 (2004), pp. 159-81. −, Honored by the Glory of Islam: Conversion and Conquest in Ottoman Europe, New York / Oxford 2008. Behar, Cem, Ali Ufkî ve Mezmurlar, Beşiktaş, Istanbul 1990. Ben-Naeh, Yaron, Jews in the Realm of the Sultans: Ottoman Jewish Society in the Seventeenth Century. Tübingen 2008. Birnbaum, Eleazar, “Turkish Manuscripts: Cataloguing Since 1960 and Manuscripts Still Uncatalogued. Part 5: Turkey and Cyprus,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 104 (1984), pp. 465- 503. Braude, Benjamin, and Bernard Lewis (eds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society 1-2, New York / London 1982. Carlebach, Elisheva, Divided Souls: Converts from Judaism in Germany, 1500-1750, New Haven / London 2001. Dankoff, Robert, An Ottoman Mentality. The World of Evliya Çelebi. With an afterword by Gottfried Hagen, Leiden 2006. Faroqhi, Suraiya, Subjects of the Sultan: Culture and Daily Life in the Ottoman Empire, London / New York 2000. Fleischer, Cornell H., Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire. The Historian Mustafa Âli (1541-1600), Princeton 1986. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 53 Four Treatises Concerning the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of the Mahometans, London [Printed by J. Darby for B. Lintott at the Cross-Keys, and E. Sanger at the Post-House in Fleetstreet], 1712. Gacek, Adam, The Arabic Manuscript Tradition: A Glossary of Technical Terms & Bibliography, Leiden 2001. García-Arenal, Mercedes, “Dreams and reason: Autobiographies of converts in religious polemics,” in Conversions Islamiques. Identités religieuses en islam méditerranéen = Islamic conversions: religious identities in Mediterranean Islam, ed. Mercedes García-Arenal, Paris 2001, pp. 94-100. Ginio, Eyal, “Childhood, mental capacity and conversion to Islam in the Ottoman state,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 25 (2001), pp. 90-119. Hagen, Gottfried, “Afterword. Ottoman Understandings of the World in the Seventeenth Century,” in Robert Dankoff, An Ottoman Mentality, Leiden 2006, pp. 215-56. Hathaway, Jane, “The Grand Vizier and the False Messiah: The Sabbatai Sevi Controversy and the Ottoman Reform in Egypt,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 117 (1997), pp. 665-71. Heyd, Uriel, “The Jewish Communities of Istanbul in the Seventeenth Century,” Oriens 6 (1953), pp. 299-314. İnalcık, Halil, “Ottoman Archival Materials on Millets,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society 1-2, eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, New York / London 1982, vol. 1, pp. 437-49. Kâtip Çelebi, The Balance of Truth, translated with an introd. and notes by G.L. Lewis, London [1957]. Krstić, Tijana, “Illuminated by the Light of Islam and the Glory of the Ottoman Sultanate: Self-Narratives of Conversion to Islam in the Age of Confessionalization,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 51 i (2009), pp. 35-63. Lazarus-Yafeh, Hava, Intertwined Worlds. Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism, Princeton 1992. Levy, Avigdor (ed.), The Jews of the Ottoman Empire, Princeton, N.J. / Washington, D.C. 1994. Luckmann, Thomas, “Kanon und Konversion,” in Kanon und Zensur, Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation II, eds. Aleida and Jan Assmann, München 1987, pp. 38-46. Maimonides, The Epistle to Yemen, tr. and annotated by Abraham Halkin, in Epistles of Maimonides. Crisis and Leadership, Philadelphia / Jerusalem 1985, pp. 91-149. The Meaning of The Glorious Qur’an. Text and Explanatory Translation by Marmaduke Pickthall, Karachi / Lahore / Rawalpindi [1971]. Minkov, Anton, Conversion to Islam in the Balkans. Kisve Bahasi Petitions and Ottoman Social Life, 1670-1730, Leiden 2004. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JUDITH PFEIFFER 54 Momigliano, Arnaldo, “A Medieval Jewish Autobiography,” in idem, Settimo contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, Rome 1984, pp. 331-40. Neudecker, Hannah, “A 17th Century Jew Demanding His Due,” Journal of Turkish Studies 26 (2002), pp. 155-58 (Barbara Flemming Armağanı II. Ed. Jan Schmidt). −, The Turkish Bible Translation by Yaḥya Bin ʾIsḥaḳ, also called Haki (1659), Leiden 1994. Ocak, Ahmet Yaşar, “XVII Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Dinde Tasfiye (Püritanizm) Teşebbüslerine Bir Bakış: Kadızâdeliler Hareketi,” Türk Kültürü Araştırmaları 17–21 i–ii (1979–83), pp. 208–25. Perlmann, Moshe, “The Medieval Polemics Between Islam and Judaism,” in Religion in a Religious Age, ed. S.D. Goitein, Cambridge, MA 1974, pp. 103-38. Pfeiffer, Judith, Conversion to Islam among the Ilkhans in Muslim Narrative Traditions: The Case of Aḥmad Tegüder [d. 682/1284], Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Chicago, 2003. Radtke, Bernd, “Birgiwīs Ṭarīqa Muḥammadiyya. Einige Bemerkungen und Überlegungen,” Journal of Turkish Studies 26 (2002), pp. 159-74 (Barbara Flemming Armağanı II. Ed. Jan Schmidt). Rambo, Lewis R. and Charles E. Farhadian, “Converting: stages of religious change,” in Religious Conversion—Contemporary Practices and Controversies, eds. Christopher Lamb and M. Darrol Bryant, London 1999, pp. 23-34. Rozen, Minna, Jewish Identity and Society in the Seventeenth Century: Reflections on the Life and Work of Refael Mordekhai Malki, Tübingen 1992. −. A History of the Jewish Community in Istanbul. The Formative Years, 1453-1566, Leiden 2002. Rycaut, Sir Paul, The history of the Turkish empire from the year 1623. to the year 1677. containing the reigns of the three last emperours, viz. Sultan Morat or Amurat IV. Sultan Ibrahim, and Sultan Mahomet IV. his son, the XIII. Emperour now reigning, London 1680. Sadan, Joseph, “A Convert in the Service of Ottoman Scholars Writing a Polemic in the Fifteenth-Sixteenth Centuries” [Hebrew], Peʿamim 42 (winter 1990), pp. 91-104. −, “Naïveté, verses of Holy Writ, and polemics. Phonemes and sounds as criteria: Biblical verses submitted to Muslim scholars by a converted Jew in the reign of Sultan Bāyazīd (Beyazıt) II (1481-1512),” in O ye Gentlemen. Arabic Studies on Science and Literary Culture in Honour of Remke Kruk, eds. Arnoud Vrolijk and Jan P. Hogendijk, Leiden 2007, pp. 495-510. Samauʾal al-Maghribī, Ifḥām Al-Yahūd: Silencing the Jews, ed. and introduction by Moshe Perlmann. Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 32 (1964). Samawʾal al-Maghribī’s (d. 570/1175) Ifḥām al-yahūd. The Early Recension, eds. Ibrahim Marazka, Reza Pourjavady, Sabine Schmidtke, Wiesbaden 2006. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CONFESSIONAL POLARIZATION IN THE 17TH CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE 55 Schilling, Heinz, “Confessionalization: Historical and Scholarly Perspectives of a Comparative and Interdisciplinary Paradigm,” in Confessionalization in Europe, 1555-1700. Essays in Honor and Memory of Bodo Nischan, eds. John M. Headley, Hans J. Hillerbrand, and Anthony J. Papalas, Aldershot 2004, pp. 21-35. Schmidtke, Sabine, and Camilla Adang, “Aḥmad b. Muṣṭafā Ṭāshkubrīzāde’s (d. 968/1561) Polemical Tract Against Judaism,” Al-Qanṭara 29 (2008), pp. 79- 113, 537-538. Scholem, Gershom, Sabbatai Ṣevi, The Mystical Messiah, 1626-1676, trans. R.J. Zwi Werblowsky, Princeton, NJ 1973. Stroumsa, Sarah, “On Jewish Intellectuals Who Converted in the Early Middle Ages,” in The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community, Society, and Identity, ed. Daniel Frank, Leiden 1995, pp. 179-97. Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, “Connected histories: notes towards a reconfiguration of early modern Eurasia.” Modern Asian Studies 31.3 (1997), pp. 735-762. −, “Connecting the Dots: Some Ways of Reframing South Asian History,” Keynote Address at the Annual South Asia Graduate Student Conference at The University of Chicago, April 17th and 18th, 2009. Ṭaşköprüzâde, al-Shaqāʾiq al-Nuʿmāniyya, trans. O. Rescher, eš-Šaqâʾiq en-Noʿmânijje, Konstantinopel – Galata 1927. −, al-Shaqāʾiq al-Nuʿmāniyya, ed. Ahmed Subhi Furat 1985. van Ess, Josef, “Disputationspraxis in der islamischen Theologie. Eine vorläufige Skizze,” Revue des Etudes Islamiques 44 (1976), pp. 23-60. Zilfi, Madeline C., “The Kadizadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth- Century Istanbul,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45 (1986), pp. 251-269. −, The Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the Postclassical Age (1600-1800), Minneapolis 1988. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Guided to Islam by the Torah: The Risāla al-hādiya by ʿAbd al-Salām al-Muhtadī al-Muḥammadī1 Camilla Adang The present contribution offers, for the first time, an English translation of al-Risāla al-hādiya, a polemical tract written by ʿAbd al-Salām al-Muhtadī al-Muḥammadī, a Jewish convert to Islam who lived in Istanbul in the early Ottoman period. Apart from the information provided by the author himself in the tract—from which we learn that he converted during the reign of Sultan Bāyazīd II (ruled 886/1481-918/1512)—we find additional data in the well-known bibliographical survey Kashf al-ẓunūn by Ḥājjī Khalīfa, also known as Kâtib Çelebi (d. 1067/1657). In this work, which lists books according to the alphabetical order of their titles, two entries may be found on our author, or rather his tract, one under al-Risāla alhādiya, the other under al-Hādiya. The tract is described as a short refutation of Judaism in three parts (whose titles are given by Ḥājjī Khalīfa); the author is named as ʿAbd al-Salām al-Muhtadī or al-Daftarī, who converted to Islam from Judaism, and who knew the entire Torah by heart. During the reign of Sultan Selim I (ruled 918/1512-926/1520) he became a daftarī (that is, an official in the Ottoman financial administration), and he founded a mosque and a number of religious endowments.2 Unlike other converts to Islam, ʿAbd al-Salām al-Muhtadī does not provide a detailed explanation of the reasons or circumstances of his conversion to Islam. As various others before and after him, he suggests that it was the very Torah that inspired him; if only people would understand it correctly, they would become convinced of the truth of Muḥammad’s mission, as he himself had. He mentions the encouragement received from Sultan Bāyazīd, but it is not clear to what this amounted. An identical claim is made by the author of a very similar, though less sophisticated tract, who goes by the name of Salām ʿAbd al-ʿAllām.3 1 I use the opportunity to thank the Gerda Henkel Stiftung, which funded the research for this article. I am grateful also to Judith Pfeiffer, Yaron Ben-Naeh and Yasin Meral for providing me with bio- and bibliographical details about the author of the tract presented here (or his namesake), as well as to Sabine Schmidtke for her valuable comments. 2 Muṣṭafā b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Qusṭanṭīnī al-Rūmī, Kashf al-ẓunūn ʿan asāmī al-kutub wa-l-funūn 1-2, Beirut 1413/1992, vol. 1, p. 900; vol. 2, p. 2027. Cf. Moritz Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache zwischen Muslimen, Christen und Juden. Leipzig 1877 (reprint Hildesheim 1965), p. 64 § 51; idem, Die arabische Literatur der Juden. Ein Beitrag zur Literaturgeschichte der Araber, großenteils aus handschriftlichen Quellen. Frankfurt am Main 1902 (reprint Hildesheim 1986), pp. 268f., § 223. Steinschneider mentions the tract, but does not seem to have been aware of the second entry in the Kashf, under al-Hādiya. 3 See on this tract Joseph Sadan, “A Convert in the Service of Ottoman Scholars Writing a Polemic in the Fifteenth-Sixteenth Centuries” [Hebrew], Peʿamim 42 (winter 1990), pp. 91- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CAMILLA ADANG 58 In his Künhü l-akhbār the somewhat earlier writer Muṣṭafā ʿĀlī of Gallipoli (d. 1008/1600), lists a former Jew named ʿAbd al-Salām among the defterdārs (finance ministers) who served under Selim I.4 The famous traveller Evliya Çelebi (d. 1095/1684), perhaps taking his cue from Muṣṭafā ʿĀlī, also mentions the Jewish convert ʿAbd al-Salām as defterdār during the reign of this sultan.5 Although neither of these sources adds that this official is the author of al-Risāla al-hādiya, it is very tempting to attribute the tract to him, for how many former Jews named ʿAbd al-Salām could have been attached to the imperial treasury under the same ruler? In the Ottoman records, the defterdār ʿAbd al-Salām is mentioned as the owner of various properties, some of them purchased from Jews in different quarters of Istanbul and attached to his own waqf.6 Some of these transactions seem to have benefited the Jewish community,7 and it may well be to this patronage that the Jewish author Yosef Sambari refers in his Divre Yosef, completed in 1673, when he describes a talmid hakham in Istanbul who went over to the religion of Ishmael and changed his name to ʿAbd al-Salīm Efendi. In this position he was able to help and support the Jews at the time of their sorrow and to cancel a number of harsh enactments that had been imposed on them. He wrote a letter to the Jews in which he said, referring to himself: “The Lord has created every thing for its own end, even the wicked for the day of evil.” (Prov. 16:4).8 Sambari’s statement suggests that ʿAbd al-Salām enjoined considerable influence with the authorities. 104, and idem, “Naïveté, verses of Holy Writ, and polemics: Phonemes and sounds as criteria: Biblical verses submitted to Muslim scholars by a converted Jew in the reign of Sultan Bāyazīd (Beyazıt) II (1481-1512),” in O ye Gentlemen. Arabic Studies on Science and Literary Culture in Honour of Remke Kruk, eds. Arnoud Vrolijk and Jan P. Hogendijk, Leiden 2007, pp. 495-510, which is a somewhat revised English version of the first article, and now Camilla Adang, “A Polemic against Judaism by a Convert to Islam from the Ottoman Period: Risālat Ilzām al-Yahūd fīmā zaʿamū fī l-Tawrāt min qibal ʿilm al-kalām,” Journal Asiatique 297.1 (2009), pp. 131-151. 4 See Joannes Schmidt, Pure water for thirsty Muslims. A study of Muṣṭafā ʿĀlī of Gallipoli’s Künhü l-aḫbār, Leiden 1992, pp. 260, 355; Mark Alan Epstein, The Ottoman Jewish Communities and their Role in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, Freiburg 1980, p. 36. 5 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi seyāḥatnāmesı, vol. 1, Istanbul 1314/1896, p. 345. 6 Ḥājjī Khalīfa mentions the establishment of waqfs, but without naming them. However, the Defterdar Abdüsselam Camii in Izmit, ca. 100 km east of Istanbul, and the Defterdar Abdüsselam Bey Medresesi in the Istanbul suburb of Küçükçekmece, both attributed to the famous imperial architect Sinan (d. 996/1588) and his school, may be associated with him. If he was able to commission Sinan this must mean that he was wealthy as well as influential. 7 See Dilek Akyalçın, The Jewish Communities in the Making of Istanbul Intra Muros: 1453- 1520, MA Thesis, Sabancı University, 2003, pp. 60f. 8 Yosef Sambari, Sefer divrei Yosef by Yosef ben Yitzhak Sambari. Eleven Hundred Years of Jewish History Under Muslim Rule. The full text edited on the basis of manuscripts and early printed editions and annotated by Shimon Shtober, Jerusalem 1994 [in Hebrew], pp. 389-90. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul GUIDED TO ISLAM BY THE TORAH 59 According to Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, ʿAbd al-Salām, the author of al-Hādiya, was not ʿAbd al-Salām the defterdār and property-owner; the latter apparently hailed from Egypt and came to Istanbul after Selim’s conquest of Egypt. The Hādiya was written earlier, and dedicated to the previous sultan, Bāyazīd II. However, İhsanoğlu has another candidate: İlyās b. Abram (Eliahu ben Avraham), a Jewish doctor and scholar from Spain who came to Istanbul after the expulsion of 1492 and soon converted to Islam.9 Eliahu ben Avraham is the author of a wellknown Arabic tract about the bubonic plague which he dedicated to Sultan Selim I after his move to Istanbul. Attractive though İhsanoğlu’s theory may be, there is no evidence linking Eliahu to ʿAbd al-Salām al-Muhtadī.10 Further research is needed to decide conclusively whether al-Muhtadī and the defterdār are one and the same person, but this is beyond the scope of this contribution. The Rightly-Guiding Epistle11 In the name of God, the Merciful, the Beneficent, in whom I put my faith. Praise be to God who in the end of time graciously bestowed upon his servants the message of his Beloved who was sent from among the Banū ʿAdnān, the illiterate Hashimite Arab prophet who was sent to men and jinn alike, and by whom the [sequence of] the prophets was sealed, and whose nation includes the martyrs and the righteous. May God bless our messenger Muḥammad, and grant him benediction and salvation–[he] who was exclusively granted six things that the [other] messengers were not given12–and his family and companions, who strove in the way of God with their hearts and souls, even if the critics scolded them.13 9 Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, Büyük Cihad’dan Frenk fodulluğuna, Istanbul 1996, pp. 89-96; see also Mehmed Süreyya, Nuri Akbayar, Seyit Ali Kahraman, Sicill-i Osmanî, vol. 1, Istanbul 1996, p. 139. 10 On Eliahu ben Avraham and his work, see Ron Barkai, “Between East and West: A Jewish Doctor from Spain,” in Intercultural contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean, ed. Benjamin Arbel, London/Portland 1996, pp. 49-63. 11 The present translation is based on the edition by Sabine Schmidtke in “The Rightly Guiding Epistle (al-Risāla al-Hādiya) by ʿAbd al-Salām al Muhtadī al-Muḥammadī. A Critical Edition”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 36 (2009), for which five manuscripts were used. The relatively large number of manuscripts, dating from different periods, is an indication of the tract’s continued popularity. No full analysis of the tract is undertaken at this point; I refer the reader to a forthcoming collection of polemical treatises from the Ottoman period, three of them by Jewish converts to Islam (edited by Camilla Adang, İlker Evrim Binbaş, Judith Pfeiffer and Sabine Schmidtke) in which such an analysis is undertaken and the style, contents and reception of the treatises are discussed. 12 The authoritative ḥadīth collections of al-Bukhārī and Muslim contain traditions according to which the Prophet listed not six, but five things that were exclusively granted to him among God’s messengers: He was sent to all of humanity rather than to any particular nation; the spoils of war were made lawful for him, which had not been the case for his predecessors; the whole earth was made pure for him and a source of purification (namely with sand in the absence of water), as well as a suitable place for prayer; God had rendered © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CAMILLA ADANG 60 Now then, ʿAbd al-Salām al-Muhtadī al-Muḥammadī,14 the poor soul who is desirous of the eternal benevolence of Aḥmad15 says: His Eternal Happiness16 supported me and cast into my heart the love of Islam and the Muslim, and hatred of those who are neither scholars nor students. I perused the books of the Torah, one after the other, and found therein evidence of how the Jews are thwarting God, exalted is He, and Moses, peace be upon him, one foul thing after another, when “trading the grace of God for unbelief. They established their people in the house of perdition: Gehenna, exposed to its flames; a wretched abode”.17 “They are content to be with ones who stayed behind. God sealed their hearts, so that they did not believe”18 until they saw the painful punishment, for they rejected the prophethood of the Seal of the Prophets, which is tantamount to rejecting the prophethood of the Kalīm19 and they did not turn to God in repentance, so how can they say: “We have turned unto you”20. O you who stubbornly oppose the clear truth, be mindful of that which has been imposed upon you in the Torah, the truthful words of God, He who hurls the truth against falsehood and shatters it, for He is the annihilator [of falsehood] who dispenses justice,21 and if you do not, woe to you from what you ascribe [to Him], and beware, after the establishment of proof, of the sword of a sultan who walked the path of Jesus in time (?), resplendent with the gleam of trust and protection; a sultan who accumulated all his praiseworthy qualities in the rich pastures of sound action, between the sheep and the wolves, lightning sparking off his sword’s edge. He will deliver you from the gaping chasm through [his] benevolence and charity, solicitude and graciousness. These are the proofs excerpted from the book of Moses, peace be upon him, concerning the Seal of the Prophets, Muḥammad the Chosen One. If you repent and return to belief in [the true contents of] this book22, you will be safe in the security of Islam from the evil nature of the End that will come upon humanity in the course of time. But if you do not embrace Islam, you will not be safe from him victorious by instilling fear in his enemies, even those at a month’s journey’s distance; he had been given the right of intercession. 13 Possibly a reference to the Shīʿites who are known for their hostility to those of the Prophet’s Companions who did not support the candidacy of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib for the succession to Muḥammad. 14 These names were not chosen fortuitously: al-muhtadī means the one who has been rightly guided viz. to Islam, in other words, a convert, while al-Muḥammadī seems to be a name that is common for converts, like al-Islāmī. Perhaps the translation “the Muslim convert” might be justified. We do not know what the author’s original, pre-conversion name was. 15 I.e., Muḥammad. 16 The sultan. 17 Qurʾān 14:28f. 18 Cf. Qurʾān 9:87, 94. 19 I.e., Moses, the one who was addressed by God and conversed with Him. 20 See Qurʾān 7:155. The verb hāda/yahūdu of course echoes the word yahūd, Jews. 21 Cf. Qurʾān 21:18. 22 I.e, the Torah. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul GUIDED TO ISLAM BY THE TORAH 61 the edge of the sword of the sultan, son of the sultan, Sultan Bāyazīd Khān, may God assist him in perpetuating the religion and may He assist his empire in fighting the unbelievers and the heretics. He who says Amen!, God will save his soul. This call encompasses all of humanity. When I gathered the proofs setting forth the evidence against the despicable sect, I used it as a means to enter [the sultan's] service by addressing it to his noble name, seeking to obtain the greatest measure of his all-embracing grace. I entitled it “The Rightly-Guiding Epistle”. It is divided into three sections, and on God we rely for the [just] division. The first section deals with the invalidation of the proofs of the Jews; the second with the confirmation of the prophethood of Muḥammad, prayer and peace be upon him, on the basis of phrases [taken] from the Torah after its alteration by the Jews; the third section demonstrates that they have altered certain words in the Torah. As for the f i r s t s e c t i o n [on the invalidation of the proofs of the Jews], the exegetes of the Jews claim that the religion of Moses, peace be upon him, will be eternally valid, and say: “We have found [certain] sayings in the Torah that demonstrate the eternal validity (abadiyya) of the religion of Moses, peace be upon him, such as the words of the Exalted: ‘washāmrū banī Isrāyīl hasha bath ladhūrusam barīth ʿūlām’,23 till the end of the verse. [In Arabic24] this means: “the nation of the Children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath throughout their times as an eternal covenant (ʿahdan abadiyyan)”. Now this verse [so they say] demonstrates the eternal validity (abadiyya) of [the commandment of] refraining from work on the Sabbath. If God, exalted is He, would order an end to inactivity on the Sabbath in the Glorious Qurʾān, this would imply a contradiction in the words of the Creator, far is He exalted above this! This being the case [so they say], the religion of Moses, peace be upon him, must be eternally valid, and therefore they say: we shall not obey a messenger who abolishes this precept. I say: [Our] reply to their claim is that even if the verse which occurs in the Torah is qualified by something that according to the Hebrew language25 conveys [the concept of] eternity, namely the expression ʿūlām, [this] abad has two meanings; the first is that of a lengthy duration, and the second absence of finiteness. What is meant by [the expression] abadiyya that is mentioned in this verse is the first sense, not the second one, and the eternal validity of the religion of Moses, peace 23 Exod. 31:16. 24 Wa-maʿnāhu bi-lughat al-ʿArab. 25 All the manuscripts consulted actually read lughat ʿImrān, which would mean “the language of Amram”, who was Moses’ father. Since this is a highly unusual way to refer to the Hebrew language, which is obviously what is meant here, preference is given to the reading lughat al-ʿibrān, the language of the Hebrews. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CAMILLA ADANG 62 be upon him, is not implied by the second sense, which is what you mean, and no contradiction is implied either, because every commandment comes down from God, exalted is He, for a particular period because of a certain wisdom and a benefit. If these incompetent people among the exegetes of the Jews object, saying: “What is your proof that what is meant by abadiyya in the verse quoted is the first sense rather than the second one?”, we say: “You have taken the second sense from the saying of the Exalted ʿūlām wāʾid, where He says in the Torah: Adhūnay yamlak ʿūlām wāʾid,26 which [in Arabic] means: ‘God reigns forever’. And you say: If ʿūlām is combined with wāʾid, this combination [of words] means abadiyya in the second sense, but if ʿūlām is not combined with wāʾid, then what is meant by ʿūlām is abadiyya in the first sense. Now, in the above-mentioned verse the saying of the Exalted: washām rū is not [thus] combined, so know that the intended meaning is the first sense, not the second one. Similar to this is what you [Jews] object with regard to the Torah, saying: God, exalted is He, says in the Torah: Kī tiqnah ʿabad ʿibrī shash shānīm yaʿbud wabasabīʾat yaṣā ḥufshī waim yūmar haʿabad aḥabtī adhūnay waishtī wabānay lū aṣā ḥufshī [….] waraṣaʾ adhūnaw udhunū bimarṣaʾ waʾabadū l ʿ ū lām . 27 This means [in Arabic]: If you buy a Hebrew slave, this slave shall serve for six years, and in the seventh he shall go free, but if the slave says: ‘I love my master, my wife and my sons; I will not be set free’, then his master will pierce his ears with an awl and he will serve him f o r e v e r (abadan). Elsewhere in the Torah God, exalted is He, says: wa-safart sabʿ shānīm sabʿa faʿamīm wa-hayū tisaʿ wa-arbaʿīm sana wa-qadastim thanath hā ḥamīshim aw qarāthim darūr bāraṣ la-kul yūshabih hiya wa-hā-ʿabad ʿad thanath ha-yūbal yaʿbud wa-yaṣā maʿimakh lū ymākhar mim karath ʿabad, until the end of the verse.28 This means [in Arabic]: “Count seven years seven times, so that they shall be forty-nine years, then [in] the fiftieth year you shall hallow and proclaim in the land, and the herald shall say: After forty-nine years every person shall become free, and the slave who was in the jubilee year shall go free, and shall not ever be sold (abadan)”. There is a contradiction between these two verses, because the purport of the first verse is that if in the seventh year the slave says, “I love my master, I will not be set free,” he will forever serve his master (abadan), whereas the meaning of the second [verse] is that in the jubilee year every slave will be set free, and there is a clear contradiction between these two [statements]. You reply to this objection that abad has two meanings, that of lengthy duration and absence of finiteness, but what is meant by abad [in these two verses] is the 26 Exod. 15:18. 27 Cf. Exod. 21:2-6. 28 Cf. Lev. 25:8, 10, 40-42. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul GUIDED TO ISLAM BY THE TORAH 63 first sense, not the second, because the expression ʿūlām is not combined with wāʾid, so [in the end] your reply is in fact [identical to] our reply. Then [the Jews] say: If the religion of Muḥammad, prayer and peace be upon him, were true, it would be abrogating and the religion of Moses, peace be upon him, abrogated, because on most issues the precepts of the Glorious Furqān29 differ from those of the Torah, which would imply regret on the part of the Creator, exalted is He, and God, exalted is He, is far from that, and highly exalted above it. Moreover, He says in the Torah: Lū īsh al wa-kadhab wa-bani Adam wayatanakham,30 until the end of the verse, which [in Arabic] means: “God is not a man […] nor a son of man that he should be regretful”. According to this [verse] the eternity of the religion of Moses, prayer and peace be upon him, is required [so they say]. In answer to this objection I say: We do not accept that this implies regret on the part of God, because the meaning of regret is that the one who regrets performs an act, and then realizes the inappropriateness of this act, and even the appropriateness of its opposite, and says: ‘If only I had not done that’, and God, exalted is He, is free from this, because He knows from eternity all that was and all that will be, and in His hands is the dominion over all things.31 At the basis of [their] objection lies a lack of understanding of the meaning of regret. It is similar to when a doctor says to a sick person, for example: “Do not eat meat, for it is harmful to you”, then after some time has passed and the condition of the sick man has changed, the doctor says to him: “Eat meat!” This distinction is not attributable to the doctor’s knowledge, but rather to the shift in the patient’s condition and the change in what is beneficial to him, and it is the same here. Consider this. Then they objected and said: God, exalted is He, says in the Torah: Kī yaqūm baqirbakah nābī ū ḥūlam ḥalūm wa-nathan alayka ūth ū mūfath lamūr nilkhah aḥarī lūham aḥarīm wa-naʿbudum lū tishmaʿ lū wa-hanabī hāhū yūmath,32 and the rest of the verse. The meaning of this verse [in Arabic] is: “If a prophet should rise up from among you, or sees an event, and he brings you proof and evidence but says: ‘Come and worship another deity (maʿbūd)’, do not accept him, nor obey him, nor sympathize with him, but kill him. This verse [they say] proves that not a single human being must be obeyed, whoever he might be, if he says: “I am a prophet, so obey me, and worship with another [kind of] worship”, because this contradicts the Torah. According to this [verse], then, the eternity of the religion of Moses, peace be upon him, must be accepted. 29 I.e., the Qurʾān. 30 Num. 23:19. 31 Cf. Qurʾān 23:88. 32 Cf. Deut. 13:2-6. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CAMILLA ADANG 64 I say in response: this is an abominable error and a tremendous misstep, as will be clear to anyone endowed with the slightest [degree of] discernment, and you err with regard to the meaning of “another deity” like someone who lacks any insight or understanding, because you have taken [the expression] “another deity” [which occurs in the verse] to mean “another [kind of] worship,” and [in fact] say: “If a man should claim and say, ‘I am a prophet, so obey me and worship with another [kind of] worship’,” we do not accept his words and will not obey him, but we will kill him; we will not sympathize with him at all, because his claims contradict what is stated in the Torah, as is imagined by the Jews–God’s curse be on all of them; “surely God’s is upon the evildoers”.33 And know, o Jewish people, that what is meant by “another deity” is not “another [kind of] worship” as you claim, but rather another god, as is stated in the Glorious Qurʾān: “Whoever hopes for the meeting with his Lord, let him do righteous work, and make none the sharer of the worship due unto his Lord”.34 This being the case, our lord and master, and lord of the prophets, Muḥammad (may God bless him and grant him salvation) did not say: “I am a prophet, come and worship another god”, which would allow you to say: “We do not follow the lord of the messengers, may God bless him and grant him salvation”.35 Then they say: We shall not obey anyone after Moses (peace be upon him) even if what he says is in accordance with the Torah, as long as he does not produce a miracle. As for the miracle that [your] prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, produced, claiming: ‘this is from my Lord’, we have seen it and heard it, and it is not a miracle and does not constitute proof in our eyes, but it is [just] eloquence and stylistic beauty, and it is possible that someone more eloquent and more stylistically gifted will appear after [Muḥammad]. Don’t you see that [in the same way] Plato, Aristotle, Euclid and Ptolemy [each] appeared [consecutively] at a certain point in time and that their speech was characterized by eloquence and stylistic beauty – even if none of them was a prophet? We say: the relation between [these] sages is not like the relation that obtains between the prophet and others, because even if the sayings36 of the sages are dissimilar, still one is comparable to the other. As for the sayings that were brought by the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him salvation, they were not matched by anyone at any time, and had it been from other than [God] “they 33 Qurʾān 11:18. 34 Qurʾān 18:110. 35 The point made by the author is that while the Torah condemns the worship of another god, this does not apply to a different way of worshipping the same deity, who is the one and only God worshipped by Muslims and Jews alike. There is no reason not to accept Muḥammad, since he never called to worship another god; on the contrary. 36 All manuscripts have kamāl here instead of kalām, which is obviously required by the context, as is shown also by the Qurʾānic verse in the next sentence. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul GUIDED TO ISLAM BY THE TORAH 65 would have found therein much incongruity”37. Their analogy, then, is like an analogy with a discrepancy.38 Consider! Then they said: We do not obey a single human being as long as we have not heard the voice of God, exalted is He, even if his precepts should be in agreement with those of the Torah, because God, exalted is He, says in the Torah: Hadawārīm haʾaluh dibbar adhūnay al qahalkam qūl jādhūl wāyikdawam ʿal sana lūḥath ābah nīm wātmr wa-hin qūl adhūnay samaʿnu mitūkh hāʾish, and the rest of the verse.39 The meaning of this verse [in Arabic] is: “These are the words God spoke to your congregation with a great voice, and God wrote these words on two tables of stone, and you said: Here we have heard the voice of God from the midst of the fire”. Now this verse demonstrates that as long as we do not hear the voice of God we are not required to obey any prophet, which is indicated by the fact that God, exalted is He, enjoined [the Israelites] not to obey Moses [until] after they had heard the voice of God and acknowledged it saying: If we were to hear the voice of God during the time of another prophet, like we heard it in the time of Moses, peace be upon him, we would obey, but we did not hear it and therefore we do not obey him. We say in response: At that time the Children of Israel said to Ḥaḍrat Moses, peace be upon him: “O prophet of God, beseech God, exalted is He, on our behalf so that we shall not hear the voice of God [again] or else we shall die at once”, as God says in the Torah: wa-yūmrū banī Isrāyīl im yūsfīm anaḥnu lsmūʿa qūl adhūnay ʿawd wa-matnu qarab wa-samaʿ kul ashir yūmar adhūnay alakhah wa-samaʿnu wa-yūmar adhūnay haṭībū ashar dibarū.40 The meaning of this [in Arabic] is: “The Children of Israel said: ‘If we hear the voice of God another time we shall die. Draw you near [to Him] and listen to all that God, exalted is He, shall command you, and we shall hear it from you’. And God said: ‘They spoke well’.” From this it becomes clear that God, exalted is He, accepted their wish that He, exalted is He, refrain from making His voice heard, which is why He said, “They spoke well”. Then the Jews said: God, exalted is He, said in the Torah: kl hadāwār ashar anī maṣaw atkhah lū tūḍif ʿalaw wa-lū tighragh mimanū, and the rest of the verse,41 which [in Arabic] means: “Every commandment that I shall command you, do not add 37 Qurʾān 4:82. According to Muslim belief, the Qurʾān is God’s word and neither the Prophet nor any other person had had a hand in its composition; it is inimitable and no one will be able to match it, unlike products of the human mind. The inimitability of the Qurʾān is regarded as a miracle. 38 In Islamic legal theory this is regarded as a faulty and invalid type of reasoning by analogy; see Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. Third revised and enlarged edition, Cambridge 2003, pp. 273f. 39 Cf. Deut. 5:22-24. 40 Cf. Deut. 18:16-17, Deut. 5:24, 25, 27, 28 and Exod. 20:19. 41 Cf. Deut. 12:32. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CAMILLA ADANG 66 to it nor detract from it.” So how can we [possibly] add to it or detract from it? But if we obey [your Prophet Muḥammad] we are bound to add and detract [some], because some precepts of [your] Furqān differ from the precepts of [our] Torah. We say: The answer to this is that the adding and subtracting that is not permitted is adding to or subtracting from the conditions of the commandments, not to or from the [essential] commandment itself. It is like the fact that in the Torah there was just one fast, then afterwards the prophet Jeremiah, peace be upon him, added four fasts [to that one], and you obeyed him;42 the prophet Solomon, peace be upon him, added one commandment which in the Hebrew language is called ʿerubin;43 and the prophet Mattathias,44 peace be upon him, added a commandment called Hanukkah, and you obeyed in all of that, and similar cases are too numerous to be counted. You objected to [the new dispensation] saying, How can we obey a commandment not imposed upon us in the Torah, when it is prohibited in the very Torah to add to its commandments? But you [yourselves] answer that what is meant by [the expression] “every commandment” is: the conditions of every commandment, that is, “do not add to the conditions or detract from them”. As an example, you mentioned the commandment of the priestly blessing (barakat al-imām) which was laid down in three specific verses, as He has clarified in the Torah,45 and you say that the blessing of the priest may neither consist of two, nor of four verses. Also, it is not allowed to exchange these specific verses for other ones, and it is likewise with regard to every one of the commandments of the Torah. Thus you replied, and your reply is essentially [the same as] our reply. Then the Jews said: God, exalted is He, says in the Torah: Tūrā ṣiwā lanū Mūsā hiya mūrāshah qhlth Yaʿqūb.46 [In Arabic] this means: When Ḥaḍrat Moses, peace be upon him, passed on he said, with regard to the Torah, that it became the heritage of the community of Jacob. This verse demonstrates that it is not required to obey anything but the precepts of the Torah, and therefore they say: we do not obey anyone whose precepts differ from the precepts of the Torah. We say: We do not accept that what is meant by the [above-mentioned] saying of Moses, peace be upon him, is what you mention, but rather [hold] that what Moses, peace be upon him, meant by these words is that the children of Jacob, 42 It is Zechariah rather than Jeremiah who is credited in the Hebrew Bible with the institution of four additional fasts; see Zech. 8:19. 43 See the Talmudic tractate Eruvin. 44 The text has Mathiyāʾ, but the context makes it clear that Mattathias is intended, the father of the Maccabee brothers who revolted against Seleucid rule in Judea in the 2nd century BC. Cf. 1 Macc. 4. Neither in Judaism nor in Islam is Mattathias regarded as a prophet. 45 Cf. Num. 6:24-26. 46 Cf. Deut. 33:4. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul GUIDED TO ISLAM BY THE TORAH 67 peace be upon him, obeyed the Torah, and that obedience to the Torah is confined to them [alone]; Moses, peace be upon him, does not mean that the community of Jacob, peace be upon him, is confined to obedience to the Torah [alone] or that their obedience cannot be to anything but the Torah.47 As for the counter-arguments they put forward, they are very weak so there is no point in mentioning them. Then I say to them: O Jewish people, if you refuse [to acknowledge] abrogation, this will be refuted as well. Don’t you see that certain commandments that are laid down in the very Torah have for some reason themselves become abrogated, such as the daily worship of the prophet Aaron, peace be upon him, inside the tabernacle; when the sons of the prophet Aaron, peace be upon him, introduced a foreign [i.e.,unholy] fire [into the tabernacle], God, exalted is He, caused them to die, and then God, exalted is He, commanded Moses, peace be upon him: Say to your brother that he should not enter the tabernacle except once a year and not go in at all times.48 Similar things are numerous. So why do you deny that abrogation exists in the very Torah, and how can you deny that the Qurʾān abrogates certain precepts of the Torah? This is manifest to whoever contemplates and abandons obduracy. The second sec t ion , on the conf i rmat ion of the prophethood of the lo rd of both wor lds , Muḥammad (prayer and peace be upon h im) , f rom the Torah i t se l f , [ even] a f te r the Jews had a l te red i t Th e f i r s t p r o o f is God’s saying in the Torah: wa-yūmar adhūnay nābī aqīm laham mi-qarab aḥīhim kāmūkhah wa-nathitī dabaray ba-fīw wa-dabar alīhim kul ashar aṣawanū wa-hayah hāyish ashar lū yismaʿ al baray ashar yadabar bi-smī anūkhī adrūsh mʿamū, and the rest of the verse.49 Now, the meaning of this verse [in Arabic] is: God, exalted is He, said: “I will raise up a prophet for the Children of Israel from among their brethren, like you, and I will put my words into his mouth; and the prophet shall speak to them all the words that I shall command them, and the man who will not listen to the words that the prophet shall speak in My name, I will require [it] of him”. There are three aspects to this verse, each of which demonstrates the truth of the prophethood of Muḥammad, prayer and peace be upon him. Th e f i r s t a s p e c t is that the expression “from among their brethren” points to the prophethood of Muḥammad, prayer and peace be upon him, because the ones that are meant by the “brethren” in [the phrase] “from among their brethren” are the brethren of the Children of Israel, who are the Children of Ishmael, 47 The point is, of course, that Jews may, or rather should, also accept other laws, viz. that of Muḥammad. Apparently a critique of particularist tendencies within Judaism. 48 Cf. Lev. 10:1-2; 16:1, 34. 49 Cf. Deut. 18:18-19. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CAMILLA ADANG 68 peace be upon him, and there is no one among the prophets of that descent except our Prophet Muḥammad, prayer and peace be upon him, so know that this verse indicates the truth of his prophethood, peace be upon him. Th e s e c o n d a s p e c t is that the expression “like you” points to him, for “like you” is addressed to Moses, prayer and peace be upon him, and what is meant by it is that he is “like you” in that he received the scripture containing commandments and prohibitions, and among the prophets who are acknowledged by the Jews none rose up who was like Moses in that he was given the scripture. Know, therefore, that it is Muḥammad [who is being referred to here]. No one can say: How do you know that what is meant by the expression “like you” is “like you” in the sense that he, too, received the scripture containing precepts, when it is possible that what is intended is that he is “like you” in another one of his characteristics? For we say: Before this verse God, exalted is He, says something which [in Arabic] means: “Say, o Moses, to the Children of Israel: Do not obey that which the masses obey, because they obey sorcerers and astrologers, and you are not like that; rather, God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brethren like me, so obey him.”50 This in fact means “obey a prophet like me who shall bring precepts that contradict the precepts of the sorcerers and the astronomers”. This verse, now, demonstrates that what is meant by “like” is the likeness that is in the revelation of precepts to him. Th e t h i r d a s p e c t is that God’s words, exalted is He, “I will put my words into his mouth” indicate that the scripture will be revealed to this prophet, and this prophet is [therefore] Muḥammad, prayer and peace be upon him, and the one who is meant by this prophet is not Joshua ben Nun as the Jewish scholars imagine when applying this verse to him, for these three aspects each indicate that the one intended is not Joshua, for Joshua belonged to the Children of Israel, and was not from among their brethren. In addition, he was not “like” Moses, peace be upon him, because the scripture was not revealed to him. Moreover, [God] did not put His words into [Joshua’s] mouth, and this is very clear. Th e s e c o n d p r o o f : God, exalted is He, says in the Torah: wa-lū qām nābī ʿūdh bāsrāyīl kamūshīya ashar yadʿū adūnay fānīm alfānīm, and the rest of the verse.51 [In Arabic] its meaning is: “No prophet will rise up from among the Children of Israel like Moses whom God, exalted is He, knew face to face”. This verse indicates that someone like Moses will come from among others than the Children of Israel, and we have not found anyone like Moses, peace be upon him, from others than the Children of Israel, except Muḥammad, prayer and peace be upon him. As for the leading exegetes of the Jews, they said that the prophet who came from among others than the Children of Israel was Balaam ben Beor, but this is 50 Cf. Deut. 18:14-15. 51 Deut. 34:10. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul GUIDED TO ISLAM BY THE TORAH 69 an absurd error and a patent lie, for Balaam, even if he would be a prophet in their view [which he is not], is not like Moses, peace be upon him, for Moses, peace be upon him, was a messenger [of God] to whom the scripture was revealed, while Balaam was not a messenger in their view either. In particular, we do not accept that he was a prophet; rather, he was a governor who was divested of his position, and in the end he died an unbeliever, so how could he be like Moses?52 Th e t h i r d p r o o f : God, exalted is He, says in the Torah: Adūnay mi-sīnā bāʾ wa-zaraḥ mi-sāʿīr lamū hūfīghah mi-har fāran wa-athah marbūth qūdas, and the rest of the verse.53 [In Arabic] this means: “The might of God came from Mount Sinai and rose up from Mount Seir and shone from Mount Paran and gave from the multitude of holiness”. This verse, now, includes [a reference to] four books that were sent down on the part of God: the first is the Torah, which was sent down to Moses, peace be upon him, on Mount Sinai, and the Jews followed him; the second is the Evangel (al-Injīl) which came down to Jesus, peace be upon him, and the Christians followed him. The Christians, now, were from the lineage of Esau, the brother of Jacob, and he was king on Mount Seir, as is mentioned in the Torah.54 The third [scripture] is the Glorious Qurʾān which was sent down to Muḥammad, prayer and peace be upon him, who was from the lineage of Ishmael, peace be upon him, and Ishmael was associated with Mount Paran, as is made clear in the Torah.55 Mount Paran is a mountain in the Ḥijāz. The fourth [scripture] is the Psalter (al-Zabūr), which was sent down to David, peace be upon him, and it is indicated by the expression “the multitude of holiness” as is clear from the tales of the prophets56 and the Psalter [itself]. If [the Jews] object that the Psalter should have been mentioned after the Torah and before the Evangel and the Furqān, according to the [chronological] order of their revelation, we say: the reply to this is that the Psalter was devoid of precepts, and therefore [God] put it last and mentioned the other [books] according to their order of revelation. This verse is the strongest evidence and the most convincing indication of the truth of the prophethood of Muḥammad and Jesus, prayer and peace be upon both of them, because no one rose up from Mount Seir and shone forth from Mount Paran except the two of them, and here, too, the Jews have absolutely nothing to go on. Th e f o u r t h p r o o f is the saying of the Exalted in the Torah: wa-yiqrāʾ Yaʿqūb al bānaw wa-yūmar ilayhim hāṣfū wa-ajīdha lakum ashar yiqraʾ athkam bāḥrīth hayyāmīm lū yāsūr shabaṭ min Yahūdah wa-maḥūqaq mi-bin rijlaw ʿadh kay yābū Shīlū wa- 52 For the enigmatic figure of Balaam, the “gentile prophet”, see Num. 22-24. 53 Cf. Deut. 33:2. 54 Cf. Gen. 33:16. 55 Cf. Gen. 21:21. 56 Arabic qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ; probably the biblical books of the prophets are intended, rather than the popular islamicized accounts known under that name. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CAMILLA ADANG 70 lū yiqhath ʿamīm.57 [In Arabic] this means: “Jacob told his sons, saying to them: ‘Gather together and I will tell you what will happen to you in the last days. The judge will not depart from Judah nor a ruler from between his feet until the coming of the one for whom and unto whom the nations will gather’”. In this verse there is an indication that our master Muḥammad, prayer and peace be upon him, will come after the termination of the rule of Moses and of Jesus, prayer and peace be upon the two of them, because the one who is meant by “the judge” is Moses, peace be upon him, since after Jacob there was no lawgiver until the time of Moses except Moses [himself], peace be upon him. The one meant by “the ruler” is Jesus, peace be upon him, for after Moses, peace be upon him, until the time of Jesus, peace be upon him, there was no lawgiver except Jesus [himself], peace be upon him, and after the two of them there was no lawgiver except Muḥammad, prayer and peace be upon him. And know that the one meant by Jacob’s saying “in the last days” is our prophet Muḥammad, prayer and peace be upon him, because in the last days, after the rule of the judge and the ruler elapsed, no one has appeared except our master Muḥammad, peace be upon him. [God’s] words “until the coming of the one for whom …,” meaning the rule, also point to him, as is indicated by the wording of the verse and by its context. As for His saying, “and unto whom the nations will gather”, it is an obvious sign and a clear indication that the one intended is our master Muḥammad, prayer and peace be upon him, because the nations did not gather except unto him. The only reason why the Psalter is not mentioned is that it does not contain precepts, and [moreover] the prophet David, peace be upon him, was [himself] a follower of Moses, peace be upon him, and the announcement of Jacob [specifically] refers to a [new] lawgiver. Th e f i f t h p r o o f : It is clear that most proofs of the Jewish scholars are based on numerology, that is, the letters of the alphabet. Thus, for example, they looked for an indication of the length of the continued existence of the Temple in the letters of the alphabet, and when the prophet Solomon, prayer and peace be upon him, built the Temple the Jewish scholars gathered and said: This building will remain standing for 410 years, then destruction will befall it, because they calculated the word bi-zāt (be-zot) in God’s words in the Torah: bi-zāt yabū Hārūn al ha-qūdas,58 whose meaning [in Arabic] is “bi-zāt the priest (al-imām)—who is indicated by the name of Aaron—worships in the Temple,” and they ruled that the length of its stay and the rule of the priests there is bi-zāt years, that is, 410 years. Similar proofs of theirs are too numerous to be counted. Now if it is like that, then I say59: God, exalted is He, says in the Torah: wa-yūmar Adhūnay li-brāhīm li-smāʿīl samaʿtīkhah hinah barakti ūthū wa-hirbathī ūthū wa-hifrathī 57 Cf. Gen. 49:10. 58 Cf. Lev. 16:3. 59 Meaning: If they can use numerology to argue their point, so can I. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul GUIDED TO ISLAM BY THE TORAH 71 ūthū bi-mād mād,60 which [in the language of the Arabs] means “God, exalted is He, said to Abraham: behold I have accepted your plea with regard to Ishmael and I will bless him and multiply him and make him fruitful bi-mād mād.” Now when the numerical value of the letters [in the expression] bi-mād mād is calculated, the outcome is the name of our prophet Muḥammad, prayer and peace be upon him, because the numerical value of [each of] these two expressions61 is ninety-two. That which demonstrates what we have said is the phrase “I will bless him and multiply him and make him fruitful bi-mād mād, “because the blessing of the children of Ishmael, his multiplication and his fruitfulness occurred only through [Muḥammad], and there is one word in particular in which God, exalted is He, mentions the blessing of Ishmael, his being multiplied and rendered fruitful: [the expression] bi-mād mād which He did not mention in [His] blessing of his brother Isaac, peace be upon him, and this is a clear proof. They objected to this proof saying that the [letter] bāʾ in [the expression] bimād mād is not an integral part of the word but rather an auxiliary letter that establishes a connection. If the [numerical value of the] name of Muḥammad is to result from it, a second bāʾ is needed, and it would have to say bi-bi-mād mād. We say: it is well known among them that if two bāʾs come together, one auxiliary and one an integral part of the word, the auxiliary one is elided and the one that forms part of the actual word remains. This is common among them in countless places, and there is no need to mention it here, and this is what we reply with regard to the second bāʾ in bi-mād mād. The th i rd sec t ion demonst ra t ing the a l te ra t ion of some words in the Torah , f rom a number of re spec t s Th e f i r s t a s p e c t : We have found in the Torah that they possess that in the early days there was a king who was associated with Canaan who was called “the Canaanite”, and Abraham [lived] in his kingdom. It was struck by a famine and Abraham, peace be upon him, moved from one corner [of the kingdom] to another, and thus we find in the Torah they possess: wa-yaʿbūr Ibrāhīm bā ariṣ ʿadh maqūm Shakham ʿadh Aylun Mūrah wa-ha-Kanāʿanī az ba-arḍ.62 [In Arabic] this means: “Abraham went in the land from the town of Shekhem to the desert of Moreh while the Canaanite was in the land at that time”. From his words “while the Canaanite was in the land at that time” one may understand that at the time of Moses, he was not in the land, but this is untrue, because the Canaanite never moved away from his place and from his kingdom except in the time of Joshua ben Nun, because God, exalted is He, says in the Torah: “O Moses, you will not oust the Canaanite from his kingdom, but [only] Joshua, peace be upon him, will oust him”. Now if that were so, the expression “at that time” is a mistake which 60 Cf. Gen. 17:15, 20. 61 I.e., of bi-mād mād (Hebrew: bi-meʾod meʾod) on the one hand, and Muḥammad on the other. 62 Cf. Gen. 12:6; 13:7. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CAMILLA ADANG 72 occurred in the wording of the book of the later [scholars]. The greatest of the exegetes of the Torah among the Jews, whose name is [Abraham] Ibn Ezra, understood this alteration and said: “In the expression ‘at the time’ there is a great secret on which the one with understanding keeps silent”. Th e s e c o n d a s p e c t : In the Torah they possess we found: wa-yaʿal Musā al Har Nabū wa-yamuth sham wa-yaqbur uthū wa-yabkū banī Isrāyīl ath Mūsā thalūshim yūm.63 [In the language of the Arabs] this means “And Moses climbed Mount Nebo and died there, and he was buried there and the Children of Israel lamented Moses thirty days”. What is to be understood from these accounts which are presented in the past tense is that these events took place in the past, but it is well known that the Torah was revealed to Moses when he was healthy and alive, not after his life, and it is even said: “He died there and was buried and they lamented him”, which points to their alteration of the Torah which is found nowadays. Th e t h i r d a s p e c t : We have found in the Torah: Wa-lū yādaʿ īsh qabūr āthū ʿad hayūm hadhah.64 [In Arabic] its meaning is: “No man knows his grave, i.e., the grave of Moses, peace be upon him, until this day”. From its meaning their alteration is clear, because His saying “until this day” shows that Moses, prayer and peace be upon him, died before this statement was made. This in turn shows that it was not revealed to Moses, peace be upon him, and this is obvious, so one should consider it. Know that the Torah that the Jews possess contains many examples of such sayings. For this reason the above-mentioned exegete [Ibn Ezra] said: “If you understand the secret of these words and the like of them, you will distinguish the truth, and one should look at his interpretation.” Know, furthermore, that we have already found in the most famous interpretation of the Torah called by them the Talmud,65 that in the days of King Ptolemy (Talmāy), who lived after Nebuchadnezzar, the king had asked the Jewish scholars for the Torah, and they were afraid to show it, because he objected to some of its commandments, so seventy men from among the Jewish scholars gathered together and altered whatever they wished of the words which this king objected to out of fear of him. Now, if they admit to the alteration carried out by them, how can it be believed and how can one rely on a single verse? God is the one whose help we seek in the search for the truth at which “falsehood cannot come […] from before or from behind”.66 Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds, and our perfect prayer be upon our lord Muḥammad. 63 Cf. Deut. 34:1, 5, 6, 8. 64 Cf. Deut. 34:6. 65 Cf. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Megillah 9 a-b. The reference is to the production of the Septuagint; see Abraham Wasserstein and David J. Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint. From Classical Antiquity to Today, Cambridge 2006. 66 Qurʾān 41:42. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Epistle forcing the Jews [to admit their error] with regard to what they contend about the Torah, by dialectical reasoning (Risālat ilzām al-yahūd fīmā zaʿamū fī l-tawrāt min qibal ʿilm al-kalām) by al-Salām ʿAbd al-ʿAllām. A critical edition1 Sabine Schmidtke The Fatih Collection (now held in the Süleymaniye Library in Istanbul) holds a manuscript of a tract entitled Risālat ilzām al-yahūd fīmā zaʿamū fī l-tawrāt min qibal ʿilm al-kalām by one al-Salām ʿAbd al-ʿAllām. The introduction of this tract contains a conversion account in the course of which the author refers to Bāyazīd II (reigned 886/1481-918/1512) as the sultan ruling at the time of composition. The tract thus falls within a period in which a number of polemics against Judaism are known to have been composed by Ottoman Muslim authors. Mention should be made in particular of an epistle against Judaism by the prolific Ottoman scholar Aḥmad b. Muṣṭafā Ṭāshkubrizāde (d. 968/1561)2 and al-Risāla 1 The present edition is part of a larger project involving the edition, translation and analysis of a number of polemical treatises by Ottoman authors against Judaism; see Camilla Adang, İlker Evrim Binbaş, Judith Pfeiffer, Sabine Schmidtke, Ottoman Intellectuals on Judaism: A Collection of Texts from the Early Modern Period (forthcoming). The present writer expresses her gratitude to Nevzat Kaya, the former Director of the Süleymaniye Library (Istanbul) and his staff for granting access to the manuscript and for permission to publish the edition. The acquisition of a copy of the manuscript and the research for this article was supported by a grant from the Gerda-Henkel Foundation. Thanks are also due to Camilla Adang, Wilferd Madelung and Judith Pfeiffer for helpful remarks on an earlier draft of the edition. – For a translation of this tract into English together with a brief analysis, see Camilla Adang, “A Polemic against Judaism by a Convert to Islam from the Ottoman Period: Risālat Ilzām al-Yahūd fīmā zaʿamū fī l-Tawrāt min qibal ʿilm al-kalām,” Journal Asiatique 297 i (2009), pp. 131-51; see also Joseph Sadan, “A Convert in the Service of Ottoman Scholars Writing a Polemic in the Fifteenth-Sixteenth Centuries” [Hebrew], Peʿamim 42 (winter 1990), pp. 91-104, and idem, “Naïveté, verses of Holy Writ, and polemics: Phonemes and sounds as criteria: Biblical verses submitted to Muslim scholars by a converted Jew in the reign of Sultan Bāyazīd (Beyazīt) II (1481-1512),” in O ye Gentlemen. Arabic Studies on Science and Literary Culture in Honour of Remke Kruk, eds. Arnoud Vrolijk and Jan P. Hogendijk, Leiden 2007, pp. 495-510. 2 For an editio princeps of the tract with an annotated translation, see Sabine Schmidtke & Camilla Adang, “Aḥmad b. Muṣṭafā Ṭāshkubrizāde’s (d. 968/1561) Polemical Tract Against Judaism,” Al-Qanṭara 29 (2008), pp. 79-113, 537-539. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SABINE SCHMIDTKE 74 al-Hādiya by a certain ʿAbd al-Salām al-Muhtadī al-Muḥammadī3, both of which were evidently more popular than the text that is dealt with here. The following editio princeps al-Salām ʿAbd al-ʿAllām’s tract is based on the single extant manuscript of the text, MS Fātiḥ 2994 (22 ff, 9 lines to a page) which is undated. It is unclear therefore whether it is an autograph or a later copy of the text. The orthography has been silently modernized, e.g., صالة for ,تعاىل for تع The various abbreviations used in most of the manuscripts such as . صلوة س for ع م ليه ا المعل الظ/ ظ , for الظاهر/ ظاهر ًأيضا for ايض ,حينئذ for ح , ابطل for بط , were not specifically mentioned in the footnotes. In addition to the Arabic translations of the Biblical quotations in Arabic transliteration that is part of the text, a later reader of the manuscript has added interlinear translations and explanations to some the Hebrew words. These are mentioned in the footnotes. * * * بل عمل الالكم توراة من قرساةل إلزام الهيود فامي زمعوا يف ا ل بسم هللا الرمحن الرحمي] ب١[ َاحلمد اذلي هداان﴿ َُ ََ ِ َّ ِ نـاْ هَذا ومـا َّ ُك َ َ َ ِتـدي ِل َ َ لـوالِلَهنْ ْ نا ابلحـقَ ِّ أن هـداان هللا لقـد جـاءت رسـل ر َُ ْ ِ َ بــ ِّْ َْ ُ ُ ُ َ َ ْ َ َ َ َ َ َ ﴾ يـاء ]٤٣) ٧ (ألعرافسورة ا[ تـه أل يل، املـوازي علـامء أ بوالصالة عىل من أرشدان إىل سواء ا م نب لس هـره عـىل ادليـن هدى وديـن احلـق يل، محمد اذلي أرسهل اب يظبين إرسا لل بق، وعـىل آهل ّ لكـئ ســه فـامي سان إىل يوم ادلين بعومه بإ تابعني واذلين ا حوأحصابه ا ت .ل يقول الفقري ،وبعد سالم إف نـهاعف ّالعالمعبد ] أ٢[لىل هللا ا ىل إن هللا تعـاىل ملـا هـداين إ :ع هللا نـت مـن بـين إ ،اثم عـن الكفـر واآلًميـان معرضـاهـل اإلأف قليب مع ّلأ و،سالمدين اإل يـل ئرساإكذ تاهبم وآ عىل ًلعاّ مط،حبارمهأوزمرة بـصار أ وسـطع يف ، وقـد ملـع عـىل عـني بـصرييت،خبارمهأكايت بوة محمد املصطفىإ ، نور وهدى ابلصفا،رسيريت ية نىل شاكة ،حق يه وسمل مـن مـ صىل هللا ايت آعل توراة بعد ًن حرفوا ما اكن رصحياألا ّ ّ ً وياانً،نابي ًنـا ب ًنـامتي تخرجوا مـن ،مبي ايهتـا ولكامهتـا آبعـض ســ وا هم عىل تأ ما يدل،ابالهامتم سالم] ب٢[بيد ديـن مع بز يـه ا لـمـوىس نـوا ،عل ىل إشـارة ن فهيـا اإلأظ و نـدها تـاب ،عانقطاع الـويح ساموي بعـدهالك وا بوا ،لـا هنـم يف مريـة ممـا أال إهنـم عـىل يشء أحـسـ و 3 For an editio princeps of this tract, see my “The Rightly Guiding Epistle (al-Risāla al-Hādiya) by ʿAbd al-Salām al-Muhtadī al-Muḥammadī. A Critical Edition,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 36 (2009) [in press]. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul EPISTLE FORCING THE JEWS [TO ADMIT THEIR ERROR] 75 ثرياّضلأوا وّ فضل،يقولون ًوا شاجرات مـع ف. قـوم الفاسـقونالال إ بـه ّ وما يـضل٤ك ملـبعـد احملـاورات وا سب اصـطالحاهتم يف مـضامني إعلـامء بـين يـل عـىل حـرسا تأاآلئ تدلوا هبـا عـىل ا لايت الـيت ا بيـد ســ توراة هآصارت يقـنيإً رشاداإ و، يل بعون هللا املعنيًدىلايت ا باحاأ و،لىل احلـق ا ًنـوار لكامهتـا مـص بنيُبرصتأ يد الفرقـاين تعاىل يف ] أ٣[ هللا كام قال. ملسـت به يف ظلمة الكفر طريق ادلين ا تاب ا جملا لك يل ََأَو﴿لادل وامحلـد ،]٢) ١٧(سـورة اإلرساء [﴾َيـلئِاَْرسِإ ِينَبـِل ًدىُ هـُاهَنلَْعَجَ وَابَتِكْل اَوىسُ م٥َانيْت يل عىل دين اإل .مجلسالم بفضهل ا تخرجت ُفا يـدسـ تأ ي سع آمـن هللا تعـاىل ب تـوراة تـايت ا ملـا قـال هللا تعـاىل ً موافقـا،نـاتبيّايت آل ََأ َْدَقلَو﴿ بـوة إمـا امخلـس مهنـا ففـي أ ، ]١٠١) ١٧(سـورة اإلرساء [﴾ِتاَيآ َعْسِت َوىسُا مَنيْت نبـات ث يه وسمل ت ربعما األأ و،علمحمد صىل هللا سالم سـففي بطالن ا يـه ا يـد ديـن مـوىس لـدالهلم عـىل تأ عل ب تزنيل سعادة العظمىإ وملا وقعت هداييت.بعدها] ب٣[لوانقطاع الويح وا يل هذه ا لىل صـابيت إ و،ن سلمني اإلّعـزأ يف ظـل سـلطان ،الكرامة الكربىتكل دراك إل عـالم العـمل بـني أ ونـصب ،ملـسـالم وا نني سطوته ،ماملؤ هر ب و مين دوتـه رشف ديـن اإل،اثر املعاندين يف ادلينآق هـر ل و بـ سـالم عـىل اكفـة ظ نني وانأ ،العاملني سلمنيرصممري املؤ سالطني وبرهان اخلواقني سلطان ،مل ا هرمان املاء والطـني،لا ،ق يل هللا تعاىل سلطان اجملاهد يف سبا يف هللا،ل نـد هللا،بسـ قامع الكفرة سلطان ابـن ،ع املؤيد من لـ ا سلطان يـد ديـن احلـق سـلطانه،سلطان ابيزيـد بـن محمـد خـان] أ٤[ ،لا تأ ي خـدل هللا يـد ّيـأ و،ل تأ يد ل بني ملارشع ا .أعوانهره وانصأل ُبتوأف باتأ بعد ج يـب الـصلوات،جداء الفرائض والوا ىل نـواب إهـديت أ و،عق دعاء دوام ظـهل يـا،عـىل هـذه اللكـامتألااببه ً را يعـة الرمحـة ا مـن خـدًمـالآ ، مـن هللا رفـع ادلرجـاتج سدة الر فم ا لـ يل احلـقإين ي هللا هيـدّ لعل،لوالاتفات ّىل ثـوابةل للفـوز ابأليســعـهل وجبو ، والـصوابسـب ،لجـر وا يو .ه املرجع واملآبلإ يه وسملما األأ] ب٤[ بوة محمد صىل هللا علايت امخلس اليت تدل عىل هـا قـوهل تعـاىل يف وال، فأن توراة َ اَْنتَنـَ وُْملَ حـَْمولُه وُا َِيب نْهََخبْرَِك بْمَُق يِْيك :لا ََا وَقـَ لْهَرَمـَاَو[...] ْثَوفـُو مُ اْوثُ اْهَيخـل ْميِوهُلـَ اَدُبـْعن نـاه ] cf. Deut. 13:2-4, 6[ ٦.ْثَومـُا[...] و هَُه َِيبنَه ْيَرْبِ دَْل اْعَمْسِت َال..] [. ْميِرََحا لغـة عـىلمعو ِب: ٧٧): ٥(إشارة إىل سورة املائدة 4 نمك غري الحق وال تاب ال تغلوا يف د تَّ﴿قل أهل ا َ َلك ت َي ََ ِّ َ ْ َ ْ َ ْ ِ ُِ ِ ِ ُ ْ ِ َ ْ َ ْ ْ ْعوا أهواء قوم قد ضلوا من ُ ِ ُّ َ ْ َ ٍَ ْ َ َ ْ َ ُ يل﴾ ثريا وضلوا عن سوء ا ِبل وأضلوا ِب َّق سَ لك ِ َ َ ُّ َُّ ََ ًَ ِ َ َ ُ ْ َ. ياان 5 نا: توأ .تيولقد آ ها آخر ال : + اومث… يك يقم 6 بد ا توا يال او برهاان وياءمر ا يمك د نمك نىب او رآيئ رؤاي ويعطى ا ًاذا قام ل تعي ي ل ل ل لب نىب ذكل لسمع لكامت ا سطرت .ل اوملكوه، إضافة حتت ا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SABINE SCHMIDTKE 76 نمك نيب إ«العرب يالأبيذا قام يمك د ًو رايئ رؤاي و ل بـد ئن اأ ويأمرمك بًو برهاانأ يعط ًهـاإلنعتـوا خـر ال آ ل نيب بل هلكوه] أ٥[تسمعوا لكامت ذكل .»لا تـوراةواثنهيا قـوهل تعـاىل .cf. Deut[ ٧.ْونُمعْسِتـ ْوَلـَا[...] ي ِمْسِبـ َْربَدَ يـََْرشا[...] ِيبَنـَه :ل يف ا ناه عىل لغـة العـرب ] 18:15-20 متعوا هل«معو تلكم ابمسـي فا نـيب اذلي ســا يـ يـة وملـا اكن هـذه اآل. »ل يالإ و:وىل اكن تقـدير الـالكميـة األمعطوفة عىل اآل يمك د نمك نـيب و ًذا قـام لـ يعطـ تلكم ًرهـاانو بأ بيـ يـ و متعوا هل .طيعوهأأي ،سـابمسي فا بـوهتامإيتني تدالن عىل وجوب ن هاتني اآلأاعمل بـول سالم و يىس علهيام ا نطاعة رشيعة محمد و قل ،ع رشائط أل يـل إ ويه ،يتنياملذكورة يف اآل] ب٥[لن ا ليان ادل تلكم ابمس هللا تعـاىلوت ي أ ،لـالربهـان وا يداإل تو حبار عن ا تحققة،لخ ٌ سالمٌجودة وموم . ل فهيام علهيام ا يلإف نـاُين يأ من :قن سالم؟ يىس علهيام ا رشائط يف محمد و بوت هذه ا قلعمل ل ل تلكم إ :عث ابمس لـن ا يد و وهو اإل،هللا تعاىل تو حبار عن ا تواتر ٌ معلوم،تيان ادلالئل والرباهني اليت تكون ابملعجزاتإلخ ل اب سالمأب رشائط موجودة فـهيام علـهيام ا لـن هذه ا بـوت املعجـزات لألإ فـ.ل نبيـاء علـهيم بثن طريـق العـمل سالم بة أكرث أو] أ٦[لا يس إلنسـحواهلم اب لنا تواترإلي يث ،لال اب نيب أح و توراة ا لطلق هللا تعاىل يف ا ل تكل األ ناباملوصوف تـد يد بكونـه ًوصاف ومل ي م بـت بـذكل وجـوب يق سالم يـه ا ث بـدين مـوىس لـ فعل يل ملن ادإ ّطاعة بين ارسا بئ سالملنعى ا يىس ومحمد علهيام ا لوة .كع توراة ُ مكـْود ُعـِيبَ نـْمَقـ َالَو: لواثلهثا قوهل تعاىل يف ا ِ ابَوىسَ نـاه] cf. Deut. 34:10[ ٨.ْلِائـَْرسِ :معو يلإما قام نيب وال يقوم مكوىس من بين « تـوراةو. »ئرسا ها قوهل تعـاىل يف ا لرا َ َِْمك اِيبَنـ] ب٦ [:بع ْمهَـل ََ وْمَوخَُم قْمَيحِهَ اْبَرَكِم َ ْيََربَ دَِيتتن َ َ الََْرش اْيشِئَه ْهَيَهَو[...] ْيوِفب ي ُِخنـَو اهُـَه ِيبَنـَه ْيَرْبـِ دَْل اْعَمْسي ناه يف لغة العرب]cf. Deut. 18:18 [٩.وُمِعَ مْوشُرَْدا يـاأ« :مع و ًقمي ثكلأ هلـم مـن بـني نب ١٠مـخـهيم يهأو يعوه ويكون الرجل اذلي ال ١١بفعطي لكاميت ي نيب مؤاخذاليط ًسمع لكامت ذكل ا هااتن و. » مينل سالم إعىل وجوب يتان تدالن اآل يه ا بوته بول لـطاعة رشيعة محمد و عل ن ذ إ ،بطريـق اخلـصوص] أ٧[ق ناقض بني اآل هـوم مـن اآل أل،يتنيلتلوال ذكل لزم ا سالم مـا أوىل يـة األملفن ا يـه ا ثـل مـوىس لـن عل م سطر: + تسمعون… هنيب 7 سمعوا، إضافة حتت ا يه تلكم ابمسى ا نىب اذلي لا ت ل ي .ل سطر: + ابرسائل… وال مق 8 يل، إضافة حتت ا ثل موىس من بىن ارسا تدالل لاي ما قام نىب يدل عىل الا ئ .مسـ ثكل وأعطى لكام: + معمو… نيب امك 9 نىب منىب أقمي هلم من بني اخهيم سمع لكامت ا يه ويكون الرجل اذلي ال لىت ي بف سطر نه، إضافة حتت ا لذكل اان اطلب .م سطر: + مثكل 10 .لخطاب ملوىس ع م، إضافة حتت ا سطر: + بفيه 11 .لاي بفمه، إضافة حتت ا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul EPISTLE FORCING THE JEWS [TO ADMIT THEIR ERROR] 77 يلإ وال يقوم من بين ١٢قام هوم م،ئرسا ية ن اآلملف وا ثا نية ا سالم يقوم من بـين أل يه ا ثل موىس لن عل م ناقضإ يلزم ا يل ترسا لئ بار،ف تعال عام يقول الظاملون علـواىءل والكم ا ً مزنه بـريام ً نـاقض ألك ن لت عـن ا يـة يف قـوهل املراد من األ ثا نخ عىل زمع علامء الهيود يف اآليـة ا خ اجملـازي يعـين األ»خـهيمأبـني مـن «ل نـاقضإحينئذ من بـين ] ب٧[فيكون خوة يف ادلين اإل يلـزم ا يـل ترسا لئ يعـين ، وهـذا القـول مـهنم.ف يـه نـلن محـل ا مـردود أل،خ عىل املعىن اجملـازيمحلهم األ فصوص عـىل ظاهرهـا واجـب مـا مل توجـد سالم قـد بعـث أن حيمل عىل املعىن اجملازي مع وال رضورة يف هذا املقام أل،الرضورة يه ا لن محمد عل سالم من بين هيم ألخأمن بني بين يه ا لنه بين أ وهو ،عيلسامإعل يقي لخ يلإحق بدأ بين أل،ئرسا من يل هو إ سالم وإئرسا يه ا نيب لحساق ا عل سالم سامإل يه ا نيب ليل ا عل ل يقةأع ًخ هل .حق ناقض بإف يل يف دفع ا لتن يـه « :وىلية األاملراد من اآل] أ٨[ن أق ثـل مـوىس علما قـام وال يقـوم م سالم يع »لا هاتمج يف تـاب و،جلا يـة ومـن اآل،حـاكماأللك يعين يف نـزول ا ثا نيـة ا مثـل مـوىس «ن أل سالم ليه ا هـاتإ يأيت من بين »عل يـل يف بعـض ا جلرسا تـاب فقـط،ئ وهـو داود ،لك يعـين يف نـزول ا سالم يـه ا نـيب لـا عل تابـه إل يس يف كذ نـاقضألـ نقـول،لتحـاكم فانـدفع ا يـق ابطـل مـن : ف لتطبذكل ا ية يف قوهل تعاىل يف اآل»مثكل«ن يكون املراد من ألح نه ال يصأول األ،وهجني ثا نية ا يـاأ«ل ًقمي هلـم نب ثكلأمن بني سالم »مخهيم يه ا نيب ل داود ا عل ن يكون ذكل أ ال بد :»مثكل«ن املراد من أل] ب٨[ل ثهل يف نزول األ نيب ما ية يدل عـىل يف اآل»ليطيعوا«ن قوهل تعاىل حاكم ألل ثا نية ا ن يكـون صـاحب أل نيبال يف مقابةل األإطاعة ال تكون ن اإلاكم ألحاأل سالم مل ،لحاكم اليت جاء هبا ذكل ا يـه ا لـ وداود عل تـوراةأمـر غـري أيؤت حبمك و ثـاين . لحـاكم ا يقـة األهـو »خـهيمأمـن بـني «ن املـراد ألوا ًخ خ واأل،حق بين يقي لا يل خارج عن بين إحلق يل ألإئرسا ىل إ راجـع »مخـهيأمن بني «ن الضمري يف قوهل تعاىل ئرسا يل بإبين ته إخ وفراد لفظ األإ و،أرسمهئرسا شعر يمجلىل مضري اإفضا مه هـو خشـص اخـأن أب] أ٩[تع بين يت بواحد ومه امجلاعة اليت يلإمس بارة فلوال ذكل اإل. ئرسا من بني :ن يقولألعشعار لاكن شأن ا يكون األ،ماهنوخإبين سالم مـهند و، عهنمًخ خارجاف يـه ا نيب لـاود ا عل ً خـاأن يكـون أ فـال يـصح ،مل ًيا تقدير يلزم ذ عىل إ حقيق نـدفع ً، عـهنم معـاً فـهيم وخارجـاًن يكـون داخـالألذكل ا ي وهـو حمـال فـال ناقض ناقض ب.لتا سالم يف أوىل ية األن املراد من اآلإ :قولنن ألت وميكن دفع ا يـه ا ثل مـوىس لـن عل م تاب يـلرسإ وال يقوم مـن بـين ١٣حاكم ما قامألاو] ب٩[لكنزول ا يـة ،ئا ثا ن ومـن ا ثـل مـوىس أل من تـاب واأل سالم يف نـزول ا لكيـه ا لـ يـلإ بـين يخأحـاكم يقـوم مـن عل يس ،ئرسا يقـةًخـاألـ و ً بـين حق ل سطر: + ما قام 12 .لنفى، إضافة حتت ا سطر: + ما قام 13 .لنفي، إضافة حتت ا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SABINE SCHMIDTKE 78 يل إ نإئرسا نيب اذلي جاء من بين إ وبال يل فا لسام تاب واألإع يه ا يل ونزل لكسام عل ال إحاكم مـا هـو ع سالم يه الصالة وا لمحمد بول .عل ناقض فوجب ق فاندفع ا سالملت يه ا لبوة محمد عل . ن يلإف سالم أل يف اآل»مثكل«ن يكون املراد من أ ال جيوز مل:قن يه ا يىس ية ثا لـية ا عل ن يـىس عل عن سالم ليه ا تـاب واأل] أ١٠[عل سالم يف نـزول ا يـه ا لكثل موىس لـم يس مـن بـين أحـاكم مـع عل لـنـه يل ألإ سالم مل يودل من األئرسا يه ا لنه تـصعل نص عـىل ا خب وال يكون ا مـن بـني «اص قـوهل تعـاىل ل سالمً محمـدا»خهيمأ يـه ا لـ نـا،عل بـارة :قل تحمـل عـىل ذكل ع ال يـه أل»خـهيمأمـن بـني «ت يـىس علن ع سالم من هجة األ يس من بين لا يل وال منإلب يلإبين ل أخئرسا هـو مـن ما من هجـة األأ و،ئرسا فم يل ألإبين سالم يئرسا يه ا ُنه ل نت ومرمي ريض هللا،سـيح بن مرميملعرف ابعل معران ] ب١٠[ب عهنا ييل ال من اإل يلإخ بين أئرسا سالم»مـثكل«ن يكون املـراد مـن أح ل فال يص،ئرسا يـه ا يـىس لـ عل ،ع ّتعني سالمًن يكون املراد محمداأف يه ا ل بارة اآلًيضاأويدل . عل ما قـام نـيب وال «وىل بقوهل تعاىل ية األع يلإيقوم مكوىس من بين ئـه مـن غـ»ئرسا يـه إري بـين جمي عـىل وجـوب يـل ممـن مياثـل مـوىس علرسا ئ سالم يلإمن بين «ن قوهل تعاىل أل،لا يد احرتازي»ئرسا نيب ،ق يـىس وإلفذكل ا مـا محمـد علـهيام إعمـا سالم سالم] أ١١[ية دالةل عىل وجوب ففي اآل.لا يىس ومحمد علهيام ا لجميء رساةل .ع توراة بارك وتعاىل يف ا ها قوهل لوخا ت اَبَ ايِ يكْدَ عـْوَلـْجَ رَْنبِ مـْكَوكـُحُمَي وَودَُهيِ مَْتبَس ُْرسَ ايَال: مس ِط معَحْقِو يُلَو وُيلِس ناه عىل لغة العرب] cf. Gen. 49:10[ ١٤.ْميَ وال اال يزال عـصا مـن هيـود« :معو شأن اذلي خيرج من بني ليـه جتمـع إ حىت جييء اذلي هل العصا وارجل هيودأليزال عصا رجل عظمي ا سة هـذه اآلن يفأاعـمل . »مماأل يـه ] ب١١[ وىل األ،مـورأمخـيـة دالةل عـىل علعـىل رشيعـة مـوىس سالم سالم،لا يه ا يىس ية عىل رشيعة ثا ل وا عل ن سالم،عل يـه الـصالة وا ثة عىل رشيعة محمـد ثا لـ وا عل ل ،ل سالم يـىس علـهيام ا لـوالرابعة عىل انهتاء رشيعـة مـوىس و سالمإع يـه الـصالة وا لـىل رشيعـة محمـد ،عل سة عىل سالم عـىل اكفـة األمواخلا يه الـصالة وا لـكون رشيعة محمد ة عـن يـاكحيـة ن هـذه اآلانم ألعل سالم عـىل إ يه ا نيب لـبار يعقوب ا عل ل ي أ »ال يـزال عـصا« :خـر الزمـان بقـوهلآحـوال أبنائـه عـن أخ سالمإ رةشـاإ وهـو »اهيـود] أ١٢[مـن «حاكم أ يـه ا لـىل رشيعـة مـوىس ال يـزال «بقـوهل تعـاىل و ،عل شأن اذلي خيرج من بني «حاكم أأي »عصا يىس إشارة إ هو »ارجل هيودألرجل عظمي ا عىل رشيعة سالم أل ليه ا سالم عل يه ا يىس بة لن عل عسـ ش،مـهأ من هجـة اىل الهيودإن ُ رجـل أمـه بأ ١٥دوالأت ّهبفـ هره ألاهيود يس من ظنه اذلي «ي الرجـل أ »يء اذليجيـحـىت « وبقوهل تعـاىل ،رجهلأ بل من بني ،ل يه جتمع ال يزال ع: + معمي… ال ايرس 14 يه حىت ان جيئي من هل وا شان من بني ر لصا من هيودي عاطفه عظمي ا جل ل سطر .لالامم، إضافة حتت ا .والد: أوالد 15 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul EPISTLE FORCING THE JEWS [TO ADMIT THEIR ERROR] 79 تص هل األ»هل عصا يه وسمل وانهتاء ] ب١٢ [ىل رشيعة محمدإشارة إ وهو ،حاكمخي يعين علصىل هللا تني األ يعارش رشيعة ألإلويني ل يـدل عـىل »حـىت« و،»حىت«مبعىن ] עד[ َْدعن قوهل تعاىل لىل هذه ا هـذا الرجـل أ] ולו[ ولو :وقوهل تعاىل. الانهتاء يـ»ممجتمـع األ«لي ه عل يـدل عـىل معـوم رشيعـة محمـد سالم أل بين لالصالة وا تص سالم يه ا بن رشيعة موىس خت ل يـل ال لك األإعل هـذه اآل،ممئرسا يـة تـدل ف سالم يىس علهيام ا لعىل انهتاء رشيعة موىس و سالمىل رشيعة محمإع يه ا لد ومعوم رشيعة محمد .عل رسأاعمل ّن ا رس] أ١٣[ين من علامء ملف ّالهيود حـاكم أي أ ، ال يـزال عـصاء:يـة بقـوهلموا هـذه اآلفـ سالم يه ا لموىس شأن اذلي من بـني ا من بني هيود،عل ا،رجـل هيـودأل وال يزال كون الرجل العظمي ا رشيعةمنيعين هـديجيـ حـىت ،لـ حتت حكومة هـذه ا ن أل،مليء الرجـل اذلي صـار هل احلـمك وهـو ا هم جييء من بين هدي عىل ز معا سالماهيودمل يـه ا لـ عىل رشيعة موىس سريمه هـذه اآل.عل ة عـىل يـتفـ و حـىت جمـيء الرجـل اذلي هل « يف قـوهل تعـاىل »حـىت«ن لفـظ أول األ،هذا الوجه ابطل من وهجـني رشيعة األ] ب١٣[ »العصا فتعـني . ي احلـمكأىل رشيعة الرجل اذلي هل العـصا إوىل لتدل عىل انهتاء ا سالم فال جيوز رشيعة ] تكون[ن أ يه ا لمن هل غري رشيعة موىس لعـصا ن يكـون رشيعـة مـن هل اأعل سالم يه ا لرشيعة موىس ثـاين . عل رشيعة »هل العـصا« قـوهل تعـاىل نألا تـصاص هـذه ا لـ يـدل عـىل ا خ سالم مل،ذلكل الرجـل اذلي هل العـصا يـه ا رشيعة رشيعـة مـوىس لـ فلـو اكن هـذه ا عل تـصة لـ خم تكـن تعني ،للرجل اذلي هل العصا رشيعة مغا١٦كلتكون تن أف سالميل ا يه ا رشيعة موىس لرة عل . ل يـدايت األما اآلأو ]أ١٤[ تأ هم عـىل ا تدلوا هبـا بـز بربـع الـيت ا ل يـه أ ،معســ يـد ديـن مـوىس علي تأ ب سالم توراةلأوه، فلا َ ْفُظَ هْهَريِشَه ْبُتَك اي موىس: لا قوهل تعاىل يف ا ْ يكْهَيَهَو[...] َْونَفل و ُوتُ اْهَنَسْمِت َ َ [...] ْهَريِشَهـ ْهنَتـَع وْوتَُرسَ وْوتُبـَ رْدُعـَر ْى رضِفـِ مْحَقْشِتـ َ الَْيك[...] ْوَنـَفل .cf. Deut[ ١٧.وُعـَ ناه يف لغة العرب] 31:19-21 توراة « :معو تب هذه ا لا يل فإمام بين أك وجدمت ًذاإذا اكن كذكل إئرسا ثــرية ومــضايقات] ب١٤[ كبــات ــوراة أل،نك ت نــىس مــن ل واندهتــم ا تــوراة ال تن ا ــواه ذرايهتــمأل . »ف تدلوا يد دين موىس اآل هبذه ،ي علامء الهيودأ ،سـا سالم وقالوابية عىل تأ ليه ا نا :عل يـع غـري أل نطن ال يةاأل تورا تحاكم ا نـىس مـن «ن إ :ن قوهل تعاىلإ ف،ل توراة ال تا يـد ديـن »فـواه ذرايهتـمأل ب يـدل عـىل تأ يد سالم وعىل تأ يه ا بموىس ل يان مـن يذ نفـإ ،وراةتلحاكم اأعل ذرايهتـم يـدل عـىل ذكـر فـواه ألنـسـ ا توراة يف تـوراة يف ] أ١٥[ذا اكنـت إ فـً،اه ذرايهتم دامئافوألا يان يف ألا نـسـفـواه ذرايهتـم مـذكورة بـال يـدإوقات مفا هو وقت من األ تأ بال معىن ا يح أل. ل يس تدالل مـهنم بـصحوهـذا الا بـارك لـســ تن قـوهل .ذكل: تكل 16 شريه 17 هتب ثرية ومضايقات : + رضعو... ك بات هُم تورية هذا اماهمم واذا اكن كذكل اذا وجدت تب ا كاي ا ل ٌك نك ل َ َ َ تورية اماهمم الهنا ال سطرلواندت ا لنىس من افواه ذرايهتم، إضافة حتت ا ّ .ت © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SABINE SCHMIDTKE 80 نىس من «ن إ :تعاىل توراة ال تا يد»فواه ذرايهتمأل تأ تدل به عىل ا تقل حىت يس حبمك ب ل سـ يسـ م بـل ،ل هوم واحلمك املعلـوم مـن اآلاأل تـوراة أليـة هـو األملفمر ا تابـة ا لمـر تابـة وتبك ُن حتفـظ اب يف زمـان ّعـمللك تعل تابة ونادُ وتميلا بب ا يان ند ا تذكر سـ لكع بس يـاجىلن يـن يلـزم أ] ب١٥[ مفـن .حت هبـا يف وقـت الا يد جلواز تأ با سوأل توراة بل كون ا نىس ناه ال نن يكون ل ممع ق ؟خةت َ َال: اىلواثنهيا قوهل تع ْيميَمَسب َ َلْعِي يِم ْرُمَ ال١٨ِ يهْ ْيميَمَسَهو ُنل ي ِم ْرُمَ ال١٩ يهَْميَه َربَعَ مَالَو[...] ْ َه ََربََعي سموات « :يـة يف لغـة العـربومعـىن هـذه اآل] cf. Deut. 30:12-13[ ٢٠.وُنل حـاكم ألـال يف ا ًتأمروا خشصا بحـ٢١ يصعدل نـا هبـا وال يف وراء ا ساموات ويأ ل يف ا تـأمروا مـن يعـرب أر تيلـ لهيـا إلحـاكم تدلوا. »ليناإينقلها سالم وقـالوا هبـذه اآل،ي علـامء الهيـودأ ،ســا يـه ا يـد ديـن مـوىس لـيـة عـىل تأ عل :ب يع غري األ] أ١٦[ نطنا ال ية ألل تورا تحاكم ا همن معىن اآلل ساموات :معية عىل ز تـأمروا أل ما يف ا لحاكم سامواتإتياهنا إلهيا وإابلصعود لنا من ا بحر لي بور وأل وال من وراء ا تأمروا اب لعحاكم لينـا مـن إتياهنا إل بحر تعني ،لوراء ا ساموات وال يف غريهـا أف نحـألـن ال يكـون يف ا حـاكم حـاكم يف األرص األفيحـاكم ية تورا تا يد،ل تأ يلزم ا ب ل تدالل . ف يـة ن األأيـة ن حاصل معىن اآل ابطل ألًيضاأسـوهذا الا تورا تحـاكم ا ل ب نـدمك ال تموجودة نمك ع نفـي يف اآل] ب١٦[عـعـد ساموات ويف يـة كـون األملوا يـة يف ا تورا لـحـاكم ا ت ل بحر ال األ سابقة ن معـىن اآل أل الـالكم،٢٢اقيســة ينحاكم املطلقة بقرلوراء ا يـل «لـيـة ا ئاي بـين ارسا يمكألهـمك عـىل إعبـدوا ا نـازةل تـوراة ا علـحـاكم ا ل بقـى لـمك حـمك يف إ ]cf. Deut. 30:10 [»ل يذ ال ساموات وال بحر من األلا يمكل يف وراء ا نازةل ية ا تورا علحاكم ا ل ت نـازةل مفن عدم األ،ل ية ا تورا لحاكم ا ت ل ساموات ال يلـزم عـدم األإعـىل بـين يـل يف ا لـرسا يـة جلـواز ئ حـاكم األ٢٣كـونتن أتحـاكم الغـري تورا سخ األ] أ١٧[جنيلية اإل تزنل ساموات ية يف ا نوالفرقا ل لن يةحف تورا تاكم ا يد،ل تأ ب فال يلزم ا .ل تـوراةواث ْ جتَالَ وْوَلـَو عُيفِصـُو تَ ال [...]َخِوَصَ مـِويخُنـَ اََْرش اَْربَدَهـ ْلُقـ: للهثـا قـوهل تعـاىل يف ا و رُعـَ تمك بـه ال أمر اذلي األلك « :ية يف لغة العربمفعىن هذه اآل] cf. Deut. 12:32[. ية اآل٢٤وُنَمِم صـيو نه نقصوا يه وال عتزيدوا ت تدل علامء الهيود هب. »عل سالم ذه اآلسـا يـه ا يد رشيعة مـوىس لـية عىل تأ عل ب سطر: + يه 18 .لمضري راجع اىل الاحاكم، إضافة فوق ا سطر: + يه 19 .لمضري، إضافة حتت ا يمي 20 بحر : + لنو… بسمال سموات وال من وراء ا نا ىف ا تاءمروا من يصعد ا سموات لال ىف ا ل ي ل ِل ِ َتاءمروا من .. ل ل سطر نا، إضافة حتت ا ليعربها ا . لي سطر: + يصعد 21 .لصفه خشص، إضافة حتت ا .سـباق: سـياق 22 .يكون: تكون 23 سطر: + ممنو… قل هدبر 24 نه، إضافة حتت ا نقصوا يه وال يمك ال تزيدوا للك الامر اذلي اان او ع ت عل .ص © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul EPISTLE FORCING THE JEWS [TO ADMIT THEIR ERROR] 81 توراة وأن ال نزيد عىل أمران بأن هللا تعاىل إ :ويقولون ذا اكن إ فـ،ننقص عهنـا] ب١٧[ن ال ألحاكم ا يع رشيعة فهيا زايدة علهيا سالم ، عهناًو نقصاانأنطكذكل فال يـىس علـهيام ا يع رشيعة محمـد و لـ فال عنط نقصان يف هاتأل تـاج لن الزايدة وا سالم واحض غـري يـه ا تني عـىل رشيعـة مـوىس رش حمني ا لـ عل يع ىل إلـ يان تدالل .لبا نايف ن اآل ابطل ألًيضاأسـ وهذا الا سالم ألطاعة إتية ال يىس ومحمد علهيام ا لـرشيعة ن ع هوم من تكل اآل يـه أ نطق ويمر اذلن األأية ملفا بـين ] أ١٨[علوىص مـوىس سالم با يـل بـإلـ ن أئرسا ي:قال يةف وال تزيدوا ية وال كيفه راكن اخملـصوصة وال وا لك يوم ثالث صـلوات ابألّ صل: وكأنه قال،مك يه بقولمك الصالة املفروضة نقـصان والـزايدة ٢٥وأربعة أعلتزيدوا بوا ذكل ا نان وال ل ا سـ ىل رشيعـة إتنث سالم يه ا لموىس يدانأ و.عل رشيعة الـيت جـاء هبـا سالم وا يه ا يىس رشيعة اليت جاء هبا ســما ا لـ لـ عل عل ست يه وسمل نا محمد صىل هللا ندان و يو عل فلسـ سالم قومـه ] ب١٨[ وىص بهأً مراأنبي يه ا لموىس عل ناًو نقـصاانأليـصري كـوهنام زايدة تـوراة عـىل لآليـة وال دالةل يف تـكل اآلًيـافم ال ن أليـة املـذكورة يف ا بعوث ابحلق تقةل يأيت هبا نيب ميعوا رشيعة سـ رشيعة اإ ف،ميط هنـا زايدة أ ملـسـتقةللـنه ال يطلـق عـىل ا سالمأىت وأو نقصان فامي أ يه ا لوىص به موىس .عل ها سالم٢٦تايي الرابع مـن اآلأ ،بعورا يـه ا يـد ديـن مـوىس هم عـىل تأ لـ ادلاةل بـز عل ب قـول هللا ،مع تـوراة لبارك وتعاىل يف ا َ ْهَوِ صـْهَورُتـ ]أ١٩ [:ت .cf. Deut[ ٢٧.ْوبُقـَْع يْتَالهِـَك َىشَورُ مـَوىسُو مـُنـل توراة اليت « :ية عىل لغة العربومعىن هذه اآل] 33:4 سالم مرياث مجلاعـة اوصألا يه ا لمك هبا موىس عل سالم يه ا نيب ليعقوب ا عل تدلوا. »ل يـد ديـن مـوىس هبـذه اآل،ي علامء الهيودأ ،سـا بيـة الكرميـة عـىل تأ ته يد رش يعوتأ سالم ب ليه ا سالم مؤبـد ألإ :بأن يقولواعل يـه ا لـن دين مـوىس ن أ عـىل يـة تـدلن اآلعل توراة سالم] ب١٩[لا يه ا لمرياث فامي بني قوم موىس سالم ومه،عل يـه ا نـيب لـ جامعـة يعقـوب ا عل ،ل تيض عىل يقهذا نفكأف ّن ال سالمأ ي يه ا توراة من قوم موىس لـحاكم ا عل حـاكم أ مفـن عـدم انفـاكك ،ل سال يه ا ته يد رش يد دين موىس وتأ سالم يلزم تأ يه ا توراة عن قوم موىس لا عل يع ب ب ل عل . مل تدالل مـهنم ن إ : ويه قـوهل تعـاىل،يـة الكرميـةسـلوب اآلأن إ : وجوابـه، ابطـلًيـضاأســوهذا الا توراة « سالم[...] لا يه ا لـمرياث مجلاعة يعقوب سالم] أ٢٠[ ،»عل يـه ا لـويه قـوم مـوىس يـدل ،عل سالم فقـطأعىل يـه ا نـيب تـصة مجلاعـة يعقـوب ا توراة لـن ا عل ل خم سائر األ،ل تـصاص ،مملـ ال خ ومـن ا سالم ال يلزم يه ا توراة مجلاعة يعقوب لا عل تـورأل تـصة سالم يـه ا للن تكون جامعة يعقـوب خم لـ ٢٨اةعل سطر: أو 25 .لإضافة فوق ا .اآلية: اآلايت 26 سطرٌتورية اوىص لمك موىس ع م مرياث مجل: + يعقوب... توره صوه 27 سالم، إضافة حتت ا يه ا لاعة يعقوب ل .عل .للتوريت: للتوراة 28 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SABINE SCHMIDTKE 82 يعوا غري األ يةيطحىت ال تورا تحاكم ا سامويةل تـب ا لـ من ا يـة الكرميـة مـا زمعـمت ولـو اكن معـىن اآل،لك بـارة تـوراةإ :ن يقـولألعلـاكن شـأن ا لمـوا عتن أخمتـصة بـ] ب٢٠[ي أ ،للن جامعـة يعقـوب مـرياث سبابأل ية تورا حفحاكم ا ت يعوا غري األأل ويس كذكل فال يلزم .ل يـة مـن اإليطن ال تورا تحـاكم ا جنيـل ل متر٢٩ علامء الهيوده كام زمع،والفرقان ّ ا نمل .مجعنيأ هللا علهيم ةلعدين سالمأما سائر أو يـه ا يـد ديـن مـوىس هم عـىل تأ تـوراة بـز لـدلهتم املـذكورة يف ا عل ب فـال نطـول ،معل يفة جـدايرادهـا يف هـذا املقـام ألإالـالكم ب هـا ًن ضـع يـوت إ فً،لعـدم عـدالا مـزنةل ُعـددهتأ ف،لكّ كبهنـا بوت سكوتإفال جواب عهنا ] أ٢١[ ٣٠،لعنكا .لال ا هدايـة ابإل يق وا تو لوهللا ويل ا ف نـه اإل،ميـانل تالكنم و يـه ا لـهـداء و تـاب بعـون هللا وقـد مت . عل لكا يدان محمـد و، واملـآبليـه املرجـعإ و،عـمل ابلـصوابأ وهللا ،هـابوال بـه آســ وصـىل هللا عـىل حصهل و . مت. وامحلد رب العاملني،مجعنيأ .الهيودي: الهيود 29 بوت 30 .٤١) ٢٩(لعنكإشارة إىل سورة ا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Die Beschreibung Muḥammads im Evangelium. Eine muslimische Polemik gegen die Christen aus dem osmanischen Reich (Anfang 18. Jhdt.) Monika Hasenmüller Einleitung Mit diesem Beitrag soll eine muslimische anti-christliche Polemik aus dem Osmanischen Reich, entstanden gegen Anfang des 18. Jhdts., erstmals in kritischer Edition zugänglich gemacht werden.1 Von einem Eintrag in Moritz Steinschneiders Polemische und apologetische Literatur abgesehen,2 hat diese Schrift, die in sechs Handschriften und zwei unterschiedlichen Rezensionen [im Folgenden als RI/RIa und RII bezeichnet] vorliegt, in der Forschung bislang keine Beachtung gefunden.3 Inhaltlich bewegt sich der Text zunächst in den vertrauten Bahnen der muslimischen Polemik, Ausgangspunkt ist der Vorwurf der Schriftverfälschung und die Ankündigung Muḥammads in Thora und Evangelium. In weiten Teilen besteht der Text aus einer Aneinanderreihung von Versen aus den Evangelien, auf deren argumentative Einordnung meist verzichtet wird. Fünf Handschriften nennen als Verfasser einen gewissen Darwīš ʿAlī, der offenbar auch als Naqšbandī, Inǧīlī oder ʿAlī b. al-Yūnānī bekannt war.4 Angesichts der 1 Ich danke Herrn Prof. Wilferd Madelung für kritische Durchsicht und wertvolle Anregungen zum edierten Text, sowie Amgad Keshki für Hilfe beim Entschlüsseln schwieriger Textstellen. 2 Moritz Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache, zwischen Muslimen, Christen und Juden, Leipzig 1877, S. 56 Nr. 36b. Folgende zwei Handschriften werden aufgelistet: Hss. Wetzstein II 1753 und Cod. arab. 886. Für diese sowie drei weitere Handschriften, vgl. unten. 3 Den Hinweis auf diesen Text verdanke ich Camilla Adang, Judith Pfeiffer und Sabine Schmidtke, die drei der von mir verwendeten Handschriften, Fatih 30, Fatih 31 und Köprülü 2ksm 105, im Rahmen des von der Gerda Henkel Stiftung geförderten Forschungsprojektes “Interreligious Polemics in the Ottoman Empire and pre-modern Iran” gefunden und mir freundlicherweise zur Verfügung gestellt haben. 4 Neben der hier vorliegenden Schrift werden ihm auch zwei kleinere türkische Schriften mit Daten zur orientalischen Geschichte zugeschrieben. Vgl. Gustav Flügel, Die arabischen, persischen und türkischen Handschriften der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Hofbibliothek zu Wien 1-3, Wien 1865-67, Bd. 2, S. 154 Nr. 925/2, und Verzeichniss der Handschriften im Preussischen Staate. Die Handschriften in Göttingen. 3. Universitäts-Bibliothek. Nachlässe von Gelehrten / Orientalische Handschriften / Handschriften im Besitz von Instituten und Behörden, Berlin 1894, S. 40. Die in letzterem aufgelistete Sammelhandschrift Asch 75 enthält neben der türkischen Schrift auch eine Abschrift der hier edierten risāla, s.u. Flügel bezeichnet Darwīš ʿAlī in seinem Katalog als „Derwîsch ʿAlî in Haleb“. Er vermutet, dass Darwīš ʿAlī unter Sultan Murād III. (reg. 982/ 1574-1003/1595) schrieb. Aufgrund der Widmungen an Sultan Aḥmad III. in der türki- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 84 unterschiedlichen Rezensionen stellt sich jedoch die Frage, ob alle überlieferten Textteile oder nur ein Kernbestand auf einen Verfasser zurückgehen, dem spätere Autoren weitere Textblöcke hinzugefügt haben. Auf der Basis der vorliegenden Handschriften kann dies nicht abschließend entschieden werden. Inhaltliche Übereinstimmungen zwischen der Einleitung, in der sich der Autor selbst als Sufi beschreibt, der durch bestimmte mystische Lehren verwirrt worden war, und einer Aussage am Ende des ersten Teils, wo sich der Verfasser von der mystischen wie der christlichen Inkarnationslehre lossagt, indizieren, dass diese Textteile vom selben Autor, möglicherweise dem genannten Darwīš ʿAlī, stammen. Nehmen wir die Selbstbekenntnisse aus Einleitung und erstem Teil als Grundlage, so lassen sich über Darwīš ʿAlī folgende Aussagen treffen: Die Beschreibung seiner mystischen Erfahrung in der Einleitung sowie die Kritik an bestimmten mystischen Vorstellungen aus mystischer Perspektive weisen ihn als Sufi aus. Hierauf weist auch ein in der Einleitung benannter Lehrer des Verfassers hin, ein gewisser Ǧalāladdīn Auǧī Muḥammad al-Birkawī aṯ-Ṯānī [al-Qādirī].5 RI benennt zusätzlich Abū ʿAbdallāh as-Samarqandī an-Naqšbandī als seinen Lehrer, dem ein mystisches Werk mit dem Titel muḫtaṣar al-wilāya zugeschrieben wird.6 Die Distanzierung von der Inkarnationslehre, die Beinamen Inǧīlī bzw. ʿAlī b. al-Yūnānī („Sohn des Griechen“), sowie die guten Kenntnisse des Griechischen und des Neuen Testaments des Verfassers indizieren ferner, dass er ein zum Islam konvertierter Christ war. Hinweise zur zeitlichen und örtlichen Einordnung der Schrift liefern zum einen die Schreiberkolophone, zum anderen die je nach Rezension unterschiedlichen Widmungen zu Anfang der Texte. Das früheste Schreiberkolophon verweist auf das Jahr 1135/1722-23, die in der Einleitung erwähnten Personen auf eine Entstehung nach 1703: Sultan Aḥmad III., dem der Text in Fatih 31 [= RIa] gewidmet ist, regierte von 1115/1703 bis 1143/1730.7 Die in RII überlieferte Widmung an ʿAbdallāh Pāšā, Sohn Muṣṭafā Pāšās, Sohn Meḥmed Pāšās, dürfte sich auf ʿAbdallāh Köprülü, ein Mitglied der Wesirdynastie schen Schrift aus Asch 75 und in RIa der risāla scheint mir diese zeitliche Einordnung jedoch unwahrscheinlich. 5 Steinschneider (Polemische und apologetische Literatur, S. 56) mutmaßt, ob es sich hierbei wohl um Meḥmed al-Birkawī handeln könnte, einen Medrese-Lehrer des 16. Jhdts., der im 17. Jhdt. zur Identifikationsfigur der Kadızadeli-Bewegung wurde. Vgl. Madeline C. Zilfi, “The Kadizadelis. Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul,” in Journal of Near-Eastern Studies 45 iv (1986), S. 251-269. Der zeitliche Abstand zwischen Birkawī und den anderen in der Einleitung erwähnten Personen lässt dies aber eher unwahrscheinlich erscheinen. 6 Ismaʿīl Pāšā al-Baġdādī, Īḍāḥ al-maknūn 1-2, Beirut o.J., Bd. 2, S. 451. 7 Die Regierungszeit dieses Sultans gibt der Autor mit fünfundfünfzig Jahren an, die er mithilfe von zahlenmystischen Berechnungen ermittelt. In diesem Zusammenhang findet sich auch ein Koranvers, dessen einzelne Buchstaben mir unbekannten Zeichen gegenüber gestellt werden; vgl. Hs. Fatih 31, Bl. 6a. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 85 Köprülü, beziehen, der 1148/1735-6 als Befehlshaber der osmanischen Armee in einer Schlacht gegen die Perser fiel. Somit befinden wir uns mit dieser Widmung im gleichen Zeitraum wie durch die Widmung an Sultan Aḥmad III. ʿAbdallāh Köprülü war allerdings ab 1701 zwar Wesir, entgegen der Widmung aber nie Großwesir.8 Des Weiteren wird in RII ein šaiḫ al-islām Faiḍallāh erwähnt, der die risāla in Auftrag gegeben haben soll und der als šahīd ausgewiesen wird. Es handelt sich dabei wohl um den šaiḫ al-islām as-Saiyid Faiḍallāh Efendi, der sein Amt 1688 unter Süleiman II., später noch einmal von 1695 bis 1703 unter Muṣṭafā II. ausübte und 1703 im berühmten Vorfall von Edirne von rebellierenden Janitscharen getötet wurde.9 Eine weitere Widmung in RI gilt einem gewissen Tauqīʿī Muṣṭafā.10 Auch er muss eine hochgestellte Persönlichkeit bei Hof gewesen sein, da er mit zahlreichen Ehrentiteln belegt wird. Die risāla, zumindest in ihrem Kernbestand, muss demnach nach 1703 entstanden sein, für 1722-23 ist sie bereits in RII belegt. Handschriften [1] Fatih 30 (Süleimaniyye) (ف): Einzelhandschrift. 22 Bl., Format: 20 × 15 cm, 15 Zeilen. Die Handschrift trägt Stempel und Stiftungsvermerk mit der Unterschrift Sultan Maḥmūds II. (reg. 1223-55/1808-39) (Bl. 1a). Der Vermerk stammt von Darwīš Muṣṭafā, dem Waqf-Inspekteur der Ḥaramain aš-šarīfain.11 Zwei kleinere Stempel sind nicht entzifferbar. Der Text ist in schwarzer Tinte geschrieben und durchgehend golden gerahmt. Bl. 1b ist als verziertes Eingangstor in den Farben gold, rot, grün und schwarz gestaltet. Koranverse und Bibelzitate sind schwarz überstrichen. Die Schrift ist klar und deutlich lesbar und von gleicher Hand wie die nachfol- 8 M. Kohlbach, “ʿAbdallāh Paša Köprülüzāde,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Bd. 1, S. 203. 9 Abdülkadir Altunsu, Osmanli Şeyhülislāmlari, Ankara 1972, S. 98. – Zwischen ʿAbdallāh Köprülü und Faiḍallāh Efendi bestand eine enge Beziehung: Faiḍallāh unterstützte ʿAbdallāh auf seinem Weg zum Wesir, zudem war ʿAbdallāh mit der Tochter Faiḍallāhs verheiratet. Vgl. Kohlbach,“ʿAbdallāh Paša Köprülüzāde,” S. 203. 10 Der Titel tauqīʿī deutet an, dass er für die mit den Titeln des Sultans ausgestellten Dokumente zuständig und damit einer der höchsten Beamten des Osmanischen Reiches war. Vgl. F. Babinger und C. E. Bosworth, “Tawḳīʿ,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, Bd. 10, S. 392-393. – Ismaʿīl Pāšā al-Baġdādī verzeichnet einen Tauqīʿī ar-Rūmī Muṣṭafā, der 975/1567 starb; vgl. Hadīyat al-ʿārifīn 1-2, Beirut o.J., Bd. 2, S. 435 [Nachdruck der 1951 in Istanbul erschienenen Ausgabe]. 11 Im osmanischen Kontext könnte damit Mekka und Medina oder Jerusalem und Hebron gemeint sein; vgl. B. Lewis,“al-Ḥaramayn,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, Bd. 3, S. 175-176. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 86 gend beschriebene Handschrift Fatih 31. Am Ende der Handschrift (Bl. 22b) wird, ohne Jahresangabe, der 7. Ḏū al-Ḥiǧǧa als Datum genannt, an dem Darwīš ʿAlī Naqšbandī, auch bekannt als Inǧīlī oder ʿAlī b. al-Yūnānī, die risāla vollendet haben soll. Der Titel der Schrift wird mit ḏikr naʿt an-nabī Muḥammad fī l-inǧīl angegeben: يـل يف حقـه متت من يدي الفقري أحقر الورى درويش ييل وهـو ملـن هري بـإ ندي ا ق عيل ا ش جنب ل لنقش سمى و يف الرسـاةل الـيت بـل تـأ بور سور إىل بالد ا يوانين ويدخل القلب ا يـعيل بن ا ل ن ملك قل ) ؟(لط رشيفة بت من ذي احلجة ا يوم ا يل يف ا سالم يف اإل يه ا نيب محمد لذكر نعت ا ل جن ل عل .لسل Die Handschrift bezeugt zusammen mit Fatih 31 RI. [2] Fatih 31 (Süleymaniyye) (ق): Einzelhandschrift, 27 Bl., Format: 28,5 × 21 cm, 15 Zeilen. Auf dem Vorsatzblatt befindet sich ein ḥadīṯ in osmanischer Sprache. Darunter sind als Titel des Textes Bayān-e taḥrīf und Risāla fī bayān taḥrīf al-yahūd wa-nnaṣārā notiert. Unter letzterem Titel findet sich zusätzlich die Notiz „15ṣ“. Ḥadīṯ und Titelangaben stammen von zwei unterschiedlichen Händen, keine der beiden stimmt mit der Hand des Kopisten überein. Bl. 1a weist wie Fatih 30 den Stempel Maḥmūds II. sowie einen waqf-Vermerk durch Darwīš Muṣṭafā auf. Die Handschrift ist von gleicher Hand wie Fatih 30 und ähnlich wie diese gestaltet: Der Textbeginn auf Bl. 1b ist als Tor mit Blumenornamenten in rot, gold und blau gestaltet, der Schriftspiegel golden gerahmt. Der Text selbst ist mit schwarzer Tinte geschrieben. Ordnungswörter, Überstreichungen, Fremdwörter, Koran- und Bibelzitate sind mit roter Tinte hervorgehoben bzw. schwarz überstrichen. In der Einleitung sind der Name des Sultans und einige Jahresangaben mit ursprünglich wohl goldener, aber nachgedunkelter Tinte verziert. Als Verfasser wird am Ende des Textes Darwīš ʿAlī Inǧīlī namentlich erwähnt: يه ييل متت الرساةل) ؟(لمياألقا باد درويش عيل إ جنعىل يد أضعف ا .لع Von Fatih 30 unterscheidet sich die Handschrift nur durch die Einleitung. Im übrigen Text stimmen beide Handschriften weitgehend überein und können deshalb als Zeugen einer Rezension [RI] eingeordnet werden. Ob beide Handschriften auf eine gemeinsame Vorlage zurückgehen, vermag ich mangels Datierung und anderer Hinweise nicht zu entscheiden. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 87 [3] Wetzstein II 1753 (Staatsbibliothek Berlin) (و): Sammelhandschrift (22 × 15,6 cm, 17 Zeilen), risāla: Bl. 27b-38b.12 Der arabische Text der risāla ist mit schwarzer Tinte, die griechischen Zitate mit gelblicher, vielleicht ursprünglich roter Tinte geschrieben, die teilweise verwischt und schwer lesbar sind. Laut Schreiberkolophon wurde die Handschrift 1135/ 1722-3 von Muḥammad Rūsčaqī (?) fertiggestellt, als Verfasser wird Darwīš ʿAlī genannt: ثون مائة وألف نة مخس و ثلمؤلفه درويش عيل وحمرره محمد روسچقي .سـ Die Handschrift ist einer der vier Textzeugen für RII. [4] Köprülü 2ksm 105 (Köprülü-Bibliothek) (ك): Sammelhandschrift (29 × 21 cm, 17 Zeilen), risāla: Bl. 163b-178a. Auf Bl. 162b und 163a befinden sich der Stempel Aḥmad Köprülüs (datiert 1769), Sohn des Großwesirs Nuʿmān Pāšā. Für den Text wurde schwarze Tinte verwendet. Ordnungswörter, Bibelzitate, Überstreichungen und die teils vorhandene Vokalisierung wurde in roter Tinte geschrieben. Laut Schreiberkolophon wurde die Abschrift 1161/1748 vollendet: تني نة أحد هر صفر اخلري سـقد وقع الفراغ يف يوم الانني وقت الضحى من س َث َ . ومائة وألفش Die Handschrift bezeugt ebenfalls RII, bietet aber oftmals andere Varianten als Wetzstein II 1753 und Cod. arab. 886. [5] Cod. arab. 886 (Staatsbibliothek München) (م): Die Handschrift ist Teil einer 338 Blatt umfassenden Sammelhandschrift (21,1 × 16 cm, 25 Zeilen) mit über 50 Abhandlungen.13 Es liegen zwei unterschiedliche Blattzählungen vor: Nach der Zählung mit indischen Ziffern, die von der Hand 12 Wilhelm Ahlwardt, Verzeichniss der arabischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, Berlin 1887, Bd. 2, S. 496 Nr. 2210. Vgl. auch Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur, S. 56 Nr. 36b. - Neben der risāla enthält die majmūʿa eine Polemik Saʿd ad-Dīn at-Taftāzānīs (st. 793/1390) gegen Ibn ʿArabī (st. 638/1240), Fāḍiḥat al-mulḥidīn fī r-radd ʿalā l-ʿārif bi-llāh Muḥyī d-Dīn wa-amṯālihī. Am Rand von Bl. 1b-6a findet sich zusätzlich eine Widerlegung dieser Polemik, Kitāb al-ḥaqq al-mubīn li-ḫaṭaʾ man ḫaṭṭaʾ al-ʿārifīn von Abū Bakr b. Aḥmad b. Dāwūd Naqšbandī. Vgl. Ahlwardt, Verzeichniss, Bd. 3, S. 41f., Nr. 2891 & 2892. – Zu Taftazānīs Widerlegung, vgl. Alexander D. Knysh, Ibn ʿArabī in the Later Islamic Tradition: The Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam, Albany 1999, S. 141ff. 13 Joseph Aumer, Die arabischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in München, München 1866, S. 392. – Vgl. auch Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur, S. 56 Nr. 36b. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 88 des Kopisten zu sein scheint, umfasst die risāla Bl. 33b-41b, nach der bei Aumer verwendeten modernen Zählung von westlicher Hand Bl. 49b-57b. Laut Kolophon, das Darwīš ʿAlī als Verfasser ausweist, wurde die Abschrift 1181/1768 von Šaiḫ Ismaʿīl al-ʿUmarī in Konstantinopel angefertigt: يل العمري يخ ا مسعمؤلفه درويش عيل، حمرره ا سلمنيمجلغفر هللا هل ولوادليه و. لشـ مت حتريـره . ملـيع ا نة إحدى ومثانني ومائة وألف مـن جهـرة مـن هـو العـز هر ذي احلجة رشين من سـيف يوم أربعة و شع ية به أمجعين يف حمروسـة ا يدان محمد وآهل و نوارشف وصىل هللا عىل حص سـ لـو خفـمت هللا . لقنـسطنطل ته لعلممت العمل اذلي ال هجل معه تـ. خيفحق بـال احلـمك فولو عرفمت هللا حـق معر جله لزالـت دلعـائمك ا يه ).؟(عنعن معاذ جامع الصغري من In vielen Varianten ist die Handschrift deckungsgleich mit Wetzstein II 1753. Eine direkte Abhängigkeit von dieser ist aber aufgrund einer in Wetzstein II 1753 fehlenden, in Cod. arab. 886 aber vorhandenen Textstelle (II-41f.) auszuschließen. [6] Asch 75 (Niedersächsiche Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen): Diese Handschrift ist nicht Teil der Edition, da sie mir zum Zeitpunkt von deren Erstellung noch nicht vorlag.14 Sammelhandschrift (21 × 14,5 cm, 15 Zeilen), risāla: Bl. 87b-105a.15 Die Handschrift ist von gleicher Hand wie Wetzstein II 1753, das Schreiberkolophon lautet wie folgt: .مؤلفه درويش عيل وحمرره محمد روسچقي Diese Handschrift ist Textzeuge für RII und steht Hs. Wetzstein II 1753 nahe. Am Rand finden sich Kollationsvermerke von der Hand des Kopisten, die darauf hindeuten, dass die Handschrift teils mit einer Handschrift der RI verglichen und verbessert wurde, allerdings tauchen gerade besonders markante abweichende Textstellen nicht auf. Auf Bl. 87a-88b ist am Rand eine andere Version der Einleitung notiert, die trotz leichten Abänderungen und Kürzungen RIa zuzurechnen ist. Auf fol. 91a hat der Kopist am Rand einige Worte des im Text zitierten griechischen Verses in griechischen Buchstaben notiert, am Rand von Bl. 99a-103a findet sich ein unabhängiger Text, der gegen die Göttlichkeit Jesu argumentiert. 14 Den Hinweis auf diese Handschrift verdanke ich Dennis Halft. 15 Vgl. Verzeichniss der Handschriften im Preussischen Staate, S. 40-41. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 89 Kommentierte Inhaltsangabe16 Einleitung Der Text beginnt in allen Rezensionen mit dem Dank an Gott, wobei der Autor in RI bereits Bezug auf das Thema der risāla nimmt, indem er um Segen und Heil Gottes für Muḥammad bittet, den er in Evangelium und Thora gefunden habe. Die beiden Rezensionen unterscheiden sich im anschließenden Bericht zur Entstehung der risāla. Laut RII (II-2 bis II-7) verfasste der Autor bereits zuvor eine kürzere polemische Schrift zur Schriftverfälschung durch Juden und Christen. Wie die meisten Gelehrten vor ihm, habe er darin die Meinung vertreten, dass Juden und Christen Begriffe (alfāẓ) in Thora und Evangelium verfälscht hätten. Insbesondere hätten sie Muḥammads Namen und Beschreibung getilgt und durch andere Worte ersetzt (tabdīl). Diese frühere Schrift (rusayla) habe er dem šaiḫ alislām Faiḍallāh gewidmet, bei dem diese auf Zustimmung stieß. Faiḍallāh hätte ihn daraufhin mit einer zweiten Schrift beauftragt, die die Beschreibung und den Namen Muḥammads aus den Heiligen Schriften herausfiltern sollte. Nachdem er durch seinen Lehrer Ǧalāladdīn Auǧī Muḥammad al-Birkawī in die Geheimnisse der Mystik eingeführt wurde, untersucht er Evangelium, Thora und Psalmen von Neuem und entdeckt, dass die meisten Ausdrücke des Evangeliums mutašābihāt, d.h. mehrdeutig, oder bildlich zu verstehen sind. Im Unterschied zu seiner ersten rusayla, ist er nun der Meinung, dass Juden und Christen den Text der Heiligen Schriften nicht verändert, sondern durch falsche Interpretation verfälscht hätten (taḥrīf al-maʿānī). Auch den Namen Muḥammads, von dem er selbst und andere muslimische Gelehrte glaubten, dass er aus diesen Schriften getilgt worden sei, findet er nun in Thora, Evangelium und Psalmen. Entsprechend verteidigt er diese Schriften als Wort Gottes, das im Falle des Evangeliums in einem Mal herabgesandt worden sei, ganz im Gegensatz zu Koran und Thora. Das Evangelium sei ewiges Wesensattribut Gottes (ṣifa azalīya qāʾima bi-ḏātihī), den Aposteln von Gott durch Jesus eingegeben. In der Bedeutung gebe es zwischen dem Wort Gottes in verschiedenen Sprachen keinen Unterschied. Der Autor spricht schließlich über seine Motivation diese zweite risāla zu schreiben: Ausschlaggebend sei der Erfolg seiner ersten rusayla gewesen, mit dieser zweiten nun wolle er die mehrdeutigen Begriffe im Evangelium erklären. In RI ist ebenfalls von zwei Schriften des Autors und von seiner Meinungsänderung bezüglich der Schriftverfälschung die Rede (I-4 bis I-8, Ia-4 bis Ia-8). Anders als in RII schließt sich an die Haltung der muslimischen Gelehrten von der Verfälschung der Schrift eine Erläuterung derselben an (I-2, Ia-2): Ihr Zugang zur Bibel 16 Die deutschen Bibelzitate folgen zumeist der deutschen Einheitsübersetzung (Die Bibel. Einheitsübersetzung. Hg. im Auftrag der Bischöfe Deutschlands, Österreichs, der Schweiz usw. Stuttgart 1980), die Zitate aus dem Koran stammen aus der Übersetzung von Rudi Paret (8. Aufl. Stuttgart 2001). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 90 erfolge lediglich über die arabischen Übersetzungen – als Beispiele nennt der Verfasser Masʿūd b. ʿUmar at-Taftāzānī (st. 793/1390) und Shihāb ad-Dīn as-Suhrawardī (hinger. 587/1191) – so dass sie die tatsächliche Bedeutung mancher Ausdrücke in den Heiligen Schriften nicht erkennen konnten. Zudem sei die Nichtanerkennung Muḥammads als Prophet seitens Juden und Christen ein Grund dafür, dass die muslimischen Gelehrten deren Schriften als korrumpiert ansähen (I-3, Ia- 3). Tatsächlich aber liege diese in der Ignoranz der Christen und ihrer fehlenden Rechtleitung begründet. Die Christen hätten viele Ausdrücke des Evangeliums nicht verstanden, zum einen aufgrund der zahlreichen mutašābihāt, zum anderen dadurch, dass sich das Evangelium nicht durch das laute Aussprechen erschließe, sondern durch das Lesen des Textes. Als Beispiel für eine solche Fehlinterpretation nennt er die Gleichsetzung des Namens Muḥammads mit dem Heiligen Geist. Hierbei bezieht sich der Autor auf den Paraklet aus dem Johannesevangelium. Ausführlicher als in RII kommt der Autor in RI auf seine Einführung in die Mystik zu sprechen (I-4, Ia-4). Neben Birkawī nennt er Abū ʿAbdallāh Saiyid Muḥammad an-Naqšbandī als seinen šaiḫ. Der Verfasser berichtet, dass diese beiden Lehrer ihn in Dinge einführten, die anderen verborgen bleiben. Durch sie wurde ihm das Tor zum mystischen Pfad geöffnet, den er als Reise in die höchsten Höhen und tiefsten Tiefen, in die Paradiese und in das, was mit Worten nicht ausgedrückt werden kann, beschreibt. Seine Einführung in die Mystik hat sich laut Fatih 30 nach seiner ersten Beschäftigung mit der „Welt der Bedeutungen“ (ʿālam al-maʿānī) zugetragen, also wohl nach seiner ersten Schrift, laut Fatih 31 aber vor dieser rusayla. Seine erneute Beschäftigung mit Evangelium, Thora und Psalmen stellt er als Ergebnis einer persönlichen und spirituellen Krise dar, in der er durch „anmaßende mystische Worte“ verwirrt worden war (I-5, Ia-5). Auf die Entstehungsgeschichte der risāla folgt in allen Handschriften schließlich die Widmung dieser Schrift an einen Würdenträger, die in den unterschiedlichen Rezensionen differiert (I-8f., Ia-8 bis Ia-11, II-7 bis II-10; vgl. auch oben). Der Autor beendet die Einleitung (I-10, Ia-11, II-10) mit der Überzeugung, dass vor ihm niemand eine vergleichbare Schrift verfasst hat, und er schließt mit der Aufforderung an die ʿulamāʾ, den Text wohlwollend zu lesen und Fehler ggfls. zu korrigieren. Aus der Einleitung wird deutlich, dass dem Autor die unterschiedlichen Positionen der muslimischen Polemik zum Wie des taḥrīf geläufig sind. Mit seinem Anliegen, die Beschreibung Muḥammads in den Schriften der Juden und Christen nachzuweisen, stellt er sich zudem in die Tradition einer langen Reihe muslimischer Polemiker, die zahlreiche Verse aus Thora und Evangelium als Hinweis auf Muḥammad verstanden. In der früheren muslimischen Polemik vertraten die meisten Autoren die Position, die auch der Autor in dieser risāla vertritt: Sie gingen davon aus, dass Hebräische Bibel und Evangelium nicht an sich korrumpiert waren, sondern nur falsch interpretiert wurden. Mit dem Polemiker Ibn Ḥazm (st. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 91 456/1064), der der Meinung war, dass die Texte an sich verfälscht wurden, wurde eine kritische Haltung gegenüber dem Text der Bibel zwar nicht unbedingt dominierend, aber doch weitverbreitet.17 Glaubt man dem Autor der risāla, so scheint sie zu seiner Zeit die Mehrheitsmeinung der Gelehrten gewesen zu sein. Erster Teil: Muḥammads Beschreibung im (Johannes-) Evangelium Mit dem ersten Teil des Koranverses 7:157 beginnt der Autor seine Abhandlung (I-11): „(denen) die dem Gesandten, dem heidnischen Propheten folgen, den sie bei sich in der Thora und im Evangelium verzeichnet finden“. Mithilfe von Zitaten aus der früheren muslimischen Koranexegese, die vom Verfasser nicht als solche kenntlich gemacht werden, wie den Kommentaren von ʿAbdallāh b. ʿUmar al-Baiḍāwī (st. 685/1286 o. 692/1293) und Abū ʿAlī al-Faḍl aṭ-Ṭabrisī (st. 548/ 1154), kommentiert er diesen Vers Wort für Wort. Er definiert, wer mit diesem Vers gemeint ist – nämlich alle, die vom Judentum oder Christentum zum Islam konvertiert sind – und führt aus, dass Christen die Beschreibung Muḥammads im Evangelium und im Psalter finden könnten. In Fatih 31 wird ergänzt, dass die Juden diese Beschreibung in Thora und Psalmen finden. In RI folgt sodann ein Zitat aus dem Korankommentar al-Ğawāhir al-ḥisān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān des ʿAbdarraḥmān aṯ-Ṯaʿālibī (st. 873/1468), der seinerseits drei Interpretationen zu dem genannten Koranvers anführt (I-11f.): der Prophetengenosse Ibn ʿAbbās sieht Juden und Christen mit diesem Vers von der Teilhabe an der in Vers 7:156 in Aussicht gestellten Barmherzigkeit Gottes ausgenommen. Aṯ-Ṯaʿālibī selbst sieht in dem Vers eine Auszeichnung für die gesamte Gemeinschaft der Muslime. Die dritte Interpretation ist die Abū Ḥāmid al-Ġazālīs (st. 505/1111) aus seinem Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm addīn: Darin wird inhaltlich definiert, was es heißt, dem Propheten zu folgen, nämlich sich von der Welt und ihrem flüchtigen Glück ab- und Gott und dem Jüngsten Tag zuzuwenden. In RII fehlt dieses Zitat aus Ṯaʿālabīs Kommentar. Der Verfasser wendet sich dann dem zweiten Teil von Koran 7:157 zu (I-13, II- 12): „und der ihnen gebietet, was recht ist, verbietet, was verwerflich ist, die guten Dinge für erlaubt und die schlechten für verboten erklärt und ihre drückende Verpflichtung und die Fesseln, die auf ihnen lagen, abnimmt.“ Mit dem Kommen Muḥammads, so führt der Verfasser aus, indem er sich wiederum auf Baiḍāwī und Ṯaʿālibī stützt, ohne seine Quellen zu benennen, würden die Juden von bestimmten Speisever- und Reinheitsgeboten ebenso befreit wie von der strafrechtlichen Bestimmung, die die Blutrache (qiṣāṣ) bei vorsätzlicher wie fahrlässiger Tötung vorsehe. Mit dem „Abnehmen der Verpflichtung“ (rafʿ al-iṣr) ist somit die Aufhe- 17 Vgl. Martin Accad, “The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse of the Ninth to the Fourteenth Centuries. An exegetical inventorial table (Part 1),” in Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 14 (2003), S. 72f.; Camilla Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm, Leiden 1996, Kapitel 7. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 92 bung dieser jüdischen Gesetze gemeint, wie auch generell die Aufhebung des Bundes, der in der muslimischen Tradition als Strafe Gottes für die Israeliten verstanden wird.18 Anders als die zitierten Koranexegeten meint der Autor, dass auch den Christen durch Muḥammad ihre Bürde abgenommen werde, die unter anderem im Erlass von Blutrache und Blutgeld (dīya) auch bei vorsätzlicher Tötung bestehe, sowie im Mönchstum und in spirituellen Übungen. Wie im weiteren Text noch häufiger zu sehen sein wird, bezieht der Autor nicht explizit Position, sondern lässt stattdessen Zitate aus Koran und Exegese sprechen. Auch wenn Darwīš ʿAlī sie nicht formuliert, so lassen sich aus diesen Zitaten doch zwei Topoi der muslimischen Polemik herausfiltern: Erstens behauptet er mit Koran 7:157, dass Muḥammad bereits in Evangelium und Thora angekündigt ist. Indem er in Muḥammad denjenigen sieht, der Juden und Christen ein neues göttliches Gesetz bringt, interpretiert er zweitens diesen Vers als Beleg für die Abrogation von Judentum und Christentum durch den Islam. Wenn wir darüber hinaus noch die in RI enthaltenen Zitate aus der exegetischen Literatur berücksichtigen, so entnimmt der Autor diesem Vers auch, dass allein Muslime und diejenigen Christen und Juden, die sich zum Islam bekehren, auf die Barmherzigkeit Gottes hoffen dürfen. Der Verfasser kommt nun zu seinem eigentlichen Vorhaben. Er habe, so schreibt er, an sieben (RI) bzw. fünf Stellen (RII) in Joh Kap. 14 Namen und Beschreibungen Muḥammads gefunden (I-14, II-13), die er anschließend in ihrem griechischen Wortlaut in arabischer Transliteration zitiert (I-15f., II-14f.). Es handelt sich dabei um folgende neun bzw. sieben Verse oder zusammenhängende Passagen, von denen zwar der größte Teil, entgegen der Aussage des Autors aber nicht alle Joh Kap. 14 entnommen sind: Joh 14,1; 14,12; 20,17; 14,15-18; 14,24- 26; 14,30; 15,25f.; 16,4; 16,7-13. Die letzten beiden Zitate aus Joh Kap. 16 sind in RII nicht enthalten. Alle diese Textstellen wurden bereits von früheren Polemikern verwendet.19 Alle zitierten Verse werden vom Autor im weiteren Verlauf übersetzt und vereinzelt analysiert. Seinen Einstieg in die Analyse biblischer Verse bildet aber eine in obiger Aufzählung nicht enthaltene Passage: Joh 6,60-69, in der die Spaltung unter den Jüngern geschildert wird (I-17, II-16). Nach Darstellung des Verfassers ist die im Evangelium geschilderte Begebenheit ebenso in Koran 3:52 zu finden, wo Jesus zu den Jüngern sagt: „Wer sind meine Helfer (auf dem Weg?) zu Gott?“, und diese antworten: „Wir sind die Helfer Gottes. Wir glauben an ihn. Bezeuge, dass wir ihm ergeben sind.“ Jesu Frage an die Jünger soll wohl Joh 6,67f. entsprechen, wo Jesus die Jünger fragt, ob auch sie weggehen wollen. Petrus antwortet (Joh 6,68) darauf Folgendes: „Herr, zu wem sollen wir gehen? Du hast Worte des ewi- 18 Vgl. Brannon M. Wheeler, “Israel and the Torah of Muḥammad,” in Bible and Qurʾān. Essays in Scriptural Intertextuality, hg. J.C. Reeves, Leiden 2004, S. 78ff. 19 Vgl. Accad, “The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse.” © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 93 gen Lebens. Wir sind zum Glauben gekommen und haben erkannt: Du bist der Heilige Gottes.“ Dieser Vers wird vom Autor wie folgt wiedergegeben: „Wir sind die Anhänger deiner Religion, wir glauben daran, dass du der Prophet des lebendigen Gottes bist, der nicht sterblich ist, wir glauben daran, dass du maḥmūd lillāh,20 des Lebendigen des Ewigen, bist. Du bist Zeuge unserer Unterwerfung unter Gott (bi-islāminā).“ Es handelt sich also nicht um eine Übersetzung des Bibelzitates, sondern um einen an Koran 3:52 angelehnten Satz, der mit dem biblischen lediglich die grundsätzliche Bekundung von Unterstützung gemein hat. Jesus und Petrus werden hier zu muslimischen Figuren, deren Darstellung in der Bibel mit der im Koran übereinstimmt. Der Autor verfremdet den Evangeliumstext so sehr, dass die Zuordnung von arabischer Übertragung zu der entsprechenden Passage im Evangelium nur möglich ist, weil der Autor den griechischen Originaltext in Transliteration zitiert. Der Umgang des Autors mit dieser Bibelstelle ist beispielhaft für alle noch folgenden Zitate: Er zitiert die griechische Bibelstelle im Originalwortlaut in arabischer Transliteration, präsentiert dann aber eine Übersetzung, die Wortlaut und Sinn des Bibelverses mitunter stark verändert. Diese Veränderungen zielen meist darauf ab, Jesus als Werkzeug Gottes zu zeigen, der nur Übermittler der göttlichen Botschaft ist und Muḥammad mit deutlichen Worten ankündigt. Als Belege nennt er zu den von ihm zitierten Versen aus dem Evangelium Koranverse, die in seinem Verständnis inhaltlich übereinstimmen. In einem großen Teil der risāla überlässt er es diesen veränderten Übersetzungen, dem Leser seine Positionen zu übermitteln, und verzichtet auf Kommentierung und Argumentation. Die „Islamisierung des Evangeliumtextes“, wie Martin Accad diese Methode nennt, ist in der muslimischen Polemik nicht neu, wird aber üblicherweise von Autoren praktiziert, die das Evangelium für korrumpiert halten und so die ursprüngliche Schrift wiederherzustellen meinen.21 Bei Darwīš ʿAlī steht dieses Vorgehen in Widerspruch zu seiner Verteidigung des Evangeliums als authentischem Wort Gottes. Mit Joh 14,1 beginnt der Autor die Übersetzung der Verse, die er zuvor auf Griechisch zitierte (I-18, II-17). Nachdem er den Vers noch einmal in Kurzform wiedergibt, übersetzt er den ersten Teil – „euer Herz lasse sich nicht verwirren“ – dem Sinn nach korrekt, im zweiten Teil des Verses fügt er aber „und korrumpiert nicht euren Glauben“ ein und verändert Jesu Aufforderung „Glaubt an Gott und glaubt an mich!“ zu „Glaubt an Gott und seinen Propheten!“. Der nächste Vers, Joh 14,12, ist zunächst ebenfalls korrekt übersetzt, nach „er wird noch größere vollbringen“ folgt dann ein Einschub, der besagt, dass derjenige, der an Jesus glaubt, nicht nur die gleichen oder sogar größere Taten vollbringen wird als Jesus, sondern dass er, wie Jesus, Gesandter Gottes und Gesandter Jesu werden und wie Jesus Wunder vollbringen wird. Dieser Einschub erfüllt zwei Funktionen: Durch 20 Zur Verwendung des Begriffs maḥmūd für Jesus Christus, vgl. unten. 21 Vgl. Accad, “The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse,” S. 71. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 94 die Ankündigung eines Propheten, die sich auf Muḥammad beziehen lässt, wird zum einen nachgewiesen, dass Jesus Muḥammad ankündigt, zum anderen weist sich Jesus durch seine eigenen Worte als Prophet aus. Zu beachten ist auch, welche Formulierung der Autor wählt, um die Wunder Jesu und des kommenden Propheten zu beschreiben: ẓaharat al-ḫawāriq min yadihi. Die Wunder werden also durch die Hand Jesu und des angekündigten Propheten offenbar, es wird nicht davon gesprochen, dass Jesus oder der zukünftige Gesandte die Wunder selbst vollbringt. Der Autor wählt diese Formulierung zweifelsfrei bewusst, um zu verdeutlichen, dass Gott sich der Propheten als Werkzeuge bedient, um Wunder zu wirken.22 Implizit vermittelt er durch diese Formulierung, was er durch die Interpolationen in Joh 14,1 und 14,12 explizit sagt: Jesus ist ein Prophet, der christliche Glaube an die göttliche Natur Jesu widerspricht Jesu eigenen Worten. An diese Stelle knüpft der Verfasser mit einem Standardvers der muslimischen anti-christlichen Polemik an (I-18, II-17): Der letzte Satz aus Joh 20,17 – „Ich gehe hinauf zu meinem Vater und zu eurem Vater, zu meinem Gott und zu eurem Gott“ – wird von den frühesten polemischen Schriften an dazu benutzt, den Christen mit Jesu eigenen Worten nachzuweisen, dass Jesus selbst sich als Mensch versteht und die Distanz zwischen sich und Gott deutlich zum Ausdruck bringt. Wie oft in der muslimischen Polemik wird dieser Vers hier losgelöst von seinem eigentlichen Kontext, der Begegnung Maria Magdalenas mit Jesus vor seiner Himmelfahrt, verwendet.23 Der nächste Abschnitt (I-18 bis I-24, II-17 bis II-23) befasst sich mit einem prominenten Argument der muslimischen Polemik, der Gleichsetzung des im Johannesevangelium angekündigten Paraklet mit Muḥammad. Der Verfasser nennt zunächst die betreffenden Verse aus dem Evangelium, erläutert das christliche und muslimische Verständnis dieser Verse und versucht abschließend, die Bedeutung des Wortes Paraklet zu klären. Joh 14,15-17 wird als der hier einschlägige Vers zitiert und sinngemäß richtig wiedergegeben: Jesus fordert seine Jünger auf, seine Gebote zu halten und kündigt an, ihnen einen Paraklet zu schicken, der für immer bei ihnen bleiben soll. Interessant sind die Änderungen, die bei der Übersetzung vorgenommen werden: Jesu Gebote werden, auch bei allen weiteren Zitaten, durch den Zusatz min ʿinda llāh näher definiert, wodurch, ähnlich wie bei den Wundern, deutlich gemacht wird, dass Jesus nur Übermittler, nicht aber Urheber dieser Gesetze ist. Ein größerer Eingriff durch den Übersetzer findet in Joh 14,16 statt: Hier bezeichnet Jesus den Paraklet, den der Vater den Jüngern schicken wird 22 Vgl. David Thomas, “The miracles of Jesus in early Islamic polemic,” in Journal of Semitic Studies 39 (1994), S. 223ff. 23 Vgl. Martin Accad, “The Ultimate Proof-Text. The interpretation of John 20.17 in Muslim- Christian Dialogue (Second/Eighth-Eighth/Fourteenth Centuries),” in Christians at the Heart of Islamic Rule. Church Life and Scholarship in ʿAbbasid Iraq, hg. David Thomas, Leiden 2003, S. 199ff. – In der christlichen Exegese, mit der der Verfasser vertraut gewesen sein dürfte, wird dieser Vers als Beleg für die zwei Naturen Christi verstanden, worauf Darwīš ʿAlī aber nicht eingeht. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 95 und der für immer bei ihnen bleiben soll, als Propheten. Als Beleg dafür, dass mit diesem Propheten Muḥammad gemeint ist, führt der Autor ein Zitat aus dem Šarḥ al-maqāṣid von Taftāzānī an. Die nachfolgenden tafāsīr-Zitate, die Darwīš ʿAlī nun anführt (I-19, II-18), beschäftigen sich mit der Verwendung der Begriffe Vater und Sohn in Bezug auf Jesus und Gott und legen den Fokus von der Ankündigung Muḥammads durch Jesus auf Trinität und Inkarnationslehre – ein Topos, der zuvor in Joh 20,17 und anderen Formulierungen schon angeklungen ist. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Ǧurǧānī (st. 816/1414) und Baiḍāwī werden in diesem Kontext wie folgt zitiert: Die Bezeichnung Vater, die Jesus in Joh 14,16 zugeschrieben wird, sei von den „Altvorderen“ (qudamāʾ) im Sinne von Anfang bzw. erster Ursache verwendet worden. Die Bezeichnung Sohn für Jesus, den „Sprecher Gottes“ (ḫāṭib allāh), sei als Lobpreisung zu verstehen. Der Irrtum der Christen bestehe darin, die im übertragenen Sinne zu verstehenden Bezeichnungen Vater und Sohn, die im Juden- und Christentum häufig gebraucht würden, im wörtlichen Sinne verstanden zu haben.24 Der Begriff Paraklet gehört laut Verfasser zu den mutašābihāt (I-20, II-19). Die Christen seien aufgrund dieser Mehrdeutigkeit unsicher gewesen, wie dieser Begriff zu übersetzen sei und hätten zunächst auch in der arabischen Übersetzung den syrischen Begriff benutzt.25 Nach dem Tod der Apostel und aus mangelnder Rechtleitung hätte dann der Austausch (tabdīl) dieses Begriffes durch einen anderen erfolgt. Wie zahlreiche muslimische Polemiker vor ihm datiert er die Verfälschung des Christentums so auf die Zeit nach den Aposteln.26 Wann und unter welchen Umständen diese korrumpierte Version des Christentum entstand, wird dem Leser anschließend, je nach Handschrift in unterschiedlicher Ausführlichkeit, durch einen Bericht über das Konzil von Nicäa im Jahr 325, auf dem die Lehren Arius’ als häretisch verurteilt wurden, geschildert (I-21, II-20). Die Handschriften der RII beschreiben lediglich Folgendes: Die 318 Priester und Mönche, die Konstantin zum Konzil geladen hatte, waren es, die den „Unglauben der Trinität“ (kufr at-taṯlīṯ), hervorbrachten und sich zweihundert Jahre nach der Himmelfahrt Jesu darauf einigten, dass mit Paraklet der Heilige Geist gemeint sei. Arius findet in dieser Rezension keine Erwähnung. In RI wird außerdem beschrieben, wie Arius vor dem Konzil auftritt und seine theologische Position darlegt: Jesus sei wie alle anderen Propheten erschaffen (maḫlūq muḥdaṯ). Einzig die 24 Die Diskussion um die Bezeichnungen Vater und Sohn hat in der muslimischen Literatur eine längere Tradition. So argumentierten beispielsweise (Pseudo-)Ġazālī und ʿAbdalǧabbār (st. 415/1025) für eine allegorische Interpretation der Bezeichnungen Vater und Sohn. Vgl. Shlomo Pines, “‘Israel, my firstborn’ and the Sonship of Jesus. A theme of Moslem anti- Christian Polemics,” in Studies in mysticism and religion. Presented to G.G. Scholem, hg. E. E. Urbach et al., Jerusalem 1967, S. 187. 25 Im weiteren Verlauf liefert der Verfasser eine detaillierte Diskussion zur Etymologie des Begriffs Paraklet, siehe unten. 26 Zur Verfälschung des Christentums nach Jesus siehe: Accad, „The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse,“ S. 73f. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 96 Tatsache, dass er wie Adam von Gott ohne Vater geschaffen worden sei, unterscheide ihn von den übrigen Propheten. Nachdem Konstantin, der zunächst Zoroastrier (maǧūsī) war und dann zum Christentum konvertierte, dies hört, wendet er sich vom christlichen Glauben ab. In Handschrift Fatih 31 ist dieser Bericht legendenhaft ausgeschmückt: Das Konzil findet hier in der Hagia Sophia statt (die zur Zeit des Konzils noch gar nicht erbaut war); die Auseinandersetzung zwischen den Konzilsteilnehmern und Arius wird als lebendiger Dialog dargestellt; die Abkehr Kaiser Konstantins von seinem Irrglauben und seine Hinwendung zum wahren Glauben werden muslimisch gedeutet (āmana bi-llāh wa-rasūlihi).27 Nach diesem historischen Exkurs kehrt der Verfasser zur Analyse der Bibelzitate zurück. Einen Vers, der nicht auf Griechisch zitiert wird und im Evangelium unmittelbar auf den Paraklet-Vers folgen soll, übersetzt er folgendermaßen (I-22, II-21): „Wenn er [der Paraklet] zu euch kommt, ist der Heilige Geist, der von Gott ausgeht, bei ihm.“ Auf Grundlage dieses übersetzten Verses, der sich vermutlich an Joh 14,7 anlehnt, weist der Verfasser die christliche Interpretation des Paraklet als Heiligem Geist zurück. Augen und Herzen der Christen, so meint er, müssten verschlossen sein, um nicht zu erkennen, dass hiermit Muḥammad angekündigt sei. Anschließend folgt ein Zitat aus einer Botschaft, die der Apostel Johannes (Fatih 31 und alle Handschriften der RII) bzw. der Evangelist Johannes (Fatih 30) an das Königreich der Araber gesandt haben soll (I-22, II-21). Darin ruft dieser dazu auf, nicht jedem Propheten nach Jesus zu folgen, sondern zu prüfen, ob dieser tatsächlich von Gott gesandt ist. Ein Jesus zugeschriebenes Zitat ergänzt die Aussage: Der Prophet, der sich zur Einheit Gottes, zum Glauben an Jesus sowie dazu bekennt, dass „Jesus das Wort Gottes ist, das er der Maria entbot“ (Koran 4:171), ist ein echter Prophet. Derjenige, der dies alles leugnet, wird als Antichrist, ad- Daǧǧāl al-kaḏḏāb, bezeichnet, seine Botschaft stammt nicht von Gott, sondern ist eine Einflüsterung des Teufels. Das Zitat ist dem 1. Brief des Johannes entnommen (1 Joh 4,1-3). Mit der „Botschaft an die Araber“ scheint also dieser Brief gemeint zu sein, der sich in der biblischen Version an die ganze Christenheit richtet. Die Heranziehung dieses Briefes zur genaueren Erklärung des Johannesevangeliums setzt voraus, dass der Autor mit der Bibel vertraut war und wusste, dass für Johannesevangelium und Johannesbriefe der Apostel Johannes als Verfasser angenommen wurde. Der Text der RII ist in der Anordnung der Verse dem biblischen Brief des Johannes am nächsten; das Zitat ist allerdings in beiden Rezensionen nur noch in seiner Grundstruktur erkennbar, denn auch hier ist eine „Islamisierung“ des Textes vorgenommen worden: Während im Brief des Johannes von „Geistern“ die Rede ist, die darauf geprüft werden sollen, „ob sie aus Gott sind“, sollen im vorliegen- 27 Eine ähnliche Verwendung Arius’ als Vertreter eines unverfälschten Christentums, dem auch muslimische Positionen in den Mund gelegt werden, findet sich in Ibn Kaṯīrs Qiṣaṣ alanbiyāʾ (Kairo 1968, Bd. 2, S. 471f). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 97 den Text diejenigen geprüft werden, die eine Offenbarung bringen und Wunder wirken. Insbesondere tilgt der Verfasser die eindeutig christliche Komponente des Verses – dass jeder Geist nach Jesus anerkennen müsse, dass „Jesus im Fleisch gekommen“ sei (1 Joh 4,1) – und ersetzt diese durch spezifisch muslimische Bedingungen, die für die Anerkennung eines Propheten erfüllt sein müssen. So muss ein wahrer Prophet neben der Verkündung einer Offenbarung und dem Vollbringen von Wundern bekennen, dass Jesus Geist (rūḥ min Allāh) und Wort Gottes ist, das er Maria entboten hat (kalimatuhū alqāhā ilā Maryam). Letztere Formulierung ist Koran 4:171 entnommen. Außerdem ist ein tatsächlicher Prophet daran zu erkennen, dass er anerkennt, von Gott gesandt zu sein, um dessen Einheit (waḥdānīya) zu verkünden, den Namen Gottes zu offenbaren und die Menschen diese Offenbarung zu lehren. In einem nächsten Schritt versucht der Autor die Bedeutung des Begriffs Paraklet zu eruieren (I-24, II-23). In RI zitiert er zunächst Taftāzānī, der Paraklet als Entdecker der verborgenen Dinge (kāšif al-ḫafīyāt) übersetzt. Der Verfasser der risāla bietet dann (in RII ohne den Hinweis auf Taftazānīs Übersetzung) einige Erklärungsversuche, die die Bedeutung über die Etymologie des Wortes zu klären versuchen: Wenn von bāraqalūs ( ك ,و ) oder bārāqalūs ( ق, ف ) abgeleitet, bedeute Paraklet der Gute, der mit vielen zufriedenstellenden Eigenschaften Ausgestattete. Wenn barqaloṭos ( م, ك, و ) bzw. bārāqalaṭis ( ق, ف ) zugrundeliegen, so stehe Paraklet für den Dankenden (al-ḥāmid). Die dritte von ihm angebotene Erklärung stützt sich auf bārāqalaṭos ( ك, ق, ف ), bārāqalaṭūs bzw. bārqlto ( م, و ), was der Ersehnte oder Erwartete (maʾmūl/marǧū) bedeute. Des Weiteren werde Paraklet im Syrischen als Fürsprecher bei Gott verstanden. Die letzte Erklärung geht wieder von einer griechischen Wurzel des Wortes aus, und zwar von bāraqlitiqūs ( ك, ف ), bārqleqtos (و) oder bārāqalatiqūs (ق), womit derjenige bezeichnet wird, der Gott intensiv oder übertrieben dient.28 Um seinen arabischen Lesern verständlich zu machen, dass die Wortbildungsmechanismen im Syrischen, Griechischen und Hebräischen anders als im Arabischen nicht nach dem Wurzelprinzip erfolgen, sondern auch Buchstaben hinzuge- 28 Die von der Bibelwissenschaft angebotenen Erklärungen für Paraklet, griechisch παράκλη- τος, stimmen, mit Ausnahme der Bedeutung „Fürsprecher bei Gott“, nicht mit denen des Autors überein. Bei Danker und Bromiley wird Paraklet übersetzt als „jemand, der zu jemandes Hilfe gerufen wird“ und von παρακλος abgeleitet, das vielleicht das vom Autor genannte bāraqalos sein könnte, das weder in der Form βαρακαλος noch als παρα- καλος bezeugt ist. Im Lateinischen wurde der Begriff meist mit advocatus wiedergegeben, oft wird er aber auch aktivisch verstanden, als Tröster, Beistand etc. Vgl. G.W. Bromiley (Hg.), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1-4, Grand Rapids 1990, Bd. 3, “Paraclete”; Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature, 3. Aufl. 2000, “παρακλητος”. – Neben diesem lässt sich noch ein zweites vom Autor aufgeführtes Wort einem griechischen zuordnen: Mit bāraqleteqos könnte das griechische παρακλητικός gemeint sein, das die Bedeutung auffordernd oder ermunternd hat, damit allerdings der vom Autor genannten Bedeutung „jemand, der Gott übertrieben dient“ nicht entspricht. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 98 fügt oder weggelassen werden können, betrachtet er als Beispiel das Wort Jesus (iʾīsūs, ك/iʾisūs, ق, ف ). Abgeleitet sei dies von iyāsās, was im Syrischen so viel bedeute wie die geschenkte Freude oder auch der Beschenkte. Falls das Wort auf einen hebräischen Ursprung zurückgehe, bedeute es „der in alle Zeiten Dauernde“ ( ق, ف ) oder der Gesegnete, der Glückliche ( 29.( م,ك, و Nach diesen etymologischen Erklärungsversuchen nimmt der Text das Übersetzen der eingangs zitierten griechischen Bibelzitate mit einem an Joh 14,17 angelehnten Vers wieder auf (I-25, II-24). Jesus kündigt hier wie schon einige Abschnitte zuvor einen Gesandten an, der zusammen mit dem Geist der Wahrheit kommt und den die Leute der Welt nicht erkennen können, weil sie ihn nicht sehen. Es folgen die Verse Joh 14,23-26, in denen Jesus verkündet, dass diejenigen, die ihn lieben, sein Wort halten werden, diejenigen aber, die ihn nicht lieben, es nicht halten werden. Diese Passage wird in allen Rezensionen zwar nicht nah am Originalwortlaut, aber doch sinngemäß richtig wiedergegeben. Auf Joh 14,26 werde durch Koran 9:33 verwiesen: „[Er (d.h. Gott) ist es, der seinen Gesandten mit der Rechtleitung und der wahren Religion geschickt hat,] um ihr [d.h. der wahren Religion (des Islam)] zum Sieg zu verhelfen über alles, was es [sonst] an Religion gibt.“ In RII wird noch Folgendes hinzugefügt: Wer die Befehle und Verbote, mit denen Jesus von Gott kam, nicht im Gedächtnis behält, ist ein Vertrauter des Teufels und muss schließlich den ewigen Tod sterben. Diese Drohung ist verbunden mit dem Aufruf, auf dem richtigen Weg zu bleiben. Jesu Aussage „er wird ihn in meinem Namen senden“ aus Joh 14,26 beschäftigt den Autor im nächsten Abschnitt intensiver (I-26, II-25). Die Interpretationen, die Taftāzānī (nur in RI erwähnt) und Suhrawardī für diese Formulierung anbieten, weist er zurück. Zu Suhrawardīs Interpretation merkt er folgendes an: masīḥ sei kein arabischer Ausdruck und könne deshalb auch nicht mit dem Hinweis auf die arabische Bedeutung des Wortes masḥ als „mit Licht gesalbt“ erklärt werden. Der Ausdruck komme nach Meinung der Exegeten aus dem Hebräischen und bedeute „der Gesegnete“ (al-mubārak). Vielmehr müsse bei der Interpretation von yursiluhū abī bi-smī vom syrischen und biblischen Namen Jesu ausgegangen werden, also von Christos, was al-ḥāmid, der Dankende oder Preisende, oder al-maḥmūd, der Gelobte, der Gepriesene, bedeutet, da Christos dem griechischen Wort für danken, ευχαριστώ, entnommen sei, für dessen Verwendung er einige Beispiele anführt. Yursiluhū abī bi-smī ist somit im wörtlichen Sinne zu verstehen: Jesus kündigt damit, wie in Koran 61:6, einen Propheten mit seinem Namen an, was im Arabischen einen Namen der Wurzel ḥ-m-d bedeutet. Eindeutig lässt sich für den Autor so der Beweis führen, dass Muḥammad schon im Evangelium angekündigt 29 Weder die eine noch die andere Erklärung deckt sich mit den von Martin Karrer (Jesus Christus im Neuen Testament, Göttingen 1998, S. 46f.) angegebenen Bedeutungen, nach denen der Name Jesus meist als „Gott ist die Rettung“ oder „der Herr hilft“ gedeutet wird. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 99 ist. Mit dem koranischen Elativ Aḥmad werde darüber hinaus ausgesagt, dass Muḥammad der beste, edelste aller Propheten ist.30 Stimmten die beiden Rezensionen bislang noch weitgehend überein, so zeigen sich im Folgenden zunehmend Unterschiede im Inhalt und in der Reihenfolge der Argumente. In RI werden Joh 14,27 und Joh 14,29 auf Griechisch und in arabischer Übertragung zitiert (I-27), die beide in der zu Beginn des Textes angeführten Aufzählung von Zitaten nicht vorhanden sind. In RII finden sich diese Verse nicht. In Fatih 30 erweitert der Autor in seiner Übersetzung von Joh 14,27 den Frieden Jesu um den Frieden Gottes. In Fatih 31 heißt es etwas ausführlicher: „Meinen Frieden hinterlasse ich euch, denn wenn er zu euch kommt, gelangen sie (?) zum Frieden. Und besonders den Frieden Gottes gebe ich euch, ich gebe euch nicht einen Frieden, wie die Welt ihn euch gibt und gewährt.“ Beide Veränderungen sind vermutlich inhaltlich motiviert: Mit der zusätzlichen Erwähnung des Friedens Gottes wird die herausgehobene Stellung Jesu in diesem Vers korrigiert. Durch die Hinzufügung „und wenn er zu euch kommt“ bezieht sich der Vers auf das Kommen Muḥammads. Diese Veränderung nimmt der Autor auch bei der Übersetzung von Joh 14,29 vor. Anstatt „Jetzt schon habe ich es euch gesagt, bevor es geschieht, damit ihr, wenn es geschieht, zum Glauben kommt“ heißt es hier: „Jetzt schon habe ich es euch gesagt, bevor es geschieht, damit ihr, wenn er kommt, an ihn glaubt“. Aus einem Hinweis auf ein unbestimmtes, in der Zukunft liegendes Ereignis wird so ein eindeutiger Hinweis auf das Kommen einer Person, die in den vorangegangenen Versen bereits als der Prophet Muḥammad identifiziert wurde. Joh 14,30 findet sich wieder in beiden Rezensionen (I-28, II-26). In RI erscheint aber der erste Teil des übersetzten Verses, fa-lastu ukallimukum (kalāman) kaṯīran, bevor er auf Griechisch zitiert wird. So entsteht der Eindruck, dass dies noch zu Joh 14,29 gehört. In RII wird der Vers, in dem Jesus den Jüngern ankündigt, dass er nicht mehr viel zu ihnen sagen werde, da der Herrscher der Welt komme, wie folgt wiedergegeben: „Es ist mir nicht möglich viel zu euch zu sagen, aber es kommt in dieser Welt ein Herrscher (raǧul ḥākim ḏū ad-dawla wa ḏū aš-šaʾn), der mich in keiner Angelegenheit braucht.“ Der biblischen Version des Verses am nächsten ist die Übersetzung aus Fatih 30, wo „Herrscher der Welt“ mit dem griechischen Ausdruck arḫūn (ἄρχων) wiedergegeben wird. In Fatih 31 wird dieser raǧul arḫūn, wie er dort heißt, zusätzlich als reicher Wohltäter und oberster Herrscher beschrieben. Der Autor interpretiert diesen Vers, der im christlichen Verständnis den Teufel als Herrscher der Welt ankündigt,31 als Ankündigung Muḥammads und führt dies 30 Ähnlich argumentiert bereits ʿAlī Ibn Rabban al-Ṭabarī (st. ca. 251/865) im Kitāb ad-Dīn wa-d-dawla; vgl. The book of religion and empire. A semi-official defence and exposition of Islam written by order at the court and with the assistance of the Caliph Mutawakkil (A.D. 847-861) by ʿAlī Ṭabarī. Translated with a critical apparatus from an apparently unique MS. in the John Rylands Library by A. Mingana. Manchester / New York 1922, S. 108 und passim. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 100 in RI näher aus. Die Christen, so schreibt er, hätten den zu den mutašābihāt gehörenden Ausdruck arḫūn al-ʿālam nicht verstanden und ihn deshalb auch nicht übersetzt. Er selbst gibt den Ausdruck in einer weiteren Übersetzung von Vers 14,30 als Urheber der Welt (mubdiʾ al-ʿālam, Fatih 30) oder erste Ursache (as-sabab al-awwal, Fatih 31) wieder: Mit diesem arḫūn sei eindeutig Muḥammad gemeint. Der veränderte Schluss des Verses „und er braucht mich in keiner Angelegenheit“ weist für den Verfasser auf die Vollkommenheit des Gesetzes hin, das Muḥammad bringen wird (šarīʿat Muḥammad). Dieses Gesetz baut, im Gegensatz zu dem Gesetz, das Jesus brachte, nicht auf ein vorhergehendes Gesetz auf, sondern ist in sich abgeschlossen. Im folgenden Absatz wird die Reihe der noch verbliebenen Zitate fortgeführt (I-29, II-26). Dies sind Joh 15,25f. sowie Joh 16,4, die auf Griechisch zitiert werden. Übersetzt werden allerdings einige Verse mehr, so auch Joh 16,1, 16,5 und 16,7, in RII zusätzlich Joh 16,6. Die Übersetzungen der Verse aus Kap. 15 geben den Inhalt der biblischen Verse korrekt wieder: Der kommende Paraklet werde wie seine Jünger für Jesus Zeugnis ablegen. Bei den Zitaten aus Kap. 16 ist eine deutliche Dekontextualisierung festzustellen. In der Bibel gibt Jesus seinen Jüngern mit diesen Versen Worte auf den Weg, um sie für eine zukünftige Verfolgung zu wappnen. Der Verfasser hingegen bezieht diese Verse, v. a. Joh 16,4, auf die Stunde, in der Muḥammad zu ihnen kommt. Die Passage Joh 16,5-7, in der Jesus seinen Jüngern erklärt, dass er nach seinem Weggang den Paraklet zu ihnen schicken werde, kann nach Darwīš ʿAlīs Meinung nicht so verstanden werden, dass die Entsendung des Paraklets durch Jesus bewirkt wird (I-30). Diese Entsendung sei selbstverständlich die Tat Gottes; die Worte Jesu seien lediglich eine Metapher, die auf die Verkündigung, nicht die Entsendung des Paraklet durch Jesus verweise. Diese Verkündigung sei notwendige Voraussetzung (lāzim) für die Entsendung Muḥammads; darauf wolle Jesus mit seinem obigen Ausspruch hinweisen. In RII findet sich diese Erklärung einige Abschnitte später (II-30), außerdem werden dort in Abschnitt II-29 weitere mögliche Interpretationen dieses Verses vorgestellt (s. u.). Entsprechend den Versen Joh 16,8-12 wird dann berichtet, wie der Herrscher der Welt, Muḥammad, die Welt für ihre Sünden tadeln wird (I-31, II-27). Im Unterschied zum biblischen Vers wird dieser Herrscher der Welt, d. h. Muḥammad, nicht gerichtet, sondern er lädt die Welt zu seiner Religion ein. Nach korrekter Übersetzung von Joh 16,12 greift der Autor bei Joh 16,13 deutlich in den Wortlaut des Verses ein (I-32, II-28). Kündigt Jesus in der Bibel den Geist der Wahrheit an, der die Jünger in die Wahrheit führen wird und dessen Worte von Gott kommen, so ist es in der arabischen Übersetzung in RI der warnende Prophet (an-nabī an-naḏīr, Fatih 31), oder nur der Warner (an-naḏīr, Fatih 30), in RII der Paraklet, den Jesus ankündigt und der den Geist der Wahrheit bei 31 Siehe Danker, A Greek English Lexicon: “ἄρχων”. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 101 sich hat. Nachdem der Verfasser zuvor deutlich gemacht hatte, dass Geist der Wahrheit und Paraklet nicht miteinander identisch sind, ist diese Änderung des Verses nur folgerichtig. In Fatih 30 wird diesem Vers hinzugefügt, dass dieser Prophet auch Ereignisse ankündigen werde, die nach ihm geschehen, und es folgt eine Aufzählung apokalyptischer Ereignisse. Mit Joh 16,14 schließt der Verfasser den Teil der risāla, der sich mit den eingangs zitierten Versen aus dem Johannesevangelium beschäftigt, ab. Jesus verkündet seiner Übersetzung nach in diesem Vers, dass ihn der (kommende) Prophet verherrlichen wird, indem er von Jesu Botschaft, Prophetentum und Gesetz nimmt und verkündet, was Gott gehört. Durch seine Veränderung des Verses macht der Autor es unmöglich, dies als Hinweis auf die göttliche Natur Jesu zu interpretieren. Nur die muslimische Sicht auf Jesus, als Prophet Gottes und Überbringer des göttlichen Gesetzes, erscheint gerechtfertigt. Erklärungen für die Verknüpfung zwischen dem Weggang Jesu und der Entsendung Muḥammads, die in RI unmittelbar auf die Übersetzung von Joh 16,7 folgen (I-30), erscheinen in RII an dieser Stelle und in ausführlicherer Form (II-29). So habe Jesus auf diese Weise vermutlich seine Hinwendung zu Gott demonstrieren wollen. Denkbar sei des Weiteren, dass nicht Jesus selbst hier spreche, sondern er nur das Wort Gottes wiedergebe. Drittens und letztens könne Jesus diese Formulierung auch deshalb gewählt haben, weil er fürchtete, dass man ihm nicht glauben werde, wenn er einen Propheten nach ihm ankündige. Indem er dessen Kommen mit seiner Person verknüpfe, hoffe er, seiner Ankündigung mehr Glaubwürdigkeit zu verleihen. Mit Entsendung meine er aber tatsächlich nur die Ankündigung dieses Propheten, der ganz besonders die Christen lieben werde, wenn sie sich zum Islam bekehrten. Diese Aussage Jesu werde durch Koran 5:82 bestätigt. Das Vorhaben, die Ankündigung Muḥammads im Johannesevangelium nachzuweisen, das der Autor zu Anfang seines Textes formulierte, ist mit dem Zitat Joh 16,14 abgeschlossen. RI und RII stimmen in den nächsten Abschnitten noch überein, um dann schließlich in einen unterschiedlichen zweiten Teil überzugehen. Zunächst wird in allen Rezensionen die Erzählung vom Jüngsten Gericht, wie sie in Matthäus Kap. 25 bezeugt ist, wiedergegeben (I-33f., II-31ff.). Diese Passagen markieren einen Bruch im ersten Teil der risāla: Das zentrale Thema ist nun nicht mehr die Ankündigung Muḥammads im Evangelium, sondern die Möglichkeit der Annäherung an Gott. Die Kritik des Autors an der Bibelstelle Mt 25,31-44, die er als mutašābih bezeichnet, scheint folgende zu sein (I-34f., II-33f.): Eine Annäherung an Gott finde nicht, wie in diesen Versen dargestellt, durch Verrichtung nicht zwingend vorgeschriebener Dinge (nawāfil) statt, sondern allein durch die Verrichtung religiöser Pflichten. Zu den mutašābihāt zählt er auch die Aussagen in ḥadīṯ, Thora und Evangelium, wonach Gott Adam nach seinem Bild schuf. Die Unwissenden glaubten nun, dass nur das sinnlich wahrnehmbare Bild tatsächlich existiere und hingen einem anthropomorphistischen Bild von Gott an. Nähe zu Gott könne aber niemals räumliche Nähe sein, sondern bestehe darin, die lobenswerten © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 102 Attribute zu erwerben, die zu den göttlichen Attributen gehören, wie etwa Wissen und Güte, und der Schöpfung mittels dieser Attribute Gutes hinzuzufügen, die Menschen rechtzuleiten und sie von Verwerflichem fernzuhalten. Die Vorstellung, dass tatsächliche Nähe zu Gott durch den Erwerb seiner Attribute erfolgt, ist der Mystik entlehnt, wonach die Stufe des Entwerdens, fanāʾ, die höchste Stufe des mystischen Pfades, durch Auslöschung der unvollkommenen menschlichen Attribute gekennzeichnet ist, an deren Stelle die göttlichen Attribute treten.32 RII ordnet die vorhergehenden Passagen in anderer Reihenfolge an, und das ḥadīṯ zur Schaffung Adams wird hier als Anknüpfungspunkt für die nachfolgenden Teile der risāla benutzt: Alle weiteren Zitate aus dem Evangelium seien wie dieses ḥadīṯ anthropomorphistisch, und stellten den Grund dafür dar, dass die Juden versucht hätten, Jesus zu steinigen, worauf der Autor im zweiten Teil näher eingeht. Einige derer, die anthropomorphistische Vorstellungen von Gott hegen, hätten die angemessene Grenze vollends überschritten (I-35, II-34). Sie behaupteten, dass sich ihre menschliche mit der göttlichen Natur vereine (ḏahabū ilā l-ittiḥād) und dass Gott in ihnen inkarniert sei (ḥulūl). Einige sagten sogar, dass sie selbst die Wahrheit seien, und zwar auch wenn sie nicht im Zustand der Versenkung und Auslöschung (ihres Selbst-Bewusstseins) (istiġrāq wa-maḥw) seien. Zwar nennt der Autor nicht den Namen derer, die diese Positionen vertreten, für die beschriebenen Ansichten und den Ausspruch „anā l-ḥaqq“ ist aber der 309/922 hingerichtete Mystiker Ḥusain b. Manṣūr Ḥallāǧ bekannt.33 Die Christen, so meint der Autor, hingen in Bezug auf Jesus der gleichen Vorstellung an (I-36, II-35). Sie hielten ihn für Gott und behaupteten, dass Gott sich mit ihm vereint habe (ittaḥada bihi). Er selbst, so schreibt er in Form eines Bekenntnisses, sei einer der wenigen, dem die Unmöglichkeit der Einheit und der Inkarnation (istiḥālat al-ittiḥād wa-l-ḥulūl) sowie das Licht Gottes offenbar wurde. Ohne Ḥallāǧ hier zu beschuldigen, spricht sich der Autor somit entschieden gegen die Möglichkeit göttlicher Inkarnation im Menschen oder einer Vermischung von göttlicher und menschlicher Natur aus. Die vom Autor hergestellte Verbindung zwischen der mystischen Lehre der Inkarnation und der christlichen Christologie findet sich, ebenso wie die Kritik an beidem, bereits bei dem Mystiker Abū Naṣr as-Sarrāǧ (st. 378/988) in seinem K. al-Lumaʿ fī t-taṣauwuf.34 Der Autor befindet sich mit seiner Position zur Inkarnation und seiner Kritik am Christentum in der Tradition der Mystik, die nach Ḥallāǧ bestrebt war, das Wie des fanāʾ, des Entwerdens, genau zu definieren. Danach handelt es sich bei dieser höchsten Stufe des mystischen Pfades nicht um die Vermischung von göttlicher 32 Vgl. F. Rahman, “Baḳāʾ wa-fanāʾ,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, Bd. 1, S. 951. 33 Vgl. Annemarie Schimmel, Sufismus. Eine Einführung in die islamische Mystik. München 2000, S. 32ff. 34 Vgl. Reynold A. Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam, London 1914, S. 157; Julian Baldick, Mystical Islam. An introduction to Sufism, London 1989, S. 55. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 103 und menschlicher Substanz, sondern vielmehr erfolgt in diesem Zustand der vollständige Austausch menschlicher durch göttliche Attribute. Der Sufi ist somit nicht Gott, sein Selbst-Bewusstsein aber wird ausgelöscht, sein Bewusstsein ist entsprechend von Gott erfüllt.35 Zweiter Teil [RI]: Der mystische Pfad zu Gott In RI wird im zweiten Teil nicht das polemische, sondern das mystische Thema vertieft, wobei sich der Autor nach eigener Aussage an den Termini der Sufimeister orientiert (I-36). Zunächst werden noch einmal zwei Begebenheiten aus den Evangelien wiedergegeben, die sich erneut mit der Möglichkeit einer Annäherung an Gott beschäftigen. So wird das Treffen des Pharisäers Nikodemus mit Jesus geschildert, von dem die Bibel in Joh 3,1-10 berichtet (I-38). Die für das griechische Zitat angebotene Übersetzung stimmt zwar nicht mit der biblischen Reihenfolge der Verse überein, gibt aber den gleichen Inhalt wieder: Der Pharisäer Nikodemus kommt zu Jesus, um ihn nach seiner Aussage zu fragen, dass nur der ins Himmelreich komme, der zweimal geboren werde. Jesus bestätigt seine frühere Aussage und spricht von der Geburt aus dem Geist (rūḥ) im Unterschied zur Geburt aus dem Fleisch. Die zweite Aussage Jesu, die der Autor dem Leser an dieser Stelle präsentiert, ist Mt 18,1-6 (I-39): Jesus wird von seinen Jüngern gefragt, wer der Größte im Reich Gottes sei, worauf Jesus auf die Kinder verweist. Nur wer sich auf deren Stufe begebe, könne diesen Platz für sich in Anspruch nehmen. Kommentiert werden diese Verse vom Autor nicht, im Kontext der nachfolgenden Beschreibungen (I-41) von Mystikern wird aber deutlich, dass der Autor Jesus durch diese Verse als Mystiker ausweisen will. Mit der zweiten Geburt, so schreibt er, sei das Austreten des Geistes aus dem Körper gemeint, und zwar vor dem Tod. Mit der Passage aus Matthäus soll dann wohl auf die Bereitschaft zur Askese und zur Entwerdung hingewiesen werden. Als Beispiel für einen mystischen Gottsucher wird die Figur des Balʿam Ibn Baʿūrā vorgestellt (I-40). Der Autor zitiert hierzu Koran 7:175 und 7:176, in denen Balʿam zwar nicht genannt wird, die von den meisten Korankommentatoren aber auf ihn bezogen werden.36 Er kommentiert diese beiden Verse so: Balʿam seien von Gott Wunder (karāmāt) gewährt worden, so z. B. die schnelle Antwort auf Bittgebete (daʿawāt) oder das Reden mit Engeln. Balʿam aber habe sich von diesen Wundern zurückgezogen und sich vom Teufel verführen lassen. Balʿam entspricht 35 Vgl. Rahman, “Baḳāʾ wa-fanāʾ;” G. Böwering, “Baqāʾ wa fanāʾ,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Bd. 3, S. 722-724. 36 Vgl. Heinrich Schützinger, „Die arabische Bileam-Erzählung. Ihre Quellen und ihre Entwicklung,“ in Der Islam 59 (1982), S. 202ff.; The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam, hg. George H. van Kooten, Jacques van Ruiten, Leiden 2008; G. Vajda,“Balʿam b. Baʿūr(ā),” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, Bd. 1, S. 984; Gerhard Böwering, The mystical vision of existence in classical Islam, Berlin 1980, S. 190. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 104 der biblischen Figur Bileam, die in der islamischen Mystik als Beispiel für einen vom rechten Weg abgekommenen Gottsucher gilt, so etwa bei Sahl at-Tustarī (st. 283/896).37 Nach einer kurzen Kommentierung der Balʿam betreffenden Verse kommt der Autor auf die von Jesus propagierte zweite Geburt zu sprechen (I-41). Das mystische Erlebnis, das Jesus seiner Meinung nach in Worte gefasst hat, soll auch Muḥammad mit dem Ausspruch „sterbt, bevor ihr sterbt“ gemeint haben. Dieser Rückzug des Geistes (rūḥ) aus dem Körper, der hiermit gemeint sei, werde von den Sufischeichs als insilāḫ bezeichnet. Grundsätzlich gebe es zwei Arten von insilāḫ: vom Guten zum Bösen und vom Bösen zum Guten. Als Beispiel für Letzteres wird der Mystiker Abū Yazīd Bisṭāmī (st. 261/874 o. 264/877-8) angeführt und mit folgendem Ausspruch zitiert: „Ich zog mich aus meiner Haut zurück, wie eine Schlange sich aus ihrer Haut zurückzieht, und dann war ich Er.“ Im Folgenden werden die sieben Stationen (maqāmāt) aufgezählt, wie sich dieser Rückzug bis zum durch Bisṭāmī beschriebenen Zustand des Entwerdens vollzieht (I-41): Die erste Station besteht im Austausch der schlechten durch gute Attribute. An der zweiten Station zieht sich die Seele (nafs) aus dem Körper zurück, an der dritten Station das Herz (qalb) aus der Seele. Anschließend folgt als vierte Station der Rückzug des Inneren des Herzens (sirr) aus dem Herzen, als fünfte Station der Rückzug des Verborgenen (ḫafī) aus dem Inneren des Herzens und als sechste Station der Rückzug des Verborgenen von seinen Attributen (ṣifāt). Bei der siebten und letzten Station, der vollständigen Entwerdung (fanāʾ al-kull), zieht sich schließlich das Verborgenste (aḫfā) aus dem Verborgenen zurück. Der Autor merkt zur ersten der sieben insilāḫāt an, dass sich diese nicht nur ein Mal, sondern viele Male vollziehe. Er kritisiert, dass von einigen bereits die Station des Rückzugs des Verborgenen aus dem Inneren des Herzens als fanāʾ oder maqām al-tawḥīd bzw. maqām al-ǧamʿīya bezeichnet wird. Dies ist in den Augen des Autors deshalb falsch, weil noch etwas Nicht-Göttliches, nämlich das Verborgenste, im Bewusstsein des Sufi existiert. Deshalb sei Bisṭāmī auch nicht dazu berechtigt gewesen zu behaupten, er sei Gott. Denn wenn noch etwas Nicht-Göttliches in seiner Person ist, das ihn dazu befähige, „Ich“ zu sagen, so sei er nicht im Zustand des fanāʾ kāmil. Anschließend wird die gegenläufige Entwicklung vom Guten zum Bösen thematisiert (I-42), die beschrieben wird als die Umkehrung der oben genannten Stationen. Derjenige, der diese Stationen hinaufgestiegen sei, steige sie auch wieder hinab, bis er erneut bei der Station des Glaubens (maqām al-īmān) angelangt sei. Einige allerdings steigen noch weiter hinab. Als Beispiele hierfür nennt der Autor den Teufel und Balʿam und fährt fort, die Balʿam zugeordneten Verse zu kommentieren (I-43ff.). Balʿam wird hier als jemand beschrieben, der, nachdem ihm bereits etwas aus der ʿālam al-malakūt, der Welt der unveränderlichen spirituellen 37 Vgl. Schützinger, „Die arabische Bileam-Erzählung,“ S. 195ff., 205ff. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 105 Wahrheiten, enthüllt worden ist, wieder auf der Stufe des Erwerbs guter oder schlechter Taten (kasb) und des Weges (ṭarīqa) angelangt ist. Er steht damit erneut am Anfang des mystischen Pfades, an dessen Ende Gottesschau (mukāšafa) und das Vollbringen von Wundern (karāmāt) stehen, da er sich durch seine vorwiegend schlechten Handlungen (kasbihi wa-sūʾ iḫtiyārihi) selbst auf diesen „Weg nach unten“ begeben hat. Die ʿālam al-ǧabarūt, die Welt der göttlichen Allmacht, habe Balʿam hingegen nie erreicht, im Unterschied zum Autor, der in der Einleitung angibt, diese Welt gesehen zu haben. Der Autor berichtet weitere Details aus der Geschichte Balʿams. Wie in der Bibel, Ṯaʿlabīs (st. 427/1035) K. ʿArāʾis al-maǧālis und Ibn Waṯīmas (st. 289/902) K. Badʾ al-ḫalq wa-qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ wird der Name des Königs genannt, der Balʿam beauftragt: Bālāq ben Ṣippōr. Im Unterschied zum biblischen Bericht und in Übereinstimmung mit den muslimischen Quellen38 schenkt Bālāq Balʿam Geld, um ihn zur Annahme seines Auftrags zu bewegen. Auch ist es im Unterschied zur Bibel nicht Gott selbst, der Balʿam anweist, die Israeliten nicht zu verfluchen, sondern ein Engel. Hier scheinen zwei biblische Erzählelemente, das nächtliche Gespräch Balʿams mit Gott und die spätere Vision eines Engels, der ihn auf seinem Weg aufhalten will, miteinander vermengt worden zu sein. Nachdem Bālāq sein Angebot noch einmal erhöht hat, akzeptiert Balʿam schließlich, befiehlt Bālāq, Tiere zu opfern und Almosen zu zahlen. Im Unterschied zur Bibel und zu den meisten früheren muslimischen Quellen kommt es auch nicht zu einer Umwandlung der Flüche in Segenssprüche, vielmehr bleiben Balʿams Flüche wirkungslos. Erst als die Israeliten mit den Midianiterinnen Unzucht treiben, haben die Flüche Erfolg und die Israeliten verlieren ihre Stärke. Schließlich aber wird Balʿam von Gott verflucht und verstoßen. Für den Autor zeigen diese Verse zwei Dinge: Erstens müsse ein Heiliger (wālī) nicht sein ganzes diesseitiges Leben (fī dār at-taklīf) ein gläubiger Mensch sein. Zweitens könnten Wunder von Heiligen wie von Propheten gewirkt werden. In einem letzten Kommentar zu Koran 7:176 wird erklärt, dass Balʿam im Koran deshalb als Hund beschrieben wird, weil er resistent gegen Gottes Rat und Verbot ist – wie ein Hund, der egal ob gejagt oder in Ruhe gelassen, die Zunge heraushängen lässt. Koran 7:179, wonach viele Menschen und ǧinn nur für die Hölle geschaffen seien, da sie nichts mit ihren Herzen verstünden, wird durch ein Zitat aus dem K. Mirʾāt al-arwāḥ des Šams ad-Dīn ad-Dailamī (schrieb 899/1493) erklärt,39 der zunächst unterschiedliche Bedeutungen für den Begriff Herz aufzählt (I-46 bis I-48). Einmal bezeichne der Begriff das körperliche Organ Herz, dann auch das qalb annafs (Herz der Seele), das sich im körperlichen Herz befindet. Schließlich sei damit auch das edlere Herz (qalb alṭaf) gemeint, das wiederum seinen Sitz im qalb an-nafs hat. Dieses Herz, sirr, ist Sitz des Verstandes (ʿaql) und des Geistes (rūḥ). Diese 38 Vgl. Schützinger, „Die arabische Bileam-Erzählung,“ S. 220. 39 Zu diesem Werk, vgl. GAL, Bd. 1, S. 267. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 106 beiden letzteren werden als spirituelle Lichter bezeichnet. Als viertes und letztes bezeichnet qalb auch das Verborgene des Herzens, al-ḫafī oder sirr as-sirr, und dessen Herz und Auge. Seine vorherige Darstellung der mystischen maqāmāt korrespondiert mit dem hier beschriebenen Aufbau des Herzens. Die einzige Abweichung besteht darin, dass es in seiner obigen Darstellung noch einen weiteren Bestandteil des Herzens gibt, al-aḫfā, das Verborgenste. Aus dieser Erklärung ergibt sich für ihn folgende Deutung von Vers 7:179: qalb ist als Sitz von sirr und ʿaql zu verstehen, außerdem als qalb an-nafs, das durch das Licht von rūḥ und ʿaql versteht und denkt. Das in diesem Vers beschriebene Nicht- Verstehen liegt in einer Verhüllung des Herzens durch Härte und verschiedene Arten der Unmoral begründet. Da jede Sünde, wie der Autor anhand eines Prophetenḥadīṯs und Koran 83:14 darlegt, zu einer Schwärzung des Herzens führe, können ʿaql und rūḥ kein Licht ausstrahlen, da sie in einem schwarzen, verdunkelten Herzen liegen und ihr Licht die Seele (nafs) nicht erreicht. Diese Verhüllung verhindert das Verstehen von Visionen (šawāhid), von Beweisen (dalāʾil) und eindeutigen Zeichen (amārāt) der Wahrheit. Die in diesem Vers genannten Ohren und Augen, mit denen die Menschen nicht sehen und hören, sind damit im übertragenen Sinne als Augen und Ohren des Herzens zu verstehen, zu denen das Licht von rūḥ und ʿaql nicht gelangen kann. Mit den Ohren könnten sie sonst Zeichen (āyāt), aḥādīṯ und eindeutige Beweise (dalāʾil ) hören. Zweiter Teil [RII]: Der Unglaube der Juden und Christen RII setzt die Reihe der Verse aus den Evangelien fort, die unter die Bezeichnung mutašābih fallen. Zunächst werden Lk 11,15 und 11,20 zitiert, in denen die Juden Jesus beschuldigen, die Dämonen mit dem Teufel auszutreiben und so Kranke zu heilen (II-36). Jesus antwortet darauf in der Bibel mit einer längeren Verteidigungsrede, aus der der Autor folgenden Vers für seine Zwecke umgestaltet: „Wenn ich aber die Dämonen durch den Finger Gottes austreibe, dann ist doch das Reich Gottes schon zu euch gekommen.“ Den zweiten Teil dieses Zitats vom Reich Gottes nämlich unterschlägt er. Sein Augenmerk liegt allein auf dem Anthropomorphismus, dem „Finger Gottes“, was auch dadurch deutlich wird, dass er dieses Zitat einem ḥadīṯ gegenüberstellt, in dem Gott das Herz des Gläubigen zwischen zwei Fingern hält. Zwei Verse aus dem Evangelium zeigen für den Autor, dass Jesus selbst seine Jünger zum Glauben an den einen Gott aufruft und den Glauben an den Heiligen Geist als širk verurteilt: Joh 6,29 mache wie Koran 5:72 deutlich, dass jeder, der glaubt, dass Jesus der Sohn Gottes ist, ungläubig ist. Jesus fordert in diesem Koranvers dazu auf, Gott zu dienen, und kündigt jedem, der Gott andere Götter beigesellt, die Hölle als Bestrafung an. Der auf Griechisch zitierte Vers Joh 6,29 wird gefolgt von einer Übersetzung, die Joh 6,28-29 frei und mit kleinen Veränderungen wiedergibt: Ein Mann kommt zu Jesus und fragt ihn, wie er Gottes Werke voll- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 107 bringen könne, worauf Jesus ihm antwortet, dass er nur wissen müsse, dass Gott einer ist, und an alles glauben müsse, was Gott gesandt hat. Die Übereinstimmung des Koranverses mit dem Bibelvers, zumindest in Bezug auf die Aufforderung zum Glauben an den einen Gott, wird vom Autor erreicht, indem er das biblische „das ist das Werk Gottes, dass ihr an den glaubt, den er gesandt hat“ durch obigen Inhalt ersetzt. Den Glauben an den Heiligen Geist sieht der Autor in Markus 3,28f. verurteilt (II-37). Die biblische Aussage, dass dem, der den Heiligen Geist lästert, nicht vergeben werde, wird in der Übersetzung des Verfassers in ihr Gegenteil verkehrt: derjenige ist ungläubig, der an den Heiligen Geist glaubt, und diesem werde nicht vergeben. Bereits in der Bibel also werde, wie in Koran 4:48 und 4:116, davor gewarnt, Gott andere Götter beizugesellen. Trotz dieser Warnung seien im Evangelium keine Personen erwähnt, die Gott andere Götter beigesellen. Dies liege darin begründet, dass die Juden zur Zeit Jesu zumindest keinen offenen širk betrieben. Ihr Verleugnen der wahren Religion zeige sich aber in ihrem Verhalten gegenüber den Propheten, die sie bis zum Kommen Jesu töteten. Als Jesus mit klaren Erklärungen (bayānāt) und göttlichen Geheimnissen (muġībāt) zu ihnen kam, führten sie seine Abstammung auf illegitimen Geschlechtsverkehr zurück (nasabūhu ilā z-zināʾ), d. h. sie bezeichneten ihn als Sohn Josefs, Sohn des Eli, Sohn des Mattan (vgl. Lk 3,23f.), behaupteten, der prophezeite Messias werde nicht aus Nazareth kommen und beschuldigten ihn, seine Wunder mithilfe des Teufels zu vollbringen. Es seien ohnehin nur die Kranken, Unwissenden und Alten, die an Jesus glaubten. Wenn er tatsächlich ein Prophet wäre, so würden mehr jüdische Gelehrte an ihn glauben. Jesus wird dann noch einmal wie folgt zitiert: Mit dem Heiligen Geist sei das Licht des Prophetentums, die göttliche Offenbarung durch die Propheten und die Rechtleitung der Gläubigen gemeint. Wer dies nicht erkennt (und an den Heiligen Geist im christlichen Sinne glaubt), ist ungläubig. Christen wie Juden sind für den Autor damit mušrikūn, Erstere wegen ihres Glaubens an den Heiligen Geist, Letztere aufgrund ihrer Nichtanerkennung Jesu. Im nächsten Vers, durch die Übersetzung des Autors eindeutig als Joh 5,24 zu erkennen, wird denjenigen, die an Jesu Wort glauben, ein Übergang vom Tod zum ewigen Leben ohne Prüfung am Jüngsten Tag in Aussicht gestellt (II-38). Erneut versucht der Autor zu zeigen, dass sich Evangelium und Koran bzw. sunna in ihren Aussagen decken. Es schließt sich die Schilderung der versuchten Steinigung Jesu durch die Juden gemäß Joh 10,30ff. an (II-39f.). Der biblische Kontext steht einer Verwendung in einer anti-christlichen Polemik eigentlich entgegen, da Jesus hier seinen Status als Messias und Sohn Gottes verkündet und verteidigt. Der Verfasser löst deshalb einzelne Verse aus ihrem größeren Zusammenhang und verändert diejenigen, die seiner Intention entgegenstehen. „Ich und der Vater sind eins“ aus Joh 10,30 wird bspw. umgeformt zu „glaubt an mich und glaubt an meinen Vater, der mich zu euch gesandt hat“. Ganz im Gegensatz zur Bibel distanziert © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 108 sich Jesus hier von der Aussage, er sei der Sohn Gottes, indem er sagt: „Behüte Gott, dass ich etwas sage, das mir nicht zusteht“, um dann mit Joh 10,34 fortzufahren: Er, Jesus, habe vielmehr immer nur gesagt, dass sie an den einen wahren Gott (al-fard aṣ-ṣādiq) und an alles, was er gesandt habe, glauben sollten, und habe immer nur das Wort Gottes verkündet. All diese Aussagen, die der Autor als Zitate aus dem Johannesevangelium ausgibt, werden dann durch Koran 5:116 noch einmal bestätigt. Anschließend wird die Diskussion um die Begriffe Vater und Sohn wieder aufgenommen und an dieser Stelle, nachdem die Position der Juden gegenüber Jesus dargestellt wurde, eine weitere Erklärung für diese Bezeichnungen angeboten (II- 41): Gott habe Jesus deshalb als seinen Sohn bezeichnet, um ihn gegen die Angriffe der Juden bezüglich seiner unehelichen Geburt zu verteidigen. Schließlich versucht der Autor indirekt zu belegen, dass Jesus bereits in der Thora angekündigt ist. Er bedient sich hierzu zweier Textstellen: Joh 5,44-47 und Apg 3,22f (II-41f.). An erster Stelle stellt Jesus den Glauben der Juden an Moses in Frage, hätten sie diesen nämlich, so müssten sie auch an ihn, Jesus, glauben. Bei dem Originaltext der zweiten Textstelle aus der Thora handelt es sich um Dtn 18,15, einen Standardvers der muslimischen Polemik, der anders als hier meist dazu verwendet wird, die Ankündigung Muḥammads in der Thora nachzuweisen. Der Autor gibt diese Bibelstellen im Wesentlichen unverändert wieder, beschreibt allerdings genauer, wie Jesus durch Mose angekündigt wird: als Prophet, der nach seinem Aufenthalt bei den Jüngern in den Himmel erhoben wird. Jesus wird so analog zu Muḥammad beschrieben: Er ist bereits in der vorhergehenden Offenbarung als Prophet angekündigt; trotz dieser für den Autor eindeutigen Ankündigung leugnen die Anhänger der jeweiligen Offenbarung die Ankündigung des neuen Propheten in ihrer Schrift und weigern sich, diesen als Propheten anzuerkennen. Für die Christen, so meint er, sollte dieser Vers der endgültige Beweis sein, dass Jesus nur ein Prophet ist. Ihre Behauptung, dass Göttlichkeit in Jesus sei, führe in Kombination mit der Aussage des Evangeliums, dass Gott einer sei, unweigerlich zu dem Schluss, dass Jesus Gott selbst sei, wodurch der Autor die Unwissenheit der Christen klar erwiesen sieht. In Koran 5:75 sieht er die Aussage dieses Verses aus Deuteronomium bzw. der Apostelgeschichte bestätigt. An diesen Vers aus der Apostelgeschichte anschließend befasst sich der Autor mit den von Propheten vollbrachten Wundern (II-43). Durch diese zeichne Gott die Propheten aus, sie vollbrächten diese Wunder aber nicht selbst, vielmehr sei es Gott, der durch die Propheten handele. Als Beispiel nennt der Autor die Verwandlung von Moses Stab in eine Schlange sowie die Auferweckung der Toten durch Jesus, wobei Ersteres als das Wundersamere bezeichnet wird. Ebenso wird die Erschaffung Jesu mit der Adams verglichen. Der Vergleich zwischen beiden fällt zugunsten Letzterer aus, da Adam ohne Vater und Mutter geschaffen wurde. Für den Autor zeigen alle angeführten Zitate aus Thora und Evangelium, dass Jesus an der Göttlichkeit keinen Anteil hat. Um auf den rechten Weg zu gelangen, © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 109 müssten Juden und Christen also nur das begreifen und glauben, was in ihren eigenen Schriften steht. Weiterhin verwechselten sie eindeutige und mehrdeutige Aussagen in ihren Schriften (II-44). Aus diesem Grund würden sie Jesus einen Status zuerkennen, der ihm nicht entspricht. Die Juden erwarteten zwar einen Messias, behaupteten aber aus mangelnder Rechtleitung und hartnäckigem Starrsinn, dass dieser noch nicht gekommen sei. Dies sei auch der Grund, warum sie Muḥammad als Propheten ablehnten, obwohl sie ihn in Thora und Psalmen beschrieben fänden. Abschließend verweist der Autor noch auf einen in der muslimischen Polemik häufig verwendeten Vers (II-45): Dtn 33,2 wird paraphrasiert und klassisch als Ankündigung der drei Propheten Moses, Jesus und Muḥammad verstanden. Das unmittelbar darauf beschriebene Aufflammen des Gesetzesfeuers wird vom Autor dementsprechend als Hinweis auf den Koran gelesen, der den Gläubigen Licht, den Ungläubigen Höllenfeuer sei. Der Autor beschließt die risāla mit der Bemerkung, dass er sich vorläufig mit Zitaten aus dem Evangelium begnüge und Thora und Psalmen nicht berücksichtige, um den Text nicht zu verlängern (II-45). Sollte aber sein Text bei den Würdenträgern Gefallen finden, werde er auch die übrigen Zitate aus den drei Offenbarungen erwähnen. Editionsprinzipien Die beiden Rezensionen werden im Folgenden getrennt dargestellt. Für RI werden außerdem die beiden abweichenden Fassungen der Einleitung auf der Grundlage von Hss. Fatih 30 (I-1 bis I-10) und Fatih 31 (Ia-1 bis Ia-11) einzeln wiedergegeben. Der Text von RI basiert auf Hss. Fatih 30 und Fatih 31 und wurde außerdem mit den Handschriften der anderen Rezensionen verglichen. Durch Aufnahme von Varianten aus diesen Handschriften war es möglich, einige Verlesungen zu korrigieren. Der Text von RII beruht weitgehend auf Hs. Wetzstein II 1753, da sie die älteste Abschrift dieser Rezension darstellt und oft die beste Lesart bietet. Die jüngste Handschrift Cod. arab. 886 bietet meist die gleiche Variante wie Wetzstein, in vielen Fällen aber auch Verlesungen. Sie findet im Text deshalb eher selten Berücksichtigung. Den Lesarten der Hs. Köprülü 2ks 105 dagegen, die oft andere Varianten bezeugt als Wetzstein und Cod. arab. 886, wurde an einigen Stellen der Vorzug gegenüber Hs. Wetzstein II 1753 gegeben. Die Transliteration der griechischen Bibelzitate folgt in keiner der Handschriften einem einheitlichen System. So wird ein griechischer Buchstabe durch unterschiedliche arabische Buchstaben wiedergegeben, das Griechische τ beispielsweise durch د oder ت. Umgekehrt wird zur Wiedergabe unterschiedlicher griechischer Buchstaben, wie beispielsweise υ und ι, nur ein arabisches Zeichen verwendet. Darüber hinaus stimmt die Zusammen- und Getrenntschreibung von Wörtern in © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 110 vielen Fällen nicht mit dem griechischen Original überein. Mit den griechischen Zitaten wurde deshalb folgendermaßen verfahren: Ich habe jeweils die Lesart gewählt, die das griechische Original am besten erkennen lässt. Konjekturen erfolgten dann, wenn sich durch Vergleich unterschiedlicher Varianten Rückschlüsse auf die ursprüngliche Schreibung ziehen ließen. Auf Abweichungen vom griechischen Text, die sich nicht durch eine Variante oder durch Konjektur auflösen ließen, wird, wie auch im übrigen Text, nach dem betreffenden Wort durch [kaḏā] hingewiesen. Konjekturen und konjekturale Auslassungen werden durch folgende Klammern angezeigt: < >. Neben dem Apparat, der die Textvarianten verzeichnet, gibt es einen zweiten Apparat, der Quellen bzw. Parallelstellen zum Text angibt. Zu den griechischen Bibelzitaten in arabischer Transkription findet sich in den Fußnoten der griechische Originalvers. Da diese an einigen Stellen nicht mit dem edierten Nestle-Aland-Text,40 sondern mit einer der dort bezeugten Varianten übereinstimmen, weise ich diese Varianten anstatt des Nestle-Aland-Textes in den Fußnoten nach und markiere sie durch „*“ vor und nach der betreffenden Passage. Zeichensetzung und Einteilung der Absätze stammen von mir. Die Orthographie wurde, insbesondere was die Hamza-Schreibung angeht, modernisiert und vereinheitlicht, ohne dies im Apparat zu notieren. So schreibe ich صالة anstelle von صلوة und فضائل anstelle von فضايل. Defektive Schreibweisen wie تبعو wurden stillschweigend ergänzt. Die Abkürzung ʿm, die in einigen Handschriften für die Formel ʿalaihī s-salām Verwendung findet, wird in der Edition aufgelöst und nicht als Variante vermerkt. 40 E. Nestle, Novum Testamentum Graece. 27. rev. Aufl. Neuer kritischer Apparat von Barbara Aland. Stuttgart 1995. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 111 Rezension I :يف بداية ق Ia-1سم هللا الرمحن الرحمي ب بت، الريب عىل لك جارحة مبا اجرتحـت قامحلد القامئ عىل لك نفس مبا طلـع عـىل الـضامئر امل ٬كس ست تلجـت٬جهـإذا يب عـىل اخلـواطر إذا ا خ ا ساموات ٬حلـس ثقـال ذرة يف ا نـه لـ اذلي ال يعـزب مع نت أو حتركـت ثـري٬تـسكواألرضـني يـل وا لك احملاسـب عـن ا بـول ٬ خفـت أو ثقلـت،لقل تفـضل بق ا مل تطول يعمل لك ، عن املعايص وإن كربت41>ابلعفو<ملالطاعات وإن صغرت، ا نفـس لـ وإمنا حياســهبم نظر فامي قدمت وأخرت باد. يما أحرضت، و ته ا لعبحان من معت نعم تـه ٬ومشلت فسـ مح وأحاطت ر شعت. اخلالئق ومغرت هل وا ته اجنلت عن القلوب ظلامت ا سن هدا نقو ي نـه العطـاء واجلـزاء ٬جلحب مف نـيب األيم اذلي وجدتـه . واإلبعاد واإلدانء واإلسعاد واإلشقاء سالم عىل رسوهل ا موالصالة وا ل ًتـواب ل ك يـل توراة واإل جنيف ا شري ٬ل بـار، و يـب ا يد األبـرار، و بـ أعـين محمـدا اذلي هـو نـور األنـوار، و جل ب حســ ً هار، وقامع الكفار، وفاحض الفجـار ياء وعـىل الـصحابة قـادة ٬لقالغفار، ونذير ا صـف وعـىل آهل سـادة األ ياء .تقاأل Ia-2 بـوا إىل حتريـف ألفـاظ ،يـن كـرثمه هللا إىل يـوم ادل، فإين ملـا رأيـت أكـرث العلـامء،وبعد ه قـد ذ تـه يل وبـدلوا امس محمـد و توراة واإل نصارى حرفوا ا تقدمة وحمكوا بأن الهيود وا ية ا تب اإل نعا جن ل ل مل له لك يه وسمل بوا ماكنه غريه،علصىل هللا تعاىل يقـة معـاين م وهذا الظن اكن من عد. كت و حقاطالع عـىل رساي ها ألهنم ال يعلمون لغات العربي وا لألفا يوانينظ تـوراة . لين وا لغاية ما عرفـوا وعلمـوا مـن ترمجـة ا هروردي يف هاب ادليـن ا تـازاين يف رشح املقاصـد و يل إىل العـريب كـام ذكـره العالمـة ا سواإل شـ لـتف ل جن هام يجيء تفصيليالكه و سـ سان غـري مـزنهل عـىل . ه تاب هللا تعاىل لـن ميكـن ألحـد أن يرتمجـه إىل َو ُ لـ ك نا من رسـول اكن42>ترمج<فإذا . مراد هللا بارك وتعاىل ﴿ومآ أر ناه، كام قال هللا يقة ٍ خمالفا ُ َ ِ َ سلْ ت َمع ْ ََ َ حلق ً سان قومه﴾ ِإال َِّ ْ َ ِ َ ِبِل ].٤ إبراهمي ١٤[ ِ Ia-3 يـه نـا محمـد بـوة نكـرين نـصارى اجلـاهلني ا تحريف قـول الهيـود وا بب اذلهاب إىل ا علو مل ل يل ن بس نب سالم ندمه وانعد. لالصالة وا يقة معاين األلفاظ ألهنـم تعواكن إناكرمه من هم عىل هداية إىل حقام ا علم ل يـل: اكنوا جاهلني تـوراة واإل جنال يعلمون معاين ألفاظ ا شاهبات،ل هـا اكنـت مـن ا ملتـ فـإن أكـرث ألفا . ظ يـل توأن ثـرية، ال ســامي أهنـا اكنـت يف اإل ية تب اإل شاهبات يف القرآن وغريه من ا جن تعمل أن ا ك ه لت لكمل .ابلعوف، ق: ابلعفو 41 .يرتمج، ق: ترمج 42 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 112 ت يل ال يعمل من لفظه كام يعمل معاين العريب مـن لكأكرث مهنا يف غري ا ية، سـامي أن معاين األان جب اإل له هـا تابة ال من يل من ا لفظلفظه، بل عمل معاين ألفاظ األان لك مفـن ال يعـمل عـمل اخلـط اذلي يقـال هل . ج ِغراما دييك َ َ َ] γραµµατική [يـل رس اإل جنال يقـدر أن رسه غلطـا . يفـ رسه ًفـإذا فـ بـا<فـ ًغا كـام ،43>ل سريا غلطا سالم يه ا ًرسوا امس محمد ً تف ل عل هـر : وقالوا. ف نه إمنـا هـو الـروح القـدس اذلي ظإن املراد م سالمليف احلواريني حني أمروا يه ا يىس ليغ رساةل عل عبل هدايـة مـهنم إىل . ت لوهذا الومه اكن من عدم ا .اإلسالم Ia-4 ثـري مـن فلام من هللا عيل فأهلمين وخصين حبقائق املعاين وعلمين من كالعلوم ما هو خمفي عـىل يخ الاكمل تاذي ا ناس هبمة أ شـا سـ ْ العارف اب جـالل ادليـن أويج محمـد الربكـوي ، العامل الفاضل،لل ثــاين القــادري بــد هللا ،لا يخي أيب عال ســـامي بــربك روح القــدس سمرندي لــشـ يد محمــد ا قا لــ لــسـ ندي قدس هللا أرواهحام تح هللا بإعانهتام . لنقشبا شاهدات ففإنه ملا يف أبـواب ا بـده ا ملـومههتام لـضع لع سافلني، ويوما جزت عوامل . وقواين عىل الارتقاء يني، ويوما طفت أسفل ا يت يوما إىل أعىل ًفار ً لً عل تق امللكـوت واجلـربوت يف حظـرية رسي، وأرشفـت عـىل فـراديس القـدس ورضبـت اآلزال يف اآلابد نت هب بارات ممتكو نه باركة ما ال يعرب بعهتام ا ع يـه اإلشـاراتمل وهـو . لاحلروف واللكـامت وال يـوىمء إ نة بـأن أمجـع رسـاةل بل ما أمرت يف عامل املعاين مرة بعد أخـرى يف تـكل ا لـسـاكن فـشمرت اذليـل . ق يـل والفرقـان شاهبات اإل نة رساةل واحضة مما علمـين ريب مـن يا وألفت يف تكل ا جنورشعت اث تـ سـ من ل ً توحات امل بذة من ا لفالعظمي، وذكرت فهيا ند ن ها سن و ية و عا ح بابأقعض .لويل األ Ia-5 باء بعـض لفلام طا نت مـضطراب بإ نيك ومضايقي من كرثة ادليون وآالم ادلهر، و صـ تعيب و ك ًض شاهبات هـا مـن ا توراة والزبور ووجـدت أكـرث ألفا يل وا ية، طالعت اإل ية املد تـاللكامت الصو ل جن ملع ظ ف ناايت واإلشارات غري حمرفة األلفاظ ناهالكواجملازات وا تحريف واقع يف مع، بل ا هكـذا قـاهل اإلمـام . ل سري ﴿حيرفون اللكم عن مواضعه﴾ ِخفر ادلين الرازي يف ِ ِ َ َّ َ َ ِ َ ْ َ ُ ِّ َ ُ ساء ٤[تف يه، يعين ] وغريها٤٦لن ا نأي معا باطل تأويل ا ليلون عن احلق إىل ا ل ِ﴿حيرفـون اللكـم عـن مواضـعه﴾: وقال صاحب املداركi.مي ِ ِ َ َّ َ َ ِ َ ْ َ ُ ِّ َ أي ،ُ سريه وهكذا قال ابن الربجان. وهنا عىل غري ما أنزليفرس تحريـف اذلي اكن يف املعـىن : تفيف لوهذا ا رسوهنا . ال يف اللفظ شايع أيضا يعة واخلوارج حيرفون بعـض معـاين اآلايت العظـام و يفـأمل تر أن ا لشـ يقني؟ باطةل خمالفا ألهل احلق وا هم ا لعىل ز ًل مع Ia-6 تـه صـل هللا يـه وسـمل فهيـانعفأان وجدت امس محمـد و ثالثـة اجنـالء ،عل تعـاىل تـب ا ً أي يف ا ل لك سالم دفعة واحـدة، غـري )؟ (44ً>ومزبورا<ًوتورية يه ا يىس يل الكم هللا تعاىل أنزل عىل ل فاإل عل عجن با 43 ًغا با، ق: ل ًعا .ل .زبورا، ق: ومزبورا 44 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 113 سالم يـل علـهيام ا نجام بواسـطة جربا سالم يـه ا نـا محمـد لـأن القرآن العظمي أنزل عـىل ئ لـ ًعل مـ وآيـة . نبي سب يف توراة أنزل ب يـاء علـهيم لا يـا مـن األ ييل سالم، حني سب اإلرسا يه ا بعدها عىل موىس نب ًن ئ ل عل سالم .لا Ia-7 سؤال واجلـواب الذليـن وردا مـن الهيـود أخـرب هللا تعـاىل عـىل يل من ا ته يف األان لوأما ما رأ جي سأل وجياب بل أن سالم يه ا ييىس ل قعل هـا . ع لكيس األمر كـام زمع أهنـام مـن الكم احلـواريني، بـل فل نس األصـوات واحلـروف. الكم هللا تعاىل جـويس من يـة ،ل بـل صـفة أزيـة قامئـة بذاتـه تعـاىل،ل نا ف م بـارة . ل والطفوية45>اخلرس< كام يف ،للسكوت واآلفة لعهو هبا آمر انه خمرب وغـري ذكل يـدل علهيـا اب ٍ ٌ ناية بار.لكأو اإلشارة أو ا تج ع ولو مل تأويل ملا قـال عـيل ابـن أةحت يل إىل ا ل األان يب طالـب كـرم هللا ج نـه تـوراة، أان مفـصح الزبـور: عوهجـه وريض هللا تعـاىل رس ا يـل، أان ئـول اإل لأان مفـ جن ِّ فـإذا عـرب . ُم يــل46>عهنـا< يــة فإ يوان ية زبـور واب رساي تــوراة واب يــة جن ابلعربا ن ل ن ــ ل ــ. فن بــارات دون ف تالف يف ا لعاال خ تعددة تلفة ولغات نة سمى، كام إذا ذكر هللا بأ ما خم سـ َايزديب هللا وابلفاريس وابلعر: لمل ايـل وابلعرباين ِ يوانين ii]كذا[ِآلل لوابرسايين ] אל[ ُثؤس لواب َ]θεός [ ُبـوژةوابلـرويس] Богъ [ ْزيـووابألفـاليق ِiii ْمريت 47وابلكريج َ]ღმერთი[iv وغريها. Ia-8 نـد هـا سن و يةل و ثين عىل وضع هذه الرساةل أين ملـا ألفـت يف هـذا الغـرض الر عومما حـ قعســ ح ــويل أ ــذه الرســاةل إن شــاء هللا تع ــب ه ت ــا ألن أ ــا فهي ي ــاب، رشعــت اث ب كاأل ن رســاةل موحضــة ٬ىلال يل غاية اإليـضاح جنشاهبات يف اإل يـد اإلميـان عـىل ،للمت نا اب الوهـاب أن نرتفـع عـن تقل ًي ن أمـسـتع سان يةل للوصـول إىل حـرضة إ ،حنرتقي إىل إيقان اإل تـه و تالكن، و يه ا تعان و ســنه خري ا جعل لـ عل ملسـ هـر لا مظسلطان األعظم، ماكل رقـاب األمم، مـوىل ملـوك العـرب والعجـم، ظـل هللا يف العـامل لكـن نا بين ءادم﴾ َ﴿ولقد كر ََ َ ٓ ِ َ ْم َّ َ ْ َ َ سان، وانصب لـواء رشيعـة محمـد ] ٧٠ اإلرساء ١٧[َ حرافع راية العدل واإل نـرص والظفـر و ساد، أبـو ا يان وا بغي وا ليف آخر الزمان، وخافض عالمة أهل ا لف لطغ نجم األمقـر، ل لـا يـك، جـل مطلعـه يف العـدل والفـضل، وازى عـدهل الفـكل) ؟(بيـت أايهل ته . ملمـن خشـصوحـني أ نـه: األبصار من جعب قلت رسوا العـني ما يفـة هللا عـىل . كـ تحقاق، و خلإنـه مـكل ويل العـدل ابال ســ نايـة هللا املـكل الـرزاق يـع اآلفـاق، بعاإلحقاق، وأمـني هللا يف نفـرد حـق ملـوك آل عـامثن،أ ،مج مل ا بلوغ إىل أق يف األخـرض، املؤيـد ديـن ىصلاب ناق رؤوس األمحر اب سـ مراتب اجلود والكرم، اكرس أ لع .احلرس، ق: اخلرس 45 .عنه، ق: عهنا 46 .وابلكريج، ق: + وابلكريج 47 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 114 نات سن نان واحلجـة والربهـان أ يف وا بعوث إىل األسود واألمحر، صاحب ا نيب ا سـا حـ سـ سـ مل حـل لـ ل نص ﴿إن ٱ يأمر ابلعـدل وٱإل٬الزمان ِ ابسط األمن واألمان، املؤمت ْ َ ِ ْ َ ْ ِ ُ ُ ْ َ َ َّ ِ ِسان﴾ ل َ نحـل ١٦[ْحـ ] ٩٠ل ا سلطان يد الغازي أمحد خان ابن ا سلطان، سلطان ابن ا لا سـ ل ند هللا املـكل ل عمحمد خان، املؤيد من نان .ملا Ia-9 نة سني سا و ته اكنت نه الكذب أن مدة خال تصور ثقة اذلي ال ً وقد مسعت من ا ســ مخـ مخـ ي ًل ف م سعة و نة وهللا هو األعملأتأو يفوهكذا يدرك من ق. سـربعني بـده ا لـضعواعد العـمل اذلي خـص . لع هـا عـىل العمـوم بـارك . حمكفإن من آايت القرآن العظمي ما اكنت موردها عىل اخلصوص و تقـال هللا ــة يف ٱألرض﴾ يف ــاك ن ــاىل ﴿اي داوود إان ِوتع ْ َ ْ ِ ً َ خِل َجعل َ َ ْ َ َ َّ ِ َُ ُ رشين ] ٢٦ ص ٣٨[َ ــة ــت أصــول اآلي ــواكن ع ــا يف إىل املــضاف، أعــين إىل . ًحروف ــإذا أ ــة املــذكورةضــف ــة ،اآلي يفــة اذلي اكن ثالث خلل عــدد امس ا بعني سني عدد فصار اجملمـوع ثـالث و ســو بع . مخ يفـة صـارت يف أصـول مـواد امس ا ســفـإذا أ خلل ضـ بعني عدد رش ومائة وألف اذلي اكن وقـت جلوسـه اهلـامم . سـو سة عفإذا رضبت أصول حروف ا مخل رش حرفا سعد وعددها ثالث ًا ع ُل َ َ رش حرفـامث مض إلهيا أصول ا. َ سة ًمس هللا احلي فصار عـ فـإذا . مخـ سون ومائة وألف ها حصل مخس و مخرضبهتا مع ما يف إلهيـا ثـالث وثالثـون اذلي مـىض . قبل ضـمث أ بل اخلالفة فصار اجملموع مثان ومثانني ومائة وألفاو ) ؟(ضمم ن أخرجت من اجملمـوع املـإمث . قنقىض نة فصا سون بل اخلالفة، بقي مخس و سـاذلي مىض مخ نةق سني سا و سـرت مدة اخلالفة مخ ويف . مخ نة سون سـرواية أخرى أربع و شاء،مخ .ي هللا أعمل وأحمك مبا يريد وما Ia-10 خدل هللا ملكه وسلطانه أبد اآلبـدين وأعـز بفـضهل أنـصاره وأعوانـه إىل أن يـرث هللا األرض ادليـن حـق جاهـدوا يفوغفـر ألابئـه العظـام وأجـداده الكـرام اذليـن . ومن علهيا، وهو خري الوارثني نان اترة وابحلجـة والربهـان، يف وا يد ادلين اب سان وتأ نهيم ملزيد العدل واإل سـهجاده وخص سـ ي ل لـح ل ب نة يل ربه الـرمحن، ابحلمكـة واملوعظـة ا حلـسـوادلعوة إىل ناء وجعـهل املؤثـل . سب لـسـزاده هللا العلـو وا نه بوائق الزمان ناء ورصف بل القلوب واألسن ابملدح وا عوأ ث لل . وحرسه عن خوارق احلداثنق Ia-11 يـة<ًوجعلهتـا حتفـة حلـرضته ية48>لعلا سدته ا لـسن وخدمـة ال زالـت ملجـأ بطوائـف األانم، . لـ سالم يه وعلهيم ا نيب وآهل نا لإلسالم اب نا لومالذا هلم من حوادث األايم، و عل ل ي ًحص حصً حفسـيب مـا . ً يقي إال اب ثواب اجلزيل يف اآلجل وما تو علأرجو من ا يـبفل يـه أ ُنيه تولكـت وإ بقـى . ل تإذ يه حتفـة تح أحد بقين أحد يف هذه الطريقة وال هور، فإنه ما فاألايم وادلهور وال يفىن بكرور األعوام وا سـش ل تقدمـة قبيل أكامم هذه يـة ا تـب اإل يـه املراجعـة يف ا ملاحلديقة مفن هل هبذه الرساةل سوء الظـن ه لفعل . لك ية 48 ية، ق: لعلا .لالعا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 115 نظـروا بعـني الـرىض ويـصلحوا مـا عـرثوا وأرجو من أاكبر الفضالء وأماثل ناظرين فهيـا أن يالعلامء ا ل هـام الـصواب، . عليه فهيا من الزلل واخلطاء نقصان ملعرتف، وللخطااي ملقـرتف، وأسـأل هللا إ لفإين اب ل ٌإنه عىل لك يشء قدير، وابإلجابة جدير ٌ. * * * .يف بداية ف I-1تعني سم هللا الرمحن الرحمي وبه سـ نب بت، الريب عىل لك جارحة مبا اجرتحـت، املطلـع عـىل الـضامئر امحلد ق القامئ عىل لك نفس مبا كس يب عىل اخلواطر إذا ست، ا حلسإذا تلجت<جه ساموات 49>خا ثقال ذرة يف ا نه ل، اذلي ال يعزب مع ثـري يـل وا نت أو حتركـت، احملاسـب عـن ا لكواألرض، لقلسك بـول أ خفـت ،تـ تفـضل بقو ثقلـت، ا مل يعمل لك نفـس مـا الطاعات وإن صغ تطول ابلعفو عن املعـايص وإن كـربت، وإمنـا حياســهبم لـرت، ا مل نظر فامي قدمت وأخرت تـه . يأحرضت و بـاد ومشلـت، وأحاطـت ر تـه ا محبحان مـن معـت لع نعم فـسـ ته . اخلالئق ومغرت سن هدا يو نـه العطـاء واجلـزاء احب شعت، هل وا مفجنلت عن القلوب ظلامت ا نق جل تـواب . د واإلشقاءواإلبعاد واإلدانء واإلسعا نـيب األيم اذلي وجدتـه سالم عىل رسوهل ا ًوالصالة وا مك ل ل شري بـار، و يـب ا يد األبـرار، و يـل، أعـين محمـدا اذلي هـو نـور األنـوار، و توراة واإل بـيف ا جل ب ســ جن حل ً ياء وعـىل الـصحابة قـادة هار، وقامع الكفار، وفاحض الفجـار، وعـىل آهل سـادة األ صـفالغفار، ونذير ا لق ياء .، ريض هللا تعاىل عهنمتقاأل I-2بـوا إىل حتريـف ألفـاظ ، كرثمه هللا تعاىل إىل يوم ادلين، وبعد، فإين ملا رأيت أكرث العلامء ه قـد ذ تـه يل وبـدلوا امس محمـد و توراة واإل نصارى حرفوا ا تقدمة وحمكوا بأن الهيود وا ية ا تب اإل نعا جن ل ل مل له لك يه وسمل بوا ماكنه غريه،علصىل هللا تعاىل يقـة معـاين . كت و حقوهذا الظن اكن من عدم اطالع عـىل يوانين ها ألهنم ال يعلمون لغات العربي وارسايين وا لألفا ل تـوراة . ظ لغاية ما عرفـوا وعلمـوا مـن ترمجـة ا هام يف يجيء يالك نـوره و هروردي يف تازاين وا يل إىل العريب كام ذكره العالمة ا يلواإل س تفـصتف ل ســل ه جن سان غـري .موضعه إن شاء هللا تعاىل تاب هللا تعاىل لن ميكن ألحد أن يرتمجه عىل مراد هللا إىل ل و ك ِمزنهل َ ناه. ُ يقة معفإذا ترمج اكن خمالفا حلق نا مـن ،ً بارك وتعاىل ﴿ومآ أر ِ كام قال هللا َ سلْ َت ْ ََ ٍرسـول<َ ُ َّ إال 50>َ ِ ِسان قومه﴾ ِ ْ َ ِ َ ].٤ إبراهمي ١٤[ِبِل تلجت 49 تلجت :خا .، فحا ٍرسول 50 ُ .قبكل، ف+ :َ © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 116 I-3تحريف قول الهيود بب اذلهاب إىل ا ل و نا محمـد صـىل هللا س بوة نكرين نصارى اجلاهلني ا ي وا بن نب مل ل يه وسمل يقة معاين األلفاظ ألهنـم . علتعاىل هم عىل هداية إىل ندمه وانعدام ا حقواكن إناكرمه من علم ل تع شاهبات: اكنوا جاهلني ها اكنت من ا تقدمة، فإن أكرث ألفا تب ا تـال يعلمون معاين ا ململ ظ وأنـت تعـمل . لك شاهبات يل أكـرث مهنـا يف ملتأن ا ثرية، ال سـامي أهنا اكنت يف اإل ية تب اإل جن يف القرآن وغريه من ا ك له لك هـا تابـة ال مـن يل ال تعمل من لفظه، بل من ا ية، سـامي أن معاين األان تب اإل لفظغري ا لك ج مفـن ال . لهلك ِغراما ديكيعمل عمل اخلط اذلي يقال هل َ َ َ] γραµµατική [يل رس اإل جنال يقدر أن رسه برأيـه ف. يف فإن با ًرسه غلطا غا لً سريا غلطا،ف سالم يه ا رسوا امس محمد ً كام ً تف ل عل نه إمنا هو الروح : وقالوا. ف مإن املراد سالم يه ا يىس يغ رساةل هر يف احلواريني حني أمروا لالقدس اذلي عل عبل .بتظ I-4 ثـري مـن فلام من هللا عيل فأهلمين وخصين حبقائق املعاين وعلمين من العلوم ما هـو ك خمفـي عـىل يخ الاكمل تاذي ا ناس هبمة أ شـا سـ ْ الفاضـل العـارف اب جـالل ادليـن أويج محمـد ، العامل العامل،لل َ ــاين ث لالربكــوي ا ِ ــد هللا ،ِ ب يخي أيب ــروح القــدس عال ســـامي بربكــة ال ــشـ سمرندي ل يد محمــد ا قا ــ ل ــسـ ل ندي قـدس هللا أرسارهـام تح هللا تعـاىل بإعـانهتام و. لنقـشبا يف أبـواب فـفإنـه ملـا بـده ا لـضعمهـهتام لع شاهدات وقواين عىل الارتقاء سافلني، ويوما . ملا يني، ويوما طفت أسفل ا يت يوما إىل أعىل ًفار ً لً عل تق وأرشفـت عـىل فـراديس القـدس ورضبـت اآلزال . جزت عوامل امللكوت واجلربوت يف حظرية رسي بارات نه باركة ما ال يعرب نت هبمهتام ا بعيف اآلابد و ع ّمل يه اإلشاراتئاحلروف واللكامت وال يوممتك . ل إ تخرج من األرض اجلامع اذلي اكن ذو سـوهذا اكن بعد مبا أمرت يف عامل املعاين مرة بعد أخرى بأن أ بعة و بأن أمجع رساةل بة ا لسـا ورشعت وألفت رسـاةل واحضـة ممـا علمـين ريب مـن فشمرت اذليل. لق يل والفرقان العظـمي جنشاهبات اإل نـد وذكـرت فهيـ. مت هـا سن و ية و توحـات املا بـذة مـن ا عا حـ ضـ قعن لف باب51>ويلأ< .ل األ I-5 نيك باء بعـض ضفلام طال تعيب و نـت مـضطراب بإ صـ ومضايقي من كرثة ادليون وآالم ادلهـر، و ًك ــة، ي ية املد ــصو عاللكــامت ال ــا مــن 52>طالعــت<ف ه ــور ووجــدت أكــرث ألفا ــوراة والزب ت يــل وا ظ اإل ل جن ناايت واإلشارات شاهبات وا لكا ناهاملت تحريف واقع يف معغري حمرفة األلفاظ، بل ا هكذا قاهل اإلمام . ل سري ِ﴿حيرفون اللكم عـن مواضـعه﴾ : تفخفر ادلين الرازي يف ِ ِ َ َّ َ َ ِ َ ْ َ ُ ِّ َ ساء ٤[ُ يـه، ] وغريهـا٤٦لنـ ا ن، أي معا باطل تأويل ا يلون عن احلق إىل ا لأي ل سريv.مي تفـ وقال أيضا صـاحب املـدارك يف ِ﴿حيرفـون اللكـ: ً َ ْ َ ُ ِّ َ َم ُ سريا عىل غري ما أنـزل ها رسون ًعن مواضعه﴾، أي تف لفظيف ِ ِ ِ َ َّ تحريـف شـايع أيـضا. َ لهـذا ا أمل تـر أن . ف .أولوا، ف :أويل 51 .وطالعت، ف: طالعت 52 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 117 بـاطةل خمالفـا هـم ا رسونه عـىل ز يعة واخلوارج حيرفون بعـض معـاين القـرآن العظـمي القـدمي و ًا ل يفـ معشـ ل يقني؟ لألهل احلق وا I-6 يـه وسـمل ًفهيـا اجنـالء وتوريـة ومزبـوراعلفأان وجدت امس محمد صىل هللا تعـاىل ً ِ َ يـل . )؟ (ً جنفاإل يه نا سالم دفعة واحدة غري أن القرآن الكرمي أنزل عىل يه ا يىس علالكم هللا تعاىل أنزل عىل ل يعل نبع سالم يل علهيام ا نجام بواسطة جربا سالم لا ئ ًل هـا عـىل مـوىس . م سب يف تـوراة أنـزل بعـد نزو لوآية ا ّ لـ سالم، حني سب اإلرسا ئيه ا ل سالمعل ياء علهيم ا يا من األ لييل ب نب .ًن I-7 سؤال واجلـواب الذليـن وردا مـن الهيـود أخـرب هللا يل من ا ته يف األان لوأما ما رأ يـىس جي ععـىل سأل وجياب بل أن سالم ييه ا ل ها الكم هللا . قعل لكويس األمر كام زمع أهنام من الكم احلواريني، بل ل نس األصـوات واحلـروف بـل . تعاىل جـيس مـن سكوت فل يـة نا للـصـفة أزيـة قامئـة بذاتـه تعـاىل، فل م بـارة أو . لواآلفة، كام يف اخلرس والطفوية لعهو هبا آمر انه خمرب وغري ذكل يـدل علهيـا اب ٍ نايـة<ٌ 53>لكا تأويل ملا قال عيل ابـن أيب طالـب كـرم هللا وهجـه 54>حتتج<ولو مل . أو اإلشارة يل إىل ا بارة األان ل جع نه توراة، أان مفصح الزبورأان: عوريض هللا تعاىل رس ا يل، أان ئول اإل ل مف جن ِّ بفإذا عرب عهنا ابلعريـة . ُم يل ية فإ يوان ية وا توراة وابرساي جنفقرآن وابلعربية ن ل ن ل سمى، كـام . ف بـارات دون ا تالف يف ا ملـوالا لع خـ تلفة تعددة ولغات نة خمإذا ذكر هللا تعاىل بأ مسـ ِآلـل لوابرسايين] אל [ايلوابلعريب هللا وابلعربي : ل ــذا[ ــوانين vi]ك ي ــؤس لو اب ُث َ] θεός [ ــزد وابلفــاريس َآي ــرتيك ِ ــذا[تنكــري وابل ــرويس vii]ك ــوژه وابل َب ُ ]Богъ [ ْزيووابألفاليق ِviii ْمريت وابلكريج َ]ღმერთი[ixنة يـل مـن هللا . لـسـ وغريها من األ جنفاإل تىض تيض ا سب ما سانه سالم، مث نقل عن يه ا يىس ملقتعاىل، أوىح إىل قلب يق حبع ل ل .عل I-8 ية إن شاء هللا شاخي الصو بذة من اصطالح ا تب هذه الرساةل، وأن أحلق فهيا ففهتولت ألن أ مل ن ًك نا اب الوهـاب أن نرتفـع عـن يـل، شاهبات يف اإل ًتعاىل، رساةل موحضة غاية اإليـضاح ي جن مـسـتعتـ للم سان حيد اإلميان عىل أن نرتقي إىل إيقان اإل تالك. تقل يه ا تعان و لإنه خري ا عل بـت الوصـول . نملسـ طلو تـوفري العلـامء العـاملني واألويـاء الـصادقني وتـوقري الفقـراء الـصابرين لهبا إىل حرضة مـن خـصه هللا . ب يـة يـة وا لعملوخصه هللا تعاىل بأوفر حظ من العـىل وأيت مـن الفـضائل ا ق الريـب 55>ابلقـدحني<لعلم ية ماكان إال وحق هل. واملعىل ًومل يرتك هل يف حوز املاكرم ا : قول من قاللسن ناية 53 تابة، ف: لكا .لكا .حيتج، ف: حتتج 54 .ابلفدحني، ف: حنيابلقد 55 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 118 I-9 بل املعاين ُلقد ذلت هل ياين ُس لبوفاق اخللق طرا اب ً ُ ي تور املفخـم، واهـب ا سـوهـو الـصاحب األعظـم وادل هـاوى فلـســ نقـذ للخالئـق مـن ا مل والقـمل، ا مل هاكل ية، وال يعىن غريه بقول القائل56>طبيعة<ويه هل . ملوا يقة ال و ية و ضع ال إضا حق :ف نا ثل روضات ا جلنابك م نال غاايت ينج نك تو األماين57م ثاين َحللت من املاكرم يف ذراها بع ا ملففهيا أنت اك لسـ ها أبدا دواين زالت من الرمحن نعمى فال يك قطو ًإ ف 58xل يـث 59>كهـف<سـعد احلـق واملـةل وادليـن، ملجـأ األفاضـل واألعـاظم يف العـاملني، مغ املظلـومني، سالط هوفني، معني امللوك وا لا ًيس ما اكن ماكرم إال واكن حزيا، وال حمامد إال واكن هبـا فـزيا، . نيملل ً ل نع هللا، صـاحب يمشس ادلوةل وادلين، صف يفـة صـ اإلسالم، اتج األقران، خالصـة خلـق هللا، لط يعي مصطفى ابشـا، زاده تعـاىل العلـو آاجملد والكرم، أبو الطاهر وامل تو سعادة واملفاخر، أعين ا قثر وا ل ل ناء وجعهل تأثللسـوا مل املؤثل وا بت هل ارشف والرفعة و. ّ هم لا ّ ث متكني والعـزة، وألل لسط هل ا قبـال إدام أب ناء يه ابملدح وا ثالقلوب واألسن إ ل . مني اي معنيآلل I-10 بقين هور، فإنـه مـا بقى األايم وادلهور، وال يفىن بكرور األعوام وا ســإذ يه حتفة حـد يف ألشت تح بيل أفهذه الطريقة وال يـه املراجعـة . امم هذه احلديقةكأقحد فعلمفن هل هبذه الرسـاةل سـوء الظـن تقدمة تب ا مليف ا نظروا بعني الـرىض . لك ناظرين فهيا أن يوأرجو من أاكبر الفضالء، وأماثل العلامء، ا ل يـه فهيـا مـن اذللـل واخلطـاء60>ويصلحوا< نقـصان ملعـرتف وللخطـااي ملقـرتف، . عل ما عـرثوا لفـإين اب ها .م الصواب، إنه عىل لك يشء قدير، وابإلجابة جديرلوأسأل هللا إ * * * I-11 يطان الرجمي، ابمس هللا الرمحن الرحمي لشـأعوذ اب من ا يـل﴾ تـوراة وٱإل نـدمه يف ٱ تـواب نـيب ٱألمـي ٱذلي جيدونـه ِبعـون ٱلرسـول ٱ ِ﴿ٱذليـن ْجنِ ل ع ُ ِل َ ِ َِ ْ ََّّ ِ ْ َُ َ ْ َ ًَ ُْ مك َت َ ُ ِ َي ِ َِّ ََّّ ِّ ُ ْ َّ ِ َّ َ ُ ُ َّ]٧ سالم،]١٥٧األعـراف يـه الـصالة وا بـاع مـن آمـن مـهنم مبحمـد لـ املـراد مـن األ عل مـن الهيـود 61xiٍت .طبيعية، ف: طبيعة 56 .غاية، ف: غاايت 57 .دوايل، ف: دواين 58 .كهوا، ف: كهف 59 .ويصلح، ف: ويصلحوا 60 سالم 61 ليه الصالة وا سالم، ق: عل ليه ا .عل © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 119 تصا بـه وهـو القـرآن تااب يه نصارى، واملراد من ﴿الرسول﴾ هو اذلي يويح إ ًوا خم ك ل سـامه * وإمنـا.xiiًل ــا ي ته نــيب﴾ مــن اكن صــاحب املعجــزات و ًرســوال ابإلضــافة إىل هللا تعــاىل واملــراد مــن ﴿ا نب ي ــسمل ت ً بادابإلضاف تعمل من أحد، وصـفه هللا .لعة إىل ا تب وال يقرأ وال ي واملراد من ﴿األيم﴾ هو اذلي ال يك بهيا عىل أن كامل علمه مع حـاهل هـذه اكن إحـدى معجزاتـه63 به62تعاىل ً أي ،وقـوهل ﴿جيدونـه﴾ xiii.تن يل بعونه من بين إرسا ته أوئك اذلين ئجيدون ل تهxivيتنع توراة والزبور، وجيدون امسه و صف يف ا يعـا ل ً مج بعونـه يتأوئـك اذليـن يـل وأيـضا يف الزبـور64ل نـصارى يف اإل ً مـن ا جن بـاس. ل ريض هللا ،عوقـال ابـن تهبا : عهنام65تعاىل سأ هر يف قـوهل ﴿ نصارى من الاشرتاك اذلي َهذه األلفاظ أخرجت الهيود وا ُ ُ ْك فـ َل َ َ يظ تقون﴾ َلذلين ُ َّ َ ي َ ِ َّ ُوخلصت هذه اآلية ألمة]. ١٥٦ األعراف ٧[ِ ِ يـه وسـمل،د محم66ُ . عل صىل هللا تعـاىل سري القرآن سان يف تفوذكر يف اجلواهر ا ِ معلمـة رشف هـذه األمـة عـىل العمـوم يف 67 وهذه اآليـة:حل ُ سالم يـه الـصالة وا نـيب لـلك من آمن اب تعاىل وأقر برساةل ا عل رشف . ل تفـاوتون بعـد يف ا لـمث مه ي نيب ية با يقة األ للسب تفاوهتم يف ع ت .يه وسملعل صىل هللا ،حقحب I-12 ياء68ّ قدس هللا رسهوقال أبو حامد الغزايل ته صـىل هللا تعـاىل: ح يف اإل يـه وسـمل 69موإمنا أ عل بعه يـوم . تمن ا بـل عـىل اآلخـرة، فإنـه مـا دعـى إال إىل هللا وا يا وأ بعه إال من أعرض عن ادل لوما ا ن قت يا واحلظوظ العاجةل بـلفبقدر ما تعرض عن ادل. ناآلخر وما رصف إال عن ادل تقيا و عـىل اآلخـرة، 70ن يه وسمل يهل اذلي سلكه صىل هللا علسكل تـه. 71سبت يهل فقـد ا تبعوبقدر مـا سـلكت اوبقـدر مـ. سـب تـه تـه رصت مـن أ ما بلـت عـىل. تبع تـه 72قوبقـدر مـا أ تا بـت عـن يهل ور يـا عـدلت عـن بع ادل غ من سـب تحقت ابذلين قال هللا تعاىل فهيم ي:لوا َ ﴿فأما من طغى وءاثر ٱ ْلَح َ َ َ َ َ َ َّ َ يا فإن ٱلجحمي يه ٱلمأوى﴾ َ َوة ٱدل ْ َ ْ َْ ِ َ ِ َ َّ ِ َ َ ْ ن ُّ َ ـى] ٣٩-٣٧ الزناعات ٧٩[ xv.نهتا .، ق-: تعاىل 62 .، ف-: به 63 يل 64 .، ف-: يتبعونه... ئمن بين إرسا .، ق-: تعاىل 65 .ا، قنبين: + ُِألمة 66 .األمة، ف: اآلية 67 . ، ف-: ّقدس هللا رسه 68 . ، ق-: تعاىل 69 بل 70 بل، ق: تقو .يقو سالم، ف: وسمل... اذلي 71 ليه ا .عل .عن، ف: عىل 72 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 120 I-13 بائث ويـضع بات وحيرم علهيم ٱ هُم ٱ نكر وحيل ُوقوهل ﴿يأمرمه بٱلمعروف ويهنامه عن ٱ َ ْ َْ ْ ََ َ َ ََ ِ َ لَخَ ي ْلم ُْ ُ َِ َ َْ ُ ِ ْ َ ِّْ َ ُ ُِ ِّ لطَّ َ ل ُّ ِ ِ َ ْ ُ َ ُِ ُِ ُ َُ ُ ْ ــ ــهنم إرصمه وٱألغ ْع َ ْ َ ْ ُ َ ْ ِ ْ ُ ْ ــهيم﴾ َ ــت عل ــيت اكن ْالل ٱل ِ ْ َ َ ْ َ َ ِ َّ َ ــراف ٧[َ ــداء الكم ] ١٥٧ األع ت ــون ا ــل أن يك بمت حي نيب73وصف يه وسمل،ل به ا تعلقـا ب﴿جيدونـه﴾ يف موضـع 74عل صىل هللا تعاىل متل أن يكـون ُ، و َ ُ ِ َ ً م حي رشط وجوده)؟( ّاحلال عىل جتوز توراة آمرا ب، أي جيدونه يف ا رشع، . ًل لـو﴿املعروف﴾ ما عـرف اب لهو معروف ابرشع) ؟(ّعروف من هجة املروة ولك م يه وسمل،فقد قال. ف بعثت : عل صىل هللا تعاىل نكر مقابهل. حماسن األخالقئمترأل بـة . ملوا ياء ا بات﴾ مـا حـرم علـهيم مـن األ يواملراد من ﴿ا شــ لطي لط رشيعة واحلـمك ممـا ذكـر امس هللا لاكشحوم وغريها، أو ما طاب يف ا خـال مـن اذلابحئ ومـا 75>عليـه<ل سحت لبه من ا بث. كسـ بائث﴾ ما تخواملراد من ﴿ا تـة وحلـم اخلزنيـر ومـا 76يسـخل ملي مـن حنـو ادلم وا بث ثـة77خأهل لغري هللا به، أو ما واملـراد مـن xvi.خلبي حكام اكلراب والرشوة وغـريهام مـن املاكسـب ا يـني القـصاص يف العمـد و78>عهنم<ّرفع إرصمه أن خيفف شاقة تاكيـف ا تع ما لكفوا مـن ا لـ ل اخلطـأ كل نجاسة القصاص وادلية يف العمد واخلطأ 79 يف رشيعة الهيود، وعفوxviiلوقطع األعضاء وقرض موضع ا نصارى ية والرايضة يف رشيعة ا با تاكيف اكلر لوغريهام من ا ن ه ل ثقل واإلرص أيـضا. ل هـد، 80لواإلرص ا لع ا بـاس وغـريه عهكذا روي عن ابن تعارة أيـض81.ُ بـارة سـ ﴿واألغـالل الـيت اكنـت علـهيم﴾ تكل مـع لـا ً تـل القاتـل مطلقـا إىل غـري ذكل بول وأن ال دية وال بد من ًاألثقال، أي قطع اجلدل من أثر ا ق يف xviiiل . أعين يف الهيود،رشيعة األوىل I-14ته82أان ف يـه وسـمل،نع وجدت إمس محمد و يـل 83عل صـىل هللا تعـاىل بعة مواضـع مـن اإل جن يف ســ نا اذلي هو واحد من احلواريني به يو حاذلي نوال يف84كت بارته عىل هذا ا رش و مل الصحاح الرابع ع :ع .ووصف، ق: وصف 73 يه وسمل 74 سالم، ق: علصىل هللا تعاىل ليه ا . عل .، ف ق-: عليه 75 .يسـتحبث، ق: يسـتخبث 76 .حبث، ق: خبث 77 .علهيم، ف ق: عهنم 78 .وعوف، ق: وعفو 79 .وأيضا اإلرص، ق: واإلرص أيضا 80 .وغريمه، ف: وغريه 81 .وأان، ق: فأان 82 سالم، ق: وسمل... إمس محمد 83 يه الصالة وا ته لإمسه و عل .نع ساهئم، ف: + احلواريني 84 نصارى يقرؤونه يف يواآلن اكن يف أيدي ا .كنل © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 121 I-15 تو امون اقارذاي َمدار ِْ ْ َ ِ ُِ ُ َسْس َ َ تود:ِ َ َِ َ ْ اس85بـْس ْ ثـؤن86ْونُ دِ ُ تود،َ َ اكس ام َِ َ بـْس َ َ ْ ِ َ87.xixآمـن آمـن ِ ُلغـو 88ِ َ ْامن ِ تون ايس ا،ِ َ او ْ ُ َ ِبْس ْ دا ارغَمُ َ ُ اغو90 آ89َاَ ُ بؤو91َ يسْوسُنِكاَ قـ92ِ ُ مكـزان دو،93ِبِئـ َ ُ َ يسِ ِبِئـتـون ِ اود ،94ُ ُ ْاغو بروس ُ ُ ُ ُ دوبادرام 95َ َ َ َ ْ ن َ بـوروم]كذا[ُ ُ َ ُ:xxآانون ُ َ ُ بـروس دوبـادرامو96َ َ َ َ ْ ن ُ ْ ُ بـادرا امـون97ُ ْ ُ ِ َ َ َ ثـؤن 98َك ثـؤمن ْ ُ َُ ََ كَ ُك ْ بادم99َ اآنxxi.ِامون ِ آ َ َ ْ داس اندوالس داس،غَ ْ َْ ْ ََ َ اماس درسد100َُ َ ِي ِ ْ َ سو دوبـادرا كـآلو:101ِ ُ اكغوا ارود َ َ َ ْ ن ُي ُ ُِ َ ُ ْن َ ْابرقلطن ُ ِ ْ َ ثمون اس دون اُعوان102َ َ ذوس امن اان من َ ْ ُْ ْ ِْ ِ ُِ ِ َم ِ َ َ ْ ِ ِ نوما دس103ُ ِ، دو َ ْ َ بْ ياس104ُ ْ آ َ ْ او او قـومسس ،ِلِث ُ ْ ُ ُ ُ ْاوذانته الوين ِ َ َ ِ نوسـك105ُ ئور افطـو اوذ ِ، اود او ْ َ ِي َث ُ ُ ُُ ْ َ ِ ُ َ نـوس كـد افطـو: ِ ُافطـو امـس ذ ُ َُ َ ْ ِي َ ْ ِ ِ ْاود ابر مـن ،106َ ِ ِ َ ِ ُ ِمن ٍاكمن <107َ َ َ ته108>َ َ ا سو اماس اورفـانوس. َْس ْاوقا ُْ َ ْ ُ َ ِ ُ ِفي َ ُارخـ< ،109ُ ْ بـروس امـاس110>َمَ َْ ِ ُ ُ.xxii بـومن ِ اوم آ ْ غَ ِ ُ َتود 85 َ َتوسد: ِبْس َ َ َ .، فِبسـ ُاس دون 86 ْ تون:ِ ْ ا ُ ْس .، قِ َتود 87 َ َ َتوسد، ف: ِبْس َ َ َ .ِبسـ ِآمن آمن 88 ِ آمني آمني، ف:ِ ِ. َارغا َدا 89 ْ َدا ءرغا، ف: َ َ َ. .عن، ف: آ 90 ُاغو 91 ُوغو، ق: َ َ. ُبؤو 92 ْ بؤون، ف:ِ ُ ِ. ِِئس، ق: ِبِئيس 93 ِ .ب ِِئس، ق: ِبِئيس 94 ِ .ب ْبروس 95 ُ ْبروس، ق: ُ ُ َ. ُونَآان 96 ُآانونو، ق: َ َ َ. ُدوبادرامو 97 َ َ َ ْ ن ُدوبادرام، ق: ُ َ َ َ ْ ن ُ . ْامون 98 ُ ْاميون، ق: ِ ُ ِ. ْااعن، ف: َاآن 99 َ َ. ْداس 100 ْاندوالس داس ، ف: + َ َْ َْ َُ. َدرسد 101 َ ِي َدرسد، ق: ِ َ ِ ِ. ْابرقلطن 102 ُ ِ ْ َ ْابرقلطون، ق: َ ُ ِ ْ َ َ. َاُعوان 103 َاؤان، ق: َ ُ َ. .ِتس، ق: ِدس 104 ِاوذ 105 ْانته الوينُ ِ َ ْاوذان دالون، ق: َ ِ َ َ َ ِ ُ. ِنوس 106 ْذ ُ ي ُ افطو ...َ ْ .، ف-: َ ِمن 107 .، ف-: َ ٍاكمن 108 َ َ ِاكمن، ف ق: َ َ َ َ. ْاورفانوس 109 ُ َ ْ ْاورقانوس، ق: ُ ُ َ ْ ُ. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 122 سم ُدوس ْ ُلُغ ْ ِدر ُ او111ُ ْاكو لغس: 112ِ ُ ُ ُ سنت امـوس113َ ْ اون آقويده او ُ َ ْ ِْ َك ُ َُ َ ساندوزم114ُ ُ آال دو ْ ُ ْ َ َبمـ ]كـذا[ 115ُ ْبآطروس تـا لاللـق امـن ابر مـن مـنن. 116ُ ْدا َُ َ ْ ِْ ِِ ِ َ ِ َ َ َ ْف ئـون او بمـس او : 117َ نومـا دو آ ُاوذ ابرقلطـس، دو ُ ُِ ْ َ ُ ِي ُب َُ َ ْ ْ ُ ِ ْ َ َ َ ْابدر ِ ِ ان دو اونمادمي118َ َ ُ ُ ُ ْ نوس اماس ذذاكس119َ ِ، ا ْ َ َِ ْ َْ ِ ُ بـون امـن120ِك يس امـاس بآنـدا آ ْ بآندا اكبو ِ ِ ِْ ُ ِي َ َْ م ْْ َ ِ ِن ْ ُ ِ َ.xxiii ِاوكد َ َ بوال 121ُ ُاليس<ُ ل ُثمون 122>َ ِ ُ ارشد غر او دو قومس،َم ْ ُ ُ ُ ْ َ َ َ ْ ْ ار123َ ْخونَ ْاكمن اوكش اوذن: ُ َ ُ ِ َ ِ َ َ َ.xxiv I-16 نا بلروث ِآ ُ ِ َ نوس ان دو من افطون124ِلي ُ او لوغس او يغرا ُ ُ ْ َ ْ ُ َم َ َ ُ ُْ ُ ِ اود125ُ سامن ذورآنُ ْ ا َ َُ ِ ْ ْاودان . 126َِميِس َ ُ ُذالث او ابرقلطس اون اغو َ َْ ُ ِ ْ َ َ ُ ِ ْ سو امن ابرا دو بآطروس127َ ْ ُ ْ ُ َ َ ْ ِ ِ ُ يـاس او اب128َبْم نومـا تـس آ َ، دو ُ ْ َ ث لب ِ َ َ ْ ُرا تـو ُ َ ْطروسآب ُ نوس129ْ بورود، ا ْ ا ُ ي كك ِ َ َ َ ُ ْ ُ مآردرس بر امو130َ َ ِ َ ِ ِ ِ ْ.xxv تا لاللق ام ِآال دا ِ َ ِ َ َ ْف َ اان اودان الـث ايـؤرا 131ْنَ ُ ِ ِِ َ ْ َ ُ َ َارخم 110 ُ َارخم، ف؛ ارحم، ق: َ َُ َ ََ. سم 111 ُدوس ْ ُلُغ ْ سم، ق: ُ ُدوسلو ْ غُُ ْ ُ. ِاو در 112 ِ ِاودر، ف: ُ ِ ُ. ُلغ 113 ْلوغس، ق: ْسُ ُ ُ. ْاموس 114 ُ ْاموس، ق: َ ُ ِ. ساندوزم 115 ُدو ْ ُ ْ َ َبم ساندوسم، ق: ُ ُدو ُ ت ُبم ْ َ َ ُ. ْبآطروس 116 ْبآتروس، ق: ُ ُ. ْمنن 117 ُ ْمنن، ق: َ ُ ِ. ْابدر 118 ِ .او مبس او ابدر، ف + :َ ِاونمادميُدو 119 َ ُ ُ دوؤنمادمي، ق:ُ ِ َ ُ ُ ُ. ِذذاكس 120 ْ َ ِذذاقس: ِ ْ َ .، قِ ِاوكد 121 َ ِاوكت: ُ َ .، قُ ُاللس 122 ِ ِاللس، ف ق: َ ِ َ. ُقومس 123 ْ ُدود، ق: + ُ ُ. ِبلروث 124 ُ ْبلروث، ق :ِ ُ ِ ِ. تون،: افطون 125 ْا ُ .ق َفْ ْذورآن 126 َ ْ دور أن، ق:ُ َ ُ. ُاغو 127 ُاغو، ق: َ ِ. ْبآطروس 128 ُ ْبآتروس، ق: ْ ُ ْ. ْبآطروس 129 ُ ْبآتروس، ق: ْ ُ ْ. نوس 130 ْا ُ كي نوس، ق: ِ ُا . َِك ِامن 131 ْامين، : ِ .فِ © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 123 ْنمونود افطون] كذا[ ُ ْ َ َ َ َ ُ ِ بون132ِم ْ اود اغو ا ُ ي ِ ُ َ ِ ِ امن133ُ تا ذ. 134ِ َدا َ ْف ِ امن135َ يس136ِ سار ْ ا ِش ْ َ بـون137َْك ْ او ُ ي ِ ، 138كُ ثمو ُاود ِ َم ِ ِن امنُ ِ139.xxviيان لغو امن ِ آلغو دن آ ِ ُ ل َُ َْ َ ِث ِ ِ، مسفر140ِ َ ِ امـن141ِ ثـو142ِ ُ اان اغـو آ َبلْ ُ َ َ ِ غرمـي 143َ اآن.ِ َ ثـو، او ابراقلطـس اولكوسـد بـروس امـاس َآ ِ ْ ُ ُ َ َ ْ َ َ ُ ُُ ِ ْ َ َ ُ ُذبوروثـو <144َاآن: َبلْ ْ َ ُ سو،َ ُ ْ افطـون145>َبمـْ ُ ْ ْ بـروس 146َ ُ ُ ْاماس َ نوس. ِ ثون ا ْاك ُ ي َِكل ْ ُ ْ ُ الكس دونقومس147َ ْ ُ ْ ُ ِ ْ َ ْ بر آماردايس148ْنَ َ ِ ْ َ ِ ئوس149َ يس كـرب كر ْ كرب ذكؤ ُ َِسـ ْ ِ َِ ِسـِنَ ُ َ ِبـر : َِ َ توسن اس ام َآماردايس من، اود او َ ْ ِْ ْ ِْ ُ َ ِبْس ُ ُِ َِ ََ ئو: ْ ِسِنبر ذ ُ َك ِ ِ ْ ذاود بروس150ْسيَ ُ ُ ِ ُ ُ دوبـادرام اابغ151َ َ ِ ُ َ َ ن ِ كؤكـد 152ُ َ َُ ِئوريدم َ ِ ُ ئوس، اود او آرخون دو قومس: 153ث ُبر ذكر ْ ُ ُ ْ ُ ْ ُ ُِ ْ ُ َِس ِْ َ َ دود ككردَ ِ ْ َ ُ َاد بوال. ُ ُ ِ ُ اخو 154َ ْلني<َ ِ ِ امن155>َ ِ156، ْافطون 132 ُ ْ تون،: َ ْا ُ .ق َفْ بون 133 ْا ُ ي ْابون، ق: ِ ُ ِ. ِامن 134 ْامين، ف: ِ ِ. .ِذ، ق: َذ 135 ِامن 136 ْامين، ف: ِ ِ. يس 137 سار ْا ِش ْ َ يش، ق:َْك سار ْ ا ِش ْ َ .َْك بون 138 ْاو ُ ِك بون، ق: ُ ْاو ُ ِك ُ. ِامن 139 ْامين، ف: ِ ِ. ِامن 140 ِامين، ف: ِ ِ. ِمسفر 141 َ ِفر ِمس :ِ .، قَ ِامن 142 ِ امين، ف:ِ ِ. .َ اءآن، ق:َاآن 143 ْءعن، ف: َاآن 144 َ َ. سو 145 ُذبوروثو، َبْم ُ ْ َ ُ سو، ف؛:َ ُ ذبو روثو َبْم ُ ْ َ سو، ُ ثو ُ ذبور َيْم ُ فْ َ ُ .قَ ْافطون 146 ُ ْ تون،: َ ْا ُ .ق َفْ نوس 147 ْا ُ كي نوس، ق: ِ ُا .َِك ْدونقومسن 148 ُ ْ ُ ْ ْدونقومسون، ق: ُ ُ ْ ُ ْ ُ. ْآماردايس 149 َ ِ ْ ْ آمار دايس،ف:َ َ ِ ْ َ. يس 150 ئو ْذ ِن ِ سِ ُ نس، ف: َك ئو ْذ ِ ِس ُ َك ِ. ْبروس 151 ُ ُاود بروس، ق: + ُ ُ ِ ُ. ُاابغ 152 َ ُاابغو، ق: ِ َ ِ. ِئوريدم 153 َ ِ ُ ِئوردم، ق: ث َ ِ ُ .ث ِيس : + بوال 154 .، ق)؟(لل ُلغو، ف ق: لني 155 َ. ِامن 156 ِامين، ف: ِ ِ. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 124 ناسث َآلو ذ ْ َ َ ي ِ تازين157ُ ْ وا ِ َ ْس ِ آرد158َ نوس: ْ ْاودان ذالث ا ُ ي ِ َكُ ِ ْ َ َ ْ يآس، اوذيس امـاس 159َ نوما دس آ ْ، دو ْ َْ َِ ِ ِ ِ ُِ ِث ِلب َ ُ باسان ْا َ َ ْس يانِ ْ دن آ َْ ِلِث ُاو غر اليس آف افطو: ِ ْ َ ِ ِلَ َ ْ ُآلوسا آن آقو، ]كذا[ 160ُ َ يسُ ِس ال ِل َ كدا،ِ نا 161َ َ ارخو َم ُ ْ َ ِآانكلكي امن ِ َ162.xxvii I-17 سالم للحـواريني يومـا يه ا يىس لقال عل ثـري مـن 163ع سالم واكن معـه يـه ا ك حـني دان رفعـه لـ عل يل بع 164ئجامعة بين إرسا يهت ممن ا شون عىل 165لإ ب ومه نـه وقـالوا ]. كـذا[ هيـعقمي بـوا عمث انفقـوا ور غ يل اذلي تلكم أن يأخذ وحيفظ هذا166من يقدر: بيهنم نـهَأ فلام ر،168 به167لثق الالكم ا 169عمه رجعـوا بـارك وتعـاىل يف القـرآن الكـرمي سالم قال للحواريني كام قال هللا تيه ا ل ِ ﴿مـن أنـصارى إىل ٱ 170عل َ ِ ْٓ ِ َ َ ْ َ سلمون هَد بأان نا بٱ وٱ َقال ٱلحواريون حنن أنصار ٱ ءا َُ ُِ ْ ُمَ َّ َ ِ ِْ ْش ِم ِ ََّ َ َ َ ْ َ ُ ْ َ ُّ ِ َ َ ْ بارهتـا .]٥٢معـران آل ٣[﴾ 171َ ع و يل هكذا ِاكمس: جنيف اإل ِ توقمن 172َ ْ َ َ َ ئـو دو زونـدس]كـذا[ِبـْس توس دو نـوقمن اودس او خر ْ اك ُْ ْ ُْ ُ ُُ َ ث سـ ُغ ْ ِ ُ ُِ ِْ َ َ ُ َ َ نـا بأنـك رسـول: قال مشعون وهو األول من احلوارينيxxviii.]كذا[ نك، فـإان آ نرص د ًحنن م ّ ي 173 مـنن نا بأنك محمود ًهللا احلي اذلي ال ميوت أو آ نام يوم وأنت شاهد بإسال م اذلي هو احلي ا .لق ناسث 157 َذ ْ َ َ ي ته، ق:ِ َ ذان ْس َ َ ِ. تازين 158 ْوا ِ َ ْس تازين،: َ ْواو ِ َ ْس . قَ نوس 159 ْا ُ كي نوس، ق: ِ ُا .َِك ُافطو 160 ْ تو، ق: َ ُا .َفْ يس، كدا 161 َال َ ِ تا، ق: ِل يس َال َك ِ ِك َ. ِامن 162 ِامين، ف: ِ ِ. .يوما للحواريني، ق: للحواريني يوما 163 يل... من 164 يل، ق: ئإرسا .ئامجلاعة من بين إرسا يه 165 .هل، ق: لإ .يسـتطيع إىل، ف: يقدر 166 .يلكم، ف: تلكم 167 .هذا الرجل، ف: + به 168 .منه، ف: عنه 169 بارك وتعاىل يف القرآن الكرمي 170 .هللا تعاىل يف القرآن العظمي، ق: تهللا َسلمون 171 ُ ِ ْ .مسلمني، ق: ُم ِاكمس 172 ِ ِاكميس، ف: َ ِ َ. .، ف-: من 173 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 125 I-18 ََسيدارا أي ،مث قال ما ذكر آنفا َ ُ امون174ُثْسِم َ اقارذاي175ِ ِ َ ِ176 xxixيعين ال ختلطوا 177ه إىل آخر ، نوا اب178وال تضطربوا سدوا عقائدمك فآ م قلوبمك و ِآمن آمن]. vgl. Joh 14,1 [179وبرسوهل تف ، يعين ِ ثـل األعـامل الـيت . ألكممكاعلموا وصدقوا ابلالكم اذلي مبمن آمن يب وصـدقين فقـد يقـدر أن يعمـل ثيل هرت اخلـوارق . مبأمعل ويزيد علهيا ويصري نت رسول هللا لقد صار رسويل ورسول ريب و ظكام ك هـرت املعجـزات مـن يـدي180مـن يـده ورافـع إىل ] vgl. Joh 14,12[فـإين ذاهـب إىل أيب . ظ كـام سامء وصـاعد يمك ا181لـا هـمكبـ إىل أيب وأ ـي وإ لساموي وإ لهـ بـونين ].vgl. Joh 20,17 [لـ نـمت حت إن ك ند هللا يت هبا من نوايه اليت أ عفاحفظوا األوامر وا نمك مـن بعـدي . تل سـلفأان سألت األب، فإنـه لري ْابرقلطن ُ ِ ْ َ ثيلآخر 182َ هو اكن مب يمك184يعين، 183ف نيب اذلي يأ ت ا تأويل185ل يمك ،ل اب لـ وأعطـاه هللا تعـاىل إ نـاه. ]vgl. Joh 14,15f. [انهتـاء الزمـانحىت يـصري معـمك إىل أان أطلـب لـمك إىل أيب : 186معأو اكن يمك نحمك و يعطـــحــىت يطــاميــ ًابر ْقِل َ بــوة187َ ثيل يف ا لن اذلي هـــو يكـــون188مــ ـــد 189ل معــمك إىل األب يطو بار قِلا ْل َ يقني 190َ xxx.لروح احلق والصدق وا سث 174 ُيدارا ْ ََس َ تو: ِم ُمدارا .، قَْس ُامون 175 ُاميون، ف: ِ ِ. َاقارذاي 176 ِ َ .، ق-: ِ .اآلخر، ف: آخره 177 . ال تضطربوا وال ختلطوا، ق: ال ختلطوا وال تضطربوا 178 .لرسوهل، ق: وبرسوهل 179 .عنده، ق: يده 180 . وذاهب، ق: وصاعد 181 ْابرقلطن 182 ُ ِ ْ َ ُابراء فاراقلطن، ق: َ ِ ْ َ َ. ثيل 183 هو اكن مبآخر نه يف بعض األحاكم: ف يين و هر املغايرة واخملالفة يسواي أي ب بيظ َ .، فِ .فإنه، ف: يعين 184 يمك 185 .من بعدي، ق: + تيأ ناه 186 .، ق-: معاكن يطا 187 ًابر ْقِل َ .فارقلطن، ق: َ بوة 188 .، ق-: لنيف ا .وهو يكون، ف: ليكون 189 يط 190 بار قِلوا ْل َ .فالفارقلطن هو، ق: َ © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 126 I-19 سالم، هكذا قاهل العالمة يه الصالة وا لواملراد محمد 192كـذاو .فتازاين يف رشح املقاصـدلت ا191عل يد ارشيف اجلرجاين لنقل عن ا يث : أنه قال193لسـ سالم إطالق األب يه ا يىس حوقد وقع عن لع عل نحمك 194أان أطلب لمك: قال يطامي إىل أيب حىت ًفار ْقِل َ يكون معمك إىل األبد 195َ لآخر 197أقـولأان فـ. 196َ بدأ، فإن القدماء سمون ملإطالق األب عىل هللا تعاىل مبعىن ا يـاكنوا يطلقون األب عـىل هللا تعـاىل و بادئ ابآلابء يل بلفظ الابن تعظامي ونوهيـا 198قيلأيضا و.ملا سالم يف اإل يه ا يىس ً خاطب هللا تً جن ل عل ع ـى نهتشأنه، ا يـضاوي. ل سري لبوقال القـايض ا بب يف هـذه الـضالةل أن أرابب أواعـمل : لتفـيف ا لـسن ا تقدمة اكنوا يطلقون األب ع رشائع ا ملا بـار ل بب األول حـىت قـالوا199>أنـه<عتىل هللا تعاىل اب إن : لـس ا بحانه هـو األب األكـرب200>األب<األب هو هـةل مـهنم أن املـراد بـه . ســ األصـغر وهللا نـت ا جلمث ظ سام نه مطلقا نع يدا وذلكل كفر قائهل و تقدوا ذكل ًمعىن الوالدة، وا ح تقل ًع م م ساد،ً ـىxxxiلف ملادة ا .نهت ا I-20 يةل ا لواعمل أن أ سري ب يطتفنصارى ورواههبم بعد موت احلواريني ترددوا يف ْقِلالفار َ ألنه لفـظ 201َ ثـرية يـة تـب اإل شاهبات يف القرآن وغريه مـن ا باجة أن ا كشابه، وأنت تعمل كام ذكرت يف ادل ه ت ي لت مل لكم يـةأال سـامي تـب اإل يل أكرث من غـري ا ههنا اكنت يف اإل لجن هـذا اللفـظ.لك يـل وذلكل 202ف لقب مـن هـذا ا هم بهجعز هداية إىل ناه النعدام ا علموا يف ل يل إىل العرية عىل هـذا اللفـظ 203مع بوه يف ترمجة اإل ب جن فكت رسايين بدلوه إىل لفـظ العريـة ألن هللا. لا ناه حىت يقة بومل يعرفوا ي مع هم 204 تعـاىلحق بحانه مل يـصل ســ .الفاضل، ق: العالمة 191 .وأيضا، ف: وكذا 192 هام هللا، ق: + اجلرجاين 193 .محر .بمك، ق: مكل 194 يطا 195 ًفار ْقِل َ .فاراقلطن، ق: َ .إىل آخره، ق: + األبد 196 . فأقول، ف: فأان أقول 197 يل 198 يل، ف: قوأيضا .قو .، ف ق-: أنه 199 .أب، ف ق: األب 200 يط 201 ْقِلالفار َ .الفارقلطن، ق: َ . اكن، ق: + اللفظ 202 يه، ف: به 203 .لإ .، ف-: تعاىل 204 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 127 بارك وتعاىل يف القـرآن احلكـمي205>حقيقة احلمكة<إىل َ ﴿ومـا :206ت كام قال هللا ُيعـمل تـأويهل إال اهلل﴾ َ ّ َّ ِ ُ َ َِ ْ َ ُ ْ َ .]٧ آل معران ٣[ I-21 نوا هر يف احلواريني حـني أمـروا 207ظوألجل هذا نه إمنا هو الروح القدس اذلي ظ بأن املراد م سالم بعد رفعه وقالوا يه ا يىس ليغ رساةل عل عبل بارقلط إمنا هو هذه احلـاةل: بت رجـام 208لاملراد من لفظ ا يب< نطني210>عىل< وبقوا 209>لغاب 212هـذا املـكلو. املـكل211قسط هذا الرتدد حىت انهتوا إىل زمن سني، حـني جـاء آريـوس اذلي هـو مـن بهو من مجع رش مـن الرواهـب وا يـثالث مائة ومثان لقسع ية الكربى و ً رجال اكمـال مـن فالسـفة القـدماء213اكنهو مرو ودعـاه املـكل مـع الرواهـب يف جـامع . ً يا، هري بآاي صو فاحلمكة املقدس ا ثوا معهلش هم ليبحو يـىس 214.مجع ية ع وهؤالء الرواهب ملا قالوا بألو ه سالم قال آريوس ليه ا يـىس، معاذ هللا أن نكون من اجلـاهلني: عل سالم خملـوق عوقـال أن يـه ا لـ عل سالم، غري أنه ودل من غري أب ابلـروح القـدس كـام خلـق ياء علهيم ا سائر األ لحمدث، رسول نيب نبك سالم من غري يكوان آية للعاملنيلآدم علهيام ا نه هذه املقاةل215.لأب وأم يـبم فلام مسع املكل 216لعج ا يا بـاطةل ألنـه اكن أوال جمو ًشـك ومـال عـن عقائـده ا ســ نـد . 217ًل سالم يـه ا يـىس عمث ملـا آمـن لـ عل بع باطةل وقالوا سني علموه من عقائد ديهنم ا لالرواهب وا يـىس : لقسي تص ية تقد بأن األلو بعاعمل وا خي ه ع سالم و ليه ا برياعل نه علوا ًأنه إهل، تعاىل هللا كً أن هذا املـكل اتب ورجـع مـن هـذه ] كذا[وأتريج . ّع .ته حلمكة، ف قحقيق: حقيقة احلمكة 205 .الكرمي، ق: احلكمي 206 .، ف-: ظنوا 207 .سـبق ذكره، ف: احلاةل... ظهر يف احلواريني 208 يب 209 .، ف ق-: لغاب .يف، ف ق: عىل 210 .قسطنطن، ف: قسطنطني 211 .، ف-: وهذا املكل 212 .واكن، ف: وهو اكن 213 ثوا معه: معه... ودعاه املكل 214 .، فليبحومجعه املكل مع الرواهب سالم، غري أنه اكن : للعاملني... وهؤالء الرواهب 215 ياء علهيم ا سائر األ سالم خملوق حمدث يه ا يىس لوقال إن ن ك ل بعل ع ند هللا تعاىل، ف سالم من عثل آدم علهيام ا ل .م يب 216 .، ف-: لعجا يا 217 ًأوال جمو سـ بل، ق: ً يا من قجمو .سـ © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 128 باطةل وآمن اب ورسوهل هم218.لالعقائد ا بب مجع وهذه ا س ية . لل نرصا هروا دين ا نوهؤالء مه اذلين أ ل ظ يث سالم220 والكفر يف رأس مأيت عام219لتثلوا يه ا يىس ل بعد رفع عل هـذانومه اتفقوا بأن املراد م. ع سالم، كـام قـال هللا يف 221لفظال يـه ا لـ هو الروح القدس اذلي أوىح هللا إىل احلواريني بعد رفعه عل بني تاب ا ملا ثالـث﴾ :لك نني فكـذبومها فعـززان نا إلهيم ٱ ٍ ﴿إذ أر ِ َ ِب ث َسل ْ َّ َ ََ َ ََ ُ ُ َّ َ ِ ْ ْ َُ ِ ْ ِ ِْ َ ْ ً شمعون ]١٤ يـس ٣٦[ْ بـ، يعـين .فسـبحان هللا عام يصفون I-22 يوهنم ومل يـب هـذه اآليـة مـن أن عفأغيش يل ما ذكـر عق يروا يف اإل يطنجن ُالفـار قِلْ َ إذا جـاء 222َ يمك اكن معه ند هللا223لإ ثق من ع الروح القدس اذلي هم من أجل خمت قلـوهبم أنكـروا. 224ينب 225لعلو نا< نبيبوة سالم، 226>ن يه الصالة وا ل محمد شمس 227فإنعل هـر مـن ا يـل اكن أ نقـل يف اإل لـ هذا ا جن ظل نصارى يقولـونولو س. ملن يعرفه يمك محمـد: لألت رواهب ا نـا ذكـر تا بـيس يف نلـ ب سالم، 228ك يـه ا لـ عل سالم229وحيمكون ياء علهيم ا سالم خامت األ يه ا يىس ل بأن ل بعل نا اذلي هو صـاحب . نع حوقد رصح يو يل ها إىل مملكة230جناإل ته اليت أر سل، وقال يف رسا متـدوه231ل يـىس ع العرب وهو ملن وثقوا به وا ع ألن سالم ق ليه ا يىسعل سالم يف 233وقال]. كذا[ 232نال إنه أيخ وأ يـه ا يـىس يـغ رسـاةل لـ فهيا بعـد عل عبل ت سفر األول سالم: 234لا يه ا يىس نا صاحب لهذا من يو عل ع يمك اي حمـيب. ح يـه 235صـفإين أو يـىس عل ع سالم وأنه بعمث رجع مهنا وآمن : ورسوهل... مث ملا آمن 218 يه ا تص به ية تقد بأن األلو سالم و يه ا ليىس عل خي ه يع ل عل بريا، ف نه علوا ًآهل تعاىل هللا كً .ّع يث 219 يث، ف: لتثلوا .تثلو .العام، ق: عام 220 باراقلطن إمنا، ق لفظ :هذا اللفظ 221 .لا يطن 222 ُالفار ْقِل َ يط، ق: َ .قلالفار .عنده، ق: معه 223 .تعاىل، ق: + هللا 224 هم خمت هللا عىل قلوهبم وأنكروا، ق: أنكروا... لهم لعو 225 .لعلو نا 226 بيبوة .بنبينا، ف ق: نن .ألن، ف: فإن 227 .ذكره، ق: محمد... ذكر 228 .وحمكوا، ق: وحيمكون 229 يل 230 . واحد من اجلواريني، ق: جنصاحب اإل .قوم، ق: مملكة 231 نىس 232 سالم قال إنه أيخ وا يه ا يىس يألن َع ل .، ف-: عل .هو قال، ق: وقال 233 ثالث، ف: األول 234 .لا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 129 هرمك هر اخلوارق بني أ نوا بلك نفس قد جاءمك ابلويح و سالم بأن ال تؤ ظا يظ م 238 أ237 حىت تذوقوه236ل يأيتف. من هللا أم ال سالم قال يه ا يىس يدان سـإن ل عل ثـري239عسـ بـوة ممـن 240ك مـن بعـدي لنادعـى ا هر اخلوارق تـه ألقاهـا إىل 241فإن اعرتف وشاهد وأقر. يظو سالم روح هللا و يـه ا يـىس لكمبـأن لـ عل ع سالم، واعرتف بأن هللا هـار 242لمرمي علهيام ا ته تعاىل إلـهيم وإل يغ وحدا ظ تعاىل أرسهل إىل اخللق ني لتبل ميه به إايمه فذكل الويح اكن صـادقا مـن هللا 244 فهيم243امس هللا ً و يمك245>أرسـهل<تعل نوا بـه . لـ إ مفـآ نـات يمك اب يعوه ألنـه رسـول مـن هللا جـاء إ لبيوأ لـ جـاءمك ابلـويح واخلـوارق ومل 246ولك نفـس قـد. ط سالم روح من247يعرتف يه ا يىس ل بأن عل ته 248ع سالم، بـل 249>ألقاها<لكم هللا و ل إىل مرمي علهيام ا نك سالمرا هلماكن يه ا ل نكرا.عل ً فإذا اكن سالم250 هلم يه ا ل يطان وسوسة، بـل 252 اكن251عل لشـ من ا يلهو ادلجال الكذاب اذلي يأيتق ].vgl. I Joh 4,1-3[ يف آخر الزمان وهو غاية اإلضالل 253سـ I-23يـد يـل ابلـويح اكن كـام قـال هللا تعـاىل يف القـرآن ا يطان يف اإل جمل وإطالق وسوسة ا جن :254لشـ َّ﴿وإن ِ يجـادلومك﴾ َ يوحـون إىل أويـاهئم ياطني ْ ا ُ ُ ِ َ ُ ْ ُِ لِ ل ل ْش ِ ِ َِ َ َ َ ُ َ َ ِ َ َّ ـ يوسوسـون عـىل مـن ]١٢١ األنعـام ٦[ل ل، أي .أمة، ف: + حميب 235 هرمك 236 .أيديمك، ف: ظأ .نذوقوه، ف: تذوقوه 237 .هو، ق: + أ 238 .سـيأدي، ق: سـيأيت 239 .كثريا، ق: كثري 240 بوة: وأقر... ادعى 241 بع وادعى ا نا لت .فأقر، ف. ت .بأن هللا، ق: + هللا 242 .تعاىل، ق: + هللا 243 .إلهيم، ف: مفهي 244 .أرسل، ف ق: أرسهل 245 .، ق-: قد 246 .ومل يقر، ق: + يعرتف 247 .، ق-: من 248 .ألقهيا، ف ق: ألقاها 249 .، ف-: هل 250 سالم 251 ليه ا يه، ف: عل .لإ .فهو، ق: اكن 252 .ليأيت، ق: سـيأيت 253 يد 254 .العظمب، ق: جملا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 130 نا احلـواري255حميكأطاعومه من الكفار، وهذا اذلي يـل،ح عن يو نقـل اكن . جن صـاحب اإل لوهـذا ا سالم، فاحلق واحض يه الصالة وا نا محمد بوة يل إلهيم لأوثق ادل عل يل بن َ ﴿فم:نب يؤمن ومـن شـاء َ َن شاء َٓ َٓ َْ َْ َْ ِ ُ َفلْ ْيكفر﴾ ُ ْ َ هف ١٨[َفلْ ].٢٩لك ا I-24 ــارقلطس ب ْ فا ُ ِ ْ َ َ لْ ــريبَ ــة إىل الع ــاء يف الرتمج رسايين وابلف ــل ا ي ــدة يف اإل ــاء املوح ب ــأوهل اب ل جن ، 256ل هـــذا بـــاء إىل الفـــاء بـــدل ذو ا كألن القاعـــدة يف نقـــل لفـــظ العجمـــي إىل العـــريب عـــىل أن ل ي ــردو ــظ، واكلف ــوهاللف ــوب . س وحن ــإبراهمي ويعق ــاء ك ب ــدل إىل ا ب ــواو ــن ذي ال ــول م نق لوإن اكن ا ي مل يامني< ِوا َ ثـل . وغريها257>بن هـاء بـدل إىل ا ياء و نقول من ذي ا موإن اكن ا ل ي ل يـامل يـا رشا ًآ ًّ هّ ِه הֶ֖אְֽהֶי[ ِ سالم ]vgl. Ex 3,14[ ]הֶ֑אְֽהֶי רֲ֣אֶׁש يه ا نوح بدل إىل احلاء لومن ذي اهلمزة عل ك عالمـة قال ال258.ي تازاين يطومعىن : لتفا ياتقلالفار يدxxxii.خلف اكشف ا ناه ا جل وأان أقول ثرية إن ،مع ية ك أي خصاهل املر ض تقا من ًاكن ْابراقلوسمشـ ُ َ َ ِابراقلطس، أو مبعىن احلامد إن اكن 259َ َ َ َ ، أو مبعىن املـأمول واملرجـو إن اكن َ ْابرقلطــسمــن ُ َ َ َ يع إىل هللا تعــاىل260َ رسايين مــن كــام ذكــر261لــشف، أو مبعــىن ا أن 262لــ يف لغــات ا بارقلطس ْا ُ ِ ْ َ َ بالغـة إن اكن ل بادة اخللق ودعـاءمه، أو مبعـىن العابـد بل شفع إىل هللا تعاىل بأن ممن عيق ي ْابرقلطقوسمن ُ ِ ِ ْ َ نـه الفعـل وغـريه يف . 263َ تق بـادة تعـاىل، ألن مـا ا بـالغ يف ا ناه من مفإن شــ لع ي مع يوانين للغات ارسايين وا ست 264 والعربيل نـه لي نقص يه حرف واترة مكام يف العريب، بل اترة يزاد يف بدل حرفه أو حرفاه إىل حـرف كـام قـالوا يف . أخـر أو إىل حرفـان آخـران265يحرف وحرفان، وقد سالم يه ا ليىس عل سوسع ْا ُ ئِ تق من ِ ياساسمشـ فإنه َا َ ي يـاِ سعادة واملوهـوب إن اكن رساي ً واملعىن ا ن . لـ رسالعرباينوإن اكن ناه املعمر إىل دهر ادلاهرينملف كام قال ا .معون اكن .جيك، ف: حميك 255 .، قيف العريب: يف الرتمجة إىل العريب 256 يامني 257 يامن، ف ق: بنا .بنا ياء 258 نقول من ذي ا لوإن اكن ا سالم... مل .، ق-:لا ْابراقلوس 259 ُ َ َ َابراقلوس، ق: َ ُ َ َ َ. ْابرقلطس 260 ُ َ َ َ ْابراقلطوس، ق: َ ُ َ َ َ َ. .، ق-: تعاىل 261 .، ق-: من 262 ْابرقلطقوس 263 ُ ِ ِ ْ َ ُابراقلطقوس، ق: َ ِ َ َ َ َ. .والعرباين، ق: والعربي 264 .أحرف، ق: رفح 265 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 131 I-25 ساو إيل يف : وحاصل املعىن يأيت من بعدي وهو ّلقد أخربين هللا بأن أرشمك برسول آخر ٍ مـ سـ ب بوة ثـق مـن هللا تعـاىل266وأيضا اكن. لنا يقة والصدق اذلي ب معه روح ا تطاعة . 267ينحلق يس الا ســو لـ يا أن يعلموه شاهدونه أل268فإهنم. نألهل ادل يس هلم إدراك أني ال بـصائر 269لنه يس هلـم ا ل يـدركوه و لـ بـرصوه270حـىت وهـذا خطـاب ]. vgl. Joh 14,17[وأنـمت تدركونـه ألنـه اكن معـمك وأنـمت معـه . 271ي بـارة ْاعـن دس: لعللحـواريني هبـذه ا ِ ْ َ بـام دون لـوغمن272َ ُ آ ُ ُ ْ ُ َ َ ِدرس، اكوابدرم آغـابس 273غَ ِ ُ ِ َِ ُ َ ِ ْ افطـون274ِ ُ ْ َ275 ُكــربوس افطــون الوســ َ َ َْ ُ ْ ْ ُ ْ ثا مكــونَ ٍو ُ َ َ ُابرفطــون َم ْ َ ْسومن] كــذا[َ َ ُ إىل آخــره، أي لــو اكن xxxiii 276ِبِئــ تـه277>واحد< بين وحيفظ الـالكم اذلي أان نمك قل حي بـه هللا تعـاىل 278م ّوإان <حي بـأمر هللا تعـاىل لقـد يه نع279>لنأيت إ بين ال]. vgl. Joh 14,23[ً هل مزنال 280نص و واللكمة اليت . حيفظ الكيم281حيومن ال ستتسمعوهنا ندي 282لي يمك 284أرسـلين اذلي بـل لـألب283عمن تمك هبـذا ألين مقـمي . لـإ لكمـواآلن ــدمك ــا. vgl. Joh 14,24-25[285 [عن نوم َاوذ ابرقلطــس، دو َ بْ ُ ُ ِ ْ َ َ َ ــون او بمــس او ابدر ان 286ُ ئ َ دو آ ْ ِْ َ ُْ ُِ َ ُ ِي ُ ساو 266 ٍوهو .واكن، ق: اكن... م .، ق-: تعاىل 267 .ألهنم، ف: فإهنم 268 .حىت، ق: أن 269 .أن، ق: حىت 270 .تبرصونه، ف: يبرصوه 271 ْاعن دس 272 ِ ْ َ .ِءآن تس، ق: َ ُدون لوغمن 273 ُ ُ ْ ُدونلوغمن، ق: ُ ُ ُ ُ. ِآغابس 274 ِآغا بس، ف :ِ ِ. ْافطون 275 ُ ْ تون، ق: َ .فآ ُكربو 276 ْ سومنَ ثا مكون ابرفطون ْس افطون الوسو َ ُ ِبِئ َُ ُْ َْ َ ٍ ُ َ َم ُ َْ َ .، ق-: َْ .واحدا، ف ق: واحد 277 .لكمته، ف: قلته 278 يه 279 لوإان نأيت إ يه آيت، ف ق: ّ .لوأان إ نع، ف: نصنع 280 .صأ . ليس، ف: ال 281 .ليس، ف: ليست 282 ندي 283 .يل، ق: عمن .بعثين، ف: أرسلين 284 ندمك 285 . مقمي معمك، قعندمك: عمقمي نوما 286 َدو َ بْ َ دوب نوما، ف:ُ َ ْ ُ . © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 132 نــوس ْدوؤنمــادمي، ا ُ َِكي ُ ِ َ ُ ُ َ امــاس ذذا287ُ ِ ْ َ ــِ ــ288ِسْك نس امــاس ابن ــدا اكبــو َ بآن ْ َ ِْ ِ ِ م ُ ِ َ َ بــون امــنيْ ِدا آ ِ ْ ُ ِي َ289xxxiv إىل يط ولكن 291يأ، 290آخره ِالفار ْقلَ َ َ القـدس، يرسـهل أيب ابمسـي، هـو يعظـمك 292روحالاذلي اكن معه ْ تـه لـمك293ّويعلممك vgl. Joh [قل لك يشء ويذكرمك بـلك مـا اكن اإلشـارة يف 294لوهـذه اآليـة. ]14,26 بارك وتعاىل295القرآن يث قال هللا ت هِره عىل ٱدل:296ح ﴿ ِّ َ َ ُ َ ِين لكه﴾ ِلُيْظ ِ ُ توبة ٩[ِ وقـوهل ] وغريهـا٣٣ل ا يانه﴾ نا ُ﴿مث إن ب َي َ َ َ ْ َ َعل َّ ِ َّ يامة ٧٥[ُ يل ].١٩لق ا سالم يف اإل يه ا جنوقوهل ل . يرسهل أيب ابمسي:عل I-26 تازاين يف رشح املقاصد297قال يـل يرسـهل أيب : لتف الفاضل ا سالم يف اإل يـه ا يـىس جنوقول لـ عل ع بوة يطَالفومعىن . لنابمسي يعين اب ْقِلار ياتَ يس: أقولxxxv.خلف اكشف ا بـوة لـسري لفـظ الامس اب ن 298لتف بوة علام ألحد نيب أو ا سمع صريورة لفظ ا بارة ألنه مل بغي يف هذه ا ًعىل ما ن ل ي للع يخ .ين لـشـوأيضا قال ا ً يـالك نـوره هروردي يف ههاب ا س يح : لش سالم يرسـهل أيب ابمسـي بـأن ا يـه ا سـإن املـراد بقـوهل لـ ملـعل نور لسح اب يه. مي نيب علفا نور299ل سوحا اب سالم اكن ل ا مم بة قال. ًل نا سـوهذه ا مل فهذا . يرسهل أيب ابمسي: ل يس بـارك، و ناه ا يح عربي و رسين قالوا بأن لفظ ا سن ألن أكرث ا يس يه أيضا تو لـا ل ملج مع سـ ملف حب ملل ً300 نور سوح اب ناه لبعريب حىت يكون مم سح ابلربكـة أو 301>قال<وإن . مع سح ألنه تق من ا مـ بأنه مل مشـ هره سالم302طمبا يـه ا يـل سحه جربا سح األرض ومل يقـم يف موضـع أو لـ من اذلنوب أو عل ئ مـ بـل . مـ نوس 287 ْا ُ نوس، ق: َِكي ُا .َِك ْذذاكس 288 َ ِذذاقس، ف: ِ ْ َ ِ. ِبون امني 289 نس اماس ابندا آ ِاكبو ِ ِ ِْ ُُ ي َ َ ْ َ ِ ِ ْم .، ق-: َ .، ف-: إىل آخره 290 .يعين، ق: أي 291 .روح، ق: الروح 292 نحمك، ق: + ّوبعلممك 293 .ميو .، ققد: + اآلية 294 .القدمي، ق: + القرآن 295 .تعاىل، ق: تبارك وتعاىل 296 .يعين قال، ق: قال 297 .ليست، ف: ليس 298 .علهيام، ف: عليه 299 .فليس، ف: لويس 300 .قالوا، ف ق: قال 301 .ظهره، ق: طهره 302 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 133 يـل مسـ رسايين ويف اإل يح يف لغـة ا جناملـراد مـن قـوهل يرسـهل أيب ابمسـي أن ا لـ توس يملـسـ ْخر ُ 303ِْسـ ]Χριστός .[ ناه احلامد أو احملمود ألن هذا اللفظ مأخوذ مـن توسمعو َاوخار ُ ِســ َ ْ َxxxvi يعـين أمحـدك ، توس ثمئ : يقال يف لغاهتمكام ُاوخار َْ َ َ ُ ِس َ ْ َ304 xxxvii، ،هـم تو دوثـؤنلليعـين أمحـدك ا ْاكوخار ُ َ ْ ن ُسـ ُ ْ ِ ْ َ َxxxviii يعـين ، تو طوبالسـمت أمحد هللا، ُاكوخار ِْ ُْ َ ْْ ن ُسـ ِ َ َ ُكـدونكرؤم] كـذا[َ ُ ِ ِ ْ ُ َ305 xxxix،فلهـذه . يعـين أان أمحـد خـالقي وريب بـارك وتعـاىل بة قال يرسهل أيب ابمسي كام قال هللا نا تا سـ يـىس 306يف القـرآن الـصادقمل ع حاكيـة عـن سالم ﴿وإذ ْيه ا ِ َ ل يمك مـصدقا لمـا بـني 307عل يىس ٱبن مرمي اي بـين إرساءيـل إين رسـول ٱ إ َ قال ْ َ َ ََ َِّ ً ِّ ِ ِ َِ ُّ ُ ْ َلـ ِ َُ ُ ِّ َ ِ ْ ِ َ َ َ ْ َ ُ ْ َ ِع َ رشا برسول يأيت من بعدي ٱمسه أمحد﴾ توراة و ُيدي من ٱ َ ْ َ ُ ب ُل ْ ِ ِ ِْ َ َ َِ ْ ٍ ُ َ ِْ ً ِِّ َم ُ َ َ َّ َ َّ ، أي كـام اكن امسـي ]٦ الـصف٦١[َ بالغة308ًكذكل احلامد أو احملمود هو كذكل اكن حامدا أو ً محمودا م يـاء حامـدون أو 309ً يـع األ نب، أي مج يدة بالغـة وأمجـع للفـضائل واحملاسـن الـيت حيمـد هبـا ألن . محلمحمودون ملا فهيم من اخلصال ا موهو أكرث يل الفاعل أو املفعول يـل مـن وهذه ا. لتفضاهلمزة يف أمحد اما جنآلية اكنـت مبـا صـدق ملـا ذكـر يف اإل توسفاكن معىن . قوهل يرسهل أيب ابمسي، أي بأمحد ِسـخر 310.ً أيضا أمحدِ I-27ْيرننِ ا ِ ْ آفمئ امن311ِ ِ ِِ ْ اريـن دن ام ذذوم امـن،ِ ٍِ ِ ِ ِِ ُ ِ ٍِ ْ ِxl تودعمك، سـالم هللا سالم أ ســ إىل آخـره، أي ا لـ يمك كام أعط313لست. عطيمكأ خاصة 312تعاىل وساليم نح العـامليعط أ ْ كـنن ]vgl. Joh 14,27[. م وأ ِ َ توس 303 ْخر ُ توس، ف: ْسِ ْخر ُ سـِ ِ. ُثمئ 304 َ ُئام، ق: َ َ َ .ث ُكدونكرؤم 305 ُ ِ ِ ْ ُ ُكدونكريؤ: َ ِ ْ ُ .ُم، قَ .العظمي، ق: الصادق 306 ْوإذ 307 ِ ْوإن، ق: َ ِ. .و، ف: أو 308 ًبالغة... اكن امسي 309 .كنت حامدا أو محمودا هو كذكل احلامد أو احملمود، ق: م .، ف-: أمحد... وهذه اآلية اكنت مبا صدق 310 ْايرنن 311 ِ ِ ٍارن، ق: ِ ِ ِ. تودعمك 312 سالم أ سـأي ا تودعمك سال: وساليم... ل سالم، وسالم هللا تعاىل، سـيعين أ يمك بلغوه ا ليم ألنه إذا جاء إ ل . ق .لوست، ق: لست 313 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 134 َارق ِ ْ امن314ِ ِ سث315ِ َ برين ْ َ يَن ْ ِ ِxliبل أن يكون حـىت إذا 317اآلن: 316 إىل آخر اآلية ق قلت لمك وأخربتمك يمك نونلجاء إ vgl. Joh [.به 318متؤ ست ألكممك]14,29 ثريا319فل . ك I-28 يس ِاوكـد بـوال ال ِلـ ُ ِ َ ثمـون]كـذا[ُ ْ ُ ِ ُ ارشـد غـر ا،َم ْ َ َ َ ْ سم دود َ ُو دو ُ ُ ْ ُقـ ْ ارخـون]كـذا[ُ ُ ْ ِ اكمن اوكـش :َ َ ُ ِ َ َ َ ْاوذن َxlii يا رجل يأيت من بعدي يف هذه ادل ن إىل آخر اآلية، يعين متـوالأرخونسـ نعام م يعين واكن . مـ ثهل يف هذه شأن مل جييء مذي ادلوةل وذي ا تـاج إيل بـيشء . ل يمك هـو ال ّفإذا جـاء إ حي vgl. Joh[لـ تاج يف بعـض األحـاكم إىل رشيعـة مـوىس وقال هذا القول أل]. 14,30 سالم اكن يه ا يىس حينه ل عل ع سالم سالم اكنـت أمكـل : فذلا قـال. لعلهيام ا يـه الـصالة وا تـاج إيل بـيشء ألن رشيعـة محمـد لـال عل ّحي تاج إىل رشيعة أخرى رشائع ال حيا شاهبات. ل ملتوأيضا هذا اللفظ اكن من ا يقـي . ً نـاه ا حلقفمل يعلمـوا مع بوه يف ال ناه يعـين . العامل320ارخونلرتمجة إىل العريب عىل هذا اللفظ ارسايين يعين كتو َارشـد معفإن َ ْ َ سم دود ارخون ُغر او دو ْ َْ ُ ُ ُ ُق ُ ُ ْ ي،َ بب األول و يا مـن هـو ا لـ يعين جييء من بعدي يف هذه ادل لـس هل سن ناه جييء من بعدي مـن هـو أفـضل األانم وأخـري العـامل معتاج يف بيشء أو اكن ّ يـه وهـو محمـ. حي علد سالم يه ا سالم كام قال لالصالة وا عل يـا وآدم بـني املـاء والطـني: ل نـت نبأول ما خلق هللا نـوري و . ك يار. ولوالك لوالك ملا خلقت األفالك سلمني األ هذا وجعلين من ا خامحلد هللا اذلي هداان .321ملل َكنن ارق 314 ِ ِ ْ ِ َكدن ايرن كنن ايرق، ف: َ ِ ِِ ِِ َ ٍَ ِ. ْامن 315 ِ ْامين، ف: ِ ِ. .إىل آخره، ق: إىل آخر اآلية 316 .قد اآلن، ق: اآلن 317 نون 318 نوا، ق: متؤ .مآ .ّألكممك الكما، ق: ّألكممك 319 ُرخونَا 320 .، قناركو: ْ يأيت من بعدي 321 يار... سـيعين ُارخون فإن : خاأل ّالعامل يأيت ويس هل يف يشءَ وأيضا هذا اللفظ اكن من . ل شاهبات بوه يف الرتمجة عىل هذا اللفظ. ملتا ناه و ها مل يعلموا توأل كمع ناه، أعين . جل ُارشد غر او دو قومس معفإن ُ ُ ُ ْ َ َ َ ْ َ ْدود ارخون ُ ْ َ ُ سالم، يعين جييُ يه ا بدأ العامل، قوهل يا من اكن لء من بعدي يف هذه ادل عل يه . من علويس هل أي حملمد ل يىس تاج إىل رشيعة أخرى ألن رشيعة رشائع ال سالم اكنت أمكل ا يه ا ته تاج ألن رش سالم يف يشء عا حي ل ل عل يع حي ّل سالم يه ا تاجا يف بعض األحاكم إىل رشيعة موىس سالم اكنت ليه ا عل حم ل يه فذلكل. عل عل قال يف حق محمد سالم توراة: لا تاج رشيعيت يف بعض األحاكم إىل ا تاج يف إىل يشء كام يمك ال لإذا جاء إ حي حي يه "من . (ّل علقوهل سالم توراة"إىل " لا يد": لاألحاكم يف ا ناه من اكن غىن .) لحش من نفس ا تاج أو اكن معويس هل يف يشء حي ّ ل سالمالعامل أو اكن ذو دوةل العامل أو اك يه ا سالم كام قال يه ا ناه أول العامل وهو محمد لن عل ل عل أول ما خلق هللا : مع يا وآدم بني املاء والطني، ف: نوري وقوهل نت نبلوالك لوالك ملا خلقت األفالك و .ك © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 135 I-29 نا بلروث ِ آ ُ ِ ِ نوس ان دومن]كذا[لي ُ او لوغس او يغرا ُ ُ ْ َ ْ ُ َم َ ْ َ ُ ُْ ُ ْ افطـونُ ُ ْ سامن322َ ِ اود ا ْ َ َِميِسـ ِ ْ ذورأن323ُ َ ُxliii ، هم324أي تـواب يف انمو تمت اللكمة اليت اكن سـ ولكن مك تـوراةل بغـضوين325ل، يعـين يف ا جمـاان 326ي أهنـم ]vgl. Joh 15,25 .[سو ا ِاودان ذالث او ابرقلطس اون اغو ُ َبْم ُ َ َُ ُ ُْ ُ ِ ْ َ َ ِْ ْ َ ْ ابرا دو ابطروس327ِمنَ ُ ْ َ ُ َ نوس 328َ ْ ا ُ َكي ِ ِماردري ِ ْ يط إذا جاء 330أي لكن ،xliv 329ِسَ ْقِلالفار َ يمك 331َ سري 332 من األبلاذلي أرسهل إ تفـ، وذكـر يف ثه333الربجان يقني334َبع مقام أرسهل أ ثق من335ل من األب، روح احلق والصدق وا األب، 336ينب اذلي هد ألجيل نمت معي من الاتداء. يشهو هدون ألنمك بوأنمت ك شكوا337وأان. تش ئال تمك هبذا ت ل .vgl. [لكم Joh 15,26-16,1 [تا لاللق امين ْآال دا ِ ِ َ ِ َ َ َ ْف َ َ338 xlvتمك هبـذا حـىت إذا جـاء 340جـل، أل339 إىل اآلخـر لكمـ ساعة يمك341لا تذكرون،ل وهو جاء إ شري 343وما أخربتمك. قلت لمك342 به أينت تبـ هبذا الالكم اذلي هو ْافطون 322 ُ ْ تون، ق: َ ْا ُ .َفْ ِاود 323 سامن ُ ِا ْ َ سامن، ف:َِميِس ِ اودا ْ َ ِميِس َ ِ ُ . .يعين، ق: أي 324 توراةانمو 325 لهم يعين يف ا .انموسمك، ف: س بغضوين 326 بغضونين، ق: يأهنم .يألهنم ِامن 327 .ِامين، ف: ِ ْابطروس 328 ُ ْ ْابتروس، ق: َ ُ ْ َ. نوس ماردريس 329 ِا ِ َِ ْ ْ ُ َكي .، ق-: ِ .يعين ولكن، ق: أي لكن 330 يط 331 ْقِلالفار َ .الفارقلطس، ق: َ .، ف-: من األب 332 .ابن الربجان، ق: الربجان 333 ثه 334 ثه، ق: بعأ .بعأان أ يقني 335 يمك روح احلق والصدق، ق: لروح احلق والصدق وا .لفإذا جاء إ .عند، ق: + من 336 .واآلن، ق: وأان 337 ْامين 338 ِ .، ق-: ِ .آخره، ق: اآلخر 339 .لكن، ف: ألجل 340 ساعة 341 ته، ق: لا .عسا .بأين، ق: به أين 342 .مل أخرب بمك، ق: وما أخربتمك 343 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 136 سالم يه ا لمحمد نت معمك344عل بل ألين ك من نمك ل ذاهب إىل من أرسلين ويس أحد345اآلن فإين. ق م إنـه خـري لـمك أن : 348لكـين أقـول لـمك احلـق] vgl. Joh 16,4-5[ تـذهب؟ 347إىل أيـن: 346يـسألين يطْفإين إن مل أنطلق مل يأتمك . أنطلق ْقِلالفار َ يمك349 فأما إذا.َ ثه إ ل انطلقت أ vgl. Joh. [بع 16,7 [ I-30 سالم يه ا لوقوهل يـل 351رسـهل أان أ350عل يمك مـن األب اكن مـن ب إ ناد<قلـ بب352>ســإ إىل ملـس ا بعث ند اإلرسال وا بب ألنه أ لا سـ سالم، كـأن 354 اذلي هـو فعـل هللا تعـاىل353لس يـه ا سه لـ إىل عل نفـ سالم، كام قال يه ا بب جمليء محمد سامء سالم إىل ا يه ا لرفعه عل ل ل با : سعل يطهلوال أكون ذا ْقِلفالفـار َ ال َ يمك بت. لجييء إ يمك، أي356 أرسهل355هفإذا ذ يمك ال حماةل357ل إ يأيت إ ل ناد فعل هللا اذلي سـفاكن إ. سـ يل اجملاز العقيل كـام يف القـرآن يا من سالم من ادل يه ا بب اذلي هو رفعه بهو اإلرسال إىل ا ن ل قعل سل يت علهيم ءآايته زادهتم إميـاان﴾ ًثريا ما وقع حنو ﴿وإذا َ ِ َ ِْ ُْ َْ ُ تل ُك َْ َ ِ ْ ِ َ َ ِ ُ َ يـل ] ٢ األنفـال ٨[َ قبوغريهـا، أو اكن مـن شري بهذكر امللزوم وإرادة الالزم ألن وذكر اإلرسـال اذلي هـو امللـزوم . الزم358لتب اإلرسال ملزوم وا شري اذلي هـو الـالزم ﴿وال ُيعـمل] كـذا[لتبـوأراد ا َ ْ ِ تـأويهل إال ٱ والراخسـون يف ٱلعـمل﴾ 359َ ْ ِ ْ ِ َ ُ ِ َّ َ ُ َّ ِ ُ َ ِ ْ آل ٣[َ ].٧معران سالمعلي 344 سالم، ق: له ا ليه الصالة وا .عل .فإين اآلن، ق: اآلن فإين 345 .تسأليت، ف: يسألين 346 .تريد أن، ق: + أين 347 .احلق، ق: + احلق 348 .إن، ق: إذا 349 سالم 350 ليه ا .، ق-: عل ثه، ف: أرسهل 351 .بعأ ناد 352 ند، ف ق: سـإ .سـأ بعث 353 .، ق-: لوا .، ق-: تعاىل 354 بت 355 .اذهب، ف: + هذ ثه، ق: + أرسهل 356 .بعوأ .يعين، ق: أي 357 .، ف-: به 358 ُيعمل 359 َ ْ .تعمل، ق: َ © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 137 I-31 نوس ثون ا ُاك ي َِكل ْ ُ ْ َ ْ الككس دونقومسون360َ ُ ْ ُ ْ ُ ِ ْ َ َ361 xlvi سالم ،362إىل آخره يه ا لـأي فإذا جاء ذاك عل نـوا يب. 366مك الرب وعىل احل365 عىل اذلنب وعىل364ّ يوبخ العامل363فهو ،مأمـا عـىل اذلنـب فألهنـم مل يؤ نطلق إىل األب وسـمت ترونين367وأما عىل الرب ل فألين العـامل يعـين أرخـون فإن 368 وأما عىل احلمك،م نه ألن هل طاعة وعادة وطريق ، أي يد]vgl. Joh 16,8-11 [ العامل370ّ يدان369مبدأ العامل يعومه إىل د نا أي . وعالمة وشأن وجزاء وماكفاة ويقال كام تدين تدان، أي كـام جتـازي . 371>جازاه<ييقال دانه د سب ما معلت نون﴾ . حبجتازى بفعكل و َوقوهل تعاىل ﴿ءان لمد ُ ي ِ َ َ َّ ّ، أي مجزيـون]٥٣ الـصافات ٣٧[ِ َ . نــه ادلاين يف صــفة هللا تعــاىل وهــو عــامل ــديين أي حبــايل وشــأينمو ــا، أي أذهل . ب ن نــه د ــه يد يودان ي بعده نه ادلين وامجلع األداين. يستو نه، أي أطاعه و مودان هل بد نـه . ي يعـا ود ّودان بكـذا داينـة أي ي ًمط نه نا أي ولكه إىل د يتد ً .يي I-32 َاد بــــوال ُ ِ ُ اخــــو372َ ِ لــــني امــــن373َ ِ ْ ِ ته374َ نا َ آلوذ ســــ ْي َ تازين آرد]كــــذا [375ُ ِ وا ْ َْ ِ َ 376 أي،xlviiْســــ ــوهل ــد أن أق ــريا أري ث ــا نمك377كإن يل الكم ــمك و ــ ل ــون محــهل وحفظــه378لك يق سـمت تط ــ يف احلــال379ل نوس 360 ُا نوس، ق: َِكي ُا .َِك ْدونقومسون 361 ُ ْ ُ ْ سمون، ق: ُ ْدو ُ ْ ْنُق ُ. .آخر اآلية، ق: آخره 362 هو 363 سالم يه ا فذاك ل سالم، ق: عل يه ا رش يعين محمد لذاك ا عل . ملب .، ف)؟( أي ميزيه: + العامل 364 .وعىل، ف: + وعىل 365 .العدل، ف: احلمك 366 .والصالح، ف: + الرب 367 .والعدل، ف: + احلمك 368 ناك إال رمحة للعالمني﴾ : مبدأ العامل 369 َرمحة العامل، كام قال هللا يف القرآن الكرمي ﴿وما أر َِ َ ََّ ْ ِ ً َ ْ َ ِ َسل ْ َ ْ ََ ٓ ياء (َ نبسورة األ . ، يعين إذا جاء هو، ق)١٠٧):٢١( .، ق)؟(يدام : انّيد 370 .ف ق: اجازاه 371 ِاد 372 َبوال َ َادبول، ق: ُ َ ِ َ. ُاخو 373 ُاحو، ف: َ َ. ِامن 374 ِامين، ف: ِ ِ. ته 375 نا َآلوذ ْس َي َآلوذانست، ق: ُ ْ َ ِ ُ. .يعين، ق: أي 376 .أقول به، ق: أقوهل 377 نمك 378 .ولكن أنمت، ق: لكو © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 138 ]vgl. Joh 16,12[. يـاسُا نومـا دس آ نـوس دو ْودان ذالث ا ْ َْ ث ب لك ِ َ َ ْ ُ ُ ِ َ ِ ْ َ َ ْ َxlviii جـاء380إىل آخـره، أي فـإذا نيب نده روح احلق والصدق381لا نذير اذلي اكن ع ا يـع احلـ382ل نحمك يقني هـو يعلمـمك و مج وا ميـ . 383قل سمع من احلق وخيربمك تلكم بلك ما نده، بل نطق من يس يفإنه ي ع ي .vgl[ بلك ما يأيت من بعده 384ل Joh 16,13 [ هور توبة و شمس من املغرب وإغالق ابب ا سامء إىل األرض وطلوع ا ظكزنويل من ا ل ل ل ية385ادلجال الكذاب ية وا خلف وغريها من العالمات ا يل 388 ممـا هـو387 يأخـذه ميجدين ألن386وهو. جلل بوةو الرساةلمن يع ما لألب389لنا رشيعة وغريها وخيربمك من مج وا vgl. Joh [ل 16,14[. I-33 يـه يـىس سان بـارك وتعـاىل عـىل يـل مـا قـال هللا شاهبات اليت وقعت يف األان علومن ا لـ ت عت ج مل سالم نـاس: لـا َا ِ غـر اكذوقـادم390َِبي َ َ ُ َ َ ْ ْ فـاين391َ ِ ساس،َ َ اذ َ ْبـ ِ سادم] كـذا[ 392َ ِاكبود َ َ يـ ِ ُ َ ْنوس ِكـ، 393َ ُ ] كـذا[َس يدم نا ِامــن َ َ غَ َس ِ ــ َك ْ ِ ــذا[ِ سا]ك نــوس كــربوادلم اس د َ ــ ن ِيم َ ْ ِْ ِ َ ِ َ ِ َ َ ُ ْ ــذا [ِ سادم ]ك ِ اك َ َ ــ َِبْسَكب ــذا[َ ِان فــاليك ،]ك َ ِ ْ َ394 ــن ْام ِ ــرومس395ِ ــد ب ث َ اك ْ ُ ُ َ َ َلْ َ.xlix ــن مه أحصــاب ــصاحلني اذلي ــاده ال ب ــاىل ــارك وتع ب ــال هللا لعق ــني396ت مي : ل ا ــا متوين<كنــت جائع ــأ نــت ،397>طعمف َشان ك و ــأرشمتوين<عطــ متوين ،398>بف سافرا فأ نــت ضــف و ــ م ك .حفظه ومحهل، ق: محهل وحفظه 379 .يعين إذا، قاآلخر، : آخره، أي فإذا 380 نيب 381 .، ف-: لا .الصدق واحلق، ق: احلق والصدق 382 .الصدق واحلق، ق: احلق 383 . وهو خيربمك، ق: وخيربمك 384 هورات، : ادلجال الكذاب 385 بل هذه ا ية الكربى من تح رو هور دابة األرض و لظبين أصفر وادلجال الكذاب و ق م ف ظ .ق نيب إذا جاء، ق: وهو 386 .لوهذا ا .يأخذ، ف: +يأخذ 387 .، ق-: هو 388 بوة 389 بوة، ف: لنالرساةل وا .لنا ناس 390 َا ناسا، ق: َِبي َا َ .َِب ِاكذوقادم 391 َ َ ُ َ ِاكذوقدم، ق: َ َ َ ُ َ َ. َاذساس 392 َ ْ ب ِ ساسا، ق: َ َاذ َ ْ ب ِ َ. سادم 393 ِاكبود َ َ ي ِ ُ َ َاكبودسادم، ق :َ َ ِ ُ َ َ. ِفاليك 394 َ ِفالك، ق: ِ َ ِ. ِامن 395 ِامين، ف: ِ ِ. .وقال ألحصب، ق: باذلين مه أحصا 396 متوين 397 متوين، ف ق: طعمفأ .طعموأ © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 139 متوين متوين399موأكر نت عرايان فأ لبسـ، و نت مريضا 400ك نـت يف جسـن 401>جفئمت<ك، و ياديت، و ك يف ع ]..vgl. Mt 25,35f [ّ إيل402>جفئمت<حمبوسا I-34سه شامل403بعك وقال بارك وتعاىل ملوىس . ]vgl. Mt 25,41-43 [ل ألحصاب ا توهكذا قال هللا سالمعليه بـدي فـالن فـمل تعـده: كاي رب ويف ذكل؟ قال: 404فقال. مرضت فمل تعدين: لا . عمرض نده بـة. عولو عدته لوجدتين هـر إال ابملوا بة ال نا ظوهذه ا سـ نوافـل بعـد أداء الفـرائض405يظمل . ل عـىل ا يح عن هللا تعاىل يـ: لصحوقد ورد يف اخلرب ا ثـل أداء مـا افرتضـت تقـرب إيل علمـا تقـرب مب ّ وال . هم بهيز نوافل حىت أ تقرب إيل اب بد حال ا ل ي تـه. ّلع نـت مسعـه اذلي ،حببفإذا أ بـه وبـرصه 406>سمعيـ<ك بطش ورجـهل الـيت ميـيش هبـا نطق به ويده الـيت برص به وسانه اذلي يـاذلي ي ل وأيـضا ورد يف . 407ي تـداء 408احلديث أن هللا خلق آدم عىل صورته ويف رواية عىل صـورة الـرمحن، وأيـضا ب مـذكور يف ا توراة نه409 وكذكللا يل ي مذكور يف اإل .بعجن I-35 ــصورة الظــاهرة سموا 410وظــن القــارصون أن ال صــورة إال ال ّ املدركــة ابحلــواس وشـــهبوا و جــ بريا411تعاىل هللا، رب العاملني عام يقول. وصوروا بـد . ك اجلاهلون علوا لعفاملراد من القرب هو قـرب ا تـداء وا لمـن هللا تعـاىل يف الـصفات الـيت أمـر فهيـا ابال يـل ختلقـوا ق قتخلـق بـأخالق الربويـة حـىت ب ساب حمامد الصفات اليت يه مـن صـفات . هللا412بأخالق مـن العـمل والـرب 413لهيـةاإلكتوذكل يف ا .بورشمتوين، ف ق: بفأرشمتوين 398 متوين 399 متوين وأكر مفأ متوين، ق: ضف متوين فأكر موأ .ضف متوين 400 .فلبسـمتوين، ق: لبسـفأ ئمت، ف ق: جفئمت 401 .جو ئمت، ف ق: جفئمت 402 .جو سه 403 بارك وتعاىل بعكس هذا القول: بعكوقال .، قتوقال هللا .وقال، ق: فقال 404 بة 405 بة، ق: ظابملوا .صابملوا .تسمع، ف ق: يسمع 406 .وذكر مجع قواه، ق: ورجهل اليت مييش هبا 407 .هذا احلديث، ق: + وأيضا 408 . أيضا، ق: + وكذكل 409 .، ق-: الظاهرة 410 .قال، ق: يقول 411 .ابألخالق، أي بأخالق، ق: بأخالق 412 ية 413 ية، ف: لهاإل .لهإ © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 140 هم مـن يحة هلم وإرشادمه إىل احلق و سان واللطف وإضافة الرمحة واخلري عىل اخللق وا مـنعواإل نص لح رشيعة باطل إىل غري ذكل من ماكرم ا لا بحانه ال مبعـىن طلـب القـرب فلك ذكل تقرب . ل ســمـن هللا يه الظـاهري<فقد ذهب بعض القارصين إىل . ابملاكن، بل ابلصفات يـه414>لتشبا هم . ل ومـالوا إ بعـضو ناسب هم. ملجتاوزوا احلد ا بوا إىل الاحتاد وقالوا ابحللول حـىت قـال بعـضوذ أان احلـق يف حـاةل غـري : ه تغراق واحملو .سـالا I-36يىس نصارى يف ع وضل ا سالمعل ل ناسـوت : وقال اآلخرون مـهنم. هو اإلهل: فقالوا. ليه ا لتـدرع ا هم قالوا. ابلالهوت شف. احتد به: بعضو تحاةل الاحتـاد واحللـول واتـضح هلـم 415نكوأما اذلين ا سـ هلم ا يف اكن مهنم بده ا هم األقلون و لضعنور من أنوار هللا تعاىل ع توراة والزبـور مـن . ف لولو ذكرت ما يف ا نا سالم لطالت محم416نبيوصف يه الصالة وا لد شاخي . الرسـاةل417عل ملـنـذكر مـن بعـض اصـطالح ا فل ية .418فالصو I-37 سلخ به قلونـا مـن رش إىل خـري، وفـاض إلهيـا مـن بابمس هللا الرمحن الرحمي، امحلد اذلي ا ن تار تور األ نا نا رس األرسار، ورفع شف يون األبصار، و نا تح ســنور األنوار، و سـ ع ك ع ّل م ة والـصال. ّف ي يد األبرار و سالم عىل رسوهل محمد نور األنوار و بوا سـ بـني بحل بار وشري الغفـار وعـىل آهل ا ي ا ب لطجل يار 419.خالطاهرين األ I-38يل سالم يف اإل يه ا يىس جن أما بعد، فإهنم نقلوا عن ل عل ساموات مـن مل 420لن: ع لـ يلج ملكـوت ا نا. يودل مرتني يل يو حوذكر يف إ بارتـه عـىل . ملكـوت هللا تعـاىلىمن مل يودل تكـرارا لـن يـر: 421جن عو نوال ِآمن آمن لغس: ملهذا ا ُ َ ْ ِْ ْ اءآن،422ِ نـيث آنـوثن423َ ْ مدس ََ ُ ِ ِ ي ْ ِ ْ اوذاند اذيـن،ِ ِ ِِ َ َ ئـو424ُ يان دو ُ دنوا َ ث ُسـل ْ َ ِ ِ َ ْ ِ،l يع،يعــين اعـــمل وصــدق ـــن يــا ل تط مـــن مل يــودل دفعـــة اث ـــرى ملكــوت هللا تعـــاىل425يــسـن أن ي يه الظاهري 414 به الظاهرة، ف ق: لتشبا .لتشـا شف 415 شف، ف: + نكوأما اذلي ا .نكوأما اذلي إ .، ق-: نبينا 416 .لطال، ف: لطالت 417 ية 418 .، ق-: فالصو يار... ابمس هللا الرمحن الرحمي 419 . ، ق-: خالطاهرين األ .مل، ق: لن 420 نا 421 يل يو حإ نا، ق: جن يل اذلي نقهل يو حاإل .جن ِلغس 422 ُ ِلغوس، ق: َ ُ َ. ْاءآن 423 ْءآن، ق :َ َ. ْاذين 424 ِ ْاذن، ق: ِ ِ ِ. . يسـتطع ولن يقدر، ق: يسـتطيع 425 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 141 ]vgl. Joh 3,3.[س يه ا يه ل وجاء إ عل يـل امسـه نقـودمسل يال رجل مـن بـين إرسا ِالم ِ ُ ِ ئ يـه . ل علوسـأهل سالم وقال ِراو، يعين اي معمل: لا َ426] vgl. Joh 3,1f.[يـة أن يلـج سان دفعـة اث يف ميكن لإل ،ً ن نـ 427ك سالم]vgl. Joh 3,4 [يف بطن أمه وأن يودل تكرارا؟ يه ا يىس ل قال عل أنت معدود من علـامء بـين : ع يل ومل ال ِآمن آمن لغس vgl. Joh 3,10[428 [ تكرار والدة؟تعمل) ؟(ئإرسا ُ َ ِ يعين اعمل وصـدق ،429ِ ْما أقول كل اي نقودميس ِ ِ ُ يع:430ِ أن يلـج يف 431يـسـتط احلـق احلـق مـن مل يـودل مـن املـاء والـروح لـن تس سارقوس سارقس است. ]vgl. Joh 3,5 [ملكوت هللا نون ا َ ِدو ْ َ ِ َ َْ ُ ْ ْ ِ َْك ْ ُ يِنَمَ أي مـن اكن ،li]كذا[ 432يُ ساممولود سم اكن أيضا جا من ا نون اكدو، 433جل َ ُكدو ُْ َِ ْ ُ يينمَ نومـا اسـت 434َ نومـادوس َ ْ َ َ ََ ِبَ ْب ُ أي lii،]كـذا[ْ .]vgl. Joh 3,6 [ من الروح صار أيضا روحا435ًومن اكن مولودا I-39 ـــر يف ـــل وذك ي ـــىت436جنإ ـــين دؤرا: م ي َ ا ِ َُ ِ ِ ـــدس437نَك سو لغون ـــد دو ثون اماث ْ برو َ َْ ُ َ ُ ـــ ئ ـــل ِس ِئ ُ ِ َ َ ِ ْ ُ ِ ُ ْ دس ،ُ ِ ْزيونِآرآمـ َ اسـنت ان438ُ َْ ِ يا ْ َدوا ِ ِسـلَ َ ُ دون اورانـون439ِ َ َ ُ ْ ــذ؛ُ سوس ب نوس او سا ي كـربوس ئـ ِقلـ َ ْ ْ ُْ ِ ِيُ ُ َم َ َ َ ُ ْ liii،ْونُئَ سالم وقـالوا هل440أي يـه ا يـىس يـذ إىل تال ساعة جـاء ا لـ ويف تـكل ا عل ل علـ العظـمي يف 441هـومـن : م هم وقـال ساموات؟ فدعا طفال وأقامه يف و سـطملكوت ا إن مل ترجعـوا :، أقـول لـمك442احلـق احلـق: ل سالم 426 يه ا يه لوجاء إ عل يل امسه نقودمس: اي معمل... ل ِسأهل رجل من علامء بين إرسا ِ ُ ِ يال وقال، ق ئ .لحني جاءه ية أن يلج 427 ًلإلسان دفعة اث ن يا، ق: ن .نللمرء أن يلج اث .، ق-: تكرار والدة؟... ت معدود أن 428 ِلغس 429 ُ ِلغوس، ق: َ ُ َ. ْاي نقودميس 430 ِ ِ ُ .، ق-: ِ يع، ق: يسـتطيع 431 .يسـتطيقدر وال ِسارقس است 432 ْ َ ِ .، ف-: َ ِسارقس است، ف: + جسام 433 ْ َ ِ َ. ُاكدو 434 ْ ُنوما اكدو، ف: + َ َ َ َ .بْ .ودل، ق: مولودا 435 يل 436 يل اذلي نقهل، ق: جنإ .جناإل َيين دؤراَا 437 ُ ِ ِ ِاتكيت : ِنَك ِ َ َداورا، قَ ُ ِ. ْآرآمزيون 438 ُ ْآرآمزون، ق: ِ ُ ِ. يا 439 َان دوا َِسِل ََ يا، ف: ِ َاندوا ِسِل َِ ََ. .يعين، ق: أي 440 .اكن، ف: هو 441 .ما، ق: + احلق 442 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 142 ثـل هـذا الـصيب ال تـدخلون ساموات443موتصريون هـو . لـ ملكـوت ا ثـل هـذا الـصيب فومـن اتـضع م ساموات444مثهل هذا هو العظمي يف ملكوت ا ل بلـين. ف ثـل هـذا ابمسـي فقـد يا بـل قومـن م مفـن . صـبق بحـ نقـه جحـر الـرىح ويغـرق يف ا نني خفـري هل أن يعلـق يف لشكك يف أحـد هـؤالء الـصغار املـؤ ع رم ]vgl. Mt 18,1-6[. I-40 يـل بـارك وتعـاىل يف القـرآن ا جللوقال هللا سلخ 445ت نـا فٱ نـاه ءااي بـأ ٱذلي ءا َ ﴿وٱتـل علـهيم َ ََ نـ ت ْن َ َ ُِ َ َ ََ َيَْ تْ ِ َّ َ َ َ ْ ِ ُ ْ َ َمهنا﴾ ْ نـاه ] ١٧٥ األعراف ٧[ِ تـك خـرب اذلي أ ية، يعين اقرأ اي محمـد عـىل أ ثا يإىل آخر اآلية ا ن عطل م نا نا ا أي الكر،تآاي ّمات هـام ثا هـم وأ لكإجابة ادلعوات رسيعا ورؤيـة املالئكـة واملاكملـة م سلخ . مع َ﴿فٱ َ َ ْنـ َ َمهنا﴾ ْ تجب،ِ بكة. ح أي انزتع وا يده يف ا ياد يطان كام يلحق ا شـفلحقه ا ص لص لشـ نعـه مـن . ل مففـأرسه ــة والرجــوع إىل احلــق توب الــضالني يعــين بلعــام بــن ] ١٧٥ األعــراف ٧[﴿فــاكن مــن الغــاوين﴾ . لا . ل بدعائـه أعـداء هللا تعـاىل الكفـرة والفجـرة عـىل أويائـه ومه مـوىس وهـارون وقـوهمام أعان446بآُعورا نا وعلهيام .نبيصالت هللا عىل I-41 ،بـل املـوت نواي ال ابملـوت بـل بدن ناية عن خروج الروح من ا قواعمل أن تكرار الوالدة مع ل ك نا يه وسـمل،نبيكام قال بـل أن متوتـوا، : 447عل صىل هللا تعال سمونه 448أوقموتـوا شاخي و يـ كـام قـال ا ملـ سالخا سالخ من رش إىل خري كام روي عن . نا سالخ من خري إىل رش وا نفإن الاسالخ نوعان، ا ن ن سطايم قدس هللا يـة مـن جدلهـا: نه قالأ رسه 449لبأيب يزيد ا سلخ ا سلخت من جدلي كـام حلا نـ .ين ثـرية. فإذا أان هو رش أنـواع كفاعمل أن الاسالخ مـن ا لـ سال: ن ميـة ويه نـفـاألول ا مخ مـن أوصـاف ذ سد والكـرب و ثـريةأحلـاحلقـد وا بـدل هـذه. كرضاهبـا ّوذكل يه أن يـدة عـىل 450ت مح الـصفات بـصفات بـل املـوت. حسب ما قالوا نـواي سان سم اإل نفس عـن سالخ ا قومهنا ا مع نـ جـ لـ شاهد . ن ملـوهـو أن ا ــ سلخ مــن بدن سه ــشــاهد ن ــ نظــر إىل خشــصههينف ــه و ت ــوم يف موا ي ويق ــراه . هج ــا ي أحصــاب وذكل إمن شاهدات بدن. ملا نفس من ا سالخ ا به ا نفس عىل سالخ القلب من ا لومهنا ا ل ن شـ ل سالخ . ن نـمث مهنـا ا .يف، ق: + تدخلون 443 ثهل 444 مهو .، ق-: ف يل 445 يد، ق: جللا .جملا .بآغورا، ق: بآُعورا 446 يه وسملصىل 447 سالم، ق: علهللا تعال ليه ا .عل .و، ق: أو 448 .، ق-: هللا 449 .، ق-: هذه 450 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 143 بدن. لارس من القلب نفس وا نه ويرتقي جمردا عن القلب وا نزتع لوهو أن ل سالخ اخلفـي . مي نمث مهنا ا سالخ ارس من القلب به ا لمن ارس ن شـ سالخ اخلفـي مـن صـفاته. كل سالخ األ.نـمث ا خفـى مـن نـ مث ا ناء ناء الـلك. فاخلفي أصال وهو سمونه ناء اذلي فوهذا هو ا بع مـرات. يلف سالخات ســوهـذه الا . نـ ناهـا مـرة واحـدة ثـرية سالخ الصفات مرات جعلمفدة ا ك سالخ . ن سادس وهـو ا سالخ ا نـوأمـا الا لـ نـ ناء سمونه فاخلفي من ارس قد ي نه غلط مهنم ألنه بقي غري هللا تعـاىل بعـد وهـو األخفـ. ل وهـذا . ىلكو سلخت مـن نفـيس :هو املقام اذلي قال أبـو يزيـد يـد . فـإذا أان هـونـا تو سمون ذكل مقـام ا حومه ل يـ ناء ية ومقام ا لفومقام ا يـا مل يكـن هـو. مجلع مل ، مل يكـن هـو451فـإذا. بـل اكن هللا وحـده،نفلـو اكن فا ن. فإذا أان هو، إذ ال أان مثة وإمنا هللا تعاىل وحده: يصح أن يقول أان أعمل أن مثـة : ه أن يقولمفلام حص ناء اكمال،غري هللا تعاىل .ف فمل يكن I-42 بـالغ إىل الاتـداء ابملقامـات وادلرجـات الـيت بوأما الاسالخ من خـري إىل رش هـو انعـاكس ا ل ن يزنل علهيا تدائه وهو مقام اإلميان. فارتقى فهيا بقى عىل ذكل. بوإذا نزل إىل ا بقى . يفرمبا يومهنم من ال يا يس وبلعـام بـن ابعـورا،لعوا سافلني اكللعـني إ سافل إىل أسفل ا بلـذ اب حىت لـ 452كـام قـال هللا يت نـاه هبـا﴾ 453تبـارك وتعـاىل يف القـرآن العزيـز نا لر َ ﴿ولـو ِ ُشـ َ َفْع َ َْ ََ ئْ ِ نـاه إىل ،]١٧٦ األعـراف ٧[َ فع أي ر شاهدة، وإمنـا اكن يف. عليني يل عىل أنه تعاىل مل يرفعه بعـد إىل درجـة ا ملـوهذا د ته ل شـف بـداايت ماك .وكراماته I-43 ﴾نه أخدل إىل ٱألرض ِقوهل تعاىل ﴿و ْ ََ ْ ََ ِ َ ْ َلك ُ َّ ِ يا وريض هبا]١٧٦ األعراف ٧[َ تار ادل ن، أي ا فا . خ ــني ب ّتعــاىل ــزتاهل إىل454ي يــث أضــاف 455 أن ان سه ــاره ي به وســوء ا ــا اكن سفىل إمن ح ا ــ نف ت سـ ــ لل خبكــ ُ يه كام قال 456نالاسالخ واإلخالد هوى إ باع ا ل وا سلخ مهنا﴾ لت َ﴿فٱ ْ ِ َ َ َ ْ ن َو﴿أخدل إىل ] ١٧٥ األعراف ٧[َ ِ َ َ ْ َ بــع هــواه ُٱألرض وٱ َ ََ َ َّ ت َ ِْ َ ــه اكن بعــد يف مقامــات .]١٧٦ األعــراف ٧[﴾ 457ْ يــل عــىل أن ــضا د ل وهــذا أي بلغ بعد إىل اجلـربوت سب والطريقة إال أنه كوشف هل يشء من عامل امللكوت، ومل يا فـإن لك مـا . لك تربجيري يف عامل اجلربوت جرب سب يه بد يس معي، ك فللع هم وحد. ل هم تففا . إن شاء هللا تعاىلهف .وإذا، ق: فإذا 451 .، ق-: هللا 452 .العظمب، ق: العزيز 453 بني 454 ّفا تعاىل .ّوهللا تعاىل بني، ق: ي .، ق-: إىل 455 .، ق-: واإلخالد 456 ُهواه 457 َ هواه، ف: َ .لا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 144 I-44 توراة يف أيدي الهيود توب يف ا لوقصة بلعام شام امسـه 459إن ملاك مـن ملـوك: 458مك لـ نـوايح ا توراة امسه والاق461َ بن صفور460ابالق َ ويف ا َ ْ وامس بلعـام والامع بـن 462ل َ َ ْوُعـور<َ ، أهـدى 464 463>َ يدعو ثريا يه ماال لإ ك يل465ل ئ ابرش عىل بين إرسا ال تفعـل ذكل، : جفاءه من مالئكة هللا تعـاىل وقـال. ل نع بلعام. فإن هللا تعاىل مع هؤالء القوم ْفزاد ابالق. متوا ثـة466َ يـة واث ته اث ل يف هدا ن بـل467ي مث . ق حـىت ــاالق ب ــام ــر بلع َأم ــرية468ب ث ــصدقات ــصدق ب ت ــرابنني و ــذحب ق ك أن ي ي ــدة، . ُ ــدة مدي ــوا يف ذكل م واكن توى يل عىل بعض دايره وقراه 469سـوا ئنو إرسا سالم فـمل . ب يـه ا لـودعـا بلعـام عـىل مـوىس وقومـه عل ساء القوم يل 470فأثر دعاء بلعام. بنيؤثر دعاؤه حىت وقع قوم موىس يف الزانء وجفروا نو إرسا ئ وجعز ب بل بني علهيم من قممن اكنوا قاهرين غا َلكـن هللا تعـاىل لعـن بلعـام بـن ابعـورا. ل َ َ تـورا،471َ ة اكن ل ويف ا ْوُعور< تـوراة لوالقصة بطوها أطـول مـن ذكل. مطرودا حمجواب مردودا474 وجعهل هللا472473،>َ ل يف ا يـا يف 476وهذه. الرساةل475ولو ذكرهتا لطالت بغـي أن يـؤمن مـا دام ح اآلية دالةل عـىل أن الـويل ال ين .، ق-: يف أيدي الهيود 458 .ملكوك، ف: ملوك 459 .ايلق، ف: ابالق 460 .صفوار، ق: صفور 461 .والق ابلواو، ق: والاق 462 ْوُعور 463 .سـبفور، ف: َ ْوامس بلعام والامع بن 464 َ َ ْوُعور<َ .، ق-: >َ .ليدع، ق: ليدعو 465 .ابلق، ف: ابالق 466 ثة 467 ية واث لاث .، ق-: ن َباالق 468 .ببالق، ف: ب توى 469 .بنوا، ق: + سـا .وجعزوا، ف: +بلعام 470 َابعورا 471 .ابغورا، ف: َ ْوُعور 472 ُوغور، ف: َ َ. توراة اكن 473 ْوُعور<لويف ا .، ق-: >َ .، ق-: هللا 474 .لطال، ف: لطالت 475 .هذه، ق: وهذه 476 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 145 يف يل عىل أن الكر477وهذا. لتلكدار ا يـاء لمات اخلارقة للعـادة قـد يكـون لألويـاءال أيضا د نب كـام لأل هم إن شاء هللا وحده سالم، تفعلهيم ا .ل I-45 ﴾هَـث هَث أو ترتكـه يه ْوقوهل تعاىل ﴿إن حتمل ْ ِْ يلْ َيل َُ ْعل ُ ْ َ ْ َ ِ ْ َ َ ْ ْ َ ْ ثـل بلعـام ،]١٧٦ األعـراف ٧[ِ م يعـين ثل ٱللكـب﴾ ﴿ِ ْ َ ْ ِ َ تـه يـربض يف : الالهـث] ١٧٦ األعـراف ٧[َمكَ هـث، وإن تر كإن طردتـه وعدوتـه يل هث سوء، هو : حال هذا الضال يعين بلعام بن ابعورا478ذاك. يلالظل ته مما يعمل من معل ا لإن منع نع، وإن سالم، ال تادلعاء عىل موىس وهارون وقوهمام علهيام ا نـع479ميل تـه ال ت تر ثهل . ميك مـوإمنـا رضب نعه مـن هـذا ادلعـاء عـىل مـوىس وقومـه. ابللكب إهانة به ّوقـد حاجـه . موإمنا قال ذكل ألنه زجره و تـوراة. اجة مرارا ومل يزنجرحم توب يف ا لوذكل نعـه مالئكـة هللا تعـاىل. مك مـن ذكل 480مكـذكل أنـه نع ثرية وانحصوه كرات مجة فمل تمرارا ثال ذكل الضالل. ميك .مأعاذان هللا عن أ I-46 ـم قلـوب هُ ثـريا مـن ٱلجـن وٱإلنـس هَـمن ٌوقـوهل تعـاىل ﴿ولقـد ذرأان ُ َُ ْ َ ل ِلج ْ ِ ْ َ َِّ ِ ْ َ َِّ ً ِ ك َ َّ ِ َ ْ َ َ ْ َ ـون هبـا﴾ َ هُ َ ال ِ َ ْيفقَ َ َّ]٧ ــة] ١٧٩األعــراف تــصوف. اآلي سري هل يف ا ــال اإلمــام ادليلمــي يف لق ــ اعــمل أن : قــدس رسه ،481تف ثـرية يات تعمل كالقلوب مجع، واحدها قلب وأنه سم ملـسـ بـدن . يـ هـام العـوام قلـب ا لواألقـرب إىل أ ف بدن، مث قلب أ. عة حلم خمصوصة معروفةطوهو ق نفس يف قلب ا لمث قلب ا نفس ل لـلطف من قلـب ا نفس لهو يف قلب ا يه رسا. ف رس قلـب القلـب .نـسممث يف هذا القلب العقـل والـروح اذلي لـ وهـذا ا يه العقل يـان482فاذلي رس نـوران روحا ن، مث العقـل وا بـه 484، مث اخلقـي بعـد ذكل483لـ رس و قل رس ا لـ هم نه فا فو ـى،عي تاب مرآة األرواح. نهت ا يل ذكل يعرف يف كوتفا .ص I-47 هُـون هبـا﴾ إذا عرفت ذكل هُـم قلـوب ال َ قوهل ﴿ ِ َ يفقَ ْل َ َّ ٌ ُ ُ ْ القلـب 485 عـىن بـه،]١٧٩ األعـراف ٧[َ نـور العقـل والـروح هم ويعقل مـا يعقـل هم ما نفس إمنا باذلي هو حمل ارس والعقل، مث ا ل يفل وقـد . يف تورا ساد486مسـيكون هذا القلب ساوة وأنواع ا لف حتت ا نفس . لق نوران ا لـيكون العقل والروح ال ي ف .وهذا، ف: + وهذا 477 .أيصا كذا، ف: كذا 478 .و، ق: وإن 479 .، ق-: تعاىل 480 تصوف 481 لسري هل يف ا .، ق-: تف رس، ف: + العقل 482 .لوا يان 483 يان، ق: + نروحا .نروحا .كل، ق: ذكل 484 .هبا، ق: به 485 .مسطورا، ف: مسـتورا 486 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 146 نفسألهن رسي نورهام إىل ا سود، فال لام يف جوف القلب ا ي بارك وتعاىل. مل ْ﴿الك بل: 487تقال هللا َ َّ َ488 ْران عىل قلوهبم﴾ ِ َِ ُ ُ َ َ نـيب. والرين هو الصداء عىل القلوب] ١٤ املطففني ٨٣[َ صـىل هللا تعـاىل ،لقال ا تصدأ كام يصدأ احلديد جفالؤها تالوة القـرآن: 489عليه وسمل يـه 490ا قـالوأيـض. لإن القلوب نـيب عل ا ل سالم تة491إذا: لا به با وقع عىل بد ذ نك أذنب قل ن فـإن أذنـب أخـرى وقعـت أخـرى . سوداء] كذا[ ع تورة، حمجوبـة عـن األنـوار، مظلمـة يف ذاهتـا ال . حىت يعمت القلب، احلديث مـسـوإذا اكنت القلوب شواهد وادلالئل واألمارات ادلاةل عىل احلق .ليفقه األنفس هبا ا I-48 برصون هبا﴾ قوهل َتعاىل ﴿وهُم أعني ال ِْ َ ُ ُ ٌَ ْ ي َّ ُ َ ْ َ ل يـون القلـوب ،]١٧٩ األعراف ٧[َ ع وإمنا أراد بذكل نفس بواسـطة برص هبـا إمنـا هـو ا برصون هبا﴾ ألن ا لـوهو الروح والعقل الذلين أرشان إلهيام، ﴿ال مل َي ِ َ ُ َُ ْ َ نفس حمجواب عهنام وهام حمجوابن يف القلـب فـال يـصل. القلب نفس إىل الاتفـاع هبـاملفإذا اكن ا ن ا . لـ تفعـون بـضوء اجلـوهر يـه جامعـة ال يت مظـمل، و نكجوهر ميضء ملفوف يف خرقة يف ف يـت . يب لبإذ ا يه جوهر شف الغطاء عن اجلـوهر . ألن اجلوهر يف جحاب مظمل492>ميضء<فمظمل وإن اكن كفلو نا يائه كذا ناس تفع ا يت وا هأضاء ا بض ل ن .لب I-49 َوقوهل تعاىل ﴿وهُم ء ْ َ ل سمعون هبـا﴾ َ َاذان ال ِ َ ُ َ ْ َ ي َّ ٌ ، فإمنـا أراد بـه آذان القلـوب ]١٧٩ األعـراف ٧[َ سوة كـام ذكـران نـع . لقـوهو الروح والعقل الذلين أرشان إلهيام، إال أهنام يف جحـاب الـرين وا ميواحلجـاب نفس 493>من< ظوصول املواع سمع ا سمع القلـب هبـام، لـ اآلايت واألحاديث وادلالئل إلهيام حىت يـ في سمعون . اسطة سامع القلـببو هـم اكنـوا يـون القلـوب وآذاهنـا ألهنـم نـا إنـه أراد بـذكل يـوإمنـا ع لكقل هم الظاهرة سوبرصون حبوا 494.ي I-50 ﴾تـه ِوامحلـد اذلي جعلـين مـن زمـرة ﴿يـؤتمك كفلـني مـن ر ِ ِ ْمحَِ َ ِ ْ َ ْ ُ ِ والـصالة ]. ٢٨ احلديـد ٥٧[ُ ياء وعىل يع األ سالم عىل خري خلقه محمد وعىل نبوا مج مث نرجـع إىل مـا . خري آهلم وأزواهجـم وأوالدمهل يهل من ادلعاء بسبنا سري: ك تاج إىل سري واي من ال رس لك هم اي تفا حي ع ّي م سري . لل نـا لك عـهّل علي سـ .تعاىل، ق: تبارك وتعاىل 487 .، ق-: بل 488 يه وسمل 489 سالم، ق: علصىل هللا تعاىل ليه ا .عل .وقال، ف: وأيضا قال 490 .إذ، ق: إذا 491 .ألن اجلوهر ميضء، ق: + ميضء 492 .من، ق: + من 493 برصون هبا﴾ : قوهل تعاىل 494 َ﴿وهُم أعني ال ِْ َي ُ ٌَ ْ ُ َّ ُ َ ْ َ ل هم الظاهرة... َ .، ف-: سحبوا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 147 سري، اي ماكل املكل يك رس يل ا يفإن عل لع تـك اي أرمح الـرامحني. اي ذا اجلالل واإلكـرام،تسه 495محبر هم اغفر يل خطاايي وهجيل وإرس أنـت املقـدم وأنـت املـؤخر . ايف يف أمري وما أنت أعـمل بـه مـينللا يـاي الـيت فهيـا . وأنت عىل لك يشء قدير هم أصـلح ديـين اذلي هـو عـصمة أمـري وأصـلح يل د نا لل يـاة زايدة يل مـن لك خـري واجعـل املـوت . معايش، وأصلح يل آخريت اليت إلهيا معادي حلواجعـل ا هم إين أسأكل . راحة يل من لك رش تقى والعفاف والغىن ومن العمل ما ترىضللا هدى وا لا .ل I-51 هم آت نفيس تقواها وزكهيا، أنت خري من راكها، أنت ولهيا وموالها ِا هم إين أعوذ بك من . لل للا نة الفقر نار ومن رش الغىن ومن رش تنة القرب وعذاب ا ل فت يح ادلجـال، . ف نـة ا سـوأعوذ بـك مـن ملـت ف هم إين أعوذ برضاك من خسطك نـاء للا نـك ال أحـىص هم إين أعوذ بـك ثومبعافاتك من عقوتك، ا مب لل سك ال إهل إال أنت يت عىل نفيك، أنت كام أ يك. ثنعل هم رنا وأتوب إ تغفرك ا لأ ب تك . للسـ هم كام سأ لا لل نه فـإين سـألت ذكل لكـه يل ولـوادلي وأرمحـين وأهـيل وقـرابيت وجـرياين ومـن حـرضين مـن ّيه و م ف سلمني ومن عرفين أو مسع هـم ملا ناهئم وإخواهنم وأزواهجـم وذوي ر محبذكري أو مل يعرفين ولوادلهيم وأ ب سلامت سلمني وا نات وا نني واملؤ ملوللمؤ مل م ياء مهنم واألموات ومن ظن يب خـريا،م إنـك واهـب . ح األ وسـمل عـىل محمـد وعـىل آل محمـد وابرك وصـىل. ٌاخلريات ورافع املرضات وأنت عىل لك يشء قـدير يت وسلمت وابركت عىل إبراهمي وعىل آل إبراهمي يف العـاملنيعىل محمد وعىل آل محم إنـك . صلد كام يةل وادلرجة يةل وا يد وآته الو لفضيد سـ جم واملقـام احملمـود اذلي وعدتـه إنـك ال ختلـف 496>فالريعة<مح يعاد 497.ملا يـل يف حقـه ييل وهـو ملـن هري بـإ ندي ا قمتت من يدي الفقري أحقر الورى درويش عيل ا ش جنب ل لنقش سمى عيل يف الرساةل اليت بل تأ بور سور إىل بالد ا يوانين ويدخل القلب ا ت بن ا ل ن ملك قل وذكر ) ؟(لط يل يف ا سالم يف اإل يه ا نيب محمد لنعت ا جن ل عل رشيفةيل بت من ذي احلجة ا لوم ا 498.لس رس 495 هم اي ّا مي .، ق-: الرامحني... لل .فوادلرجة والريعة، ف: فوادلرجة الريعة 496 هـم آت نفـيس تقواهـا وزكهيـا 497 ِا يعـاد... لل بـدك، رسـوكل: ملا يدان محمـد، عوصـىل عـىل نـيب األيم وعـىل آهل ســ ل، ا به، ق .حصو رشيفة... متت من يدي الفقري 498 يه : لا ييل متت الرساةل، ق) ؟(لمياألقا باد درويش عيل إ جنعىل يد أضعف ا .لع © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 148 Rezension II: II-1سم اهلل الرمحن الرحمي ّ ب شاكرين وأومـن 499كْأمحد تين محـد ا هـم عـىل أن هـد لـ ا ي ننيّلل تـين إميـان املـؤ مبـك عـىل أن و وأقـر . فق ــالق ــاملني وخ ــت، رب الع هد أن ال إهل إال أن ــصادقني وأ ــرار ال ــرتين إق تك عــىل أن أم ّبوحــدا َ ــ ش 500ني سموات واألرضني وملكف اإلنس واجلن بـادة اخمللـصني، فقـال 501لا بـدوك ع واملالئكة املقربني أن يع بدوا اهلل: تعاىل َ﴿ومآ أمروا إال َّ ْ ُْ ُ َيْع ِلَ َّ ِ ُ ِ ُ َ مخلصني هل ادلين﴾ َ ِّ ُ َ َ ِ ِ ْ نة ٩٨[ُ تني، فإنـه مـزنه] ٥لبي ا 502ملاخلالص ا شاركني يع. ملعن رشكة ا يد املرسلني و عىل يك محمد سالم عىل مجوالصالة وا سـ يـني وعـىل 503نبل لنب ا بني الطاهرين .لطيآهلم ا II-2بوا 504ّ وبعد، فإين تب505ىل حتريف ألفاظإه رأيت أكرث علامء اإلسالم قد ذ تقدمة لك ا ية ا مل اإل له ته نصارى والهيود قد بدلوا مهنا امس محمد و نعوادعوا أن ا ّل يه وسمل506 تعاىل صىل هللا،ّ نـت . عل كوقـد يةل تقدمـة ر تب ا يل هذا قد ألفت من ا ســمن مل لكب ّ بـت هـذه العلـامء وصـريهتا 507ق ّ عـىل سـنن مـا ذ ه يةل ًو يف 510لجـأ األفاضـل واألعـاظم وادليـن، م509ّ سعد اخللق واملـةل،508ىل الفاضل الاكمل العاملإسـ هوفني يث ا هف املظلومني، مللالعاملني، سلمني ،511مغك يخ اإلسـالم وا سالطني، ملـ مرشد امللوك وا شـ ل يض اهلل، قـدس رسه ونـور اهلل رضحيـه ورفعـه هللا يد ّا ّّ ّ ـ ف يـا512لـسـ ً مـاكان عا َّ فـإن مـن تـأرخي ،513ل .امحد، و م :ْأمحدك 499 .وخلق، م :وخالق 500 .ونلكف اجلن واألنس، ك :وملكف اإلنس واجلن 501 ياء، ك؛ :مزنه 502 غنأغىن األ .، م-ْ .مجةل، و :مجيع 503 .ملا، ك م+ :ّفإين 504 .األلفاظ، ك :ألفاظ 505 .، ك م-: تعاىل 506 يةل 507 يةل، و م :سـر .سـو .الرابين، ك م+ :العامل 508 احلي املةل، ك :ّاخللق واملةل 509 .واألعامض، و :واألعاظم 510 هوفني 511 هلوفني، ك :مللا .ملا .ورفع تعاىل، ك :ورفعه هللا 512 يا 513 ًعا ّ .عليا، و م :ل © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 149 يد بال شـهبة شههادته أنه ها. ش سن و قعفلام ُ نده سألين، رمحة514ح يـهع بـأن أخـرج ،515عل هللا تعاىل ته تقدمة امس محمد و ية ا تب الإل نعمن ا مل له يه وسـمل516 تعاىل صىل هللا،لك تـب 517عل ك كـام اكن، وأن أ يه وسـمل كـام توراة والزبور وامسه صىل هللا يه وسمل كام اكن يف ا ته صىل هللا متةل علرساةل ل عل لنع مشـ يل نا518جناكن يف إ .519ح يو II-3 تاذي الفاضل احملقق والعامل املدقق520عد بإيلفلام من هللا عالمة الورى ،سـ املدة بربكة أرسار أ ثاين محمد الربكوي521جالل ادلين أويج نـا،لا هـم متع قدس هللا أرسارهام، ا يـامن522لل هم523مب 524نفـس أ تأنفت العمـل يـا وا نـة، رشعـت اث يفـة، أمـني ايذ اجلـود وا رشيفة ونور قلونا بأنوار بـراكهتم ا ســا ن مل ن ب ملل بعت توراة والزبورتتو يل وا ل اإل نـاايت واجملـازات غـري . جن شاهبات وا هـا مـن ا لكووجدت أكرث ألفا ملتـظ ناها،526 األلفاظ525حمرفة تحريف واقع يف مع بل ا .ل II-4ــه صــىل هللا ت ــاىلنع ووجــدت امس محمــد و ــه وســمل527 تع ي ــوتور< 529ً فهيــا اجنــالء528عل 530>ًةي ها الكم هللا تعاىل، فإهن).؟ (531ًومزبورا ها لك فألفا سالم دفعـة ظ يـاء علـهيم ا ًا أنزلـت إىل قلـوب األ لـ نب ها 514 .رفعه، و م :قعو .، ك- :عليه 515 .، ك م-: تعاىل 516 يه وسمل 517 ته صىل هللا تعاىل علو ته، و :نع يه وسمل و نعصاىل هللا تعاىل .عل يل 518 يل، ك :جنإ .جناإل تب رساةل 519 نا... كوأن أ يل يو حيف إ نا، و :جن يل يو حيف إ .جن .بعيد، ك: بعد 520 .اويح، ك :أويج 521 نا، ك :عنامت 522 متنا، و؛ منع .م .مبيان، ك :مبيامن 523 هم 524 هم، و م :نفسأ .سأنفا .منحرفة، و م :حمرفة 525 .ألفاظ، م :األلفاظ 526 .، ك م-: تعاىل 527 يه وسمل 528 يد :علصىل هللا تعاىل لتوب فوق هذه اللكامت من نفس ا .أي مبعىن صفة، م: مك يال، و م :ًاجنالء 529 .جنا .ًاة، ك و موتور: ًوتورية 530 .وزبورا، ك ً:ومزبورا 531 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 150 يه نا علواحدة، غري أن نبي سالمو الـصالةً نجام وغـري 532لـا ّ أنـزل القـرآن س<مـ لـسأةل ا )؟ (533>بمـ توراة534يف ها. ل ا سالم بعد نزو يه ا لفإهنا أنزلت إىل موىس ل .عل II-5 سؤال واجلوا يل من ا ته يف اإل لوما رأ جن الهيود وغريمه أخرب هللا تعاىل هبا 535 الذلين وردا منبي سالم كـام قـال هللا536رسول يه ا يىس سالم بعد رفع يه ا يىس لـ عل ل ععل بـاركع يف القـرآن537تعـاىلو ت يمك مرسلون﴾ 538العظمي ثالث فقالوا إان إ نني فكذبومها فعززان نا إلهيم ٱ َ ﴿إذ أر ُُ َْ ْ ُّ ُِ ُ ْٓ َ ل ب ث ِسل ِ ِ ِٓ ََّ ْ ٓ َ ٍَ َ َِ َ ِ َ ْ َّ َ ََ َ ُ َّ ِ ْ ْ َُ ْ َ ْ َ ، ]١٤س ي٣٦[ْ يـت إىل الحـواريني:وكام قال يف سـورة ذكـر فهيـا املائـدة َ ﴿وإذ أو ِ ِ َ َْ َْ َ ِ ُِ ْ ح َ ْ نـوا يب وبرسـويل﴾ 539َ ِ أن آ ُِ َ َ ِ ُ ِم ْ َ]٥ سالم، أو هـو : ومعىن إحيائه تعاىل الهيم]. ١١١املائدة يـه ا يـىس سان لـأمـره تعـاىل الـهيم عـىل عل علـ نه هام، مإ يـل كـام يف540ل بـوا األان ج تعاىل الـهيم بـأن نـا إىلكت َ قـوهل تعـاىل ﴿وأو ِ َ َحْي ْ َ َ مـوىس541َ ُ542 ﴾]٧ هم]. ١١٧األعراف بعضيس األمر كام زمع ية من543فل يل حمك من أن أول آايت اإل احلـواريني، 544جن ها الكم هللا نس األصوات واحلروف، بل صفة أزية قامئـة بذاتـه تعـاىل، .545 تعاىللكبل ل ويس من ج ل سكوت واآلفة ية للنا ف ٍهو هبا آمر انه. للطفوية وا547 كام يف اخلرس546م خمرب وغري ذكل يـدل علهيـا 548ٌ بارة ناية ألعاب .549>أو اإلشارة<لكو ا سالم 532 سالم، ك: لالصالة وا .لا سب 533 لسأةل ا بت، م: م سأةل ا بت، و؛ سةل ا يت، ك؛ سسأةل ا س لب ل مل م .م .يف، ك+ :يف 534 .ورد أنه، و م: وردا من 535 .هبام إىل رسوهل ، ك: هبا رسول 536 .تعاىل، ك: تبارك وتعاىل 537 .، ك-: العظمي 538 َالحو 539 َ َارينيْ ِ .احلواريون، و م :ِ ن 540 هام مإ هامه، و م :هل .لإ .امر، و + :إىل 541 سالم، م: + موىس 542 ليه ا .عل .، م-: بعضهم 543 .يف، ك و :من 544 .، ك-: تعاىل 545 .واآلقة، و: واآلفة 546 .احلرس، و م: اخلرس 547 ٍامر انه 548 .امران، و :ٌ ناية 549 ناية واإلشارة: >أو اإلشارة<لكا تابة واإلشارة، ملكا تابة واإلشارة، و؛ ا لك، ك؛ ا .لك © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 151 II-6 يـةإف نذا عرب عهنا ابلعريـة فقـرآن وابلعربا ب تـوراة550ّ يـل وزبـور ف يـة فإ يوان ية وا رساي جنواب ن ل ن .551لـ ــ ــف تعــددة ولغ نة ــر هللا تعــاىل بأ ــام إذا ذك سمى، ك ــارات دون ا ب تالف يف ا ٍاال م ٍخ سـ ــ مل ــلع ــةل تلف ٍات خم ٍ . رسايين ] ֵאל[ايـل 553 هللا وابلعـربي552فبـالعريب يـوانين liv]كـذا[ 554اللـولـواب . ][θεόςثـؤس ل واب يل من هللا يـة، 555 تعاىلجنفاإل تـب اإل سائر ا ه لك سالم، مث 556وىح هللاألك يـه ا يـىس لـ اىل قلـب عل ع سالم يه ا سانه لنقل عن عل .557ل II-7 ثين بـوةل ض يف هـذا الغـرين ملـا ألفـتإ عىل وضع هذه الرساةل ف558حومما يةل وصـارت مق الر ســ تهبا إن شاء هللا تعـاىلأ 559عند باب، بدأت ألن أ كويل األ شاهبات560 املعـني رسـاةلل 561للمتـ موحضـة نا اب الوهـاب أن يل غايـة اإليـضاح، ييف اإل يـد اإلميـان إىل أن562رتفـعنمـسـتعجن نرتقـي 563تقل عـن سان564إىل إيقان تالك. ح اإل يـه ا تعان و لـإنـه خـري ا عل بـت الوصـول هبـا إىل حـرضة . نملـسـ طلواآلن تـاح تكون إن شـاء هللا ا تـوح العظمـى الـيت يه لفمن خصه هللا تعـاىل اب نـصري، وهـو . ســلف لنعم ا فـ يف واخلــروج، وهــو ــلــسـصــاحب ا تور املفخــم، ســلطان وزراء األ565وزيرال بــين 566ســـعظــم وادل هــــاوي،567آدم، صــــاحب ديــــوان املــــامكل نقــــذ للخالئــــق مــــن ا مل ا هــــاكل568مل ويه هل مل وا ية 550 .بوابلعرية، ك :نوابلعربا يل وزبور 551 ية فإ يوان ية وا جنوابرساي ن ل ن يل وزبور، ك: ل ية إ يوان ية وا رساي جنويف ا ن ل ن .ل .وابلعريب، ك :فبالعريب 552 .وابلعربين، ك: وابلعربي 553 . ايلو، و؛ ايلود، م:اللو 554 .، ك- :تعاىل 555 .ادىح، ك: أوىح هللا 556 سالم 557 يه ا سانه لمث نقل عن عل .، و م- :ل .، و م- :حثين 558 .عنه، ك م :عند 559 . ، ك-: املعني رساةل 560 شاهبات، ك :للمتشاهبات 561 .ملتا .ترتفع، ك و: نرتفع 562 .، م- :أن 563 نان، ك :إيقان إىل 564 .يإ .وزير، ك :الوزير 565 .ئه، مالوزراء، ك؛ وزرا :وزراء 566 يك، ك :املامكل 567 .لاملام هاوى 568 .اخملاوق، و؛ اخملاوف، م: ملا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 152 ية< ال 569طبيعة يقة ال 570>فإضا ية<حق و تـه الـوزراء : ّ إال هل قول مـن قـال572 وال يصلح.571>ضعو تأ ها573منقادة يه جترر أذاي ل إ ها. ل ولو راهما أحد غريه لزلزلت . لفمل تكن تصلح إال هل، ومل يكن يصلح إال بل ها ولو مل تطعه ذات القلوب ملا قاألرض زلزا ها وال يعىن 574ل :غريه بقول القائلل هللا اعام II-8 شعر ناىن ثل روضات ا جلنابك م نال غاايت ج نك تو األماين575م ثاين 576احللت من املاكرم يف ذراه بع ا ملففهيا أنت اك لسـ ها أبدا دواين فال زالت من الرمحن نعمى يك قطو ًإ ف lvل II-9 يـث ا هـف املظلـومني، ملاتج املةل وادلين، ملجأ األفاضل واألعاظم يف العاملني، ،577لهـوفنيمغك سالطني، بل هو هـا حـائزا. زهد وزراء العاملألمعني امللوك وا ليس ما اكن مكرمـة إال واكن ، وال 578ل يـد ادلهـر٬ًمحمدة إال واكن هبا فائزا، مشـس ادلوةل وادليـن، صـفي اإلسـالم، اتج األقـران فريـد ٬ح و نع٬العرص يفـة صـ خالصة خلـق هللا، هـر، 579لط نـا مظ هللا، صـاحب اجملـد والكـرم بـل َ﴿ولقـد كر ْم َّ َ ْ َ َ َ َبين ءادم﴾ ََ َ ٓ نرص وامل580>أبو<، ] ٧٠ اإلرساء ١٧[ِ سعادة واملفاخر، الوزير ابـن الـوزير 581ثرآل ا ل وا ــا ــصطفى پاش ــن م ــا اب ــد هللا پاش ب ــوزير ــن ال ــا582عاب ــن محمــد پاش ــل ، اب ــدهام وجع ــور هللا مرق ن ــو ث ــة ن ما ـــامي ودله ال،583هاماجل ــز ال س ــ584عزي ــك ال زال اكمس ــرمحن ب ــد ال ب ــل ع سعودا وإىل اه ًه ــ م .طبعية، ك :طبيعة 569 ية 570 ية، و م :فإضا ية، ك؛ و ضعمر .ضع ية 571 ية، ك و ؛: ضعو .إضافة، م فإضا .تصلح، و م :يصلح 572 نقادة 573 نعارة، و :مالوزارة تعاذه، ك؛ الوزارة مالوزراء، .ف .قيل، و :قبل 574 .مثيات، ك :تغااي 575 .يف دارها، ك؛ من زارها، و :يف ذراها 576 هوفني 577 هلوفني، و م :مللا .ملا .جائزا، م :حائزا 578 .ضع، ك و :صنع 579 .أيب، ك و م :أبو 580 .واملأش، و :واملآثر 581 .، و- :ابن مصطفى پاشا 582 ثوهام، و: مثواهام 583 مثوهيام، ك؛ .م .ّاألعز، ك: العزيز 584 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 153 متكـني واملعـدةل، وزادهـام هللا 589ب وسط588ّ هللا هلام العز والرفعة587 وأدام.586ً مورودا585لارس ل هلـام ا ناء سن590لسـتعاىل العلو وا بـل القلـوب واأل لـ وأ نـاء ورصف591ق 593 عـهنام بوائـق592لث إلـهيام ابملـدح وا هام عن طوارق احلداثن .سالزمان وحر II-10 ـــة ـــا حتف ـــرضته<وجعلهت ـــة 594>حل ـــة وخدم ي ية595لعلا سدهتام ا ـــسن ل ـــ ـــأ .596ل ـــت ملج ال زال نــيب وآهل 598 األانم ومــالذا هلــم مــن597لطوائــف نا لإلســالم واب نا ل حــوادث األايم و ي حــصحــص سالم599علهيم بقي األايم وادلهور. ل ا بقين 600تإذ يه هور، فإنـه مـا ســ وال يفىن بكرور األعوام وا لـش ــذه ــامم ه بيل أك تح أحــد ــة وال ــذه الطريق ــأحــد يف ه ق ــ ــةف ــذه الرســاةل ســوء. احلديق ــن هل هب 601مف تقدمـة تـب ا يه املراجعة يف ا ملالظن نظـروا 602وأرجـو مـن أاكبـر الفـضالء وأماثـل. لكفعل ي العلـامء أن يــه فهيــا مــن اذللــل واخلطــاء نقــصان .603علفهيــا بعــني الــرىض ويــصلحوا مــا عــرثوا ل فــإين اب .سري، ك ولا: لارس 585 .مودودا، م ً:مورودا 586 .وادم، ك :وأدام 587 .والرفقة، ك :والرفعة 588 سط، م :بوسط 589 .يبو ناء 590 شان، و: لسـوا .لوا .واألنس، ك :لواألسن 591 .رصف، م :ورصف 592 .بوائو، م: بوايق 593 .حملرضهتا، ك و؛ حلرضهتا، م: حلرضته 594 .وخذعة، ك م :وخدمة 595 ية 596 سنسدهتام ا ئة، ك م:لل يدهتام ا سي لسـ .ل .طوائف، و: لطوائف 597 .يف، ك :من 598 .عليه، م: علهيم 599 .وادلهو، و: وادلهور 600 .بسوء، ك :سوء 601 .واماثيل، ك :وأماثل 602 .واخلطا، م: واخلطاء 603 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 154 ـــــرتف< ـــــرتف604>ملع ـــــأوأســـــ605 وللخطـــــااي ملق ـــــصواب، إن ـــــام ال ه ـــــىل لك يشءلل هللا إ ه ع .607 قدير وابإلجابة جدير606 II-11 يطان الرجمي ابمس هللا الرمحن الرحمي٬لشـأعوذ اب من ا نـيب ٱألمـي ٱذلي﴾ ِبعـون ٱلرسـول ٱ ِ﴿ٱذليـن َِّ ََّّ ِّ ُ ْ َّ ِ َّ ل َ ُ َّ َ ُ َّ َت ت مـن الابـاع مـن 608 املـراد،]١٥٧ األعـراف ٧[يَ يه وسـمل610 مهنم مبحمد609آمن نـصاlviعل صىل هللا ُرى، واملـراد مـن ﴿الرسـول﴾ هـو ل مـن الهيـود وا َّ تصا به وهو القرآن تااب يه ًاذلي يويح إ خم ك واملـراد 611 تعـاىلًوإمنا سامه رسـوال ابإلضـافة إىل هللا. lviiًل باد يا ابإلضافة إىل ا ته نيب﴾ من اكن صاحب املعجزات و لعمن ﴿ا ي ًل نب واملراد مـن ﴿األيم﴾ هـو . تسم تعمل من أحد، و تب وال يقرأ وال ياذلي ال بهيا عىل أن كامل علمه مـع حـاهل ه ب612صفه هللا تعاىليك ً تن يـل﴾ .lviii معجزاته613اكن إحدى تـوراة وٱإل نـدمه يف ٱ تـواب ِ﴿جيدونـه ْجنِ ل ع ُِ َ ِ َِ ْ َّ ِ ْ ُ َ ْ ً ُْ َمك َ ُ ِ ، ]١٥٧ األعـراف ٧[َ بعونه ته جيدون أوئك اذلين يتأي ل يل614نع نصارى يف اإل جن من ا .615lixل II-12يأمرمه بٱلمعروف ويهن﴿ َ ْْ َ َ ُ ُْ ََ ْ ِ ُ ُ ْامهْ بائـث ويـضع 616ُ بـات وحيـرم علـهيم ٱ هُم ٱ نكر وحيل ُ عن ٱ َ َْ َ َ ََ ِ َ لَخَ ي ْلم ُْ ُِ َ َ ُ ِِّ َ ُ ُِ ِّ لطَّ َ ل ُّ ِ ِ َ ْ ُ َ ْعهنم إرصمه وٱألغالل ٱليت اكنت علهيم﴾ ِْ ْ َْ َ ْ َ َ ِ َّ َْ َ ْ َ َ ْ ُ َ ْ ِ ُ بات﴾ مـا حـرم 617واملراد من]. ١٥٧ األعراف ٧[َ لطي ﴿ا شحوم وغريهـا، أو مـ بـة اك ياء ا لـعلهيم من األ ي رشيعة واحلـمكلطشــ ممـا ذكـر امس هللا 618لـا طـاب يف ا سحت620 من اذلابحئ وما خال619عليه به من ا ل بث. كسـ بائث﴾ ما تخواملراد من ﴿ا من حنو 621يسـخل .ّاملعرتف، و م؛ املعرف، ك: ملعرتف 604 .ّالغرف، ك؛ املقرتف، و: ملقرتف 605 شاء، و : لك يشء 606 .ميما .، و-: وابإلجابة جدير 607 .واملراد، م: املراد 608 .أن، ك: آمن 609 .محمد، ك: مبحمد 610 .، ك-: تعاىل 611 .، و-: تعاىل 612 .أحد، و م: إحدى 613 .يتبعون، و م: يتبعونه 614 يل 615 نصارى يف اإل جنا يل، م: ل نصارى واإل يل، و؛ ا توراة واإل يل يف ا جنمن بين إرسا ل جن ل .ئ َويهنا 616 ْ َ .ويهنهيم، ك: ُْمهَ .، م-: من 617 .وحيمك، ك :واحلمك 618 .، ك-: عليه 619 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 155 بث حكام تة وحلم اخلزنير وما أهل لغري هللا به أو ما خادلم وا مـن 623 وغريهام622>اكلراب والرشوة<ملي ثـة شاقة 625ّ خيفـف عـهنم إرصمه أن624واملـراد مـن رفـع. lxخلبياملاكسـب ا تاكيـف ا لـ مـا لكفـوا مـن ا ل ل نجاسـة627قطـع األعـضاءو واخلطـأ 626لعمدابكتعيني القصاص يف رشيعـة الهيـود، lxiل وقـرض موضـع ا يـة والرايضـة يف 628وعفـو با شاقة اكلر تاكيـف ا ن القـصاص وادليـة يف العمـد واخلطـأ وغريهـا مـن ا ه لـ ل ل نصارى .لرشيعة ا II-13 ته يه وسمل صىل هللا،نعفأان وجدت امسه و يـل اذلي ،629عل تعاىل سة مواضع مـن اإل جن يف مخ نوال بارته عىل هذا ا نا اذلي هو واحد من احلواريني و ملبه يو ع حت :ك II-14 >سث ُيدارا َْســ َ َ امــون اقــرذاي>ِم ِْ ْ َ ِ توت اس تــون ثــؤن:ُِ ْ ُْ َ ُ ْ ِ ْ َس َ ْ َ اكس ام،ِبــ َ ِ َتو< 630َ َ lxii.631>َتِبــْس ْآمــــن آمــــن لغــــو امــــن ِ ِ ِِ ُ ْتون< 632ُ او،َ ُ َ ــــْس َ اس ام ات ارغ633>ِب ْ َ ََ ُاغوَعــــا 634َ نــــوس 635َ يــــؤ ْ ُ َقِك ُ پ ْيس يس،]كــذا[پــ پئــ مكــزان طوطــون ُ ُ َ ُ َ ْ اوت اغــو بــروس،ِ ُ ُ ُ َ ِ ُ طوبــاترم636ُ َ َ َ َ ن َ بــوروم]كــذا[ 637ُ ُ ُ ُ:lxiii .، و م-: خال 620 .يتخّبث، ك: يسـتخبث 621 .اكلربو أو الرشوة، ك و م: اكلراب والرشوة 622 .وغريها، م: وغريهام 623 .، و مفعد: رفع 624 .علهيم، و م: عهنم 625 .من العمدة، ك: ابلعمد 626 يدحش عىل رأس الورقة 627 لنفس ا توت اس تون ثؤن اكس ام پس تود: ب َتارسس تو امون اقرذاي َ َ ِم َ َ َ ِ ِ ِ َِ ْ ْ ُْ َ ُ سـ ُْ پ َ ِ ِْ َ ُ ْ َ َ ِآمن آمن . َ ِ يس اوت اغو بروس، ك يس مكزان طوطون نوس يؤ ْلغو امن او يس تون اس ام ات ارغ عااغو ْ ُْ ُ ُ َُ َ َ َِ ُ ئ پ قك پَ ُ ُ ََ ُ َ ُِ ُ ْ ُِ ُ پ َ َ َ ِ ِْ ْ ْ ِ ُ َ. .وعفوا، ك: وعفو 628 يه وسملصىل هللا 629 سالم، ك: عل تعاىل ليه ا .عل سث 630 ُيدارا َْس َ توت اس تون ثؤن اكس امِم َ امون اقرذاي َ ِ ِ ِ َِ ْ ْ ُْ َ ُ ِْس ْ َ َ ْ ب َ ِ ْ َ يس: ُ ْثار س ُم َ ْتوامون ِ ُ ْاقرد ُ َ ْ توت ِ ْاي َ َ تون ِبْس ْا ُ ْس اكس ثؤن ِ يس) ؟( ثار ْام، و؛ ِس َم َ ِ ْتوأمون ُ ُ ِ ْاقرذ ُ َ ْ توت ِ َاي َ َ ِبْس تون َ ْا ُ ْس ْئون ِ ُ َ .ُآم، م ِسَاك ث َتود 631 َ َ َتود، ك؛: ِبسـ َ َ َتود، ِبْس ُ َتوت، م و؛ ِبْس ُ .ِبْس ُآمن آمن لغو امن او 632 ْ ِ ِ ِِ ُ ُامن امن لغو من او، و؛ أمن آمن لغومن او، م: َ ُ ُْ ْ ِْ ِ ِ ِ ِ ُِ ُُ َُ. ْيس تون، ك؛ يس تود، و؛ پس تود، م 633 َ ْ َ َُ ُ ُْ ِْ ِ . َام ات ارغ 634 ْ َ ََ َآم اترغ، و م: َ ْ َ ْ. ُعااغو 635 ُاغو، و م: َ َ . يس اوت اغو بروس 636 يس مكزان طوطون نوس ْيؤ ُْ ُ ُ َ ِ ُ ئ پ پقك ُ ُ ََ ُ َ ِ ْ ُ ِ ُ ئس اوت اغو بروس، : پ ِئس مكزان دتون نوس ْئو ُْ ِ ُ ِ ُ ْ ِْ ب ب قك ُِ َب َ ْ ِ َ ُ ِ َ ُ ِئس اوت اغو بروس، م ئس مكزاند تون نوس ئو ْو؛ ُْ ِ ُ َ ِِ ُ ِ ب ب تك ِْ ُ ِب َِ ْ ِ َ ْ ُ َ ُ. ُطوباترم 637 َ َ َ َ ن ُطواث ترام، ك؛ : ُ َ ْطونا ترام، مُ َ َ َ ِب ُ. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 156 ُعــاانونو بــروس طوبــاترام َ ن ُ ْ ُ ُ ُ َ َ بــاترا638َ َ ُ امــون 639َك ُثــؤمن<ِ ْ ُ َ ثــؤن640>َك ْ ُ َ َ اعــن اغــاابمتlxiv.ِ امــون641َك َ َْ ََ، تــوال َاتس ا َُ ْ ن ْ ْس امــاسَ َْ ْاتس <642ِ ته643>َ َ تر َِســ سو توبــاترا اكلــون ابرقلطــون ذوس :644ِ ِ اكغــو ارو ُُ ِْ ُْ ْ َ َ ُ َ َ ْ ن ُتــ ُ ُِ َ َ َ ــاس ي ــس ــا ت ــون اؤان، تونوم ــون اس ت ثم ــن ــن اان م َام ِث َعلَيم ْ ِ ِ ِ َِ ْ َ ْ بِ ُ َُ َُ َ ْ ْْ ُ ِ َ َ ْ ْ اوؤ قوامســوس،ِ ُ ْ ُ ُ ْ او داند الون645ُ ِ َ َ َ ِ ُ646، ئـــور ِاوت او ُ َ ث ُ َ عفطـــو اوذ647ُِ ُ ُ نو648ْ َ ِســـكِي نوســـكد:649ْ َ عفطـــو أمـــس ذ َ ْ ُ ي ِ ْ ِ ِ ُ ِ عفطـــو، اوت ابر 650ْ َ ِ ُ ُ ْ َ ــن ْم ــن اكمن651ِ ٍ م ِ َ ِ َ اســت652َ ْ سو.653َ ُ اوقا ــ َِف ــانوس654ُ ــاس اورف ُ ام ُ ْ َ ــم،655ِ َ ارخ ُ ْ ــروس656َ ْ ب ُ ــاس657َ ْ ام َ ِ.lxv سم بــومن تــوس لو ُاوم آ ْ غــ ُغ ُ ُْ ُ َ ْ ِ ِ او تــر658ُ ِ ُ اكو :659ُ ْلــوغس<َ ُ تني امــوس عــال 660>ُ َ اون عقوئــة او ْ ُ َ ْ ِْ كــْس ََ ُ َُ ُ َ ُبوروم عاانونو بروس طوباترام 638 َُ ن ُ ْ ُ ُ ُ َ َ َ َ ُ .، و م-: ُ َباترا 639 ياترا، م: َك َپاترا، و؛ َ كَ َك َ . ُثؤمن 640 ْ ُ َ ئومن، م: َك ثؤمث، و؛ َثومن، ك؛ ْ ُ َ ثك َ ك َ َمك ْ َ ُ ُ ُ ِ. ْثؤن 641 ُ َ ْثون، و: َك ُ َ .ك توالس اماس 642 ْاعن اغاابمت اتس ا ْ َْ ِ َ َ َ َُ ْ ن َ َ َ ْ ْاغن: َ َ توالس، مَ توالس، و؛ اغئ اغا ايمت اتس ا ْ اغاپامت انس ا ْ ْ َْ َُ نُ َن َ َ َ ََ ْ َ ََ َ َُ َ َ َ َ . ْاتس 643 .، و ك م-: َ ته 644 َتر َِس َترسد، و؛ ترسد، م: ِ ََ َِ ِ. ثمون اس تون اؤان، تو 645 ْاكغو اروسو توباترا اكلون ابرقلطون ذوس امن اان من ِ بْ ُ ُ ن ُ َت َ َُ َ ِ ِ َْ ْ ْ ْْ ِ ِ ُِ ُ َمُ َ ِ ُِ ُ ِ ْ َ ُ َ َ ْ َ ُ ياس اوؤ َ ُنوما تس ُ َ َعلَيِث ْ ِ َ ْ َ ْقوامسوس ُ ْ ُاكغو : ُ باس او ؤ تومسوس، و؛ ) ؟(...َ نوما تس تمون اؤان تو ْتوباترا اكلون ابرقلطون ذوس امن ُْ ِ ُ ث ب ُ ن ُُ ِ ُُ بُ ِ ْم َعلي ِ ْ ََ َ ْ ْ ُْ ِ ِْ َ ْ ِ َُ ِِ ُ ِ ْ َ َ ُ َ َ تمو ُاكغو روسو توبا ترا اكلون پارقلطون ذوس آمن ُ ُِ َمِ ْ ِ ُِ ُ ُْ ُْ ْ َ َ ُ َ ََ َ َ ْ ن ُ ِت ياس اؤ تو مسوس، مُ نوماتس ْن أؤانتوا ُْ ِ ُ ث ب ُُ ُُ ِ ي ِِ َعِلي ْ ِ ْ َ َ ُ ْ . ْاو داند الون 646 ِ َ َ َ ِ ِاوواتد الون، ك؛ اودان دالاون، و: ُ َِ َ ََ ِ ُ َ ُ . ئور 647 ِاو ُ َ ث ُشؤر، ك؛ اوئور، و م: ُ ْ ث ُ ِ ُ ِ. َعفطو، اوذ 648 ُ ُ تو او، م: ْ َ ُعفطو او، و؛ ُُ عْف ُ ْ َ. ِِنوسك 649 ْ َ َِنوس ك، ك؛ ذ: ي ِ ْ َ ِنوس كْه، و مي ْ ُ . ي نوسكد 650 َأمس ذ َ ْ ُ ي ِ ْ ِ ِنوسمك، ك؛ : ِ َاس ذ َ ْ ُ ي َ ْ َذي نوسكده، و) ؟(...ِ َ ْ َ. ْابر من 651 ِ ِ ْابرمن، و؛ ابدمن، م: َ ِْ ِِ َ َِ . ٍاكمن 652 ِ ِاكمن، و؛ اكمن، م: َ ِِ ِِ َ . َاست 653 ْ .َاس ت، ك: َ سو 654 ُاوقا َِف ُاوقافو، و، اوقافو، م: ُ ِ َ ُ َُ ُ. ُاورفانوس 655 ْقانوس، كاور: ُ ُ. َارخم 656 ُ ْ ْارحم، و م: َ ُ َ. ْبروس 657 ُ ُروس، ك: َ ُ. سم 658 بومن توس لو ُآ ْ ُ ُُ غْ ُ ْغ سم، م: َ بومن تر لو سم، و؛ ا بومن تر او ْا ُ ْ ْ غْ غ غ ُغ ْ ُْ ُْ َْ َُ ْ َُ ََ ُ. ِاو تر 659 ِ ُاوتر، ك؛ اوتر، م :ُ ِ ُِ ُْ. ْلوغس 660 ُ نس، ك؛ لوغس، و م: ُ ْلو ِْ ُ ُِ .عَ © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 157 َساندوزم <661وُتـ ُ َ ْبمـ ْ بـآتروس662>َ تـه لاللـق. ُ َات ِ َ َ َ ْ امـن ابر مـن663ْف ِْ ِِ َ ْ مـنن664ِ ُ ُ ابرقلطـوس تـو 666 اوذ:665َ ْ ُ ِ َ َ َنوما َ ئـون<ُ تـو 667بْ ُآ ِبمـس<ُ او 668>ِي ْ ْ او ابتـر ان669>َ ََ ِ ُاونمـامت<ُ تـو 670ُ ِ َ ُ نـوس< ،671>ُ ْا ُ ْ امـاس672>َِك َ ِ673 ِذذاكــس< ْ َ يس674>ِ ــو ــه اكب ت ِ اب ْمِن ُ ِ َ َ ْ ــ675ن ــاس ابن ْ ام ْ َ ــونِيآ< 676َدِ ْب ــن677>ُ ْ ام ِ ِ678.lxvi يس ــوال ال ُ اوكــت ب ــ ل َ ُ ِ َ ُ ْثمون، ُ ِ ْ ارشد غر او تو قومس ارخون679َم ُ ْ َْ َُ ْ ُ ُ ُ ْ َ َ ِاكمن<: َ َ َ َ اوكش اوذن680>َ َ ُ681.lxvii II-15 نا ِبلـروث<ليعا ُ ْ او لـوغس682>ِ ُ ُ نـوس683ُ ْ او يغرا ُ َم َ َ ُان تـو من< 684ُ ُ ُ ْ سامن 685>َ تـون اوت ا ِ ْ َ َِميِسـ ِ ُ ْ ُ َعف ْدورعان َ ُ اواتن ذالث ا686.ُ ُْ َ َ ْ َو ابرقلَ ْ ُسو<ُ آغـو 688ُ اون687ْسوُطـَ ْ امـن>َبمـْ ِ ُ ابرا تـو689ِ َ ُ ابتـروس، تـو 690َ ْ ُ ْ ت 661 ِاون عقوئة او َكْس َُ َُ ُ َ ُني اموس عال توْ َ ْ ُ َ تني آموس : ْ تني اموس عال تو، و؛ آون عفو أيدا او ْاون عفو ايذاؤ ُْ ُُ ِ ْ سْ ُ ُكس ُك َ ِ ُ َُ َْ ُْ َُ َ َ َ َعالقو، م َ َ َ. َساندوزم 662 ُ َ ْبم ساندوم، م: َ سانه وم، ك؛ ْساندوم، و؛ ُْ ُِ ْ َْ ْ بمْ َ بم ِبم ُ َ َُ ِ. َلاللق 663 ِ َ ِلاللق، و م: َ ِ َ َ. ْابر من 664 ِ ِ ُابر من، ك: َ ِ َ؛ ابرمن، و مَ ِ. ْمنن 665 ُ ْمنن، و م: َ َ َ. ِاوز، ك؛ اوذ، م: اوذ 666 َ ُ. َنوما 667 َ نوما، م: بْ َنواب، ك؛ ُ بْ َ ُ. ِئون 668 ُتو آ ي ِبون، م: ُ بون، و؛ توا ْتو آئون، ك؛ تو ا ُْ يُ ب ُ َُ َِ َ ُ. ِبمس 669 ْ ْبمس، ك؛ بمس، و؛ بمس، م: َ َْ َِ ُِ َ. ْاو ابتر ان 670 َ ِ َ ُارپاتر ان، و؛ او : ُ ُْ َ ْ ِ ْپاتران، مَ َ ِ َ. ُتو اونمامت 671 ِ َ ُ ُ ُتو اونمامن، ك؛ تو اوناممن، و؛ تواومنامت، م: ُ ُِ َِ ُ ُ َُ ُ ُ ُْ ُ َُ. نوس 672 ْا ُ نوس، و م: َِك نوس، ك؛ ا ْا ُْ ُْ كْ ِك َ. ْاماس 673 َ َاماش، ك: ِ َ ِ. ِذذاكس 674 ْ َ ْذذاكس، ك؛ ذذاكس، و م: ِ ِْ َ َ َِ َ. يس 675 ِاكبو ْمِن ُ ِ ئس، :َ ْاكبوتس، ك؛ اكبو ِْ َم ُ َُ .و مَُ َابند 676 َابثه، ك؛ ابند، و م: ْ َ ََ. ِبون 677 ْآ ُ يون، ك؛ عائون، و م: ي ُعا ِ ْ ُ .ئِ ْامن 678 ِ ِامن، و؛ آمن، م: ِ ِْ َ. ثمون 679 ْاوكت بوال اليس ُُ ِ َم ُل َ ِ َ ثمون، م: ُ ثمون، و؛ اوكت بوال اليس ْاوكت بوال اليس ُ ُْ ُ ُِ ِْ َْ مَ ل م ْل ِ َ َ َِ ِِ ُِ ُُ ِ. ِاكمن 680 َ َ ْاكمن، ك: َ َ َ َ. َاك 681 َمن اوكش اوذنَ َ ُ ِ .، و م-: َ ِبلروث 682 ُ ْنلروث، ك؛ بلوث، و؛ بلووث، م: ِ ُْ ُ ُِ ُِ ِ ُ. ْلوغس 683 ُ َلوغس، ك: ُ ُ ُ. نوس 684 ْيغرا ُ َم َ نوس، ك: َ ْيغرا َ َ َم َ. ُان تو من 685 ُ ُ ْ ْان تو من، ك؛ ان ان تومن، و؛ ان تومن، م: َ ُْ ُ ُ ُْ َْ َ َ ََ َ. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 158 ِنومــا تــس َ َ يــاس691بْ ْ َ ُ او ابرا تــو692َعليِث َ َ ْ ابتــروس693ُ ُ ْ بــورود694 <>َ َ ا َ َ ُ نــوس< ،695َْك ْا ُ كي ِمــآرترس 696>ِ ِ ْ ُبرام َ697.lxviii II-16 سالم للحواريني يوما حني دان يه ا يىس ًقال ل عل سالم واك698 وقتع يـه ا لـ رفعه ثـري عل كن معـه يل شون عـىل إثـره699ئمن جامعة بين إرسا يه واكنوا بع إ مي ممن ا ل نـه وقـالوا. ت بـوا عمث انفقـوا ور مـن : غ يـل نـه، اذلي تلكـم بـه700لثقيقدر أن يأخذ هـذا الـالكم ا سالم قـال 701ع فلـام رآمه رجعـوا يـه ا لـ عل َ ﴿من أنصارى إىل 702للحواريني كام قال هللا تعاىل يف القرآن العظمي ِ ْٓ ِ َ َ ْ ُٱ قال ٱلحواريون حنـن أنـصار َ َ ْ َ ُ ْ َ َ ُّ ِ َ َ ْ َ َِ سلمون﴾ هَد بأان نا بٱ وٱ َٱ ءا ُ ِ ْ ُمَ َّ َ ِ ِْ ْش ِم َِّ َ يل هكذا.]٥٢ آل معران ٣[َ بارته يف اإل جن و ِاكمـس :703ع َ704 ْقامن ِبْسَتو َ ئو دو زتوس]كذا[ َ توس دو نوقامن اوت س او خر ْ اك ُْ ن ث س ُغ ُ ُُ َ ُ َْ َ ْ ُ ُِ ِْ ََ ُ َ705lxixهو ، أي قال مشعون و سامن دورعان 686 ْا َ َُ ِ ْ سامن : َِميِس ْا َ ميِسل سامن ذورعاف، مِ َذورعان، و؛ ا َ َ َُ َ ُْ ِميِس ِ. ْابرقلطوس 687 ُ َ ْ ْابرقلطوس، ك؛ پارقلطوس، م: َ ُْ ُ ُِ ِ َ ْ َ َ َ. ُاون، ك م: ُاون 688 ُ. ْامن> َبْمُسو< 689 ِ سوامن ذورعاف اواتن، م: ِ ْسو امن، ك؛ بمس امن ذورعان اواتن، و؛ َ َُ ُْ َ َ َ ََ ُ ِ ُ ِ ِْ ُْ َُ بمَ ِبم ِ ُِ ِ َ. ُابرا تو 690 َ ُابر تو، : َ ُو؛ پارتو، مَ َ . نوما تس 691 ِتو َ َ بْ نوماتس، م: ُ ْتونوما نس، و؛ ِْ َ ُ تُبْ ب ُِ ُ ْ. ْياس 692 َ ْياس، و م: َعليِث َ .َعِلِث ُاو ابرا تو 693 َ َ ُأوابراتو، م: ُ َ َ ُ. ْابتروس 694 ُ ْ ياس او ابرا تو ابتروس، ك؛ + :َ بوما تس ْتو ُ َْ َ َُ ي ن َُ ُ ِث َعل ِ َ َ ياس او اب+ ْ َتونوما نس ُ ْ َ ِث ب َعِلُ ْ ِ ُ ْرا تو پاتروس، و؛ ْ ُ ِ َ ُ + ياس او ابراتو ابتروس، م ْتونوماتس ُْ ِ َ َُ ث ب َُ ُ َ ِ َعِل ْ ِ َ ُ ْ. بورود 695 َا َ َُ بو رود، م: َْك بوزود، و؛ ا َا ََ ُ َ َُ ْ كْ َك ََ. نوس 696 ْا ُ كي نوس، ك و م: ِ ْا َ َ ك ِ. ُمآرترس برام 697 َ ِ ِ نام: ْ َمارقوس ب ْ ِ ِ ْثان، و؛ مار قرس برام، م/بَتان/ِ َ ِ ْ ِ ِ ِ َ َ .ب .دان، ك: وقتدان 698 يل 699 يل، ك: ئمن جامعة بين إرسا .ئامجلاعة من بين إرسا يل 700 يل، ك: لثقا .لمثا .منه، ك: عنه 701 .، ك-: العظمي 702 .هذا، و م: هكذا 703 ِاكمس 704 ْ اكمن، ك:َ ِ َ. ئو دو زتوس 705 توس دو نوقامن اوت س او خر ْاك ُْ ن ث س ُغ ُ ُُ َ ُ ْ َ ْ ُ ُِ ِْ َ َ ُ َ نو قامن اوتس او: َ ُاك ُِ ِ ِ َ ُ غ ئو تو زتوس، و؛ َ توس تو ُ خر ُ نِ ُ ث ُ ُس ُ َ ْ ْ ِ ئو تو زتور، م توس تو ناوت خسر نو قا ُاك ُ ُِ ن ُ ث ُ س ُغ ُ َ ْ ْ ْ ِ ِ ُ ِم َ ُ ْ َ َ. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 159 نـا : األول من احلواريني نـا بأنـك رسـول مـن هللا احلـي اذلي ال ميـوت أو آ نـك فـإان آ ًإان انصار د مً م ّ يّ يوم<بأنك محمود احلي نا706>لقا .م وأنت شاهد بإسال II-17 ـــا ـــر آنف ـــا ذك ـــال م سث <:707مث ق ُيدارا ـــ َْس َ ـــوبمك ٬ إىل آخـــرهlxx 708>ِم يعـــين ال ختلطـــوا قل نوا اب سدوا عقائـدمك فـآ مو نـوا: مث قـال ].vgl. Joh 14,1 [709برسـوهلو تفـ ابلـالكم ا وصـدقو710مآ ثـل األعـامل الـيت أمعـل ويزيـد علهيــا مـن. اذلي ألكمـمك مبآمـن يب وصـدقين فقـد يقـدر أن يعمـل ثيل ــويــصري نــت رســول هللا لقــد . مب ــام ــده اكنكك هــرت اخلــوارق مــن ي ظ رســويل ورســول ريب و ــدي ــن ي ــرت املعجــزات م ه ــام ــإين ذاهــب إىل . ظك ــبو] vgl. Joh 14,12[أيب ف رب إىلذاه سامء ـــا ـــبو 711ل ـــمكذاه ه ـي وإ يمك وإ ل إىل أيب وأ ـــ له ـــ ـــونين . ]vgl. Joh 20,17 [ب ب ـــمت ن حتإن ك نـد هللا يـت هبـا مـن نـوايه الـيت أ عفـاحفظوا األوامـر وا نمك.712تل 713سـل فـأان سـألت األب، فإنـه لري ــارقلطونمــن بعــدي ُف ِ ْ َ ــل،َ تأوي يمك اب ــأ نــيب اذلي ي ل ا ت يمك حــىت يــصري معــمك إىل 714وأعطــاه هللا. ل ــ إ ل ]..vgl. Joh 14,15f [انهتاء الزمان II-18 يد ارشيف اجلرجاين أنه قال لوهكذا نقل عن ا سالم إطـالق : لسـ يه ا يىس لـوقد وقع عن عل ع يث قـال نحمك 715>لـمك<أان أطلـب : حاألب ُفـارقلطونميـ إىل أيب حـىت ِ ْ ْ يقـني، َ ل، هـو روح احلـق وا سال يه ا لواملراد محمد يكون معمك إىل األبدعل يـل . لم سالم يف اإل يـه ا يـىس يل خاطب هللا جنو لـ عل ع ق ـى716َبلفظ الابن تعظامي شأنه، ا نوهيا نهت و ل بـدأ، فـإن القـدماء 717فإطالق األب عـىل هللا. َت مل مبعـىن ا يوم 706 .اذلي ال ميوت، ك و م: لقا نا، ك: آنفا 707 ّأ .ن سث 708 ُيدارا َْس َ يس تو، م: ِم ثار يس تو، و؛ ثار ست، ك؛ ُتار َ ي ُ ْس ْ ِسَ س م َم َ ِمَ َ ِ ُِ ْ. .ولرسوهل، ك: وبرسوهل 709 نوا 710 .مث قال آمن، ك و: ممث قال آ سامء 711 سامء، ك: لوذاهب إىل رب ا .لورافع إىل ا .تعاىل، م: + هللا 712 نمك 713 .لريسلمك، م: سللري .تعاىل، م: + هللا 714 .بمك، و ك م: لمك 715 .تنظامي، ك: َتعظامي 716 .تعاىل، ك م: + هللا 717 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 160 بادئ ابآلابء سمون ا ملاكنوا يه أشـار.ي يـضاوي718ل إ سري719لب القـايض ا بب يف أواعـمل : لتفـ يف ا لـسن ا بار ألضالةل هذه ا تقدمة اكنوا يطلقون األب عل هللا تعاىل اب رشائع ا تن أرابب ا مل بب 720>أنه<عل لـس ا بحانه721األول، حىت قالوا إن األب هو األب 723>ظنـت<مث . هو األب األكـرب722سـ األصغر وهللا هةل تقـدوا724جلا يـدا وذلكل كفـر قـائهل725ع مهنم أن املراد به معىن الـوالدة، فا ً ذكل نـه < 726تقل نـع مو م سام ًمطلقا ح ساد727>ً ـىlxxi٬لف ملادة ا .نهت ا II-19 سري واعمل نصارى ورواههبم بعـد مـوت احلـواريني تـرددوا يف يةل ا تفـ أن أ ل َفـارب ُقلطونَ ِ ألنـه 728ْ شابه ثـرية729 وأنت تعمل٬متلفظ يـة تـب اإل شاهبات يف القرآن وغريه من ا ك أن ا ه لت ال ســامي أهنـا ،لكمل يل أكرث مهنا يف غري يةلك ا730جناكنت يف اإل يل وذلكل جعـزوا يف 731فهذا اللفظ من. لهتب اإل لقب هذا ا هم هداية إىل علمناه النعدام ا ل يهمع يـ.ل إ بـوه يف اإل جن رسايين732 العـريبلفكت ومل . لـ عـىل هـذا اللفـظ ا بـدلوه ناه حـىت يقة ييعرفوا مع بحانه734 إىل لفـظ733حق ســ العريـة ألن هللا هم إىل 735 وتعـاىلب صـل مل يو .736حقيقة احلمكة .قال، ك: أشار 718 يضاوي 719 يه رمح: لبا عليضاوي بارى، وب .له ا .، ك و م-: أنه 720 .أب، ك: األب 721 .وتعاىل، ك: + سـبحانه 722 .ظننت، ك و م: ظنت 723 هةل 724 ية، ك: جلا .جلهلا تقدوا 725 تقدوا، ك: عفا .عوا .قائل، ك: قائهل 726 سام 727 نه مطلقا نع ًو ح ً م سام: م نه مطلقا سام، ك؛ وضع نه مطلقا نع سام مطلقا، و؛ و يه حلوضعه إ ج مي ج مل .، مم ُفارقلطون 728 ِ ْ َ . الفارقلطون، و:َ .اعمل، م: تعمل 729 .هذا، م: غري 730 .اكن يف، ك: من 731 .بالعرية، ك: العريب 732 .يبدلون، ك: يبدلوه 733 .اللفظ، و م: لفظ 734 .، ك-: وتعاىل 735 .حقيقته حلمكة، ك: حقيقة احلمكة 736 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 161 II-20 نه إمنا هو الروحوذل نوا بأن املراد ما يـب737ظ وبقـوا عـىل هـذا الـرتدد، 738لغ القـدس رجـام اب رشة مــن 740 <> انهتــو إىل زمــن739حــىت ــان ــة ومث ــالث مائ نطني املــكل وهــو مــن مجــع ث ــ ع ــسط ق سني741الرواهب يـث743 وهـؤالء مه.742لقسيـ وا ية وا نـرصا هـروا ديـن ا ثل اذليـن أ ن لتل والكفـر يف 744ظ يىس عرأس مأيت عام بعد رفع سالمع ليه ا إمنـا هـو الـروح 745ذا اللفـظهبـوهؤالء اتفقوا بأن املـراد . ل يــه 747 اذلي746القــدس سالم بعــد رفعــه يــه ا يــىس سان عل أوىح هللا إىل احلــواريني مــن لــ عل علــ سالم بحان هللا عام يصفون.748لا .فسـ II-21 يوهنم ومل يروا ما ذكر بعد متام هذه اآليـة مـن أن يمكالفـارقلطونعفأغيش ن، اكلـ، إذا جـاء إ هم. القدس750 الروح749معه يـه وسـمل751لعلو نا صـىل هللا بوة عل من أجل خمت قلوهبم أنكروا .752نبين يـاء علـهيم : وقـالوا سالم خـامت األ يـه ا يـىس سالم وحمكـوا بـأن يـه ا نـا ذكـره تا بيس يف ع نلـ لـ عل لـ عل ب ك سالم نا.753لا متـدوه، و755 اذلي هو754ح وقد رصح يو قـال ع واحد من احلواريني وهو ممن وثقوا بـه وا ته اليت سفرأليف رسا سالم يف ا يـه ا يىس يغ رساةل ها إىل مملكة العرب، قال فهيا بعد لـر لـ عل عبل 756تسل .روح، و: الروح 737 يب 738 . غبب، ولراب، ك؛ رجام اب: لغرجام اب .هذ الرد وحىت، ك: هذا الرتدد، حىت 739 .، ك)مكتوب فوق اخلط" جاء(" الزمن اذلي جاء، و م؛ الزمن اذلي،: زمن 740 يب، ك و: الرواهب 741 .هالروا سني 742 سني، و: لقسيوا .لقسوا .وهو ألهنم، ك: وهؤالء مه 743 يث 744 يث، ك: لتثلوا .لثلوا .هبذا لفظ، ك و: هبذا اللفظ 745 .روح القدس، و م: روح القدسال 746 .، ك-: اذلي 747 سالم 748 ليه ا .، و-: عل .معهم، م: معه 749 .روح، و: الروح 750 هم 751 .لعلهم، م: لعلو يه وسمل 752 علنا صىل هللا يب سالم، ك: ن يه ا لنا محمد محمد عل يب .ن سالم 753 سالم، ك: لعلهيم ا ليه ا .عل نا 754 .، م٢: مكتوب حتت اللكمة: حيو توب حتت اللكمة هو: هواذلي 755 .، م٢: مكاذلي اكن هو؛ سفر 756 .سورة، ك: لا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 162 سالم:757>األول< يه ا يىس نا صاحب ل هذا من يو عل ع سالم . ح يـه ا يىس يمك اي حميب لـفإين أو عل عص نوا بلك نفس قد جاءمك ابلويح و هرمك حـىت تـذوقوه أ 758راظهبإمأن ال تؤ مـن هللا أم ظ اخلوارق بني أ نـا. ال سالم قال إ يه ا يىس يفإن رسونا ل عل لل ثـري ممـن ل: ع بـوة والـويح 759دعىيـكيـأيت مـن بعـدي لن ا نـور الـويح . من هللا761ل اخلوارق بني ايديمك ويس760ويضع هـاربفلك نيب جاءمك من بعدي 762ظوبإ ته، واعرتف بـأن هللا ت سالم روح من هللا و يه ا يىس يمك فأقر بأن لكماملعجزة إ ل عل عـاىل أرسـهل إىل عل تـه تعـاىل يـغ وحدا نياخللـق هـار امس هللا 763لتبل ميـه بـه إايمهإلـهيمظ إلـهيم وإل فـذكل الـويح اكن ٬تعل و يمك764ًصادقا من هللا أرسهل يعو. ل إ نوا به وأ طفآ ناتهم يمك اب لبي ألنه رسول من هللا جاء إ ولك نفس . ل سالم بأنه ر يه ا يىس لقد جاءمك ابلويح واخلوارق ومل يقر عل ته ألقاهابع إىل مـرمي 765لكموح من هللا و نكره766علهيا سالم بل ي ا سالم. ل يه ا نكرا هل لفإذا اكن عل يطان وسوسـة، بـل هـو 767م هو من ا لـشـ ف يل اذليبادلجال الكذا .]vgl. Joh 4,1-3 [ يأيت يف آخر الزمان وهو غاية اإلضالل768ق II-22 ــويح اكن يطان ابل ــة ا ــشـوإطــالق وسوس ــلل ي ــال هللا769جن يف اإل ــام ق ــرآن ك ــاىل يف الق تع يجـادلومك﴾ 770العظمي يوحون إىل أوياهئم ياطني ْ ﴿وإن ٱ ُ ُ ِ َ ُ ْ ُِ لِ ل ل ْش ِ ِ ِ َِ َ َ َ ُ ََّ َ ِ َ َّ ل 771 أي يوسوسـون٬]١٢١ األنعـام ٦[َ نـا احلـواري773 وهذا٬ أطاعومه من الكفار772عىل من نقـل اكن أوثـق . ح اذلي حـيك عـن يو لوهـذا ا ثالث، ك و م: األول 757 .لا هار 758 هر، م: ظوبأ هر، ك؛ يظو .يظ .ادعى، و م: ّيدعى 759 .واضع أحوال، ك: ويضع 760 سوا، ك: لويس 761 .ليو هار 762 هر، ك م: ظوبإ .يظو ته تعاىل 763 ية هللا تعاىل، م: نيوحدا .نوحدا .أرسل، ك: هلأرس 764 .ألقهيا، ك: ألقاها 765 .علهيام، و م: علهيا 766 سالمهل منكرا 767 ليه ا سالم، م: عل يه ا يه نكرا إ سالم، ك؛ يه ا لنكر عل ل ل معل .م .، و-: قيل 768 يل 769 يل ابلويح اكن، ك م: جنابلويح اكن يف اإل .جنيف اإل .تبارك يف القرآن، ك: تعاىل يف القرآن العظمي 770 .ليوسوسون، ك: يوسوسون 771 .ما من، ك: من 772 .وهو، م: وهذا 773 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 163 بوة يل إلهيم بنادل نا774ل سالم775نبي يه ا ل ْواحض ﴿فمن فاحلق ٬عل َ يكفـر﴾ 776َ يـؤمن ومـن شـاء ْ شاء ُ ْ َ ْ فلْ َفل ََ َٓ َٓ َْ َ َْ ِ ُ هف ١٨[ ].٢٩لك ا II-23بارقلطوس ْ فا ُ ْ ِ َ َ باءل يل ارسايين وابلفاء 777ل أوهل اب ل املوحدة يف اإل ألن القاعـدة يف 778بيف العريةجن هـذا اللفـظ واكلفـردوس وحنـ779نقل لفظ العجم باء إىل الفاء بدل ذو ا ك إىل العريب عىل أن ل وإن . وهي باء بدل ا نقول من ذي الواو لاكن ا ي يـامن وغريهـا780مل بـارقلطوس ومعـىن .781بن كإبراهمي ويعقـوب وا ْا ُ ِ ْ َ َ ل ثرية ية يد أي خصاهل املر كا ض تقا من 782جل ً إن اكن ْابرقلـوسمشـ ُ َ َ 784 أو مبعـىن احلامـد إن اكن مـن،783َ ُابرقلطس ُ َ ْ ْابرقلطوس أو مبعىن املأمول واملرجو إن اكن من ٬َ ُ َ َ َ يع إىل هللا كـام٬785َ ذكـر 786لشف أو مبعىن ا رسايين أن بـآرقلطونلـيف لغات ا ْا ُ ِ ْ َ بـادة اخللـق ودعـاءمهل بـل شفع إىل هللا بـأن ع مـن أو مبعـىن ٬يقيـ بالغـة إن اكن مـن ًالعابـد ْابرقلطقـوسم ُ ِ ِ ْ بـادة تعـاىل،787َ بـالغ يف ا نـاه مـن لع ألن ي فـإن مـا .788مع تق يوانينل من الفعل وغريه يف لغات ارسايين789شـا يس كـام يف العـريب790ل وا 792 يـزاد791ً بـل اترة٬ل نه حرف نقص ميه حرف واترة يف بدل حرفه حرفـا آخـر .793حرفان وأً و حرفـاه إىل حـرفني أي وقد .نبوة، م: بنبوة 774 .محمد، ك: + نبينا 775 ْفمن 776 َ .ممن، ك: َ باء 777 بار، م: لاب بأ، ك؛ اب لاب .ل .ابلعريب، ك: بيف العرية 778 .العجمي، ك م: العجم 779 باء 780 باء، ك: لا .لإىل ا يامن وغريها 781 .وغريهام، و م: بنوا ثريةأي خص 782 ية كاهل املر ية، و م: ض .ضخصاهل املر ْابرقلوس 783 ُ َ َ . ابراقلطوس، م:َ .، ك م-: من 784 ْابرقلطوس 785 ُ َ َ َ . ابرقلطو، و م:َ .يك، م: كام 786 ْابرقلطقوس 787 ُ ِ ِ ْ .ابرقلقطوس، و؛ ابرقلوس، م: َ .، و م-: تعاىل 788 تق 789 تق: منشـا نه، كشـا .م يوانين 790 .، و م-: لوا .ره، وات: ًاترة 791 .يزيد، و: يزاد 792 .وحرفان، ك: أو حرفان 793 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 164 سالم 794آخرين يه ا يىس ل كام قالوا يف عل سوسع ْا ُ ئي تق795ِ ياساس من 796مشـ فإنه ْإ َ َ ِي سعادة ِ ناه ا لـ و مع يا797واملوهوب ً إن اكن رساي بارك798ايوإن اكن عرب. ن رسون اكن املعىن ا مل كام قال ا .ملف II-24 رشمك برســول: املعــىن وحاصـل ــأن أ ــلقــد أخــربين هللا ب يــأيت مــن بعــدي واكن معــه روح 799ب يقة يا أن يعلموه800حلقا تطاعة ألهل ادل يس الا ن والصدق اذلي سـ يس هلـم 801فإهنم. ل شاهدونه و لـ ال ي برصونه803 ألهنم ال802إدراك أن يدركوه vgl. Joh [ألنه اكن معمك وأنـمت معـهوأنمت تدركونه . ي 14,17[ . بـارةاهذا خطـاب للحـواريني هبـذف تس: لع ا ِا َ عغـاابم804ََعْنـ َ َ ُ تونلـوغمن تـرس، اكوابتـرم805َ ِ َِ ُ َ ِ ُِ ُ ْ ُ بس806ُ ِ ا ِ َغـ َ807 ْتون كربوس ُ ْ َ ْ ُ ثا808َعْف تون الوسو َ ا َم ُف َ َ َْ ُ مكون ابرتون 809ُ ف َ ٍ ُ ْسومن] كذا[َ َ ُ 812 لو811 أي٬ إىل آخرهlxxii 810ِبِئ تهاكن واحد بين وحيفظ الالكم اذلي نمك قل حي يهم بـه هللا تعـاىلل إ يـه 813حي بأمر هللا لقـد ل وإان نـأيت إ ّ سم واحد من كامل نـا814ختـصاصهاكجونكون معه بـين ملومـن مل. ]vgl. Joh 14,23 [لي إ حيفـظ حي آخران، ك؛ ) ؟(حرفه أو حرفاه إىل حرف أخر أو آخر حرفان : ني آخرنيحرفه حرفا آخر أو حرفاه إىل حرف 794 .حرف حرفا آخر أو حرفاه إىل حرفان آخران، م سوس 795 ْا ُ ئي سوس، و م:ِ ْ ا ُ .ي .مشـتاق، ك: مشـتق 796 سعادة واملوهوب 797 .لسعادة املوهوب، ك وا: لا يا، م: عرباي 798 .نالعربي، ك؛ عربا .برسويل، ك: برسول 799 يقة 800 .القدس، ك: حلقا .فأنه، ك: فإهنم 801 .يدركوه، م: يدركونه 802 .، ك-: ال 803 تس 804 ِا سس، م:ََعْن ْ ا ِ ْ .َغَت َعغاابم 805 َ َ ْ عغاابم، و م:َ َ َ َ. ُاكوابترم 806 ِ َ ُ ُ اكوابترم، و؛ اكو :َ َ َْ َ ِ َ ْترم، مُ َ ِ. بس 807 ِا ِ َ يس، و م:َغ ْ ا َ .َغ ْكربوس 808 ُ ْ ْاكروس اكروس : َ ُْ ُِ َِ ْ، و؛ لكروس، م)؟(َ ُ ِ َ. ثا 809 َالوسو َم ُ َ ُالف: َ ثا، مَ ثا، ك و؛ الغو َو َ مَ ُم ْ َ. ْسومن 810 َ ُ ِسومن، و: ِبِئ ُ .ِبي .، و-: أي 811 .ولو، م: لو 812 .الكيم، م: تعاىل 813 تصاصه 814 تصاصه، و: خا .حا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 165 يت بـه مـن815 أي الالكمالكيم نـد األب816ت اذلي أ يس مـن 817وهـذا الـالكم. ع سمعونه لـ اذلي تـ يمك818 مـنعنـدي بـل هـو سمع الكيم ومل ].vgl. Joh 14,24 [819لـ األب اذلي أرسـلين إ تـ فـإذا مل يطان يت هبا من األب اكن مأنوس ا نوايه اليت أ شـحتفظ األوامر وا لل 821 ابملوت820فإذا مات مات. ت تمك هبذا حىت توا وبقوالكماألبدية وإىل اآلن أان ت َاوذ. عىل هـذا الطريـق822تَثب ْ ابرقلطـوس823ُ ُ ِ ْ َ َlxxiii إىل بـارقلطوس 824 أي لكـن٬آخـره معـه روح القـدس، يرسـهل أيب ابمسـي، هـو يعظـمك 825 اذلي اكنلا اإلشـارة يف 827تلوهذا قد اكنـ. ]vgl. Joh 14,26 [ لمك826 بهويعلممك لك يشء ويذكرمك بلك ما قلت هِره عىل ٱدلين لكه﴾ يث قال هللا تعاىل ﴿ ِالقرآن ِ ُ ِ ِّ َ َ ُ َ يْظ ُح توبة ٩[ِل 828ىل وحنو قـوهل تعـا،] وغريها٣٣ل ا يانه﴾ نا ُ﴿مث إن ب َي َ َ َ ْ َ َعل َّ ِ َّ يامة ٧٥[ُ ].١٩لق ا II-25 سالموقوهل يه ا ل يالكـه: يرسهل أيب ابمسي829عل هروردي يف هاب ادليـن ا يخ هقال ا سشـ لـشـ : لـ ي830إن املراد بقوهل ابمسي نـورحملسـ أن ا سح اب ل يـه. ميـ نيب علفـا سوحا831ل سالم اكن ممـ ا نـور832لـ . ل اب . مل حيفظ الالكم، ك؛ ومل حيفظ الكيم أي الالكم، و: فظ الكيم أي الالكممل حي 815 .، و م-: من 816 .، و-: الالكم 817 .يف، ك: من 818 يمك 819 .إلهيم، ك: لإ .، ك-: مات 820 .، م-: ابملوت 821 بعوا، ك: توبقوا 822 .تتو َاوذ 823 ْ اذ، و:ُ ُ. .ولكن، ك؛ أي ولكن، م: أي لكن 824 .، م-: اكن 825 .قلته به، ك: قلت به 826 .اكن، ك: اكنت 827 .، ك-: قوهل تعاىل 828 سالم 829 ليه ا .، ك-: عل .امسي، و: ابمسي 830 .علهيام، ك: عليه 831 .ممسوح، ك: ممسوحا 832 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 166 بة قالهلوهذ نا سـ ا سالمل يه ا ل يـه. أيب ابمسي834 يرسهل:833معل تو جوهذا ا بغـي يف 835ل يس عـىل مـا ن يلـ يح عربي رسين قالوا بأن لفظ ا بارة ألن أكرث ا سـهذه ا ملف يس بعـريب حـىت 836مللع بـارك، و نـاه ا لـ و مل مع سوح ناه مميكون نور837امع تق: وإن قال. ل اب سح838مشـإنه سح ألنه م من ا هّـره 839مل ط ابلربكة أو مبا سالم840>مسح األرض<من اذلنوب أو يه ا يل سحه جربا ل ومل يقم يف موضع أو عل ئ بل املـراد مـن . م ي رساي يح يف لغــة ا نقــوهل يرســهل أيب ابمســي أن ا لــ يــل مســي841ةملــسـ توس 842جنويف اإل ْخر ُ 843ِْســ ]Χριστός .[ ناه احلامد أو احملمود ألنه مـأخوذ مـن توسمعواكن 845كديعـين أمحـ ،844lxxivســاوخار توس<كــام يقــال َاوخار ُ ســـ ُ َ ْ ُ اثم846>َ َ توَ اك،847َ ُوخار ِْســ ُ توثــؤن848َ َ تو< ،849نُ ُاكوخار ِْســ ْ َ ُ توبالســمت 850>َ ِ َ َ ْ ن ُ ُتونكرؤم ُ ِ ْ ُ لوهـذه . وأان أمحـد خـالقي وريب853 كل اي هللا وامحلـد مـين852يعين امحلـد مـين ،851lxxvَك بـار بة قـال يرسـهل أيب ابمسـي كـام قـال هللا نا تا ســ يـه 854ك وتعـاىلمل يـىس عل يف القـرآن حاكيـة عـن ع سالم 833 ليه ا .، ك م-: عل .، م-: يرسهل 834 يه 835 تو جا يه، ك :ل تو حا .ل .مبعناه، ك: + عربي 836 .ممسوح، ك م: ممسوحا 837 تققال 838 تق، م: مشـ بأنه تاق، ك؛ قال بأنه شـقالوا بأنه مشـ . م سح 839 سح ألنه ما يح، ك: مل يح الن سـا مسـ .مل سح األرض، و م: مسح األرض 840 سح األرض أو ميح األرض، ك؛ م .مسـ ية 841 رساي نا رسايين، ك: ل .لا .، و-: يمس 842 توس 843 ْخر ُ توس، و م: ْسِ ْخر ُ ْسِ ِ. توس 844 توس، و: سـاوخار ْخار ُ ُِس َ. .امحد، م: أمحدك 845 توس 846 َاوخار ُ سـ ُ َ ْ توس، ك و م:َ ْ اوخار ُ .ِسـ ُاثم 847 َ ْ اثم، و؛ اثم، م:َ َ َُ. تو 848 ُاكوخار ِْس َ تو، م:َ تو، ك و؛ وافخار ُ واخفار ُْ سْ ِس ِْ ِ ُ َ . ُتوثؤن 849 َ ن ئون، م:ُ ئون، و؛ تؤ ُ تؤ َ ََ شَ ُ ش َُ فَ َف َْ ُ. تو 850 ُاكوخار ِْس ْ َ تو، ك و م:َ ُ اكخفار ِْس َ. َتوبال 851 ْ ن تونكرؤمُ ُسمت ُ ِ ْ ُ َك ُ ِ ُوبالسمتُق: َ ِ َ َ ْ ْتونكروم ن ُ ُ ِ ْ ُ ْقويالسمت و؛٬َك ِ ْ َ ْ َ ن ْتونكروم ُ ُ ُ َِ ُ . م٬ك .من، ك: مين 852 ، م: وامحلد مين 853 ، ك؛ وامحلد مين .وامحلد من .تعاىل، ك: تبارك وتعاىل 854 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 167 سالم َ﴿وإذ قال: لا َ ْ ِ يمك مصدقا لمـا بـني يـدي مـن َ يىس ٱبن مرمي اي بين إرساءيل إين رسول ٱ إ َ َِ َِّ َُ َ َ َ ََ ْ َ َِّ ً ِّ ِ ِ ُِّ ُ ْ َ ل ِ ُ ُ ِّ َ ِ ْ ِ َ َ َ ْ َ ْ َ ع رشا برسـول تـوراة و ٍٱ ُ َ ِْ ً ِِّ بـم َل ُ َ َ ِ يـأيت مـن بعـدي855َّ ِْ َ َِ ُ ٱمسـه أمحـد﴾ 856ْ َ ْ َ ُ ُ يـاء ]٦ الـصف ٦١[ْ يـع األ نب، أي مج يد857محمودون ملا فهيم من بالغة وأمجع للفضائل واحملاسن اليت حيمد هبا858ويه. ةمحل اخلصال ا ٌ أكرث م ٌ . II-26 َاوكـت بـوال ُ ِ َ ُ859 lxxviثـريا مـا اكن يل أن ألكمـمك ولكـن يـأيت يف هــذه ٬ إىل آخـر اآليـة ً أي ك ـــا رجـــل حـــامك ذو ادلوةل وذو ي ـــاج إيل860نادل ت شأن وال ّ ا حي ـــ .]vgl. Joh 14,30 [ يف يشء861ل ُنا بلروثآ ِ تـواب863ن ألجـل امتـام الـالكم اذلي لكـ٬إىل آخـره lxxvii 862لي هم<يف مك اكن 864>سـانمو سدونين ألجــل بغــضونين و ــإن الهيــود ــوراة ف ت حيــأي يف ا ي . ]vgl. Joh 15,25 [ّ إيل865نعــام هللاإل ْاواتن ِذالــث< 866ُ ْ َ َ<867 lxxviii بــآرقلطوسإىل آخــره، أي إذا جــاء ْا ُ ِ يمك مــن 868ل لــ اذلي أان أرســهل إ هد. يف األب جــاء معــه روح القــدس اذلي اكن869األب فقــد يمك ــا جــاء شومل ــ ــف ــأين رســول 870لي ٌ ب يمكهللا ته871ل إ نـمت. لكم و هدون ألنمك مـن الاتـداء كفأنمت ب شكوا<. معـي872تش ئال تمك تـواآلن لـ > لكمـ ]vgl. Joh 15,26-16,1[.873 >ته لاللق امـن ِعال ات ِ َ ِ َ َ َ ْف َ<874 lxxix خـربتمك هبـذا أّ إىل آخـره، إال أين قـد ٍبرسول 855 ُ َ .برسويل، ك: ِ ِبعدي 856 ْ .بعد، و: َ .منه، م: من 857 .وهو، ك: ويه 858 َاوكت بوال 859 ُ ِ َ ِاوكت و؛ ٬بوال: ُ ِ َيوال، م ُ ُ. .وذي، ك: وذو 860 .، و م-: ّإيل 861 نا بلروث 862 ُآ ِ نا بلووث، م: لي نا بلروث، و؛ ا ُا ُ ُِ يِ لي .ُل .، م-: اذلي 863 هم 864 .انموسمك، ك و م: سانمو .تعاىل، م: + هللا 865 ْاواتن 866 ْاوانن، م :ُ َ ُ. ِذالث 867 ْ َ ِذالل: َ .ْث، ك و مَ بآرقلطوس 868 ْا ُ ِ بارقلطوس، م :ل بآرفلطوس، و؛ ا لا ْل ُ ِ. .وقد، م: فقد 869 .شهيد، و ك: ليشهد 870 يمك 871 .من هللا، ك: لهللا إ .إذ، ك: + كنمت 872 شكوا 873 ئال تمك تواآلن ل تمك هبذا، و ك م: لكم لكمأال أان ّ. ته لاللق امن 874 ِعال ات ِ َ ِ َ َ َ فْ ته لاللق، ك؛: َ َات ِ َ َ َ تْه لاللق آمن، مفْ ته لاللق امن، و؛ ات ِ ات َِ ْ َْ َ ََ َْ فْ ِف ِ َ. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 168 نـوا الوقت وهو يـ875الالكم ألنه إذا جاء يـق أن تؤ يمك مأيت إ يل بـه وأن تـذكروه مـا قلـت بـه لـمك 876لـ بل هذا الوقـت877من نـت معـمكأل ق هذا الالكم اذلي ما أخربتمك به الوقـت ألين 878واآلن دان. كين سألين. ذاهب إىل من أرسلين نمك أحد يويس ٌ م َ أين أردت أن تذهب879إىل: ل ْ 881 الغم*؟ وألجل880َ ً لمك قوال حمققا882>لكين أقول<. اّاذلي امت يف قلوبمك قد أخربتمك هبذ يـأيت . ً لفاعلموا وامسعوا مـين أنـه يمك بعد ذهايب يـا . لإ با وأمكـث معـمك يف هـذه ادل نفلوال أكون ذا بـارقلطوسًه ْفا ُ ِ ْ يمكل فـإذا . لـ مل جيـيء إ يمك .]vgl. Joh 16,4-7 [لأذهب ألرسهل إ II-27 يمك ميزي ّفإذا جاء إ يا من اذلنو) ؟(ل ٌفإنه حامك ذو . ومن العدل ومن اجلور ومن الصالح بنادل نه اجلور883العدل تصور م ال تقريـر عـمل أنـه ال جيـوز أن يكـون يف . ]vgl. Joh 16,8 [ي ُومـن هـذا ا ل يا رسوالن يف عرص واحد ٍادل ٍ ياء. ن نيب فإن األ نبما خال ا سالمل تعـددة 885 جيوز أن يكون884ل علهيم ا م .886يف عرص واحد II-28 سالم يـه ا يـىس لـقـال عل نمك يف احلـال888 أقـول بـه887ًثـريا مـا اكن يل أنكو: ع يمك لكـ إ ال 889لـ ــلك الكيم890>أن<ميكــنمك بطوا وحتفظــوا ب ــض ــاء . ت ــارقلطوس لكــن إذا ج ب ُا ْ َ ِ ــه روح ل اذلي اكن مع يقةفّرس لمكي هو 891حلقيقةا حلق ويعلممك بلك الصدق وا يس م. ِ تلكم وخيرب لهو لكام نـده بـل لك نيف ع .جاءت، م: جاء 875 نوا 876 .توضأ، ك: متؤ .يف، ك: من 877 .ويف، ك؛ دين، م: دان 878 .، و م-: إىل 879 .بذهب، و م: تذهب 880 .الغمن، ك: الغم 881 نا نقول، و م: لكين أقول 882 ّنا أقول، ك؛ لكّ .لك .ادلوةل، و: العدل 883 سالم 884 .، ك-: لعلهيم ا .، م-: يكون 885 .زمان واحدة، ك: عرص واحد 886 .، ك-: أن 887 .، و م-: به 888 .، و-: يف احلال 889 .ألن، و ك م: أن 890 يقة 891 .القدس، و م: حلقا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 169 تلكم به اكن من هللا يمك ابألحـوال الـيت 892 وقرر ما مسع به مـن الـالكم اذلي خيـربمكيما خيرب و صـ ويو .]vgl. Joh 16,12-13 [894 من بعده893جتئ II-29 سالم يه ا لقوهل بارقلطوس إذا جاء 895عل ْا ُ ِ ْ َ يمك، ل تـصاصه إلاذلي أان أرسهل إ 896خمـا لكـامل ا سه أتعـاىل نفـند اإلرسـال إىل سالم حيـيك الكم هللا تعـاىل897اكن وأســ يـه ا لـ فـإن هللا ، إلـهيم898عل َبحانه قال أرسل بارقلطوسسـ ْا ُ ِ ْ يمكل ناه اخلرب اذلي قلت. ل إ ال 900 تعـاىل لمك حميك مـن هللا899معواكن يهأمن نفيس، سالم خاف من سوء ظهنم إ يه ا لو اكن ل قالوا، إذا جـاء بعـده رسـول 902 كأهنم،901عل ْابرقلطوس يقول يأيت 903غريه ألنه ُ ِ ْ بـلك مـا مل ألكـم لـمك 904ت لـمك وخيـربمكفإذا جاء خيربمك بلك ما قل. َ ــأتنيأو ــا ت ه ــوال نمك وخيــربمك ابألح ــه لكت ــ م ــذا [905خفي ــده] ك ــن بع ــذه اللكــامت .906م ــوا ه ــام مسع فل رشايت يهنم907لبوا سالم كأهنم قالوا رسا يه ا نه ب ًم ل نـؤمنن ،فإذا اكن األمر كام قال: عل ّ لو مل نؤمن بـه ل سه 908حس مهنم هذا الرتددأفلام . مبن جييء من بعده ند اإلرسال إىل نفوالريب أ فـأراد ابإلرسـال . سـ رشمه بمك وشفعمك: وقال. باخلرب اذلي يمك يإذا جاء إ حي يل909ل يـه إن رسول هللا : ق حىت علصـىل هللا .وخيربمك، ك: + خيربمك 892 .خيرب، ك؛ جييء، م: جتئ 893 .بعد، و م: بعده 894 سالم 895 ليه ا .ك, -: عل تصاصه 896 تصاصه إىل هللا، و: خإ .حا .واكن، و: أو اكن 897 .، و-: تعاىل 898 .قلته، م: قلت 899 .، ك-: تعاىل 900 يه 901 ية: لمن سوء ظهنم إ نه الهيم حسه، م: شـعىل احلا .ظمن .كأنه، ك: كأهنم 902 .أنه، و: ألنه 903 .وخيرب، و م: وخيربمك 904 .يأتني، م: تأتني 905 .بعدي، م: بعده 906 شارة، م: تايرشلبوا 907 .لبا .الردد، ك :الرتدد 908 يبمك وشفعمك 909 بمك وشفقمك، م :حي يبمك وشفقمك، و؛ يح ي .لحي © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 170 نـصارى مـن غـريمه إذا أسـلموا910وسمل بـا لل اكن أشد َّيف القـرآن ﴿وتجـدن لوهـذا اكن اإلشـارة. ح َ ِ َ َ ل َ ِأقرهبم مودة لذل َّ ِّ ً َّ َ َّ ْ ُ َ َ ْ نوا ٱذلين قالوا إان نصارى﴾ َ َين ءا َ َ ََ َّ ِ ْ ْٓ ُ َ ِ َّ ُ َم ].٨٢ املائدة ٥[َ II-30 ند سامء 912 تعاىل اإلرسال اذلي هو فعل هللا911سـوأ سالم لكون رفعه إىل ا يه ا سه ل إىل ل عل نف ب يا سبمن ادل سال913ان يه ا ل جمليء محمد بق آنفـام،عل سالم وهـو مـا يه ا ً كام قال ســ ل لـوال أكـون :914عل با ًذا ْارقلطوسفالفه ُ َ ْ يمك915ِ ناد فعـل.916ل مل جييء إ يمك ال حمـاةل فـاكن إ يـأيت إ بت ســ فإذا ذ لـ ل هللا 917ه يل اجملاز العقيللاذلي هو اإلرسا يا من سالم من ادل يه ا بب اذلي هو رفعه ب إىل ا ن ل قعل كام يف 918سل ثري ما وقع حنوآالقر يت علهيم ءآايته زادهتم إميـاان: كن ً﴿وإذا َ ِ َ ِْ ُْ َْ ُ ُتل َْ َ ِ ْ ِ َ َ ِ ُ َ أو اكن ٬ وغريهـا]٢ األنفـال ٨ [919﴾َ يل ذكر امللزوم وإرادة شري بـه الزم، وذكـر اإلرسـال اذلي 920قبمن ٌ الالزم ألن اإلرسال ملـزوم وا لتبـ شري اذلي هو الزم ٌهو امللزوم وأراد ا . وال يعمل تأويهل عىل مراد هللا إال هو.921922لتب II-31 يل ما قال هللا شاهبات اليت وقعت يف اإل جنومن ا سالم923عاىل تملت يه ا يىس سان لـ عىل عل : عل ناس َا َ ْ غر اكذوقمت924َِبي ِ َ ُ َ ْ ِ فاين]كذا [َ ْ ساس،َ ْ اذ ْ ب ِ نفمي ]كذا [َ نوس امن َ اكبوسامت، َ َ ِ سِ س َت كَ ْك ِ َِ ْ ُ َ ِ ُ َ ْنوس ،]كذا[َ ُ ْمي َكرباوادلم َ َ َ سا ،َ َ ا ْسْتِن ساسمت ] كذا[ِ ِاك ْ َ َ َِبْسَكبْ ُان فالك امن اكثت بر ،]كذا[َ ُ َ َ َلْ َ ْ ِ ِِ ِ َومسَ ْ925.lxxx بـارك تقـال هللا يه وسمل 910 سالم، ك: علصىل هللا ليه ا .عل ند 911 ند، و م: سـوأ .سـأو ا .، ك-: تعاىل 912 .سبب، ك: سببا 913 بق آنفا 914 سالم وهو ما يه ا ًكام قال سـ ل بق آنفا، و م: عل .سـوهو ْلفارقلطوسفا 915 ُ َ ْ بارقلطون، م:ِ .ل فالفارقلطون، و؛ فا يمك 916 .، و م-: لإ .الفعل، و: فعل 917 .العقل، ك: العقيل 918 يت علهيم ءآايته زادهتم إمياان﴾ 919 ثري ما وقع حنو ﴿وإذا ًكام يف القرآن َ ِ ُ تل ِ ْك ُْ ْ َ َُ َ َ ِ ْ ِْ َ َ ِ ُ َ يف و؛ كام٬حنو كثريا القرآن يف وقع كام: َ .حنو، م وقع ما كثريا القرآن .واراده، ك: وإرادة 920 شري اذلي هو الزم 921 ٌوأراد ا .، م-: لتب .املالزم، ك: ٌالزم 922 .تبارك، ك: تعاىل 923 ناس 924 َا َ ناس، و:َِبي ناس، ك؛ ا َ ا ي ي سِ َب َْ َ. ْغر اكذوقمت 925 ِ َ ُ َ ْ ثت برومس... َ َاك ْ ُ ُ َ َ ْل َ ْاكذومن َْر غ:َ ِ ُ ْقائن،) ؟(َ ِ ْاذساس َ ن ِ ْاكبوسامت ِ ِ َ ِن ْنوس ،َ ُ ْامن ِكْس ِ ِيمت، َ ُ ْ ْنؤس َكِسِنَف ُ ُ ِبَمْب ُكراد ْالرم، ِ ِ ِ تا َ َار ْست ساممت، ِ ْاك ِ ْ ِفالك َان لَْسِك َ ْامن َ ِ َاكثت َ َ ْل ْبرومس، و؛ عز َ َ ُ ْ ُ ْقمت ُذو َاك َ ِ ْفائن، َ ِ ِأذ َ ْپاس ِ َ ِس © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 171 بارته باده الصاحلني و عوتعاىل ميني: لع متوين:926لقال ألحصاب ا نت جائعا فأ طعم شان ،927ك نت َ و عطـ ك متوين،928بفأرشمتوين سافرا فأ نت ضـف و ً مـ متوين،929ك نـت عـرايان فأ لبـسـ و ً ئـمت ،930ك نـت مريـضا جف و ًك ئمت إيل،931ّإيل بوسا نت يف جسن ّ و جف حم ]..vgl. Mt 25,35f [932ك II-32شامل 933قـال و سه ألحصـاب ا لـ يـه 934ومـن] vgl. Mt 25,41-43[بعكـ يـل قـوهل عل هـذا ا لقب سالم أن هللا خلــق آدم عــىل صــورته ــا ــذكور. ل ــضا يف 936 يف أول935وهــذا احلــديث م ــوراة وأي ت ل ا نه يل ياإل .بعجن II-33سموا937 وظن القارصون أن ال صورة إال الصورة الظـاهرة املدركـة ّ ابحلـواس وشــهبوا و 938جـ بريا939عاىل هللا رب العاملني عام يقول اجلاهلون ت،وصوروا ً علوا يه اإلشـارة بقـوهل تعـاىل ملـوىس . كً لوإ سالم ليه ا بـدي فـالن فـمل تعـده: ك رب ويف ذكل؟ قالاي: فقال. مرضت فمل تعدين:940عل . عمرض نوافـل بعـد أداء الفـرائضهوهذ. عنده ولو عدته لوجدتين بة عىل ا هر إال ابملوا بة ال نا ل ا ظ سـ وقـد .يظمل يح عن بدي: هللا تعاىل941لصحورد يف اخلرب ا عما تقرب إىل 943ها أفرتضـ ممـ>ّإيل< يشء أحـب ب942ّ ْاكبوسامت، ِ َ ِت ُ ْنوس َ ُ ْآمن ِكْس ئوس ِ ْنفهيمت، ُ َ ْن بَمس ِك ْ ُ َ ِ ِ ُكرباد َ َ ِ ِال ِ ْرمَ سا ِ تا َا ْ ن َس ْ تاسمت، آن ِ ْاك ْ ِ ِ َ ِفالك ِبْسِتْك َ ْآمن ِ َاكثت ِ َ ْل َ َبرومس، م َ ُ َ. ميني 926 مين : لا .، و)؟(لا متوين 927 متوين، ك: طعمفأ .طعموأ رشمتوين، م: بفأرشمتوين 928 بورشمتوين، ك؛ .فب متوين 929 متوين، ك: ضففأ .ضفوأ متوين 930 متوين، م: لبسـفأ متوين، ك؛ سـأل بسـ فلب .ل ياديت، ك: ّإيل 931 .عيف ئمت إيل 932 بوسا نت يف جسن ّو جف حم .، و م-: ك .فقال، ك: وقال 933 .ويف، ك: ومن 934 .مزكور، ك: مذكور 935 .، و م-: أول 936 .املذكورة، و م: املدركة 937 سموا 938 ّو .، ك-: ج .يقو الطاملون، و: يقول اجلاهلون 939 سالم 940 ليه ا .، م-: عل .من، م: عن 941 .بد، كع: عبدي 942 ٍبيشء أحب إيل مما افرتضه، و م؛ بيشء أحب إىل مما أقر، ك: ٍبيشء أحب إال مما افرتضه 943 ٍ. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 172 ته به، فإذا أ نوافل حىت أ بد إيل اب تقرب ا بيه، وال يزال ل لع ي حبعل ح سمع944ّ نت مسعـه اذلي يـ بـه 945ك نطق به برص به وسانه اذلي يوبرصه اذلي ل بطش946ي ميـيش 949 ورجـهل الـيت948 هبـا947يـ ويده الـيت نذكره مـن. هبـا ثـل هـذا احلـديث مـا ســوعـىل يـل950م وأخـذت الهيـود احلجـارة بـأن يرمجـوه . جن اإل .951لظاهره II-34 تخلـق تـداء وا بد من هللا تعاىل يف الصفات اليت أمـر فهيـا ابال ل فاملراد من القرب هو قرب ا قلع يل ختلقوا بأخالق هللا قبأخالق الربوية حىت ساب حمامد الـصفات.952 تعاىلب الـيت يه كت وذكل يف ا سان واللطف وإفاضة الرمحة واخلري ية من العمل والرب واإل حمن صفات اإل يحة 953له لنص عىل اخللق وا هم مـن954هلم وإرشادمه باطـل إىل غـري ذكل مـن مـاكر955منع إىل احلق و رشيعةمل ا فـلك ذكل .956لـ ا ين إىل فقد ذهب بعض القارص. ال مبعىن طلب القرب ابملاكن، بل ابلصفات، إىل هللا تعاىل957تقرب يه الظـاهري يـه959 ومـالوا958لتـشبا بـو إىل الاحتـاد وقـالوا . ل إ بة وذ نا هم جتـاوزوا احلـد وا هو ســ مل بعـض هم .أان احلق: بعضابحللول حىت قال II-35 يىس نصارى يف عوضل ا سالمل يه ا ل ناسـوت : وقال اآلخرون مهنم. هو اإلهل: فقالوا. عل لتدرع ا هم قالوا. ابلالهوت تحاةل الاحتاد واحللول واتضح هلـم نـور وأما اذل. احتد به: بعضو شف هلم ا ٌين ا سـ نك هم األقلون وأان مهنم .فمن أنوار هللا تعال ته 944 ته، ك: حببإذا أ .حببماذا أ .تسمع، ك :يسمع 945 .، م-: به 946 بطش 947 بطش، ك :ياليت .ياذلي .، ك-: اهب 948 .اذلي، و :اليت 949 .يف، و م: من 950 .لظاهرها، ك: لظاهره 951 .، ك-: تعاىل 952 .وخيرب، ك: واخلري 953 يحة هلم وإرشادمه 954 يحة وارشاهمم، ك :لنصوا .لنصوا .عىل، و؛ عن، م: من 955 رشيعة 956 رشيفة، ك: لا .لا .يقرب، ك: تقرب 957 يه الظاهري 958 به الظاهرة، ك: لتشبا .لتشـا .وقالوا، ك: ومالوا 959 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 173 II-36 سالم أنـت يـه ا يـىس يل ما قالت الهيود شاهبات اإل لـومن عل جن لعت َ مـن اكوئـلم َ ُ َ ْ زوول ]كـذا[ ِ ُ َ َاكوال اتذمويا ن ُ ِ َ ِ ْ َlxxxi يطان الوهـان ختـرج اجلـن مـن،960إخل ل يعين من طـرف ا نـونني لـشـ vgl. Lk[جمل ا بع963 اجلـن962ال ختـرج: مث قـال هلـم.961وتـربئ األمكـه واألبـرص] 11,15 965 مـن أصـابع964صـ إال بإ نونني]vgl. Joh 11,20 [966الرمحن وهذا كـام يف . وأبرئ األمكه واألبرص967جمل، أي أخرج اجلن من ا سالماحلديث يه ا ل بعني:968عل وقـال . ديث احلـ970 من أصابع الرمحن إىل آخر969ص قلب املؤمن بني أ يح:تبارك يف القرآن ُ ﴿لقد كفر ٱذليـن قـالوا إن ٱ هـو ٱ َلمـِس ْ َ ُ َْ َّ ِ ُ َ َ ِ َّ َ َ َ َ يح اي بـين 971َ ِ ٱبـن مـرمي وقـال ٱ ََ َ ُ ْلمـِس َ َ َ َ َ ْ َ ُ ْ نـة ومـأوا يـه ٱ رشك بـٱ فقـد حـرم ٱ بدوا ٱ ريب وربمك إنه من ْ َإرساءيل ٱ َ َْ َ َّ لَجْ عل ُ ي ُ ْع َ ُِ ْ َ ُ َ َ ََّ َ َ ِ ِ ِ ْ ْ َ َ ِ ِْ َ َ َِ َ ُ ُ َ نـار ومـا ُهِ َٱ َ ُ َّ ل ٍللظالمني من أنصار﴾ َ ْ َ ْ ِ َ ِ ِ َّ بارته هذا972لوهذه اآلية .]٧٢ املائدة ٥[ِ يل و ع الكرمية اكنت اإلشارة يف اإل : جن ْسومن< َ ُ ــ َ اان ارغ973>بِئ ْ َ َ ــا974ِ ث َ زو َم َ ارغ976ات 975ُ ْ ــؤ977َ ــو ث ُ ت َ ــذا[ُ دو ؛ُ ــو] ك ُاســت ت ْ ــؤ َ ــو ث ُارغــون ت َ ُ ُ ْ ِ اان ،َ َتوسد َ ْ َ عَ اس اون ]كذا[بَسـ ْ ُ نوسِ ْتلن ا ُ َك ِس ْ َ ِ ْ َ سالم. lxxxii 978ب يه ا يىس لـجاء رجل وقال عل ،979اي راو: لع َاكوئل زوول اكوال اتذمويا 960 ن ُ ِ َ ِ ْ َ َْ ُ َ َ َ يا إىل آخره، و؛ من اكوئل اكوال اتذمويا، م: إخل ُ َاكوئل اكوال ات ذ ََ ن ُن َ ََ ِ م َِ َ َ َْ ِ ِ ُِ ُُ ْ ُ. .األبرض، م: واألبرص 961 .ّخيرجن، و ؛ اخرجن، م: خترج 962 .، م-: اجلن 963 بع 964 بع، ك: صبإ .صيف أ .األصابع، ك: أصابع 965 .أي، و: + الرمحن 966 نونني 967 نون، و: جملا .جملا سال 968 ليه ا .، و م-: معل بعني 969 .أصعني، و؛ اصابع، م: صأ .آخره، م: آخر 970 .عيىس، ك و: + سـيحملا 971 .، ك-: اآلية 972 ْسومن 973 َ ُ سومن، م:بِئ سو من، و؛ سومن، ك؛ ْ ا ْ ِْ ُِ ُ ُِ ئِ ت ِ ِتئ ب ِبب ِ َ ِ. َاان ارغ 974 ْ َ َ ُ اانرغ، و؛ اانرغ، م:ِ ْ َْ ِ َِ. ثا 975 َزو َم ثا، ك؛ ذومث، م:ُ َ رو َ ُ َ َم ُ. .َا، و؛ ها، مَم :ات 976 َارغ 977 ْ ُ ارغ، ك:َ َ. نوس 978 تلن ا توسد اس اون ُتو ثؤ دو است تو ارغون تو ثؤ اان َك س سـ ُ ُ ُِ ِ ِْ َ ِ ْ بَْ عَب ْ ُ َ َ ْ َ َ ُ َُ َُ ْ َ َ ُاتو: ُ ِأست َدو َ ْ ُارغون ُتو ُ ْ ثَُئؤ ُتو َ توسداس ِاان َِ َ ُ ِيْس ْاوت َ ْتلن ُ َ ِ نوس، و؛ اتو عَبَْس ُا َك ْ ُ ْ ُدؤ ِ ِاست َ ْتوارغون ُ ُ َ توسداس ثَُئو ُتو ُ ِاان َ َ َ ُ يَْس ْاون ِ ْتلن ُ َ ِ عَبَْس نوس، م ْا ُ ْك ِ. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 174 نع تخلق بأخالق هللا؟ وذكل حمامـد األعـامل الـيت اكنـت رضـا هللا 980نصأي املعمل، أي يشء ن حىت سالم. فيه يه ا لـوقال هل لك يشء أن تعـرف هللا، إنـه واحـد وأن تـؤمن بـلك مـا أرسـل 981قبـل: عل .].vgl. Joh 6,28f [983 تعاىل هذا اكن خلق هللا.982هللا II-37 ْآمـن آمـن لـغ امـن : مث قـال ِ ِ ُ سدر 984>َابنـت< ]كـذا[َ َ ا ََ ُات عامرتـامد تـس ايـس تـون ] كـذا[فِثـ ْ ِ َ َ ْ َ ْنرثبون ُ ْ ِ ياس] كذا[َع ْكوال َ َسفِم ْ ُ ْاوساس] كذا[ 985َ ٍوالسفموس ُ ُ ْ َ نوالس فمس :]كذا[ 986ِ ْاوس ذ ِ َ ْ َْ ْ َع َ ] كذا[ُ ي ــا ــو ع ــا ت بوم ــو ُاس ت ِئَ ُن ُْ ــون اؤانِ سن اس ت ُون اوكــش َ ُ ِ ْ ِ ــ ْعف َ ِ َ ــوخس،987ُ ن ْ ُ ُ َ ْ اســنت 988َعل َ ــذا[ْ ــؤ] ك ُاؤن ِ ُ َ989 ئوس ْكر ُ ِِس ْ990.lxxxiiiنـوا: مث قال للهيود يـل، آ ماي بـين إرسا يمك991ئ لك ذنـب . لـ وصـدقوا مـا أقـول بـه إ يا أو قاصدا نو آدم، سا ئة فعهل ًو ً ه ب برية، يغفر هللا تعاىل،992خطي ً صغرية أو إال مـن كفـر إىل روح . كً به994 إىل993قدس لن يغفـرال ً قانطـا مـن رمحـة 995ح دهـر ادلاهـرين وإىل أبـد اآلبـدين، بـل اكن صـا ًراد، و؛ اي راو، م: راو 979 َ َ َ. .نضع، ك و: نصنع 980 .قيل، ك و: قبل 981 .تعاىل، م: + هللا 982 .، و م-: تعاىل 983 ْلغ امن 984 ِ ِ ُ ْلغ امن، ك؛ : >َابنت<َ ِ ِ ُ ِلغ امن اينت، و؛ لغ أمن اينت، مَ َِ ْ ِْ ُِ ُ ُُ ْ َ ََ. ياس 985 نرثبون كوال سدر ات عامرتامد تس ايس تون ْا َ سفِم ع ُ َث ْ ُ َْ ْ ُ ْ ِ َ َْ ِ َ َ َ ََ ِ نرثاون كن الس :ف شدان معارتامد تس ايس تون ْ ا َ ْ ُْ ِ ْ َع ُ ِف ِ ِ َ ِ َ َ َ َ ْ ِ ْ َ ياس، م رشلون كرالس شدان معار تمارتس ايس تون ْياس، و؛ ا ْ َْ ِ فمِ ع ُ ف َفم َِ ِْ َْ ُْ ْ ََ َْ ِْ ِ َ َ َ َ َ ِ ْ َ. ٍوالسفموس 986 ُ ْ َ ِ والسغ:ِ ْ ِموس، ك؛ والس فمس، مِ َ ْ َ ٍ ُ. سن اس تون اؤان 987 يون اوكش بوما تو عا ُاوس ذعن والس فمس اس تو َ ُ عف ئ ُ ن ُِ ِْ ِْ ْ َ ِ َ ُ ُُ ِ َ ْ ْ ِ َ ْ َْ َ ُاوس ذعن دالس فمس اس تو :َ ْ ِْ ِ ٍِ َ ِ َ َ ُ تون اون، و؛ ذغن والس فمس اس تويو ماتو عا سن ا ِئون اوكث َِنوماتو عا ُ َُ ن ُ س عف ي ُ َي ُ ْ ِْ ِِ َ َ ْ َ َْ َِ ُ ُْ ُ ْ ِ ْ َ َ تون ُ سن ا ِْئون اوكش ُْ سـ عف ِي ْ ِ ْ َ ِ َ ُ َآوان، م ُ. ْنوخس 988 ُ ُ َ نوخس :َعل نخس، ك؛ ا ْ َ عل ُعل َُ ََ َُ .، و)؟(ُ ْاسنت 989 َ ِاؤنؤ] كذا[ْ ُ ُاسرت اونو، و؛ اسرت آؤئو، م :َ ِن ُئ ْ َْ َْ ِْ ُِ ِ ُ. ئوس 990 ْكر ُ ِِس ْكرسؤس، ك: ْ ُ َ ِ ِ. نوا 991 .آمن، ك: مآ يدا، ك: ًقاصدا 992 .صقا .اىل، وهللا تع: + يغفر 993 .هللا، م: إىل 994 به 995 .صاحب، ك: حصا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 175 سؤال إىل هجـمن997منً مردودا ،996هللا رش بغري ا ل ا 998وكـام قـال هللا تعـاىل] vgl. Mk 3,28-29. [حمل رشك بـه ويغفـر مـا دون ذكل:999 العظمييف القرآن َ ﴿إن ٱ ال يغفر أن ِ َ َ َُّ َ ُ ُِ ِْ ُ ي َْ َ ََ ِ ِ َ ْ َ َ َ شاء﴾ ِ ُ لمـن ٓ َ َيـ َ ساء ٤[ِ لنـ ا رشك اب كـام يف القـرآن1001ه مل يـذكر1000 وإمنـا.] وغريها٤٨ يـل مـن يـ يف اإل 1002فـإن الهيـود مل. جن سالم، بـل وقـع اإلنـاكر1003يرشكوا اب ظـاهرا يـه ا يـىس لـ يف زمـن عل يـاء علـهيم 1004ع نب مـهنم يف األ سالم يىس فقتلومه بغري احلق. لا سالم1005عإىل زمن يه ا لـ نـات فلـام جـ.1006عل 1007وأخـربمه لبياءمه اب بات بإذن هللا يبعض ا بوه إىل الـزانء وقـالوا1008ملغب 1009هـو ابـن يوسـف ابـن إيـيل ابـن مـااثن: نـسـ ]vgl. Lk 3,23-24[يح حـني جـاء ال . جيـيء نـيب1010 واكن قرية نصاران، ومن هـذه القريـة مل ملـسـفا نيب من هللال و1013ٌ الرجل اكذب وخمطيء1012 هذا:فقالوا. ومن أين جاء1011يعمل ماكنه ومودله ّيس . ب يطانه مـن، معه القدس1014لويس بعض مـا قـال1015شــ بـل اكن يطان وهـو ، بـ خيـربه لـشـإنـه مـن ا ساحرة والفاعل ابن الفاعةل ساحر ابن ا لا يـا مـن هللا لقـد آمـن بـه : مث قالوا.1016ل نبأ مل تروه، لو اكن .، م-: هللا 996 .يف، ك: من 997 .، و-: تعاىل 998 .، ك-: العظمي 999 .، و م-: وإمنا 1000 .يذكر، و م: يذكره 1001 .ومل، ك: مل 1002 .طاهرا، و: ظاهرا 1003 .األناكر، م: اإلناكر 1004 يىس 1005 .جمئ، ك: عزمن سالم 1006 ليه ا .، م-: عل .أخربمه، م: وأخربمه 1007 .تعاىل، م: + هللا 1008 .همان، و م: مااثن 1009 .لن، ك: مل 1010 .ومولوده، ك: ومودله 1011 .فهذا، ك: هذا 1012 .وخمط، ك: وخمطيء 1013 .، ك-: لويس 1014 .، و-: من 1015 ساحرة والفاعل ابن الفاعةل 1016 ساحر، و: لا .لا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 176 بار بارمه1017حأحد من العلامء واأل يل ومن ك من بين إرسا نـاس 1018خيـارومل يؤمن بـه أحـد مـن أ. ئ ل ا باطل هم ا لعىل ز هالء اذلين ال يعلمون ض واألمص وذو املر1020 إال من اكن األمعى1019مع جل والفقراء وا سقاؤمه توراة و فا يـل أن املـراد 1022 من كفـر يف1021إن: لوهذا قال. ل هـم مـن اإل َ روح القـدس ومـا جن ف يـاء1023بروح بوة والويح الـرابين يف األ نب القدس نور ا سالملن هـام يف1024لـ علـهيم ا علـهيم ل األويـاءل وإ نني اكن 1026 ويف أحصـاء،1025الرمحة وقدس هللا أرواهحـم يـه الكـذب 1027>لكمـة<م املـؤ تـصور ف ال ي بحانه وتعاىل قال يف القرآن رشك بـٱهللا﴾ : سـولعل ِ﴿إنه من ِ ْ ِ ْ ُ ي َُ َّ تني1028لـيعم] ٧٢ املائـدة ٥[ِ ،ئف الطـا نصارى والهيود، واكن هام واحدا ألن مقاةل الهيود أنه م1029لأي ا ً مر سـهبم إىل الـزانء جع يطان و نـن ا لشـ .ل ارشك1030أشد II-38 سالم يــه ا يــىس لــمث قــال عل ْآمــن آمــن لغــو امــنع ِ ِ ِِ ُ ِ اوت1031َ ُlxxxiv1032 إىل آخــر اآليــة، ــوا ن ــاليت1033مأي آ ــمك1034 وصــدقوا مبق ــول ل ــيت أق متع الكيم. ال ــن ا ــن 1035ســـلك م ــه وآم ــن ب وآم ــ ــاة األبدي ي ــد انل اب ــب فق ــال ري ــه ب ب ــن ــصا م ــصا خمل ــن أرســلين خال حلمب ٍقل ً ــرى شــدائدً 1036ة وال ي بار 1017 بار، ك: حواأل يار، و؛ والا خواأل .خ يار 1018 .كاخري، : خأ باطل 1019 باطةل، ك و :لا .لا .أمعى، ك: األمعى 1020 .إال، ك: إن 1021 .، و؛ إىل، م-: يف 1022 .ابلروح، ك: بروح 1023 سالم 1024 .، ك-: لعلهيم ا .، ك-: علهيم الرمحة وقدس هللا ارواهحم 1025 .حصار، و؛ حصاء، م: أحصاء 1026 .ملكة، ك و م: لكمة 1027 .، و)؟(ليقم : ليعم 1028 . كأو اكن، :واكن 1029 تد، ك :أشد 1030 .شـا ْلغو امن 1031 ِ ِ ُ ِلغو من، و لغو من، م :َ ِ ُِ ُُ ُ. .آخر اآلية، ك: إىل آخر اآلية 1032 نوا 1033 .آمن، ك: مأي آ .مبقاةل، م: مبقاليت 1034 .بالكيم، ك: الكيم 1035 .وال يأيت وال يرى شديد، ك؛ وال شدائد، م: وال يرى شدائد 1036 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 177 يامة< يـاة األبديـة،1037>لقا نقـل مـن املـوت إىل ا حل بل ،لوهـذا قـال رسـول هللا. ]vgl. Joh 5,24 [ي يه وسمل نني ال ميوتون:1038علصىل هللا بقاء،م املؤ ناء إىل دار ا نقلون من دار ا ل بل .لفي II-39 نوا بأيب اذلي: مث قال هلم نوا يب وآ مآ يمك1039م وقـال . رة أن رمجـوهفأخـذوه ابحلجـا. ل أرسلين إ بل1040كثريا ما: هلم سن األعامل واملعجزة من يمك من هرته إ قأ حظ هور املعجزة مل يكن إال . أيب1041ل ظو ال : قــالوا هل] vgl. Joh 10,31-32[؟ 1043 وألي يشء ومعــل أردمت أن تــرضبوين.1042بــإذن أيب سن األعـامل الـيت معلهتـا1045 من1044نريد نس. حـ ُاغـو اكو ابدر ا َلـُسمنَ َ ََ ُ مـن 1047أي ،lxxxv]كـذا[ 1046ُ نـا. أن نرمجـك1048أجـل كفـرك وكـذبك نريـد نـا أابك وأمـك، وأنـت جتاهلـت 1049كففـإان عر علم و ساواي مع هللا سك ًوجعلت م .]vgl. Joh 10,33 [ ابن هللا1050ألنك قلت أان نف II-40 سالم ــه ا ي يــىس ــال ــمث ق ل عل ست: ع ِاو ْ ــ َك ــون1051ُ ن َ يغرا ُ َم َ ْ ــذا [1052َ ــون ]ك ــو من ام ُ ان ت ِ ُ ُ ُ ــذا[َ ] ك ِاغــــواب ُ ِ اســــت1053ِ يث،َ ْ نــــوس اب ثــــؤس بــــروس ؤس ؤ لغــــوس؛1054َ ْ ء ا ْ ْ ْ ُْ ُ ُ ُ ُ ُ ُ َ َ ِ ُِ ِك ُ ثــــؤ 1056ُ دو1055ِ َ يامة 1037 مية، و ك م: لقا .لقا يه وسملصىل هللا 1038 سالم، ك: عل ليه ا .عل نوا بأيب اذلي 1039 .وابذلي، و: موآ .كثري اما، و: كثريا ما 1040 .قيل، ك: قبل 1041 .إال من أيب، ك؛ مل يمك إال من ايب، م: مل يكن إال بإذن أيب 1042 .ترضبون، م: ترضبوين 1043 .تريد، م: نريد 1044 .يف، ك: من 1045 نس 1046 ُاغو اكو ابدر ا َلَُسمنَ ََ ُ يين، مَ ا:ُ ِغو اكوا پادو امسين، و؛ اغواك واايد وا نِسِم ِ ُ َ ْ َ ِ ْ ِ َ َ ُ. .إال، ك: أي 1047 .وكذكل زيد، ك؛ وكذكل نريد، م: وكذبك نريد 1048 نا، ك: فعرناك 1049 .فعر .، ك-: أان 1050 ست 1051 ِاو ْ َك ست، م:ُ ِ او ْ ُك ُ. نون 1052 َيغرا ُ َم َ ْ نون، ك:َ ْ بقرا ُ .َم ِتو من امون اغواب يث 1053 ِ ُ َ ُ ِ ُ ُ نون اغو پاينء، مُتو: ُ ِمن امون اغويائث، و؛ تومن ا ُْ ِ َِ ُ َُ َ َ َْ ُْ ْ مْ َ ُ ِن ُ. ِاست 1054 ْ ست، ك؛ است، م: َ ِا ْ ُ َ َس ِ. نوس اب ثؤس بروس ؤس ؤ لغوس 1055 ْء ا ْ ْ ْ ُْ ُ ُ ُ ُ ُ ُ َ َ ِ ُِ ِك نوس اب ثؤث بروس :ِ ئوس بروسء ؤس لوغرس، و؛ ا نوس اب ْا ْ ْ ْ ُْ ُُ ُْ ُُ َ ْ ِ َِ َُ ُْ كْ ث ِك ُِ ُ َ ِ ُلوغرس، م ْ ُ ُ . َذو، ك: ُدو 1056 َ. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 178 ََا< َ اكذ اند ل ثن،1057>َةني ِ ِ َ َ ْ َ ِ اغراف]كذا[ 1058َ ْ ِlxxxviسالم. إىل آخره يـه ا لـفقال الك معـاذ هللا أن : عل بغـي يل أن أمـرمك بـه ينأقـول قـوال ال تـوب بـأن قلـت. ً مكيس يف انموسـك أان إهل أو أقـول مه : فلـ هة نا ما أقول لمك إال ما أمر هللا به1059لآ وقلت لمك إن لكمة هللا تعاىل اكن كام أراد . لك من دون هللا رسوا1060ل ويس لمك٬هللا هداية حىت تدركوا أو تعداد وا تفـ الا تـوراة1061لسـ تـاب يعـين ا ل ا ّفـإن أاب . لك يا وأنمت تقولـون تلكمـت سك ا1063 ابلكفـر ألنـك جعلـت1062نالعاملني قدسـين وأرسلين إىل ادل بـن نفـ نـوا اب اذلي هـو الفـرد الـصادق1064فإين. هللا يس يف الوجـودإف. م ما قلـت لـمك إال أن تؤ 1065لـنـه يع املوجـودات إال إهل موصـوف بدأ يث أنه بادة من تحق مجذات للع مسـ ح تعـال 1066م يـة، ٍابلوحدا م ن رشكة بـول ا لـعـن نـوايه. ق نـوا بـلك مـا أرسـهل مـن الرسـل واألوامـر وا لوأن تؤ فـإن الـالكم اذلي . م يس من تلقاءت لسمعونه مين يمك1068 نفـيس، بـل هـو مـن1067ّ والـالكم اذلي . لـ األب اذلي أرسـلين إ سالم1069يسـبق يه ا يىس ل آنفا وهو ما قال هلم عل ع ية: ً اكنت اإلشـارة ،1070همعاذ هللا أن أقول ابأللو ــة ْ﴿وإذ: يف القــرآن ويه هــذه اآلي ِ ــن مــرمي 1071َ يــىس ٱب ــال ٱ اي َ ق َ ْ َ َ ْ َ ِع َ ُ َ َءأنــت<َ ْ َ َ قلــت1072>َ ْ نــاس ُ ِ َّ ِلل ﴾ هَني من دون ٱ ِٱختذوين وأمي إ ُِ ُْ ِ ِ َ ل ِ َ ِّ ُِ َ .]١١٦ املائدة ٥[َّ نةثَُئو 1057 َ ا َ نه، م: َي ئو ا ند، و؛ ئو ا نه، ك؛ َثؤ ا َُ يُ ث ب ث َب َ َُ َُ ََ ْ َ ُ َ . َاكذ اند ل ثن 1058 ِ ِ َ َ ْ َ ِاكداندل ثين، و؛ اكو اندل ثين، م: َ ِ ِ ِِ َِ ََ َ َ َ. هة 1059 ية، ك: لوأقوهلم آ هة، و؛ أو يقول مه إ لهأو أقول مه مه إ .ل .، و م-: يس لمكلأي لكمة هللا تعاىل اكن كام أراد هللا، و 1060 رسوا 1061 رسوا، م: تفأو .تفأو تغريوا، ك؛ و .لكمت، ك: تلكمت 1062 .جبعل، و: جعلت 1063 .فإن، ك: فإين 1064 .وجوه، ك: الوجود 1065 .إهل موجود، و؛ أنه موجود، م: إهل موصوف 1066 .تلقائ، ك: تلقاء 1067 .يف، ك: من 1068 .سن، ك: يسـبق 1069 ية 1070 ية، و م: هابأللو .هبألو .إذ، و م: وإذ 1071 َءأنت 1072 ْ َ َأنت، ك و؛ وأنت، م: َ ْ َ. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 179 II-41 يـل لفـظ حمـرف: َفإن قلت يس يف اإل جنأنت تقول تحريـ،1073لـ نـاه، 1074 واقـعفل بـل ا مع يف يـة لكـام ذكـر امس هللا ذكـر1075مفا تـب اإل له احلمكة أن يف غريهـا مـن ا نـا 1077 بلفـظ اجلـالةل1076لك ه و سالم ملـا ودل مـن؟أكرث من لفظ اجلالةل لفظ األب 1078ذكر يه ا يىس ُ قلت إن لـ عل مـرمي علهيـا 1079ع يـاء سالم بلكمـة هللا ومل يكـن هل األب كـام يف سـائر األ نبا بوه1081 أنكـره،1080لـ إىل 1082نـسـ الهيـود و سالم ابن يوسف ابن يه ا لالزانء وقالوا أنه ولكـام رأوه . ].vgl. Lk 3,23f [1084 إيل ابـن مـااثن1083عل هود] كذا[ قالوا أين ً وتكذيهبم وتويخا هلم وردا وزجرا.1085ملعابن يوسف ا ً ب ثة أطلـق 1086ل خلبي ملقالهتم ا بحانههللا يه لفظ الابن1087تعاىلو سـ شالكة، كام ورد يف اخلرب1088ل إ بوا ادلهر فإن ادلهـر : للم تسـال يـل. هو هللا يـل مـن لفـظ األب مـن هـذا ا بوما ذكـر يف اإل سالم إلـهيم. لقجن يـه ا لـمث قـال أنـمت ال : عل تعـززت بـمت اجملـد وا نـوا يب وأنـمت يـف ميكـن أن تؤ نـون يب، لؤ طل م فك يـانمك 1090 مـن أقـرابئمك1089م ع وأ ثــالمك تعــزز. موأ بــون اجملــد وا لفــال هدايــة مــن هللا الواحــد 1091تطل اذلي ] vgl. Joh 5,44[ل وا .منحرف، و: حمرف 1073 .، و-: واقع 1074 .يف، م: مفا 1075 .، م-عز شانه يذكر، و؛ : امس هللا ذكر 1076 .احلاةل، م: اجلالةل 1077 نا ذكر 1078 ناذكر، م: هو نا أن ذكر، ك؛ و هو .هه .، م-: من 1079 ياء 1080 .، و م-: نبكام يف سائر األ .أنكرته، ك م :أنكره 1081 بوه 1082 به، ك: نسـو .نسـو .، م-: ابن 1083 .هنان، و م: مثان 1084 هود 1085 .الهيود، و م: ملعا ًوردا وزجرا 1086 ًوردا، ك؛ وردوا زجرا، م: ً ّ . .تعاىل، ك: سـبحانه وتعاىل 1087 .اإلب، ك: الابن 1088 تعزز 1089 تعزز، ك و: لاجملد وا .لاجملد ا .أقرائمك، ك: أقرابئمك 1090 تعزز 1091 .واللطف، ك: لوا © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 180 سود وقال .1094 آخر1093 ابذلات ال يضاده1092يتفرد َاغرا ُ ْ ب َ ْ إىل آخره، أي أنمت 1095 موىسlxxxvii]كذا[َ سالم واكن دعـوامكتدعون بأان يه ا نا مبوىس ل آ عل نـمت. اكذاب1096م يقـة ولـو1097مفـإنمك لـو آ ً بـه 1098حق نمت يب1100 هللا تعاىل1099كنمت مصدقا مبا أرسل يه آل م إ سالم قـال وأخـرب 1101ل يه ا ل اآلن ألن موىس عل تابه نعيت وامسي تواب يف بويت واكن ييئ و كمن هللا ألابئمك األولني مكمبج إال أنمك. ]vgl. Joh 5,46 [بن سالم يه ا تاب موىس لسـمت من زمرة من آمن عل بكل سالم. ٍ يـه ا نو مبـوىس لـفإذا مل تؤ عل يـف 1102م فك يت به نون الالكم اذلي أ تتؤ ؟]vgl. Joh 5,47 [م II-42 بـري سالم إلـهيم مـا ذكـر مشعـون ا يـه ا يـىس بـوة يـل إىل لكومـن ادل لـع عل ن ب ابحلجـر قـ املل،ل تــداء إىل طائفــة الهيــ ها ا ته الــيت أر بيف رســا تــوراةســلل فإنــه قــال يف هــذه . لود انقــال بــه عــن ا ــاةل ْموســس: الرس ِ ــذا [ُ ــت ] ك ــن اوت بروف ــراس اب ــوس ابت ــروس ت ــر ب ِغ ِ ُ ُُ ُُ ْ َ ِ ْ َْ ُ ــذا[َ تاس ]ك ــن اان ْ ام ــ ْس َ ِ ِ ْكـــروس ] كـــذا[ ُ تـــون عـــاذ لغـــون1103َاو] كـــذا[ُ ْ ثـــؤس امـــون ا ْ ُْ ُ َ ُ َْك َ ْ ِ ْ ُ ِ امـــون اوس ام]كـــذا [ْ َ َْ ُ ْ َ ُ1104 ثث:]كذا[ تو عقو ْ َ َس ُعف َ ُ ْ تـا]كذا[ 1105َ َ ابنـدا1106قَ ْ ناللس1108ُ اوسـا1107َ ِ ْ ْ بـروس1109َعـ ُ ْ امـاس1110ُ ِ1111. .يتعزز، و م: يتفرد 1092 .َأليضام، ك؛ أليضاذه، م: ال يضاده 1093 .آخره، م: آخر 1094 سود 1095 َاغرا ُ ْ ب َ ْ سو دموُيس، م: موىسَ سوء موىس، ك؛ اندا َآغرا ُ َ ُْ ُ ي َب َ َ َ َ ْ. .دعوتمك، م: دعوامك 1096 نمت 1097 .أنمت، ك: مآ .و، م: ولو 1098 .أرسلين، ك: أرسل 1099 .، م-: تعاىل 1100 .به، ك: يب 1101 سالم 1102 يه ا نوا مبوىس لفإذا مل تؤ عل .، م-: م َ او، ك:َاو 1103 َ. تون عاذ لغون امون 1104 تاس كروس او ثؤس امون ا ْموسس غر بروس توس ابتراس ابن اوت بروفت امن اان ْ ْ َْ َُ َُ َ َُ ُ َ ُ ْكْ س َُ ِ ِ ِْ ْ ْ ْ ُْ ْ ُ ُ ُُ ْ ِ ِِ ُ ُُ ْ َ َ َ ْ ِ ِاوس ام َ ْ ئوس توس ابتراس: ُ يس غر ْمو ْ َْ ْ َ ُ ُب َ ْ َ ْ ِس تون عاذ ُ ئوس آمون ا تاس كراوس او َ ابن اوت بروفت آمن اان َ ُْ ُْ ْك ث َس ُ ْ َْ ُِ ُ ُِ ِ ِ َِ ْ َ َ ْ ُْ ِْ َ ِ ْالغون امون اوس آم، م ْ ُ ُ ُ ِ ْ ُ ْ َ . ثث 1105 ْعقو َ َس ُ ثث، ك:َ ْ عفو َ َس ُ َ. ثا، م:قَتا 1106 َّ .قَ َابندا 1107 ْ َابنه، ك :َ ْ َ. َ وسا، م:ُاوسا 1108 َ. ِناللس 1109 ْ ناللس، ك:َع ْ ِ .َع © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 181 َاست ْ سش1112َ ِ ذابس ِ ِب َ َ ِ عقـوش]كـذا [1114 اتش عـمن1113َ ُ نـو1115َ تـو ا ُ تـو برو َك ُ ْف ُ ْ ُ1116 lxxxviii إىل آخـر يل إن هللا تعاىل1117.اآلية سالم ألابئمك األولني1119 قال يف1118ئ اي بين إرسا يه ا سان موىس ل عل إن : ل نا اذلي هو رب العاملني أرا بـوة 1120د أن يرفع منلهإ ساواي يف ا يـا اذلي اكن سامء ن األرض إىل ا مـ للـ نب نـيب اكن مـن. ّإيل ثـه معـمك مـا شـاء هللا وهـذا ا لهو رافع بعـد مك 1122وامسعـوا الكمـه. إخـوانمك1121ٌف توا يه كام مسعمت1123ثبوا يـت بـه مـن هللا1124عل نـوا بـه. ت الكيم اذلي أ نـه بـلك مـا 1125موآ م وامسعـوا سه، بل لك ما خيـرب بـه اكن مـن هللا العزيـز. ]vgl. Apg 3,22 [يتلكم وخيربمك تلكم عن نفوهو ال . ي نه وأنكـره ومل)؟ (1126ولك من أىب سمع الكمـه1128 يـؤمن1127م تلكم1129يـ بـه وال مـن 1130يـ اذلي بند رنا فقد اكن مطرودا ومردودا وخارجا نار واملـوت األبديـة1131ع ية واكن مأواه ا نا ل عن امجلاعة ا جل ]vgl. Apg 3,23[. ْبروس 1110 ُ ْ بروس، م:ُ ُ ِ ِ. ْاماس 1111 .َ اماس، ك:ِ َاست 1112 ْ ُاست، م :َ ْ َ. ِسش 1113 ِذابس ِ ب َ َ شئ، ك: َ ِذابسن ِ ْ ب َ ِ َ. نوم، م: اتش عمن 1114 ْارس ُ ِغْ ْ ِ. ِعقوش 1115 ُ ْ عفوكس، ك:َ َ ُ َ. نو 1116 تو ا ُبرو َك ُ فْ ُ نو، م: ْ تو ِبرو ُ َك ُ فْ ُ َ. سالم واكن دعوامك اك 1117 يه ا نا مبوىس لأي أنمت تدعون بأان آ عل نو . ...ذابم تو ا ُ عقوش تو برو َك ُُ فْ ُ ْ ِ ُ .، و-: إىل آخر اآليةَ تبارك وتعاىل، و؛ وبارك وتعاىل، م: تعاىل 1118 .ت .من، م: يف 1119 .يف، ك: من 1120 .يف، ك: من 1121 .الكم، ك ؛ الكيم، م: الكمه 1122 توا 1123 توا، ك: ثبوا .ثبّو متعمت، ك: مسعمت 1124 .سـا .، و م-: به 1125 .، كّعن إيل: من أىب 1126 .ال، ك: مل 1127 .نؤمن، ك: يؤمن 1128 سمع الكم، م: يسمع الكمه 1129 يمتع الكم، ك؛ .يسـ .تلكم، ك: يتلكم 1130 .أو مردودا أو خارجا، و م: ومردودا وخارجا 1131 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 182 II-43 تنيوهذا يل اكف للطا ئف ادل ٍ نصارى، لـو هـداهام هللا1132أي،ل أمـا للهيـود فـإن هـذا . ل الهيود وا نصوصا نقل اكن ما نكرونـه1133ل تـاهبم وال ي يف سالم . ك يـه ا يـىس نكـري جمـئ لـومـع هـذا اكنـوا عل ع م نا: وقالوا بوة نكري ياآلن مل جييء وبعد هذا اكنوا نبم يه وسمل محمد 1134لن ٌ فويل لـلك .1135علصىل هللا يـل قطعـي. هذا اإلناكر1136صاحب نقل د نصارى فإن هذا ا لوأما ل يـة1137لل نا بـوة ف عـىل أن ا م 1138لن نقل اكن أول احلواريني واكنـوا يقـرؤون هبـذا . بللربوية تقادمه بأن من روى هذا ا نصارى مع ا لفإن ا ع ل نقل يف لك يوم األحد نا1139لا ية1141 وال يعلمون ما يقرؤون1140سهمئك يف سا ن مـن إ يـىس1142نـ 1143ع سالم و ــه ا ني ــ ل ــهعل ــه. بوت ي ــول ــه واحلل ي ــالوا ابالحتــاد إ فوق يــف الاحتــاد . ل ــو ســألهتم رصحــوا يل كول يه الهوات1146ولكن. ٍ أحد1145 ال ميكن أن يرصحوا به يف1144واحللول يـل ف ملا زمعوا أن جنوقال يف اإل سالم يه ا يىس لهللا واحد لزهمم أن يكون هو عل هـم وويـل lxxxix.ع تقاد اكن مـن واحض هجل وهذا الا ع تقد نارملعللك هذا ا نرصمه من ا ل ويس أحد ي ٌ نقل اكن اإلشارة يف القرآن. ل لوهذا ا َ ﴿مـا :1147 العظـميل بهل ٱلرسـل﴾ يح ٱبن مرمي إال رسول قد خلت من ُٱ ُ ُُّ ِ ِ ْ قَْ ِ ْ َْ َ َِ ٌ َ َّ َ َ َ ُ ْ ُ ٌ أي ومـا هـو إال رسـول ،]٧٥ املائـدة ٥[ْلَمِس بهل سالم،قاكلرسل يه ا لـ أي مكوىس فـإن .1149هم هبـاخـص ابملعجـزات كـام 1148 خـصه هللا تعـاىل،عل .من، و: أي 1132 .مرصحا، ك: منصوصا 1133 .نبيا، م: نبينا 1134 يه وسمل 1135 سالم، ك: علصىل هللا ليه ا .عل .لصاحب، و: صاحب 1136 يل قطعي 1137 يل قطقي، و؛ ويل قاطع، ك: لد كد .ل فنا 1138 .منان، ك: يةم .يف يوم األحد، ك: يف لك يوم األحد 1139 هم 1140 ئسنا .كنيساهئم، ك: ك .قرؤوا، ك: يقرؤون 1141 ية 1142 سا نمن إ نة، ك: ن سا ييف ا .لن .، م-: عيىس 1143 يف الاحتاد واحللول 1144 يه، م، ك؛ ولو سلهتم رصحوا-: كولو سألهتم رصحوا يل يف الاحتاد واحللول ف .ك .فيه يف، ك: يفبه 1145 .لكن، و م: ولكن 1146 .، ك-: العظمي 1147 .، و-: تعاىل 1148 .حصهم، و: خصهم هبا 1149 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 183 يا1150هللا يا العصا عىل يد موىس1152يده عىل املوىت1151ح أ سعى عىل يـد 1153ح فقد أ ية ها ت و ّ ح جعل سالم1154موىس يه ا ل سالم. وهو أجعب1155عل يـه ا يـىس لـوإن هللا خلق عل مـن غـري أب فقـد 1156ع سالمآدم1157خلق يـه ا لـ يـه 1159وألجـل هـذا. مـن غـري أب وأم وهـو أغـرب1158عل عل قـال مـوىس سالم ث: لا مبهو نيب يه إن اكن حييي هللا املوىت ٌ يق إ ليل فال تقولوا مبا ال يـا العـصا ،1160يدهبيل ح فقـد أ تـهبم إىل أنـه مبعـزل مـن األ. بيدي إىل آخره ٍوما ذكر من ادلالئل يف يـةلك لـو هـدامه هللا ألدركـوا . هو نوا مبا تهبم1161موآ .ك يف II-44 ــ ت ــوا إىل ظــاهر املعــاين اذلي اكن يف ب ــدمه ذ ن ــم و ه كولكــامل ه تع شاهبات 1162هبمهجل ــ مــن ا ملت توا يف معاين1163ّوتأولوا شاهبات، ومل يعلموا بظواهر احملكامت وإن سك احملكامت ومحلوها عىل ا 1164ملت ند هللا كام قال ها شاهبات بأن يقولوا عا علمت َ﴿وما: يف القرآن1165 هللا تعاىلمل َ1166 ﴾ ِ يعمل تأويهل إال ٱ َّ ِ ُ َ َِ ْ َ ُ ْ َ يىس]. ٧ آل معران ٣[ سالم وقالواعوذلا أفرطوا يف حق يه ا ل يـة 1167عل يـه مـن األلو يق إ ه مما ال ل يل رشكون1168ه وتعاىلسـبحان يـىس . ي عام نـدمه أنكـروا جمـيء عوالهيود من أجل عدم هـدايهتم وشـدة تع .تعاىل، م: + هللا 1150 يا 1151 .احيى، ك: حأ .بيده، و م: عىل يده 1152 يا العصا عىل يد موىس 1153 .فقد أىح العصا، ك: حفقد أ .، و-: عىل يد موىس 1154 سالم 1155 ليه ا .، م-: عل سالم 1156 يه ا يىس لوإن هللا خلق عل .وأن خلقه، ك: ع .هللا، م: + خلق 1157 سالم 1158 ليه ا .، ك م-: عل .ذكل، و: هذا 1159 .من يده، و ك: بيده 1160 .ما، ك: مبا 1161 تهبم 1162 بوا إىل ظاهر املعاين اذلي اكن يف ندمه ذ هم و كولكامل ه تع .، م-: هجل .، ماتءول: ّوتأولوا 1163 .معان، م: معاين 1164 .قال هللا تعاىل، و م: هللا تعاىل 1165 .وال يف لك اخملطوطات: وما 1166 .هل، ك: + وقالوا 1167 .سـبحان هللا، ك: سـبحانه وتعاىل 1168 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 184 سالم ليه ا نـا هـذا. عل تظـرين 1169مفقالوا مل جييء بعد ألنه إذا جاء ال يعمل من أين جاء وبقوا إىل يو من يح ادلجال الكذاب بعونـه بـأرسمه1170ن جاءء يقولون اآلوإذا جا. ملسـا يح و يت ا وهبـذا الـزمع .1171ملسـ يه وسـمل نا محمد صىل هللا تعاىل بوة سالم يه ا يىس عللقد كفروا وأنكروا بعد ل يعل ن بع عـىل أهنـم 1172نب توبة فهيام توراة والزبور ويه اكنت ته يف ا مكجيدون ل .1173نع II-45 تــوراة مــن وصــف سالم1174لومــا يف ا يــه ا لــ الرســول ادليلمــي يف 1176مــام قــال اإل1175عل تـــصوف1177تفـــسري هل ـــاب : ل يف ا ت ـــرءان و ـــكل آايت ٱلق ـــرحمي طـــس ت ـــرمحن ٱل سم ٱ ٱل ﴿ٍ َ ِك ـــ َب ِْ َ ْ ُ ُ َ َ ْ ِ ٓ ِ ِ َّ ََ ْ ِ ِ ِ ٍِبـني﴾ منـل ٢٧[مُّ ي] ١ل ا سني هـارة، ا ســالطـاء ا لـ سم هللا تعـاىل،1178 املرسـلنيدلط هـارة 1179قـ أ بط تـا سالم ألن هـذه آايت القـرآن الـيت وعـدانمه يف يـه ا نـيب كا لـ عل تـوراةل بـني يعـين يف ا لب ٍ م وذكل . ٍ نـيب العـريب مـن حـراء مكـة ومعـه جامعـة1180أن هللا تـوراة مبجـيء ا ل وعدمه يف ا ثـرية أشـداء 1181ل ك ــوان ن ــا يع ــااب وتو ت ــاىل يعطــهيم ــه تع ــار فإن ًعــىل الكف مع ــر جمــيء . قك ــدما ذك ــوراة بع ت ــال يف آخــر ا لق ــوىس ــنم ناء1182م ــي ــيء1183س ــن1184 وجم ــىس م ي ــاعري1185ع سالم1186 س ــهيام ا ــ عل 1188هــو :1187ل .، م-: هذا 1169 .جاء جاء، م: جاء 1170 .ابمرمه، ك م: بأرسمه 1171 يه وسمل 1172 نا محمد صىل هللا تعاىل علبوة ب يب نا: نن يبوة بن يه وسمل، منب نا محمد صىل هللا بوة سالم، ك؛ يه ا عل ب ن ل يعل .ن .فهيا، ك: فهيام 1173 يف، ك: وصف 1174 .صو سالم 1175 ليه ا يه وسمل، و: عل .علصىل هللا تعاىل .األمام، م: اإلمام 1176 سري هل 1177 .، و م-: تفيف يد املرسلني 1178 سني سـا .، و-: ل .، و م-: تعاىل 1179 .تعاىل، مهللا تعاىل، ك؛ : + هللا 1180 ته، ك: جامعة 1181 .عجام .يف، ك و: من 1182 .سينا، م: سيناء 1183 .جميء، ك: وجميء 1184 .عن، م: من 1185 .ساعى، ك م: ساعري 1186 سالم 1187 .، و م-: لعلهيام ا .وهو، و: هو 1188 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 185 بل حراء مكة،)؟ (1190 مهيان قورون1189يتع تعىل من ج يعين ا مث ذكر الكما طـويال يف وصـف . سـ هر من حراء مكة إىل أن قال1191جامعة تكون ٍ مع اذلي ْ ايـش ذوث لومـو:يظ َْ ُ ْ ُ ْ ]ֽלמו ֖דת ֥אש [ 1192ِ ]vgl. Dtn 33,2[نوان هلم 1193، أي أعطى تااب مع نورا ْآتـش ُايشك ست َ ْا َ ،1195بلغـة عـربي 1194تََشـ نوان، ] ֖דת[ 1196ذوث ٍتاب بع ُلوموٌك ْ تـاب ] ֽלמֽו [1197َ ألنـه ] ֥אש [1198ْأيـشلكأي هلم، وإمنا مسى ا نني وانر الاكفرين1199نور تاب هللا تعاىل. م املؤ تـوراة نـورا كو سمى القـرآن يف ا لسمى نورا كام ي 1200ي ثري من املواضع هم1201كيف يـوانين عـىل هـذه. ف فـا تـوراة إىل ا لوأان وجـدت هـذه اآلايت يف ترمجـة ا ل نا،1202الطريقة نـيب صـىل هللا1203كتفي فا يل مـن وصـف ا ل من بعض ما ذكر يف اإل يـه وسـمل 1204جن عل تصار نا ما.1205خلال تحرز1206ك وتر توراة والزبور لل يف ا تطويل، ولو أنين علمـت كـ1207ل 1208نول عن ا نذك ند ذوي الاحرتام بوةل لهذه الرساةل ع ثالثة1209رمق تب ا ل لك ما اكن مذكورا يف ا .لك .تيع، م: يتع 1189 .قرون، و؛ قرون، م: قورون 1190 .يكونون، ك و: تكون 1191 ْايش ذوث لومو 1192 َْ ُ ْ ُ ْ ْايش: ِ ُ ذؤث اومو، و؛ ايش ذؤث لومو، مِ ُُ ْ ُْ ُُ ُْ ِ ْ ْ ُ. .املطر، ك: أعطى 1193 ست 1194 ْايش آتش ا َ تََش ْ َ . ايش اتش است، و م:ُ .غريي، ك: عربي 1195 .ُ ذوث، و؛ ذؤث، م:ذوث 1196 ُلومو 1197 ْ . لومو، و م:َ . ايش، و:ْأيش 1198 .وانر، ك: + نور 1199 توراة نورا 1200 توراة نورا: ليف ا توراة، ك؛ وا لوا .، مل .نورا، ك: + املواضع 1201 .هذا الطريق، ك: هذه الطريقة 1202 نا 1203 نا، ك: كتفيفا .كشفما .تعاىل، و: + هللا 1204 تصار 1205 تصار، و: خلإل .حلال نا ما 1206 ناه، و: كوتر .كوتر .حترزا، و: للتحرز 1207 .اكنت، ك م: كون 1208 نذكر، و؛ : نذكرل 1209 كنذكر .، ك-ل © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 186 II-46 تـه﴾ وامحلد اذل ِي جعلين من زمـرة ﴿يـؤتمك كفلـني مـن ر ِ ِ ْمحَِ َ ْ َ ْ ُ ِ ، والـصالة ]٢٨ احلديـد ٥٧[ُ يـاء وعـىل خـري آهلـم وأزواهجـم وأوالدمه يـع األ سالم عىل خري خلقه محمد وعـىل نبوا مج فلنـرشع إىل . ل ية هم اغفر يل: عاألد أنـت املقـدم . خطاايي وهجيل وإرسايف يف أمري ومـا أنـت أعـمل بـه مـين1210للا هـم أصـلح ديـين اذلي هـو عـصمة. وأنت عىل لك يشء قـدير1211خرواملؤ أمـري وأصـلح يل 1212للا ياي اليت فهيا معايش يـاة زايدة يل. وأصلح يل آخريت الـيت إلهيـا معـادي،1213ند مـن 1214حلواجعـل ا تقـى والعفـاف.1215لك خـري واجعـل املـوت راحـة يل مـن لك رش هـدى وا هـم إين أسـأكل ا ل ا ل 1216لل .والغىن ومن العمل ما ترىض II-47 هم آت نفيس تقواها ِا ها1217لل هـم .1220 خري من زاكها أنت ولهيـا وموالهـا1219 أنت،1218ك وز لل ا نة القرب ومن رش الغىن1221إين أعوذ بك من نة الفقر1222فت نـة 1223فت ومن رش نار ومـن ت وعذاب ا فل نار وعذاب القرب يح ادلجال.1224لا نة ا سـ وأعوذ بك من ملت سل ٬ف هم إين أعوذ بك من العجز وا لك ا لل نجـل وأرذل1225زعلفــواجلـنب وا يـا واحملــات1226ل وا نــة ا حمل العمــر ومـن هـم إين أعــوذ بـك مــن . فت للا شقاء ــع،1227لــرش القــضاء وشــامتة العــداء ودرك ا هــم إين أعــوذ بــك مــن اهلــم واحلــزن وخل 1228لل وا .، و-: يل 1210 .أنت املؤخر، مو: واملؤخر 1211 .عصمته، ك: عصمة 1212 .معاش، ك: معايش 1213 .، م-: يل 1214 .رس، ك: رش 1215 .والعفان، ك: والعفاف 1216 .تعوها، ك: تقواها 1217 ها 1218 .وزكهيا، ك م: كوز .ات، ك :أنت 1219 .وزكهيا، و؛ ومولهيا، م: وموالها 1220 .من رش، م: من 1221 .الفىت، ك: الغىن 1222 نة الفقر 1223 .، و م- :فتومن رش نة القرب، و: + القرب 1224 ناء ومن رش فتومن رش ا .لف .والفرغ، ك: والفزع 1225 .والرزل، و؛ وارزل، م: وأرذل 1226 شقاء 1227 شعاء، ك: لا .لا شلع ، م: وخلع 1228 .صضلع، ك؛ © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 187 بـة1229ادليـن هـم إين أعـوذ بـك مـن. الرجـال1230غل و هـم إين أعـوذ بـك مـن الفقـر والقـةل، ا للا 1231لل شقاوة نفاق لا هم أين أعوذ بك من اجلوع ا1232سوء ومن لوا يع 1234 فإنـه.1233للألخالق، ا ئس ا لـضج بـ هـر مهنـ هـم إين أعـوذ برضـاك. ومـا بطـن1235اظوأعـوذ بـك مـن رش الفـنت مـا مـن خسطـك 1236للا نك هم إين أعوذ بك مومبعافاتك من عقوتك، ا لل ناء،1237ب ً ال احىص يت عىل 1238ث يك، أنت كام أ ثن عل هم رنا وأتوب. نفسك ال إهل إال أنت تغفرك ا بأ يكللسـ تك. ل إ هم كام سأ لا نـه1239لل يه و م 1241 فـإين1240ف تاذي شاخيي وأرمحـين وأهـيل وقـرابيت وجـرياين ومـن1242ســأسأكل ذكل لكه يل ولوادلي وأل 1243ملـ و نـاهئم وإخـواهنم وأزواهجـم سلمني ومن عرفين أو مسـع بـذكري أو مل يعـرفين ولـوادلهيم وأ ببين من ا مل حي سل نات وا نني واملؤ هم وللمؤ شريهتم وذوى ر ملو مع م ياء مهنم واألموات ومن ظـن مح سلامت األ حمني وا مل وصـل وسـمل . ٌ وأنـت عـىل لك يشء قـدير1246 املرضات1245إنك واهب اخلريات ورافع. خريا1244يب يت وسـلمت عـىل إبـراهمي صـلعىل محمد وعىل آل محمد وابرك عىل محمد وعىل آل محمـد كـام ابركـت و .اذلين، و: ادلين 1229 بة 1230 يه، ك: غلو .علو هم اين اعوذ بك من، و: + من 1231 تك ا يع تك ومن للزوال خس مج يع + ؛ نعم تك ومن تك وجفاءة مجزوال نعم نعم هم اين اعوذ من، م .للخسطك ا .وسوء، ك: ومن سوء 1232 .امجلوع، م: اجلوع 1233 .فأنه، ك: + فإنه 1234 .منه، و ك: مهنا 1235 .برضائك، ك: برضاك 1236 . ، م-: منك 1237 ناء 1238 ًاحىص ناء، و: ث ناء، ك؛ اجىص ثأحرص .ث تك 1239 .سلمك، ك: لسأ يك 1240 نه.لوأتوب إ يه و تك هم كام سأ م ا ف نه، م: للل يه و تك هم سأ نه، و؛ ا يه و هم سألت ما ف لل م ف .للل .فإن، ك: فإين 1241 تاذي 1242 تاذي، ك: سـوأل .سـوأ .من، م: ومن 1243 يظن يل، م: ظن يب 1244 .ودافع، و: ورافع 1245 .املطرات، و: املرضات 1246 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 188 يـد .1247وعىل آل إبراهمي يف العاملني يـد جم إنـك يعـة 1248>وآتـه<مح يةل وادلرجـة الر يةل وا فالو لفـض ســ يعاد واملقام احملمود اذلي وعدته إنك ال ختلف .ملا II-48 نا وأنت خـري الغـافرين نا وار نا، فاغفر محرنا أنت و ل ي نة . لب يـا نـا يف هـذه ٱدل تـب ً﴿وٱ َ ْسَ ن ل حـك َِ َ ْ ُّ ِ ِ َ َ ْ ُ ْ َ ِويف ٱألخرة َ ِ َ ْ ِ يك﴾ 1249َ َ إان هدان إ ْ َ ل ِ َِ ْ ُ مرنا، آ] ١٥٦ األعراف ٧[َّ نا الرسول ابإلميان مبـا ب تبعنا مبا أنزلت وا شاهدين. جاء به نا مع ا لفا بين. كتب نا وأ بدل آ نرب اجعل هذا ا جل ً نام رنـا 1251َّينب و1250م بد األ ب أن ص نع ناس هتوى. ليقميوا الصالة ئدة من ا لفاجعل أ ً هم1252ف شكرون رنا1253ق إلهيم وارز هم مثرات ب من ا ي لعل . ل سامء1254ومـا خيفـى. إنـك تعـمل مـا خنفـي ومـا نعلـن امحلـد . لـ عـىل هللا مـن يشء يف األرض وال يف ا بــل دعــايئ1257 الــصالة ومــن ذريــيت1256 رب اجعلــين مقــمي،1255 ّ رنــا و تق ب رنــا اغفــر يل .1258ب ساب1259ّولوادلي نني يوم يقوم ا حل وللمؤ رب اجعلـين ٬ب كام ريـاين صـغريا1261ّ ارمح وادلي1260رب. م يا ــرض٬ضــر سين ال ّ رب إين ــ ــرامحني ال إهل إال1262م ــت أرمح ال ــت وأن ــن . أن نــت م كبحانك إين ســـ نا أو أخطأان،الظاملني نسي رنا ال تؤاخذان إن هم خذ بأزمة٬ب نا ممـن تـولك يف 1263لل ا يك وا جعل قلونا إ ل ب .، و-: يف العاملني 1247 .وأنه، ك و؛ آت، م: وآته 1248 ِٱألخ 1249 َ ِرةْ .حسـنة، و م: + َ بين 1250 تين، و: جنوأ نيب، م؛ وأ جبوأ .ج .َّونيب، ك م: وبين 1251 .لهوى، و: هتوي 1252 هم 1253 هم، ك و: قوارز .قازر .خيغ، ك: خيفي 1254 .رب العاملني، و م: + هللا 1255 .مقميي، م: مقمي 1256 .ذرتين، ك: ذرييت 1257 .دعاء، و: دعايئ 1258 .ّولوادي، م: ّولوادلي 1259 .برنا، و م: رب 1260 .ّلوادلي، م: ّوادلي 1261 .وأنت اكشف الرض، م+ اخلرض، و؛ : الرض 1262 .ابزحة، م: رب 1263 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 189 يك عليع أموره نا ابلرمحة اليت دليك ويف يديك1264مج نـا هـادين همـديني غـري ضـالني 1265.مع و جعل وا تك اي أرمح الرامحني وامحلد رب الع محوال مضلني بر يد املرسلني1267ُ حبرمة1266املنيّ .سـ يك، و: عليك 1264 .لإ .يدك، و م: يديك 1265 . أمني، م: + العاملني 1266 .حبرمه، و: ُحبرمة 1267 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 190 Referenzen Accad, Martin, “The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse of the Ninth to the Fourteenth Centuries: an exegetical inventorial table (parts i-iv),” in Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 14 (2003), S. 67-91, 205-220, 337-352, 459-479. −, “The Ultimate Proof-Text. The interpretation of John 20.17 in Muslim-Christian Dialogue (Second/Eighth-Eighth/Fourteenth Centuries),” in Christians at the Heart of Islamic Rule. Church Life and Scholarship in ʿAbbasid Iraq, hg. D. Thomas, Leiden 2003, S. 199-214. Adang, Camilla, Muslim writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible. From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Ḥazm, Leiden 1996. Ahlwardt, Wilhelm, Verzeichniss der arabischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin 1-10, Berlin 1887. Altunsu, Abdülkadir, Osmanli Şeyhülislāmlari, Ankara 1972. Aumer, Joseph, Die arabischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in Muenchen, München 1866 [http://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb0000 8269/images/index.html] (28.01.2009). Baer, Marc David, Honored by the glory of God: Conversion and Conquest in Ottoman Europe, Oxford 2008. Baldick, Julian, Mystical Islam: An introduction to Sufism, London 1989. Baiḍāwī, ʿAbdallāh b. ʿUmar, Tafsīr al-Baiḍāwī 1-5, Beirut 1996. Baldick, Julian, Mystical Islam: An introduction to Sufism, London 1989. Die Bibel. Einheitsübersetzung. Hg. im Auftrag der Bischöfe Deutschlands, Österreichs, der Schweiz usw, Stuttgart 1980. Böwering, Gerhard, The mystical vision of existence in classical Islam: The Qurʾānic hermeneutics of the Ṣūfī Sahl Al-Tustarī (d. 283/896), Berlin 1980. The book of religion and empire. A semi-official defence and exposition of Islam written by order at the court and with the assistance of the Caliph Mutawakkil (A.D. 847-861) by ʿAlī Ṭabarī. Translated with a critical apparatus from an apparently unique MS. in the John Rylands Library by A. Mingana. Manchester / New York 1922. Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature. Based on Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 3. revid. Aufl, Chicago 2000. Dār al-kitāb al-muqaddas fī š-šarq al-awsaṭ (Hg.) (1995): al-kitāb al-muqaddas. o. O. Encyclopaedia Iranica 1-, London [etc.] 1985-. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition 1-11, Leiden 1960-2004. GAL = Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur 1-2, Leiden 1943. Faḫraddīn ar-Rāzī, Tafsīr al-Faḫr ar-Rāzī aš-šahīr bi-t-tafsīr al-kabīr wa-mafātīḥ al-ġaib 1-32, Beirut 1401/1981. Flügel, Gustav, Die arabischen, persischen und türkischen Handschriften der Kaiserlich- Königlichen Hofbibliothek zu Wien 1-3, Wien 1865-67. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 191 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1-4, hg. Von G.W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids 1990. Ismaʿīl Pāšā al-Baġdādī, Hadīyat al-ʿārifīn 1-2. [Nachdruck der 1951-1955 in Istanbul erschienenen Ausgabe], Beirut o.J. −, Īḍāḥ al-maknūn fī ḏ-ḏail ʿalā kašf aẓ-ẓunūn ʿan asmāʾ l-kutub wa-l-funūn 1-2, Beirut o.J. Ibn Kaṯīr, ʿImād ad-Dīn Ismāʿīl, Tafsīr Ibn Kaṯīr 1-4. hg. von Yūsuf ʿAbdarraḥmān al-Marʿašlī, Beirut 1992. −, Qiṣaṣ al-anbīyāʾ 1-2, Kairo 1968. Karrer, Martin, Jesus Christus im Neuen Testament, Göttingen 1998. Knysh, Alexander D., Ibn ʿArabī in the Later Islamic Tradition: The Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam, Albany 1999. Der Koran. Übers. Rudi Paret, 8. Aufl, Stuttgart 2001. Lazarus-Yafeh, Hava, Intertwined Worlds. Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism, Princeton 1992. Nasafī, Abū l-Barakāt ʿAbdallāh b. Aḥmad, Tafsīr an-Nasafī 1-4, Riyad/Mekka 2003. Nicholson, Reynold A., The Mystics of Islam, London 1914. Novum Testamentum Graece, post Eberhard et Ernst Nestle, 27. rev. ed. apparatum criticum novis curis elaboraverunt Barbara Aland, Stuttgart 1995. Pines, Shlomo, “‘Israel, my firstborn’ and the Sonship of Jesus. A theme of Moslem anti-Christian Polemics,” in Studies in mysticism and religion. Presented to Gershom G. Scholem, hg. von E. E. Urbach et al., Jerusalem 1967, S. 177-190. Reeves, John C. (Hg.), Bible and Qurʾān. Essays in Scriptural Intertextuality, Leiden 2004. Schimmel, Annemarie, Sufismus. Eine Einführung in die islamische Mystik, München 2000. Schützinger, Heinrich, “Die arabische Bileam-Erzählung. Ihre Quellen und ihre Entwicklung,” in Der Islam 59 (1982), S. 195-221. Steinschneider, Moritz, Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache, zwischen Muslimen, Christen und Juden, Leipzig 1877. Ṭabrisī, Abū ʿAlī al-Faḍl b. al-Ḥasan, Tafsīr ǧawāmiʿ al-ǧāmiʿ 1-3, Qom 1418/1997. Ṯaʿālibī, ʿAbdarraḥmān, Tafsīr aṯ-Ṯaʿālibī 1-5, Beirut 1418/1997. Ṯaʿālibī, Abū Manṣūr ʿAbdalmalik, Yatīmat ad-dahr 1-5, Beirut 1983. Taftāzānī, Saʿd ad-Dīn Masʿūd b. ʿUmar b. ʿAbdallāh, Šarḥ al-maqāṣid fī ʿilm alkalām 1-2, Lahore 1981. Thomas, David, “The Miracles of Jesus in Early Islamic Polemic,” in Journal of Semitic Studies 39 ii (1994), S. 221-243. − (Hg.), Christians at the Heart of Islamic Rule. Church Life and Scholarship in ʿAbbasid Iraq, Leiden 2003. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 192 −, “Early Muslim Responses to Christianity,” in Christians at the Heart of Islamic Rule. Church Life and Scholarship in ʿAbbasid Iraq. Hg. von David Thomas. Leiden 2003, S. 231-254. Urbach, E. E. et al. (Hg.), Studies in mysticism and religion. Presented to Gershom G. Scholem, Jerusalem 1967. Verzeichniss der Handschriften im Preussischen Staate. Die Handschriften in Göttingen. 3. Universitäts-Bibliothek. Nachlässe von Gelehrten / Orientalische Handschriften / Handschriften im Besitz von Instituten und Behörden, Berlin 1894 Wheeler, Brannon M., “Israel and the Torah of Muḥammad,” in Bible and Qurʾān. Essays in Scriptural Intertextuality, hg. von John C. Reeves, Leiden 2004, S. 61-85. Zilfi, Madeline C., “The Kadizadelis. Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul,” in Journal of Near-Eastern Studies 45 iv (1986), S. 251-269. Anmerkungen i حيرفون اللكم عن مواضعه﴾ وهذا : ١٩١، ص ١١تفسري الفخر الرازي، ج : خفر ادلين الرازي﴿ يري اللفظ، متل باطل، و تأويل ا متل ا تحريف تغا ل ل حيل (...).حي ii Evt. das Syrische ܑܐܠ, in deutscher Umschrift: il. iii ziv evt. Lykisch für Gott. iv Georgisch für Gott, in deutscher Umschrift: g'merti. v حيرفون اللكم عن مواضعه﴾ وهذا : ١٩١، ص ١١تفسري الفخر الرازي، ج : خفر ادلين الرازي﴿ يري اللفظ، متل باطل، و تأويل ا متل ا تحريف تغا ل ل حيل (...).حي vi Evt. das Syrische ܑܐܠ, in deutscher Umschrift: il. vii Gott in türkischer Sprache: tanrı. viii ziv evt. Lykisch für Gott. ix Georgisch für Gott, in deutscher Umschrift g'merti. x ثعاليب .٢٠٨، ص ٥يتمية ادلهر، ج : لا xi يضاوي، ج : بيضاوي بسري ا .٦٤، ص ٣لتف xii ٧١٠، ص ١ج تفسري جوامع اجلامع،: الطربيس. xiii يضاوي، ج : بيضاوي بسري ا . ٦٥ ص ،٣لتف xiv بعونه من بين * أي: ٧١٠، ص ١ج تفسري جوامع اجلامع،: الطربيس ته أوئك اذلين يتجيدون ل نع يل﴾ تورية واإل ندمه يف ا تواب يل ﴿ جنإرسا ل ع ًئ . مك xv ثعاليب ثعاليب، ج: لا لسري ا ٨٣ إىل ٨٢، ص ٣ تف xvi نفيس نفيس، ج : لا لسري ا .٣٨١، ص ٢تف xvii يضاوي يضاوي، ج : لبا بسري ا .٦٥ إىل ٦٤، ص ٣لتف xviii ثعاليب ثعاليب، ج : لا لسري ا .٨٥ إىل ٨٤، ص ٣تف xix Joh 14,1: 1 Μὴ ταρασσέσθω ὑµῶν ἡ καρδία: πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θεόν, καὶ εἰς ἐµὲ πιστεύετε. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 193 xx Joh 14,12: 12 ἀµὴν ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐµὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει, καὶ µείζονα τούτων ποιήσει, ὅτι ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα πορεύοµαι: xxi Joh 20,17: 17 (...) Ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα µου καὶ πατέρα ὑµῶν καὶ θεόν µου καὶ θεὸν ὑµῶν. xxii Joh 14,15-18: 15 Ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτέ µε, τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐµὰς τηρήσετε: 16 κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑµῖν ἵνα *µενη µεθ υµων εις τον αιωνα*, 17 τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ ὁ κόσµος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει: *αὐτό* ὑµεῖς *δε* γινώσκετε αὐτό, ὅτι παρ' ὑµῖν µένει καὶ ἐν ὑµῖν ἔσται. 18 Οὐκ ἀφήσω ὑµᾶς ὀρφανούς, ἔρχοµαι πρὸς ὑµᾶς. xxiii Joh 14,24-26: 24 ὁ µὴ ἀγαπῶν µε τοὺς λόγους µου οὐ τηρεῖ: καὶ ὁ λόγος ὃν ἀκούετε οὐκ ἔστιν ἐµὸς ἀλλὰ τοῦ πέµψαντός µε πατρός. 25 Ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑµῖν παρ' ὑµῖν µένων: 26 ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέµψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατί µου, ἐκεῖνος ὑµᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑποµνήσει ὑµᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑµῖν. xxiv Joh 14,30: 30 οὐκέτι πολλὰ λαλήσω µεθ' ὑµῶν, ἔρχεται γὰρ ὁ τοῦ κόσµου ἄρχων: καὶ ἐν ἐµοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν. xxv Joh 15,25f.: 25 ἀλλ' ἵνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος ὁ *γεγραµµένος ἐν τῷ νόµῳ αὐτῶν* ὅτι Ἐµίσησάν µε δωρεάν. 26 Οταν *δε* ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέµψω ὑµῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος µαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐµοῦ: xxvi Joh 16,4: 4 ἀλλὰ ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑµῖν ἵνα ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἡ ὥρα *αὐτῶν* µνηµονεύητε αὐτῶν ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑµῖν. Ταῦτα δὲ ὑµῖν ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὐκ εἶπον, ὅτι µεθ' ὑµῶν ἤµην. xxvii Joh 16,7-13: 7 ἀλλ' ἐγὼ τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω ὑµῖν, συµφέρει ὑµῖν ἵνα ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω. ἐὰν γὰρ µὴ ἀπέλθω, ὁ παράκλητος οὐκ ἐλεύσεται πρὸς ὑµᾶς: ἐὰν δὲ πορευθῶ, πέµψω αὐτὸν πρὸς ὑµᾶς. 8 καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐκεῖνος ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσµον περὶ ἁµαρτίας καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ περὶ κρίσεως: 9 περὶ ἁµαρτίας µέν, ὅτι οὐ πιστεύουσιν εἰς ἐµέ: 10 περὶ δικαιοσύνης δέ, ὅτι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα *µου* ὑπάγω καὶ οὐκέτι θεωρεῖτέ µε: 11 περὶ δὲ κρίσεως, ὅτι ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσµου τούτου κέκριται. 12 Ἔτι πολλὰ ἔχω *λέγειν ὑµῖν*, ἀλλ' οὐ δύνασθε βαστάζειν ἄρτι: 13 ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁδηγήσει ὑµᾶς *εις πασαν την ἀληθείᾳν*: οὐ γὰρ λαλήσει ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ' ὅσα *αν* ἀκούσει λαλήσει, καὶ τὰ ἐρχόµενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑµῖν. xxviii Joh 6,69: 69 καὶ ἡµεῖς πεπιστεύκαµεν καὶ ἐγνώκαµεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ. xxix Joh 14,1: 1 Μὴ ταρασσέσθω ὑµῶν ἡ καρδία (...). xxx ١٨٩، ص ٢رشح املقاصد يف عمل الالكم، ج. xxxi يضاوي يضاوي، ج : لبا بسري ا .٣٩٢ إىل ٣٩١، ص ١لتف xxxii ١٩٠، ص ٢رشح املقاصد يف عمل الالكم، ج. xxxiii Joh 14,23: 23 Ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ µε τὸν λόγον µου τηρήσει, καὶ ὁ πατήρ µου ἀγαπήσει αὐτόν και προς αυτον ελευσοµεθα και µονην παρ αυτω *ποιησοµεν*. xxxiv Joh. 14,26: 26 ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέµψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατί µου, ἐκεῖνος ὑµᾶς διδάξει πάντα και υποµνησει υµας παντα α ειπον υµιν. xxxv ١٩٠، ص ٢رشح املقاصد يف عمل الالكم، ج. xxxvi εὐχαριστῶ σοι. xxxvii εὐχαριστῶ σοι θεέ µου. xxxviii καὶ εὐχαριστῶ τον θεον (sic). xxxix καὶ εὐχαριστῶ τον πλάστου (sic) µου καὶ τον κυρίου µου. xl Joh 14,27: 27 Εἰρήνην ἀφίηµι ὑµῖν, εἰρήνην τὴν ἐµὴν δίδωµι ὑµῖν (...). xli Joh 14,29: 29 καὶ νῦν εἴρηκα ὑµῖν πρὶν γενέσθαι (...). xlii Joh 14,30: 30 οὐκέτι πολλὰ λαλήσω µεθ' ὑµῶν, ἔρχεται γὰρ ὁ τοῦ κόσµου ἄρχων: καὶ ἐν ἐµοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν. xliii Joh 15,25: 25 ἀλλ' ἵνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος ὁ *γεγραµµένος ἐν τῷ νόµῳ αὐτῶν* ὅτι Ἐµίσησάν µε δωρεάν. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MONIKA HASENMÜLLER 194 xliv Joh 15,26: 26 οταν *δε* ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέµψω ὑµῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, [τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται,] ἐκεῖνος µαρτυρήσει. xlv Joh 16,4: 4 ἀλλὰ ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑµῖν (...). xlvi Joh 16,8: 8 καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐκεῖνος ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσµον (...). xlvii Joh 16,12: 12 Ἔτι πολλὰ ἔχω *λέγειν ὑµῖν*, ἀλλ' οὐ δύνασθε βαστάζειν ἄρτι. xlviii Joh 16,13: 13 ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας (...). xlix Mt 25,35f.: 35 ἐπείνασα γὰρ καὶ ἐδώκατέ µοι φαγεῖν, ἐδίψησα καὶ ἐποτίσατέ µε, ξένος ἤµην καὶ συνηγάγετέ µε, 36 γυµνὸς καὶ περιεβάλετέ µε, ἠσθένησα καὶ ἐπεσκέψασθέ µε, ἐν φυλακῇ ἤµην καὶ ἤλθατε πρός µε. l Joh 3,3: 3 (....) Ἀµὴν ἀµὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν µή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. li Joh 3,6: 6 τὸ γεγεννηµένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν (...). lii Joh 3,6: (...), καὶ τὸ γεγεννηµένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύµατος πνεῦµά ἐστιν. liii Mt 18,1f.: 1 Ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ προσῆλθον οἱ µαθηταὶ τῷ Ἰησοῦ λέγοντες, Τίς ἄρα µείζων ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν; 2 καὶ προσκαλεσάµενος παιδίον (...). liv Evt. das Syrische ܑܐܠ, il. lv ثعاليب .٢٠٨، ص ٥يتمية ادلهر، ج : لا lvi يضاوي، ج سري ا بيضاوي، تف .٦٤، ص ٣لب lvii ٧١٠، ص ١تفسري جوامع اجلامع ،ج : الطربيس. lviii يضاوي، ج : بيضاوي بسري ا .٦٥، ص ٣لتف lix ته أ: ٧١٠، ص ١تفسري جوامع اجلامع، ج : الطربيس يل نعأي جيدون بعونه من بين إرسا ئوئك اذلين ي تل يل﴾ تورية واإل ندمه يف ا تواب جن﴿ ل ع ً .مك lx نفيس نفيس، ج : لا لسري ا .٣٨١، ص ٢تف lxi يضاوي يضاوي، ج : لبا بسري ا .٦٥ إىل ٦٤، ص ٣لتف lxii Joh 14,1: 1 Μὴ ταρασσέσθω ὑµῶν ἡ καρδία: πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θεόν, καὶ εἰς ἐµὲ πιστεύετε. lxiii Joh 14,12: 12 ἀµὴν ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐµὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει, καὶ µείζονα τούτων ποιήσει, ὅτι ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα πορεύοµαι. lxiv Joh 20,17: 17 (...) Ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα µου καὶ πατέρα ὑµῶν καὶ θεόν µου καὶ θεὸν ὑµῶν. lxv Joh 14,15-18: 15 Ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτέ µε, τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐµὰς τηρήσετε: 16 κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑµῖν ἵνα *µενη µεθ᾽ ὑµῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα*, 17 τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ ὁ κόσµος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει: *αὐτό* ὑµεῖς *δὲ* γινώσκετε αὐτό, ὅτι παρ' ὑµῖν µένει καὶ ἐν ὑµῖν ἔσται. 18Οὐκ ἀφήσω ὑµᾶς ὀρφανούς, ἔρχοµαι πρὸς ὑµᾶς. lxvi Joh 14,24-26: 24 ὁ µὴ ἀγαπῶν µε τοὺς λόγους µου οὐ τηρεῖ: καὶ ὁ λόγος ὃν ἀκούετε οὐκ ἔστιν ἐµὸς ἀλλὰ τοῦ πέµψαντός µε πατρός. 25 Ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑµῖν παρ' ὑµῖν µένων: 26 ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέµψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατί µου, ἐκεῖνος ὑµᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑποµνήσει ὑµᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑµῖν. lxvii Joh 14,30: 30 οὐκέτι πολλὰ λαλήσω µεθ' ὑµῶν, ἔρχεται γὰρ ὁ τοῦ κόσµου ἄρχων: καὶ ἐν ἐµοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν. lxviii Joh 15,25f.: 25 ἀλλ' ἵνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος ὁ *γεγραµµένος ἐν τῷ νόµῳ αὐτῶν* ὅτι Ἐµίσησάν µε δωρεάν. 26 Οταν *δὲ* ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέµψω ὑµῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος µαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐµοῦ: lxix Joh 6,69: 69 καὶ ἡµεῖς πεπιστεύκαµεν καὶ ἐγνώκαµεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ. lxx Joh 14,1: 1 Μὴ ταρασσέσθω (...). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DIE BESCHREIBUNG MUḤAMMADS IM EVANGELIUM 195 lxxi يضاوي يضاوي، ج : لبا بسري ا .٣٩١، ص ١لتف lxxii Joh 14,23: 23 Ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ µε τὸν λόγον µου τηρήσει, καὶ ὁ πατήρ µου ἀγαπήσει αὐτὸν καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐλευσόµεθα καὶ µονὴν παρ᾽ αὐτῷ *ποιησοµεν*. lxxiii Joh 14,26: 26 ὁ δὲ παράκλητος (...). lxxiv εὐχαριστῶ σοι. lxxv εὐχαριστῶ σοι θεέ µου, καὶ εὐχαριστῶ τον θεον (sic), καὶ εὐχαριστῶ τον πλάστου (sic) µου καὶ τον κυρίου µου. lxxvi Joh 14,30: 30 οὐκέτι πολλὰ (...). lxxvii Joh 15,25: 25 ἀλλ' ἵνα πληρωθῇ (...). lxxviii Joh 15,26: Ὅταν *δὲ* ἔλθῃ (...). lxxix Joh 16,4: 4 ἀλλὰ ταῦτα λελάληκα (...). lxxx Mt 25,35f.: 35 ἐπείνασα γὰρ καὶ ἐδώκατέ µοι φαγεῖν, ἐδίψησα καὶ ἐποτίσατέ µε, ξένος ἤµην καὶ συνηγάγετέ µε, 36 γυµνὸς καὶ περιεβάλετέ µε, ἠσθένησα καὶ ἐπ- εσκέψασθέ µε, ἐν φυλακῇ ἤµην καὶ ἤλθατε πρός µε. lxxxi Lk 11,15: (...) Ἐν Βεελζεβοὺλ [τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιµονίων] ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιµόνια. lxxxii Joh 6,28f.: 28 (...) *ποιηςωµεν* ἵνα ἐργαζώµεθα τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ; 29 [ἀπεκρίθη [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς,,] Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα *πιστευσητε* εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος. lxxxiii Mk 3,28f.: 28 Ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι πάντα ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὰ ἁµαρτήµατα καὶ αἱ βλασφηµίαι *οσας* ἐὰν βλασφηµήσωσιν: 29 ὃς δ' ἂν βλασφη- µήσῃ εἰς τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον οὐκ ἔχει ἄφεσιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ ἔνοχός ἐστιν αἰωνίου *κρισεως*. lxxxiv Ἀµὴν ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι (...). lxxxv Joh 10,30: 30 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσµεν. lxxxvi Joh 10,34f.: 34 Οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραµµένον ἐν τῷ νόµῳ ὑµῶν ὅτι Ἐγὼ εἶπα, Θεοί ἐστε; 35 εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή. lxxxvii Joh 5,46: εἰ γὰρ ἐπιστεύετε (...). lxxxviii Apg 3,22f.: 22 Μωϋσῆς µεν *γαρ πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας* εἶπεν ὅτι Προφήτην ὑµῖν ἀναστήσει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑµῶν ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑµῶν ὡς ἐµέ: αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε κατὰ πάντα ὅσα ἂν λαλήσῃ πρὸς ὑµᾶς. 23 ἔσται δὲ πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἥτις ἐὰν µὴ ἀκούσῃ τοῦ προφήτου ἐκείνου (...). lxxxix يضاوي، ج : بيضاوي بسري ا يل مل يرصح به أحد مهنم : ٣٠٧، ص ٢لتف قمه اذلين قالوا ابالحتاد مهنم و يه الهوات وقالوا ال إهل إال واحد لزهمم أن يكون هو ا ملولكن ملا زمعوا أن .سـيحف © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Šabbetay Ṣewi and the Messianic Temptations of Ottoman Jews in the Seventeenth Century According to Christian Armenian Sources Paolo Lucca Introduction The existence of Armenian documents based on and contemporaneous with the Šabbetay Ṣewi affair was made known to Hebraists by the Jewish scholar Abraham Galanté. It was a certain B. Nishanean, an Armenian antiquarian bookseller in Istanbul, who brought these documents to Galanté’s attention, showing him a poem by Eremia Kʿēōmiwrčean and a chapter (namely the fifty-seventh) of Aṙakʿel Davrižecʿi’s History in which the story of Šabbetay Ṣewi was told. The former text, a poem composed of 127 four-line stanzas, was entitled Yałags dera K‘ristosin or kēlti kēlti asi, arareal ew šaradreal Eremiayi dpri Kostandinupōlsewoy, or ēr žamanakakicʿ ew tesōł irancʿ, 1115 tʿwoĵ [“On the Pseudo-Messiah called Geldi-geldi, [a poem] written and composed by Eremia from Constantinople, contemporaneous and witness to the events, in the year 1115 (1666)”].1 The latter, an anonymous reworking in prose of Eremia’s poem included in the History of Aṙakʿel, was titled Patmutʿiwn ancʿicʿ Hrēicʿ azgin ew Sapētʿay anun ĵhtin, or asēr tʿē es em kʿristosn pʿrkičʿ Hrēicʿ azgin ew ard eki ew yaytnecʿay zi pʿrkecʿicʿ znosa, ew aylocʿ irakutʿeancʿ, orkʿ socʿuncʿ hetewecʿan [Story of the events of the nation of the Jews and of the ĵhut called Sabetʿay who said: “I am the Messiah, savior of the nation of the Jews. Behold, I have come and I have revealed myself to save them”, and [story] of other subsequent events].2 Galanté, who did not know Armenian, asked his friend Hamparsum Haladjan (at the time headmaster of the Armenian school “Kinali Ala” in Istanbul) to translate these sources into Turkish and, in 1934-1935, published a French version (based on 1 Hasmik Sahakyan, Uš mĵnadari hay banastełcutʿyuně [Late Medieval Armenian Poetry] 1-2, Erevan 1986-87, vol. 2, pp. 455-76. 2 Patmutʿiwn Aṙakʿel vardapeti Dawrižecʿwoy [The History of the Vardapet Aṙakʿel of Tabriz”], Vałaršapat 21884, pp. 651-65. Russian translation: Istorija strasteĭ evreĭsnago naroda i džixuta po imeni Sabeta, kotoryĭ govorit čto on Xristos, spasitel’ evreev, javivšiĭsja dlja izbavlenija ix, i drugix cobytiĭ posledovavšix za simi, in X. Kučuk-Ioannesov, “Armjanskaja letopis’ o evrejax v Persiĭ XVII veka i o messiĭ Sabbatae-Cevi” [An Armenian Chronicle on Jews in XVIIth Century Persia and on the Messiah Šabbetay Ṣewi], Evreĭskaja starina 10 (1918), pp. 76-86. Eastern Armenian translation: Hrea azgi het tełi unecʿac ancʿkʿeri ev Sabetʿa anunov hreayi, orn asum ēr, tʿe inkě hreakan azgi kʿristos pʿrkičʿn ē ev ard ekel ē ev haytnvel, or prki nrancʿ ev ayl irołutʿyunneri patmutʿyun, or haĵordecʿ srancʿ, in Davrižecʿi Aṙakʿel, Patmutʿyun [History], introduction, translation and comment by Aṙakʿelyan V., Erevan 1988, pp. 510-23. English translation: George A. Bournoutian, The History of Vardapet Aṙakʿel of Tabriz: Patmutʿiwn Aṙakʿel vardapeti Dawrižecʿwoy, Costa Mesa, CA 2005, Chp. 57. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PAOLO LUCCA 198 Haladjan’s Turkish one) of the two texts.3 Some years later, in 1949, still helped by Haladjan, Galanté published a French version of the fifty-seventh chapter of the Chronicle of Zakʿaria Kʿanakʿeṙcʿi, considering this piece of writing (titled Anzgamutʿiwn Hrēic‘ [On the shamelessness of the Jews] and in which is described a Jewish revolt attempt in Thessalonica crushed in bloodshed by the Ottoman authority) inspired by the story of Šabbetay Ṣewi.4 Afterwards, in his monograph on Šabbetay Ṣewi, Gershom Scholem set forth the few novel elements (if compared to other Jewish and European contemporaneous sources on Sabbatianism) presented by the texts of Eremia and Aṙak‘el, avoiding mentioning the chapter of Zakʿaria’s Chronicle probably because Šabbetay Ṣewi is never named expressly in it.5 To these three texts may be added another short poem of Eremia, titled Vasn verstin xayata- ṙakutʿean Hrēicʿ [Again on the Jewish ignominy, or Another Jewish ignominy] and, as far as I know, not yet translated from classical Armenian.6 This poem, a real indictment against Šabbetay Ṣewi and his messianic pretensions, deals with the consequences of Šabbetay Ṣewi’s failure for the Jewish population, described by Eremia as embittered, frustrated and scorned. It is not the aim of this article to analyze these texts for the purpose of tracing new elements and information helpful in the study of Sabbatian movement. What appears more interesting is to try to comprehend how these Armenian authors read and understood social and historical events which turned out so tragic for the Judaism of that time, laying emphasis on the different attitudes towards the Jewish people shown by Eremia and Zak‘aria. The former, condemning Šabbetay Ṣewi as a deceiver dispatched by Satan, shows himself to share the pains of the Jews and to sympathize with their plight, even if he declares the superiority of Christianity, whereas the latter seems to feel a slight sense of complacency in describing the harsh suppression of the attempted Jewish revolt in Thessalonica. Biographical notes Before offering a comparison between their texts, it would be useful to provide some basic biographical notes on the two Armenian authors, in order better to 3 Histoire de la nation juive et du nommé tchifout Sabbetai qui disait: «Je suis le sauveur, le Christ des Juifs; me voici, je suis venu et je suis apparu, car je les sauverai (les Juifs)», et d’autres faits qui les suivent (qui suivent ces faits) in Abraham Galanté, Nouveaux documents sur Sabbetaï Sevi: organisation et us et coutumes de ses adeptes, Istanbul 1935, pp. 82-107. 4 Zakʿaria Kʿanakʿeṙcʿi, Zakʿareay sarkawagi Patmagrutʿiwn [Chronicle of Deacon Zakʿaria] 1- 3, Vałaršapat 1870, vol. 2, pp. 113-7. French translation: L’insolence des Juifs, in Abraham Galanté, Recueil de nouveaux documents inédits concernant l’histoire des Juifs de Turquie, Istanbul 1949, pp. 44-47. Russian translation: O besstydstbe evreev, in M.O. Darbinjan-Melikjan, Zakariĭ Kanakerci Xronika [Chronicle of Zakʿaria Kʿanakʿeṙcʿi], Moscow 1969, Chp. 57. English translation: On the Shamelessness of the Jews, in George A. Bournoutian, The Chronicle of Deacon Zakʿaria of Kʿanakʿeṙ, Costa Mesa, CA 2004, pp. 229-31. 5 Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai Ṣevi: The Mystical Messiah. 1626-1676, Princeton 1973, passim. 6 Sahakyan, Uš mĵnadari hay banastełcutʿyuně, vol. 2, pp. 476-7. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ŠABBETAY ṢEWI AND THE MESSIANIC TEMPTATIONS OF OTTOMAN JEWS 199 understand some of the reasons for their completely different positions towards the Jews and Jewish Messianism. Eremia, who was born in Istanbul in 1637 and died in the same city in 1695, enjoyed from his early youth the patronage of Ambakum Eginli, a leading figure in the Istanbul Armenian community at the time. Besides his profound knowledge of internal Armenian religious and theological subjects, Eremia had a deep proficiency in both Ottoman and Armenian history, in natural and calendrical sciences and in many languages as well (he knew Armenian, Turkish, Greek, Latin and other European languages), although he was not a member of the clergy. His extensive travels throughout the Ottoman Empire and in the Caucasus and his contacts with Europeans and European cultural traditions persuaded Eremia of the importance of a cultural and humanistic revival in Armenian intellectual life inspired by the Enlightenment principles. Eremia, the most prolific Armenian author of this era, wrote poems, histories, chronicles, religious treatises and sermons. He also translated into Armeno-Turkish some of his own works, besides producing translations from Armenian religious and historical literature.7 Totally different from Eremia’s was Zak‘aria’s life. Born in K‘anak‘eṙ, near Erevan, in 1627, Zak‘aria entered the monastery of Hovhanavank‘ at the age of thirteen. Except for his three journeys to Qazvin, Smyrna and Üsküdar, he spent all his life in that monastery, dying in 1699 at the age of 72. Trained in a strictly clerical background, Zak‘aria was very well acquainted with Armenian religious and historical writers (e.g. Xorenac‘i, P‘arpec‘i and Ełiše) but very probably ignored most of the secular subjects which, along with Armenian ones, played such a great role in Eremia’s training. In his Chronicle, composed of three books, his goal is to illustrate the suffering Armenians endured in five hundred years of Muslim rule. The name of God appears in almost every chapter, and every event, good or bad, is interpreted as the will of God.8 There is no place, in Zak‘aria’s Chronicle, for Eremia’s European enlightened ideals and, if Eremia could be seen as a pioneer of the modern Armenian literature, it could be stated that Zak‘aria’s work is still totally medieval. The Authors and Armenian Messianism Notwithstanding their different origin and culture, both Armenian authors were swayed by such issues as the forthcoming end of the world and the coming of the Antichrist, and the story of Šabbetay Ṣewi contributed to turn their interest and concern towards internal Jewish events. Furthermore, the conversions of Jews to Islam, subsequent to Šabbetay Ṣewi’s conversion, could have strengthened their be- 7 See Avedis K. Sanjian and Andreas Tietze (eds.), Eremya Chelebi Kömürjian’s Armeno-Turkish Poem “The Jewish Bride”, Wiesbaden 1981, pp. 12-21. 8 See Bournoutian, The Chronicle of Deacon Zakʿaria of Kʿanakʿeṙ, pp. 319-21. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PAOLO LUCCA 200 lief in the proximity of earth’s final days. Indeed, the at the time widespread expectation of the end of the world is well testified by Zak‘aria in the Memorial Record which constitutes the last chapter of the second book of his Chronicle, written, according to the author in these final days, when the end of the world is near, when the Armenian people are weak and the Persian people strong, when they oppress and torture us with different excuses and various extortions. In our year of one thousand one hundred forty and twice four (1148/1699).9 Eremia himself was convinced that Šabbetay Ṣewi was the forerunner of the Antichrist, a sign of the last days: Zi skzbnač‘arin gorcaran gteal, Or satanayi zgorcn yawart aṙeal Ew zxełč azg iwr i lezu arkeal, Zi hamayn azgik‘ zHrēays canakeal Ew hraman pʿrkčʿin yaysmik katareal, Zi sut margarēk‘ k‘ristosk‘ yaṙaĵeal, Apa naxěnt‘ac‘ Neṙinn haseal, Ordwoyn korstean karapet yaytneal10 The origin of evil has found the worker To accomplish devil’s work; His people has spread around his perversity So that all the nations could mock the Jews. Fulfilled has been the word of the Savior that ‘False prophets and false christs shall rise’; And lo and behold, the precursor of the Antichrist has arrived, The one who foreshadows the son of perdition has appeared. However, besides the common conviction of Eremia and Zak‘aria in the proximity of the end, the point that should be stressed is the difference in their respective views of and attitudes towards Jews. Eremia’s poem On the Pseudo-Messiah (and, consequently, the chapter of Aṙak‘el History based on it) is a very well-informed piece of writing about Šabbetay Ṣewi. In it, Eremia reports his stay in Ereṣ Israel, his encounter with Nathan of Gaza, his increasing reputation among the Jewry of Smyrna. He records the disagreement Šabbetay Ṣewi’s deeds and declarations caused among Jews and tells with a wealth of detail about the pseudo-Messiah’s imprisonment, trial and final abjuration. But what is especially interesting is the description Eremia gives of the consequences Šabbetay Ṣewi’s messianic pretensions had for Jews’ everyday life. Muslims and Christians start mocking the Jews, asking them ceaselessly if their prophet and sage has finally come: 9 Ibid., p. 261. 10 Sahakyan, Uš mĵnadari hay banastełcutʿyuně, vol. 2, p. 473, stanzas 110-111. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ŠABBETAY ṢEWI AND THE MESSIANIC TEMPTATIONS OF OTTOMAN JEWS 201 Mankunk‘ ěnd mecamecs i hamayn azgi, P‘art‘amk‘ ew ṙamikk‘ i soyn k‘ałak‘i, Harc‘anen, nełen zazgn hrēi: ‘Č‘fut kēlti mi, xaxam kēlti mi?’ Kanayk‘ ěnd aranc‘ ew eritasardi, Mankunk‘ ew ałĵkunk‘, cerk‘ ěnd tłayi, Harc‘anen c‘Hrēays ur or handipi: ‘Nawi kēlti mi, t‘ēčal kēlti mi?’11 Young men and notables of any nation, The rich men and the mob of that town, Harassed the people of the Jews asking them: ‘Čfut geldi mi? Haham geldi mi?’’12 Women and men, young men, Boys and girls, old men and children, Asked the Jews wherever they met them: ‘Navi geldi mi? Deccal geldi mi?’13 After Šabbetay Ṣewi’s imprisonment the Jews of Istanbul find themselves forced to lock themselves inside their homes and try unsuccessfully to bribe Ottoman authorities into prohibiting people from jeering the Jewish nation: […] Ew azgn hrēic‘ yarks iwreanc‘ cacki, Oč‘ xanut‘ nstan ew oč‘ vačaṙi, I naxatanac‘ amēnayn azgi. Nēnkič‘ēr ałin kašaṙs twin, Or patwēr toweal xist i łulluxin, Ayl mi asac‘en Hrēic‘ zkēltin, Bayc‘ azgn tačkac‘ ayl ews yawelin.14 […] The people of the Jews hid because of their own misfortunes; They left their workshops and did not go to the marketplace anymore, Due to the insults of all the nations. They offered gifts to the agha of Janissaries, So that he rigorously ordered the kulluk Not to ask the Jews ‹Geldi?› anymore, But the Turkish nation started asking it even more. The widespread display of such mocking behavior towards the Jews is recorded in another work of Eremia as well. In his poem The Jewish Bride, in which he tells the story of a Jewish girl who converts to Christianity and marries a Greek-orthodox 11 Ibid., vol. 2, p. 459, stanzas 27-28. 12 Turkish: “Has the Jew come? Has the sage come?” 13 Turkish: “Has the prophet come? Has the Antichrist come?” 14 Sahakyan, Uš mĵnadari hay banastełcutʿyuně, vol. 2, pp. 460-61, stanzas 36-37. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PAOLO LUCCA 202 Albanian baker, he underlines how the news about girl’s conversion makes the mob forget at once their refrains on Šabbetay Ṣewi: Bu havadis ki izhar olunub Bu shehrisdanın khalki ishidub Chıfud kavmıni mezeye alub Unudub bu dem Geldi Geldiyi When this news became known The people of the town heard it. They derided the Jews, Forgetting at once the Geldi-Geldi.15 Afflicted and very much tormented, the Jews make themselves out to be Armenians, in an attempt to avoid being insulted by the mob: Ew zkerps Hayoc‘ i yert‘n stac‘eal, Zi mi aṙawel lic‘in hayhoyeal, Bayc‘ i xuzołac‘n ēin tuganeal, I Tačkac‘ mecac‘, or aync‘ handipeal.16 In the street they disguise themselves as Armenians To save themselves from being too much insulted; But they were fined by the guards, By the Turkish authorities they met. The Armenian author stresses how the Jews are the first victims of what he calls Šabbetay Ṣewi’s “obsession”. His criticism of the principles of Judaism notwithstanding, his view of the adversities of the Jewish nation is sympathetic and compassionate. Indeed, when mentioning the role Jewish authorities played in this event (he tells about eighty Jewish sages who disown Šabbetay Ṣewi), he admits they have tried to persuade the people of Šabbetay Ṣewi’s bad faith, but at the same time, being a member of a minority, he knows full well that a despised minority can be easily carried away by a dream of redemption. Therefore, in Eremia’s eyes, the Jews are a nation misled, and their only fault consists in the fact that they believed in an insolent deceiver, a man ready to exploit his people’s weaknesses: Molorealn erb eres zazgn moleal, Kurac‘eal xmbic‘n, awel yandgneal, Asē: ‘Em ordi Astucoy cneal, Jez azatut‘iwn nardenis haseal!’17 When the impostor saw that the people had lost their mind And the mob had gone blind, he turned even more insolent. He said: ‘I am the son of God, Your redemption has come!’ 15 Sanjian and Tietze, The Jewish Bride, p. 116, stanza 132. 16 Sahakyan, Uš mĵnadari hay banastełcutʿyuně, vol. 2, p. 466, stanza 65. 17 Ibid., vol. 2, p. 463, stanza 51. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ŠABBETAY ṢEWI AND THE MESSIANIC TEMPTATIONS OF OTTOMAN JEWS 203 This sympathetic attitude towards Jewry can also be explained in the light of Eremia’s involvement in the political life of the Armenian millet. The author, indeed, knew very well how much inner religious quarrels could damage the welfare and interests of a community, as his agitation against the creation of an independent catholicosate for the Armenian millet of the Ottoman Empire clearly shows.18 He was aware of how a divided minority could draw the attention of the Ottoman authorities and thus put its own existence in jeopardy. Thus, according to Eremia, all the blame for the misfortunes of the Jews must be placed on Šabbetay Ṣewi, who used his qualities (he is depicted by Eremia as a learned man with a profound knowledge of the Scriptures) only to increase his fame and wealth. Hence the negative judgment the Armenian author passes on the pseudo-Messiah in the speech he has Jewish sages direct at Šabbetay Ṣewi’s followers: Sut ē, xabebay, na diwabaxeal, Č‘uni inč‘ nšan, zor duk‘ yusac‘eal, Kam zmargarēic‘ banic‘ gušakeal, Oč‘ tesak‘ zmi inč‘ i nma katareal.19 He is a liar, an impostor, a possessed one; He has not any of the signs you have trusted in; And of the things the prophets foretold, None of these we have seen fulfilled in him. A different attitude altogether, compared with Eremia’s, is that shown by Zak‘aria in his The Shamelessness of the Jews, the fifty-seventh chapter of the second book of his Chronicle. In this book, indeed, Zakʿaria gathers a series of imaginary and fabulous tales (which he claims to have heard from eyewitnesses) of great interest from an ethnographic point of view: cataclysms, celestial signs, dragons, enormous snakes enhance the liveliness of Zakʿaria’s narration. On the other hand, the historical value of these tales is very limited, even though it may be assumed that some of them are based on real events.20 Zakʿaria himself seems to admit that his information is mostly unfounded or apocryphal, as this statement would seem to prove: We shall relate everything [just as] we heard it, both the lies and the truth.21 In regard to his account of an attempted Jewish revolt in Thessalonica, which, actually, never took place, Zakʿaria affirms that, even though he already knew the facts, a Greek deacon from Thessalonica named Yeni has given him a more de- 18 See Vahram T‘orgomean, Eremia Čʿelepi -i K‘ēōmiwrčean “Stampōloy Patmut‘iwn” [The “History of Istanbul” of Eremia Č‘elepi K‘ēōmiwrčean] 1-3, Vienna 1913-38, vol. 1, pp. 161-72, and Nersēs Akinean, Eremia Čʿelepi Kʿēōmiwrčean: keankʿn ew grakan gorcunēutʿiwně [Eremia Č‘elepi K‘ēōmiwrčean: life and works], Vienna 1933, pp. 46-49. 19 Sahakyan, Uš mĵnadari hay banastełcutʿyuně, vol. 2, p. 465, stanza 61. 20 Bournoutian, The Chronicle of Deacon Zakʿaria of Kʿanakʿeṙ, pp. 321-3. 21 Ibid., p. 26. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PAOLO LUCCA 204 tailed version of the events. Zakʿaria tells how the Jews of Thessalonica, fallen on hard times, decide to appoint a king among themselves, in the hope of regaining lost welfare and wealth. They decide in favor of a certain Sołon, a good-looking, wise and learned man, well-versed in Scripture. Clothed in a white tunic, crowned with a three-peaked crown and with a golden sceptre in his hand, Sołon is worshipped and revered by the Jews of Thessalonica. Then the Jews appoint judges and prefects, set up a regular army and send the following letter to all the Jews of the land: Listen, all you Jewish people. Live according to the laws of Moses, for by the grace of God we have begun to rule here and plan to destroy all the Muslims. The Christians shall pay us tribute: the Armenians ten and the Greeks eight gold pieces. Be ready. […] Fall on them, kill them, and make slaves of their women and children. The moment you accomplish this, we shall be one body and soul. The wolf and the lamb shall graze together. The Messiah will then come and shall settle among us.22 The dream of redemption is shattered as a consequence of an issue that arises between Sołon and a certain Ovsē while the Jewish king is dividing all the Ottoman cities among Jewish authorities. Ovsē, who receives the city of Bursa, refuses it asking for Adrianople, his home town instead. Sołon does not want to hear complaints and orders his followers to club Ovsē before chasing him away. Ovsē, however, goes to the pasha and reveals the conspiracy to him. The suppression of the revolt is cruel and harsh: Sołon is tortured and condemned to death and the pasha issues an edict in which he orders Muslims and Christians to slaughter the Jews, to make slaves of their children, to rape their women and to seize their belongings. The Jews, annihilated, convert to Islam and mix with the Christians, hiding in their homes after having given the Christians their own possessions. According to Galanté, this Armenian text could be proof of the impressive influence the Šabbetay Ṣewi affair had on the unlearned classes.23 Actually, the story presents features typical of a folk tale, but I suppose not only Šabbetay Ṣewi could have inspired it. During the seventeenth century the Jewish community of Thessalonica, once very well off, endured many adversities and misfortunes, a strong economic recession and several tax increases.24 These factors, combined with the fact that the town, at the end of the seventeenth century, became one of the main Sabbatian centers following the mass conversion of about 300 Jewish families to Islam, could have contributed to originate a story such as Zakʿaria’s. Indeed, the malicious delight about Pseudo-Messiah’s defeat, the satisfaction for the Jews’ economic misfortunes and a widespread sense of revenge against them could have generated among Christians such a tale inspired by seventeenth-century events 22 Ibid., pp. 229-30. 23 Galanté, Recueil de nouveaux documents inédits, p. 44. 24 Joseph Nehama, Histoire des Israélites de Salonique. Tome V. Période de stagnation – La tourmente sabbatéenne (1593-1669), Thessaloniki 1959, pp. 73-76, and id., Histoire des Israélites de Salonique. Tomes VI et VII, Thessaloniki 1978, p. 135. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ŠABBETAY ṢEWI AND THE MESSIANIC TEMPTATIONS OF OTTOMAN JEWS 205 with the Jewish communities of Smyrna and Thessalonica, one (or some) of which tales Zak‘aria recorded and probably reworked. Furthermore, some Sabbatian elements featured in the story could result from Zak‘aria’s travel to Smyrna. Unlike Eremia in his poem, Zak‘aria in his narration refrains from any kind of explicit judgment of the Jews or from Christian apologetics, but his attitude towards the Jews comes out clearly from the title. All the Jews are shameful: their insolence and their shamelessness caused the curses that befall them. Their desire for supremacy, which drove them to appoint a king among themselves in order to rule the world, generated the misfortunes Zakʿaria seems to record with complacency: [The pasha] ordered them [the Muslims] to cut the tongue, nose, lips, ears, fingers, hands, legs, and the testicles of the haham. […] They [the Muslims] killed a third of the Jewish population that day. […] They [the Jews] thus suffered a pitiful death. The twelve maidens that they guarded for their messiah, were taken to the pasha and were publicly dishonored. The khondkar also ordered his subordinates to heavily tax the Jews in every part of his domain, so that they would become poor and cease being insolent.25 This is, indeed, the main difference between Eremia’s and Zakʿaria’s views of Jewish Messianism. According to the former, the scorn for the Jews and the Jews’ despised condition made them blind to Šabbetay Ṣewi’s messianic pretensions. Eremia, actually, does not consider them shameful, but rather deceived. Zakʿaria, on the other hand, who did not experience personally the reality of the Ottoman millet and records folk-tales without caring about their truthfulness, seems to state that Messianism is for the Jews nothing but an excuse to disguise their own desire for dominance. References Akinean, Nersēs, Eremia Č‘elepi K‘ēōmiwrčean: keank‘n ew grakan gorcunēut‘iwně [Eremia Č‘elepi K‘ēōmiwrčean: life and works], Vienna 1933. Aṙak‘el, Davrižec‘i, Patmut‘yun [History], introduction, translation and comment by Aṙak‘elyan V., Erevan 1988. Bournoutian, George A., The Chronicle of Deacon Zak‘aria of K‘anak‘eṙ (Zakʿareay Sarkawagi Patmagrut‘iwn), Costa Mesa, CA 2004. Bournoutian, George A., The History of Vardapet Aṙak‘el of Tabriz: Patmut‘iwn Aṙak‘el vardapeti Dawrižec‘woy, Costa Mesa, CA 2005. Darbinjan-Melikjan, M.O., Zakariĭ Kanakerci Xronika [Chronicle of Zak‘aria K‘anak‘eṙc‘i], Moscow 1969. Galanté, Abraham, Nouveaux documents sur Sabbetaï Sevi : organisation et us et coutumes de ses adeptes, Istanbul 1935. 25 Bournoutian, The Chronicle of Deacon Zakʿaria of Kʿanakʿeṙ, p. 231. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PAOLO LUCCA 206 Galanté, Abraham, Recueil de nouveaux documents inédits concernant l’histoire des Juifs de Turquie, Istanbul 1949. Kučuk-Ioannesov, X., “Armjanskaja letopis’ o evrejax v Persiĭ XVII veka i o messiĭ Sabbatae-Cevi” [An Armenian Chronicle on Jews in XVIIth Century Persia and on the Messiah Šabbetay Ṣewi], Evreĭskaja starina 10 (1918), pp. 76-86. Nehama, Joseph, Histoire des Israélites de Salonique. Tome V. Période de stagnation – La tourmente sabbatéenne (1593-1669), Thessaloniki 1959. Nehama, Joseph, Histoire des Israélites de Salonique. Tomes VI et VII, Thessaloniki 1978. Patmut‘iwn Aṙak‘el vardapeti Dawrižec‘woy [The History of the Vardapet Aṙak‘el of Tabriz], Vałaršapat 21884. Sahakyan, Hasmik, Uš mĵnadari hay banastełcut‘yuně [Late Medieval Armenian Poetry] 1-2, Erevan 1986-87. Sanjian, Avedis K. and Andreas Tietze (eds.), Eremya Chelebi Kömürjian’s Armeno- Turkish Poem “The Jewish Bride”, Wiesbaden 1981. Scholem, Gershom, Sabbatai Ṣevi: The Mystical Messiah. 1626-1676, Princeton 1973. T‘orgomean, Vahram, Eremia Č‘elepi -i K‘ēōmiwrčean “Stampōloy Patmut‘iwn” [The “History of Istanbul” of Eremia Č‘elepi K‘ēōmiwrčean] 1-3, Vienna 1913-38. Zakʿaria Kʿanakʿeṙcʿi, Zak‘areay sarkawagi Patmagrut‘iwn [Chronicle of Deacon Zak‘aria] 1-3, Vałaršapat 1870. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Le clergé catholique face au pouvoir ottoman. Les brevets de nomination (berât) des évêques et des archevêques (17ème siècle) Elisabetta Borromeo Les non musulmans dans l’espace ottoman constituent un domaine de recherche important des études ottomanes, notamment pour ce qui concerne leur place dans l’Empire, dans ses dimensions juridique, socio-économique et culturelle;1 la présence des minorités de zimmî catholiques n’a cependant pas encore été traitée de façon systématique. Il est significatif que dans le livre sorti en 1982 sous la direction de Benjamin Braude et Bernard Lewis, la seule étude consacrée aux catholiques apostoliques romains, due à Robert Mantran, ne traite que des marchands étrangers à Constantinople.2 De fait, mis à part le travail pionnier d’Alphonse Belin3 (sur les catholiques à Constantinople) suivi par les études d’Eugenio Dalleggio D’Alessio (toujours sur les catholiques à Constantinople) et par l’essai de P. Argenti4 (sur les non musulmans à Chio) ainsi que plus récemment par les recherches de B. Heyberger,5 de B. Masters6 (qui ont tous les deux travaillé sur les chrétiens au Proche-Orient), de B. Slot7 (qui a entre autres enquêté sur les Latins des Cyclades), de S. M. Džaja8 (qui consacre une partie de son étude aux catholiques en Bosnie), par le livre de Char- 1 Je ne citerai ici que quelques travaux parmi les plus importants parus depuis les années 1980. Cf. Benjamin Braude et Bernard Lewis (éds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. The Functioning of a Plural Society 1-2, New-York/Londres 1982; Amnon Cohen, Jewish Life under Islam: Jerusalem in the sixteenth century, Cambridge, Mass./Londres 1984; Ronald C. Jennings, Christians and Muslims in Ottoman Cyprus and the Mediterranean World, 1571- 1640, New York/Londres 1993; Meropi Anastassiadou-Dumont (éd.), Identités confessionnelles et espace urbain en terres d’islam; numéro spécial de la Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 107-110 (2005), p. 229-245. 2 Robert Mantran, “Foreign Merchants and the Minorities in Istanbul during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century”, dans Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, v. 1, p. 127-137. 3 Alphonse Belin, Histoire de la Latinité de Constantinople, Paris 21894. 4 Philip P. Argenti (éd.), The Religious Minorities of Chios, Jews and Roman Catholics, Londres 1970. 5 Bernard Heyberger, Les chrétiens du Proche-Orient au temps de la Réforme catholique (Syrie, Liban, Palestine, XVIIe-XVIIIe siècles), Rome 1994. 6 Bruce Masters, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: The Roots of Sectarianism, Cambridge 2001. 7 B.J. Slot, Archipelagus Turbatus. Les Cyclades entre colonisation latine et occupation ottomane c.1500-1718 1-2, Istanbul 1982. 8 S.M. Džaja, Konfessionalität und Nationalität Bosniens und der Herzegowina: Voremanzipatorische Phase 1463-1804, Munich 1984. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELISABETTA BORROMEO 208 les A. Frazee9 et par les travaux de Rinaldo Marmara (sur les catholiques ottomans à Istanbul, au 19ème siècle notamment10), les études qui traitent des communautés catholiques abordent presque toujours la question du point de vue de l’antagonisme entre islam et chrétienté occidentale11 ou bien dans le cadre de l’histoire religieuse (histoire des missions12 et de la Congrégation de la Propaganda Fide13). Pour ma part, je voudrais me placer au point de vue ottoman, en étudiant dans cet article quelques brevets de nomination d’évêques et d’archevêques catholiques apostoliques romains, afin d’analyser l’attitude du pouvoir ottoman face aux zimmî catholiques ainsi que le rôle du clergé dans l’organisation de ces communautés. Parmi les non musulmans bénéficiant du statut de zimmî (les chrétiens orthodoxes et les Juifs), la position juridique des catholiques était en effet la plus incertaine. Si d’un point de vue politique ils étaient des sujets ottomans comme les autres, la gestion des affaires spirituelles de ces communautés dépendait d’un pouvoir, notamment de Rome, qui non seulement se situait à l’extérieur de la juridiction des sultans, mais qui était aussi farouchement hostile à l’Empire ottoman, du moins dans le discours.14 À Constantinople, celui qui occupait la fonction de «patriarche latin» était un cardinal absent et son remplaçant sur place, le vicaire patriarcal, ne recevait aucune légitimation formelle de la part des Ottomans.15 Sans un chef religieux reconnu, comment le clergé catholique pouvait-il exercer son pouvoir spirituel et temporel sur ses ouailles? L’étude des brevets de nomination permettra, je l’espère, de donner quelques éléments de réponse en nous éclairant sur la position des religieux catholiques dans la société ottomane. Je m’arrêterai en particulier sur le berât accordé en 1608 à l’évêque de Syros16 pour ensuite 9 Charles A. Frazee, Catholics and Sultans. The Church and the Ottoman Empire, 1453-1923, Londres 1983. Il s’agit d’une présentation générale de l’histoire des catholiques apostoliques romains et des chrétiens ayant reconnu la suprématie du Pape, comme les Maronites, les Arméniens apostoliques, les Melkites, etc. 10 Rinaldo Marmara, “Comptes rendus du cimetière latin de Constantinople: Une source inconnue pour l'histoire de la latinité”, Journal asiatique 291 (2003), p. 221-247; id., Pancaldi. Quartier levantin du XIXe siècle, Istanbul 2004; id., Le registre du bagne de Constantinople, Montpellier 2004. Il s’agit d’études qui, tout en ayant le mérite de mettre à disposition du chercheur plusieurs documents tirés des archives des églises de Galata, se fondent cependant presque exclusivement sur des sources occidentales. 11 Cf. par exemple Massimo Petrocchi, La politica della Santa Sede di fronte all’invasione ottomana, 1444-1718, Naples 1955; Marko Jačov, I Balcani tra Impero ottomano e potenze europee (sec. XVI e XVII). Il ruolo della diplomazia pontificia, Cosenza 1997. 12 Cf. par exemple, Gualberto Matteucci, La missione francescana, II. Il suo organizzarsi e fecondo apostolato sotto i Turchi (1585-1704), Florence 1975. 13 Cf. Josef Metzler (éd.), Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum. 350 ans au service des missions. 1622-1972 1-2, Rome/Fribourg/Vienne 1971-73. 14 Cf. Géraud Poumarède, Pour en finir avec la Croisade, Paris 2004. 15 Cf. Belin, Histoire, et Slot, Archipelagus, p. 109-112. 16 ASV (pour Archivio di Stato, Venezia), BC (pour fonds Bailo a Constantinopoli), busta 250- II, f. 133. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul LE CLERGÉ CATHOLIQUE FACE AU POUVOIR OTTOMAN 209 le comparer avec d’autres berât destinés aux clergés aussi bien catholique17 qu’orthodoxe.18 Avant d’aborder le vif du sujet, je voudrais rappeler brièvement que les berât étaient des documents émis par le sultan (et donc portant sa ṭuğra) pour accorder un privilège ou nommer un agent de l’État.19 Les documents dont il sera question ici sont des berât d’investiture: il s’agit en effet de brevets de nomination à la fonction d’évêque ou d’archevêque accordés aux autorités religieuses chrétiennes, reconnaissant aux bénéficiaires un pouvoir juridictionnel et spirituel sur leurs ouailles. Regardons de plus près le berât octroyé en 1608 à l’évêque de Syros, la seule île des Cyclades qui, à l’époque, était majoritairement catholique (environ 90% de la population).20 Ce document, une copie du berât original, est conservé dans les Archives d’Etat de Venise dans le fonds Bailo a Constantinopoli,21 série Carte Turche,22 17 On étudiera notamment deux berât dans leur traduction italienne. Il s’agit du brevet de nomination de Marino Bizzi à l’archevêché d’Antivari en 1609 (publié dans “Relatione della visita fatta da me Marino Bizzi, Arcivescovo d’Antivari, nelle parti della Turchia, Antivari, Albania e Servia. Alla Santità di Nostro Signore Papa Paolo Quinto”, éd. Franjo Rački, “Izvještaj barskoga nadbiskupa Marina Bizzia o svojem putovanju god. 1610 po Arbanaskoj i Staroj Srbiji”, Starine. Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i umjetnosti 20 (1888), p. 51- 156) et du renouvellement du berât accordé en 1688 à Leonardo Balsarini, évêque de Chio (ASV, B.C., b. 345, entre 58 et 69/6). Pour le moment, je dois me contenter de ces documents en traduction italienne. Malhereusement, je n’ai pas encore eu l’opportunité de consulter d’autres berât en ottoman, dont on sait que certains sont conservés dans les archives de quelques îles des Cyclades (cf. Slot, Archipelagus): certainement une recherche dans les archives d’Istanbul en ferait d’ailleurs découvrir d’autres. 18 Je remercie Monsieur Vatin qui m’a aimablement mis à disposition des documents tirés du fonds ottoman conservés dans les archives du monastère de Saint-Jean de Patmos (APO), dont il est en train de dresser l’inventaire en collaboration avec Madame E. Zachariadou et Monsieur G. Veinstein. Cf. Nicolas Vatin, “Note préliminaire au catalogage du fonds ottoman des archives du monastère de Saint-Jean à Patmos”, Turcica 33 (2001), p. 333-337. Sur les berât accordés au clergé orthodoxe, cf. aussi Josef Kabrda, Le système fiscal de l’église orthodoxe dans l’Empire ottoman, Brno 1969. 19 Cf. L. Fekete, “Berât”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, v. 1, p. 1205-1206. Pour un approfondissement de la signification et des origines du terme berât, cf. Nedjet GÖK, “An introduction to the Berat in Ottoman Diplomatics”, Bulgarian Historical Review 3-4 (2001), p. 141-150. 20 Sur Syros à l’époque ottomane, cf. Slot, Archipelagus. 21 Ce fonds est constitué par les archives personnelles des bailes (ambassadeurs) de Venise à Constantinople qui, après avoir été longtemps conservées sur place, ont été transférées à Venise et laissées dans l’oubli, avant d’être traitées finalement, au cours de ces dernières années. Dans ce fonds ils se trouvent des documents en italien et en ottoman (mais aussi en grec, en hébreu, en arabe et en français), couvrant la période du milieu du XVIe siècle à la fin du XVIIIe siècle. Il s’agit de traductions de textes ottomans (dont l’original est parfois encore conservé), de la correspondance des bailes et des ambassadeurs (avec Venise, avec les recteurs du Stato da Mar, les provveditori, les capitaines, les consuls, les drogmans, les marchands vénitiens qui commerçaient dans l’Empire ottoman, etc.), ainsi que d’actes officiels émanant du gouvernement de la métropole (procès verbaux, dispositions des magistratures du gouvernement central de Venise, comme les patentes de nomination des drogmans, les instructions aux bailes, etc.). Cf. Dilek Desaive, “Les documents en ottoman des fonds des archives du baile à Constantinople”, Turcica 33 (2001), p. 369-377. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELISABETTA BORROMEO 210 qui rassemble par ordre chronologique les actes du gouvernement ottoman transcrits dans des registres, souvent partiellement,23 après une sélection en fonction des intérêts spécifiques du gouvernement de Venise. Ce berât avait été obtenu suite à une requête du baile de Venise, à l’époque Ottaviano Bon (1522-1623),24 la nomination concernant en effet un sujet de Venise, Giovanni Andrea Carga (1560-1617), originaire de San Daniele, ville du Frioul vénitien. Dans son étude sur les Cyclades à l’époque ottomane, B.J. Slot indique que déjà en 1604 Venise avait fait pression sur Rome pour obtenir la nomination à l’évêché de Syros de G.A. Carga, supérieur des Dominicains de Galata depuis 1601 (ou 1602) et délégué apostolique des missions du Levant.25 C’est seulement en 1607 que Rome appuya enfin la demande vénitienne et, l’année suivante, le baile obtint de la Porte le berât qui est l’objet de cette analyse. Comme dans les autres documents de ce type, après la du’a (invocation) et la ṭuğra, le berât commence par la formule «nişân-i şerîf-i ‘âlişân-i sulṭânî… hükmü oldur ki.»26 Puis, dans la première partie, on explique à qui, pourquoi et comment le berât a été accordé. De même, on indique le nom du bénéficiaire du berât, désigné 22 ASV, BC, Busta 250-II, f. 133. 23 Ces documents ottomans ne sont pas tous traduits, mais leur contenue est résumé dans l’index. 24 Ottaviano Bon résida à Constantinople de 1604 à 1609. Sur son bailage à la Porte, cf. la relation qu’il lut devant le Sénat vénitien à son retour (“Relazione del nobil’ homo ser Ottaviano Bon, ritornato dal bailaggio di Costantinopoli, letta nell'eccellentissimo Senato a IX giugno MDCIX”, dans Relazioni di ambasciatori veneti al senato. Vol. XIV. Relazioni inedite (1512-1789), éd. Maria Pia Pedani-Fabris, Padoue 1996, p. 479-523). O.Bon écrivit aussi un autre texte concernant l'Empire ottoman : “Massime essentiali dell’Impero ottomano dal Bailo Ottaviano Bon,” dans Le Relazioni degli Stati europei lette al Senato dagli ambasciatori veneziani nel secolo decimosettimo - Turchia, éd. Nicolò Barozzi et Guglielmo Berchet, Venise 1871, p. 116-124. On lui attribue aussi la rédaction d’une relation du sérail (Relazione del Serraglio dell’imperatore de’ Turchi, Venise 1684) qui fut très probablement écrite par un homme de sa suite et dont plusieurs auteurs s’attribuèrent la paternité (cf. Godfrey Goodwin (éd.), The Sultan’s Seraglio. An Intimate Portrait of Life at the Ottoman Court. From the Seventeenth-Century Edition of John Withers (1625, 1650), Londres 1996). Pour un approfondissement de sa biographie, cf. M. Pasdera, “Bon, Ottaviano”, dans Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Rome, p. 421-424 et la bibliographie; cf. aussi Semavi Eyice, “Bon, Ottaviano”, dans Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Islâm Ansiklopedisi, Istanbul 1992, v. 6, p. 281. 25 Après avoir fui de Syros une première fois en 1613 par peur de représailles de la part des Ottomans à la suite d’incursions de bateaux napolitaines en 1617, G.A. Carga fut accusé (parmi d’autres dignitaires catholiques) d’avoir espionné pour une flotte napolitaine qui bourlinguait alors dans l’Égée et fut exécuté sur ordre du kapudan paşa Güzelce Istanköylu Ali Paşa (cf. Francesco Luigi Pinzani, Vita del venerabile Monsignore Giovanni Andrea Carga di Sandaniele, vescovo e martire di Sira, Sandaniele 1855; Sophrone Pétridès, “Le vénérable Jean-André Carga, évêque latin de Syra (1560-1617) », Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 5 (1900), p. 407-422 et, notamment, Slot, Archipelagus, p. 131-134). 26 “L'ordre portant le chiffre sacré sultanien de haute gloire…est ce qui suit”, ASV, BC, Busta 250-II, f. 133, l.1. Ces actes d’investiture pouvaient s’ouvrir aussi sur une formule plus simple : “sebeb-i taḥrîr-i ḥurûf oldur ki (la raison pour laquelle ce document est écrit est la suivante)”. Cf. L.Fekete, “Berât”. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul LE CLERGÉ CATHOLIQUE FACE AU POUVOIR OTTOMAN 211 dans le texte ottoman comme Fra Covan Andria (pour Giovanni Andrea Carga), et on donne quelques renseignements sur les circonstances de sa nomination. De suite, on précise que le berât avait été accordé, comme je viens de le souligner, à la requête du baile de Venise.27 Le nom du prédécesseur de Carga ainsi que les raisons de sa destitution, cités dans le document, posent des problèmes de lecture et d’interprétation.28 Le nom, qui pourrait se lire ḳamon ou ḳlamon, ne se rapproche en effet ni du nom d’Agostino Gisulfi, prédécesseur de Carga et évêque de Syros entre 1592 et 1607,29 ni d’Andrea Peri, un prêtre originaire de Syros que Rome avait nommé vicaire apostolique afin qu’il assure l’interim pendant la vacance du siège de l’évêché entre 1607 et avril 1608,30 date à laquelle le berât de Carga a été émis. Les raisons pour lesquelles le mandat de ce ḳamon ou ḳlamon avait pris fin ne sont pas non plus très claires, le déchiffrement de cette partie n’aboutissant à aucune solution satisfaisante. La lecture de la traduction italienne du berât, faite à l’époque par Barnabà Bruti, un des drogmans au service du baile de Venise à la Porte ottomane, ne nous éclaire pas non plus sur ces deux points, le traducteur ayant omis de traduire le passage concernant les raisons de la destitution de l’évêque et son nom étant illisible. Sans pouvoir aller plus loin dans l’interprétation, on peut donc seulement affirmer que Carga succéda à un autre évêque, que semble avoir été reconnu par le gouvernement ottoman car son nom est cité dans le berât en tant qu’évêque de l’île. Après l’identité du bénéficiaire et les raisons de sa nomination, à la fin de cette première partie, le montant de 300 aspres au titre du peşkeş (litt. don31) et la date à laquelle la somme avait été remise au Trésor impérial (le 23 avril 1608) sont précisés.32 Dans la seconde partie, on détaille les compétences d’Andrea Carga en tant qu’évêque de Syros et les droits qu’il exerçe sur ses ouailles. Le sultan enjoint d’abord aux catholiques de l’île (efrenc ṭâifesine), tant religieux que laïcs, d’accepter Carga comme leur évêque en lui reconnaissant ses droits d’autorité compétente dans les affaires qui dépendent de l’évêché, et de ne pas contrevenir à ses déci- 27 ASV, BC, Busta 250-II, f. 133, l.4. 28 Ibidem, l. 3. 29 Cf. Slot, Archipelagus. 30 G. Hofmann, Vescovadi cattolici della Grecia. III Syros, Rome 1937. 31 Dans l’Empire ottoman, le peşkeş était une somme d’argent (parfois accompagnée par des cadeaux) que l’agent ou le fonctionnaire versait à son supérieur ou au Trésor au moment de son affectation à une poste, de sa nomination à une charge ou à une fonction, etc. Cf. Halil İnalcık, “Ottoman Archival Materials on Millets”, dans Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, v. 2, p. 447-448. 32 “ve ‘âdet-i peşkeş içün sene seb‘ ‘aşre ve elf muḥarreminiñ yedinci gününde ḫizâne-i ‘âmireye ber vechi naḳd üç yüz aḳçe dâḫil-i ḫazîneye eylemeğin mezkura bu berât-i hümâyûni verdüm (du fait que le septième jour de muharrem de l’année 1017 il a donné au titre de don ordinaire au trésor impérial 300 aspres de bon aloi, je lui ai remis le présent berât impérial)”, ASV, BC, Busta 250-II, f. 133, l.4-5. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELISABETTA BORROMEO 212 sions.33 D’emblée, l’autorité de l’évêque en tant que chef de la communauté des catholiques de l’île est affirmée. Puis le document énumère les domaines dans lesquels l’évêque exerce son pouvoir juridictionnel. Il ressort ainsi que l’évêque est le seul à pouvoir nommer et destituer les prêtres et les moines (pâpâsları ve keşişleri);34 on précise également que les prêtres des villages (ḳura pâpâsları) ne sont pas autorisés à célébrer les mariages sans son accord (ma‘rifeti yoğiken).35 L’évêque est aussi investi du pouvoir de gestion des biens de l’évêché. Il apparaît ainsi que Carga a le droit d’accepter tout testament des religieux en faveur des pauvres de l’église36 et que c’est lui qui administre toutes les propriétés rattachées aux églises de l’île (sous forme de vaḳf, comme le précise le document quelques lignes plus loin37), tout comme il en gère les rentes. Enfin, le berât se conclut avec l’expression d’usage courante dans ce type de documents («Şöyle bileler ‘alâmet-i şerife i‘timâd ḳılalar [qu’on le sache et qu’on prête foi à la marque sacrée]»38) et la datation39 (11 muḥarrem 1017, ce qui correspond au 27 avril 1608). Si l’on compare le berât de Giovanni Andrea Carga à d’autres brevets de nomination accordés à des ecclésiastiques catholiques, on ne constate pas de différences majeures. Certes le nom du bénéficiaire et les circonstances dans lesquelles le brevet est octroyé ainsi que le montant du peşkeş changent. Ainsi, en 1610 Marino Bizzi,40 archevêque d’Antivari (ville sur la côte de la mer adriatique, aujourd’hui Bar en Monténegro) et, en 1688, Leonardo Balsarini, évêque de Chio,41 n’avaient pas obtenu leur berât à la suite de l’intervention d’un re- 33 ASV, BC, Busta 250-II, f. 133, l.7-10. 34 Ibidem, l.12-14. 35 Ibidem, l.12. 36 “mezkuruñ pisḳoposlığına müte ‘allik bir papaş ve yaḫud bir keşiş mürd olduḳta kelisa fuḳarasına her ne vaṣiyet ederlerse maḳbul ola”, ibidem, l.11. Dans le système juridique musulman, qui ne reconnaissait pas les personnes morales, l’église ne pouvait en effet pas être la bénéficiaire de tels legs. Cf., à ce propos, les fetvâ d’Ebû-s-Su’ûd dans E. Düzdağ, Şeyhülislâm Ebussuûd Efendi Fetvaları. 16. Asır Türk Hayatı, Istanbul 1983, p. 103. 37 ASV, BC, Busta 250-II, f. 133, l.16-17. 38 Ibidem, l.17-18. 39 Ibidem, l.18. 40 Marino Bizzi naquit à Arbe vers 1565. Après des études de droit civil et canonique, il fut nommé archiprêtre de la cathédrale d’Arbe. En 1608, le pape Paul V le désigna comme archevêque d’Antivari, primat de Serbie et administrateur de l’église de Budva (1608-1624). Il mourut à Rome en février 1625. Cf. Domenico Caccamo, “Bizzi (Bizzius, Bizza), Marino”, dans Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, v. 10, Rome 1968, p. 742-744; Daniele Farlato, Illyrici sacri tomus septimus, Venise 1817, passim. Sur la relation de sa visite apostolique en 1610 (Marino Bizzi, “Relatione”), cf. Georg Stadtmüller, “Die Visitationsreise des Erzbischofs Marino Bizzi”, dans Serta Monacensia, Leiden 1952, p. 184-199. 41 ASV, B.C., b. 345, entre 58 et 69/6. Leonardo Balsarini fut nommé en 1668 évêque titulaire de Philadelphie et coadjuteur cum futura successione de l’évêque de Chio, Andrea Soffiano, à qui il succéda en 1680. Il joua un rôle important en 1695 pendant l’occupation de Chio par les Vénitiens, à qui il servit d’espion. Quand les Vénitiens furent chassés par les Ottomans dans les premiers mois de 1696, Balsarini quitta aussi l’île, tout en gardant le ti- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul LE CLERGÉ CATHOLIQUE FACE AU POUVOIR OTTOMAN 213 présentant diplomatique européen. Il s’agit là d’un point très important qu’il faut souligner car ceci montre en effet que contrairement à ce qui est souvent affirmé, les religieux qui étaient envoyés par le Saint-Siège dans l’Empire ottoman ne devaient pas chercher (toujours et de façon systématique) leur protection auprès des puissances de l’Europe latine qui avaient conclu des Capitulations avec le Grand Seigneur, et que les résidents catholiques dans l’Empire n’étaient pas par nature des protégés des puissances occidentales. Dans son étude sur les Cyclades à l’époque ottomane, B. J. Slot a de fait déjà démontré que l’affirmation selon laquelle le statut juridique des catholiques de l’Empire ottoman se fondait sur les privilèges dont jouissaient les ressortissants étrangers est seulement valable pour le 19ème siècle.42 La Porte n’aurait par ailleurs jamais pu accepter ouvertement qu’une partie de ses ressortissants, leur pourcentage fût-il très minime, passât collectivement sous juridiction étrangère. Il est cependant vrai que l’intervention d’une puissance occidentale pouvait accélérer l’obtention du berât. Comme je l’ai déjà souligné, Giovanni Andrea Carga, nommé par le Saint Siège le 30 juillet 1607, dut à la requête du baile de Venise auprès de la Porte de se voir accorder un berât le 27 avril 1608, seulement neuf mois après sa désignation.43 Marino Bizzi, qui nous dit avoir obtenu le brevet grâce au réseau que lui-même avait établi avec les représentants du pouvoir ottoman,44 dut attendre un an et sept mois: nommé archevêque d’Antivari par le Saint Siège le 4 février 1608, il n’obtint en effet le berât que le 9 septembre 1609. Le nombre limité de berât ici étudiés ne permet cependant pas de tirer de conclusions définitives. Il se rélève de même que l’ecclésiastique obtint le berât suite à la destitution de l’évêque précédemment en poste (pour G.A. Carga45) ou parce que le siège était vacant (pour M. Bizzi46). Il pouvait y avoir également d’autres raisons: L. Balsarini se vit par exemple délivrer le berât parce que l’original avait été égaré.47 En outre les tre d’évêque de Chio jusqu’en 1698, lorsqu’il fut nommé évêque de Corinthe (Argenti, Religious Minorities). 42 Slot, Archipelagus, p. 110. 43 ASV, B.C., Busta 250-II, f. 133. 44 Grâce au soutien d’un certain “Mahmut Chiemanchis Pacha...mio patriotta di Arbe, che nella guerra del 1571 fu preso sopra quell’isola con molti altri fanciulli di anni 8 dai Turchi di Obrovazzo, e condotto a Costantinopoli, et impiegato alla disciplina militare, riuscì fra l’altre sue prodezze, cosi valente nel tirar l’arco, che fu chiamato per soprannome Chiemanchis, cioé principe degli arcieri. Per il che nell’ultime speditioni per Ungaria hebbe il carico di conduttier di 8-m spahoglani, poi tornato a Costantinopoli fu fatto Mirahur del Granturcho cioè gran Maresciallo, poi Bassa in Natolia, e parente di ....Granturcho, che li diede per moglie una sultana del sangue.”, Bizzi, “Relatione”, p. 62-63. 45 ASV, B.C., Busta 250-II, f. 133. 46 Bizzi, “Relatione”, p. 64. 47 ASV, B.C., b. 345, entre 58 et 69/6. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELISABETTA BORROMEO 214 brevets devaient être renouvelés chaque fois qu’un nouveau sultan accédait au pouvoir.48 Quant à l’argent que le bénéficiaire du berât devait verser au Trésor (le peşkeş), il serait également nécessaire d’examiner un plus grand nombre de documents pour pouvoir se faire une idée plus précise des variations des montants. Pour le moment, on peut seulement constater qu’il ne se passait que quelques jours entre le paiement et la délivrance du berât et que la somme due au titre de peşkeş semble être fonction de l’importance du diocèse (de son étendu et de ses rentes) et du niveau hiérarchique de l’ecclésiastique. Si l’on prend deux berât émis à la même période, on constate en effet que Marino Bizzi, archevêque d’Antivari, versa 880 aspres en septembre 160949 (son diocèse comprenait les évêchés situés en Albanie du nord, une région majoritairement catholique à l’époque50). Giovanni Andrea Carga, qui n’était qu’évêque de Syros51 (île certes à majorité catholique, mais dont la superficie est seulement de 87 km2) ne paya en revanche que 300 aspres en avril 1608.52 Pour le reste, comme je l’ai déjà souligné, les berât octroyés à des ecclésiastiques catholiques développaient les mêmes points quant aux compétences et pouvoirs de leur bénéficiaire. Entre les trois berât ici considérés, apparaissent néanmoins deux variations. On a vu que dans le berât de Carga les prêtres ne pouvaient célébrer les mariages qu’avec l’accord de l’évêque.53 Dans le berât émis en faveur de Marino Bizzi54 et dans le renouvellement de celui de L. Balsarini,55 il est aussi précisé que seul l’ecclésiastique bénéficiaire du brevet pouvait intervenir lorsqu’un/une de ses ouailles quittait son conjoint, cette autorité étant élargie dans le berât de Bizzi au cas où un de deux époux désirait divorcer.56 Aussi surprenantes que ces précisions puissent paraître 48 Cf. Kabrda, Système Fiscal, p. 58-60. 49 Bizzi, “Relatione”, p. 64. 50 L’archevêché avait sous sa juridiction les diocèses de Scutari (Shkodër), de «Sappa» (la région des montagnes entre les fleuves Drin et Fanit) et d’Alessio (Lezhë). La population catholique se concentrait notamment dans la région d'Antivari (le kazâ de Karadağ dans le sancâk de Shkodër), ainsi que dans les montagnes au nord et au sud du Drin (le sancâk de Dukagjin). Sur l’Albanie à l’époque ottomane, et notamment sur les catholiques albanais, cf. Halil İnalcık, “Arnawutluk”, dans The Encyclopaedia of Islam, v. 1, p. 670-678; Peter Bartl, “Die Albaner-Versammlung von Dukagjin im Jahre 1608”, dans Beiträge zur Südosteuropa- Forschung. Anläßlich des II. Internationalen Balkanologenkongresses in Athen, 7.V.-13.V.1970, Munich 1970, p. 7-14; Bazilije Pandžic', “L’opera della S. Congregazione per le popolazioni della Penisola Balcanica centrale”, dans Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum, v. 1 i (1622-1700), p. 292-315; Stravo Skendi, Religion in Albania during Ottoman Rule, Boulder, CO 1988. 51 Cf. Slot, Archipelagus. 52 ASV, B.C., b. 250-II, f. 133, l. 5. Sur le montant du peşkeş versé par des ecclésiastiques orthodoxes, cf. Kabrda, Système Fiscal, p. 59-60. 53 Ibidem, l.12 54 Bizzi, “Relatione”, p. 64. 55 ASV, B.C., b. 345, entre 58 et 69/6. 56 Ce passage concernant le pouvoir d’intervention de l’ecclésiastique en cas de divorce d’une de ses ouailles est également présent dans le renouvellement du berât accordé à An- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul LE CLERGÉ CATHOLIQUE FACE AU POUVOIR OTTOMAN 215 (pour l’église catholique le mariage étant indissoluble et le divorce par conséquent impossible), elles montrent bien comment le clergé, se faisant reconnaître par la Porte un pouvoir dans ce domaine, cherchait à éviter que les catholiques ottomans s’adressaient aux prélats orthodoxes ou aux cadis pour obtenir un divorce afin de limiter des pratiques qui, pour l’Eglise catholique post-tridentine, n’étaient que des «abus». On sait par ailleurs que les religieux catholiques dans l’Empire ottoman cherchaient à empêcher les mariages mixtes (entre femmes catholiques et musulmans ou entre orthodoxes et catholiques), ces unions étant pour eux une des causes de ces «abus».57 Autrement dit, Rome essayait de protéger les catholiques résidant dans l’Empire ottoman des influences de l’église orthodoxe et de l’islam, où la répudiation et le divorce étaient licites. On comprend alors pourquoi ces précisions sont absentes du berât de Carga.58 Ce dernier, étant en effet l’évêque d’une île presque entièrement peuplée de catholiques, n’avait probablement pas (ou presque pas) à se confronter à ces «abus». C’était le contraire à Chio59 (où Balsarini était évêque) et dans le diocèse d’Antivari (où Bizzi avait été nommé archevêque), où la population catholique était loin d’être majoritaire60 et les mariages mixtes devaient être nombreux. La seconde différence entre les berât étudiés ici concerne les questions d’héritage. J’ai évoqué plus haut que dans le berât de Carga, il était établi que tout testament de religieux en faveur des pauvres de l’église était accepté par la Porte (droit de fonder des vaḳf).61 Dans les berât de Bizzi, il apparaît aussi que les biens du religieux décédé d’un montant supérieur à 5000 aspres revenaient au Trésor impérial. Quand la valeur des biens était inférieure à 5000 aspres, ils allaient à l’évêque.62 Pour comprendre toute l’importance de ce passage et sa signification profonde dans le cadre de l’étude du positionnement du clergé catholique, il faut se tourner vers l’analyse des berât accordés à des évêques orthodoxes. Prenons comme exemple de comparaison le brevet de nomination à l’évêché de Karpathos (une île du Dodécanèse) d’un religieux orthodoxe (un certain pâpâ Yani), document daté du 30 juin 1551.63 Ce berât présente, dans son ensemble, la même structure et les mêmes termes que les berât accordés au clergé catholique. Néanmoins, il révèle que l’évêque orthodoxe de Karpathos dépendait dans l’exercice de son autorité d’un pouvoir hiérarchiquement supérieur, celui du patriarche de Constantinople. drea Soffiano, évêque de Chio de 1642 à 1648. Le texte du brevet a été publié en traduction anglaise dans Paul Rycaut, The present state of the Greek and Armenian churches, anno Christi 1678, Londres 1679, p. 115-118. 57 Heyberger, “Les Chrétiens”. 58 ASV, B.C., b. 250-II, f. 133. 59 Sur Chio à l’époque ottomane, cf. Argenti, Religious Minorities. 60 Sauf, comme je l’ai souligné ci-dessus, dans certaines parties de l’archevêché d’Antivari. 61 ASV, B.C., b. 250-II, f. 133, l. 11 et 16-17. 62 Bizzi, “Relatione”, p. 64. 63 APO, dossier 1b, document 20. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELISABETTA BORROMEO 216 En effet, à la différence de Marino Bizzi, qui, je l’ai souligné, était le bénéficiaire des petits héritages, le berât accordé à Pâpâ Yani précise que les legs inférieurs à 5000 aspres de religieux morts sans héritiers revenaient au patriarche, c’est-à-dire au patriarche de Constantinople.64 La mention du patriarche orthodoxe de Constantinople figure également dans le renouvellement du berât attribué au moine Kalistos, confirmé dans ses fonctions d’évêque de Leros, Kalimnos et Astipalea, le 24 mars 1567.65 Dans ce document, on apprend en effet que la Porte lui avait accordé le berât, sa nomination ayant reçu «l’accord du patriarche de la ville bien gardée d’Istanbul (maḥrûse-i Istânbul baṭrîği ma‘rifeti-ile)».66 Compte tenu du fait que, pour le clergé catholique, l’évêque bénéficiait de l’héritage des religieux, et que les berât qui lui ont été accordés ne mentionnent jamais d’autorité centrale pour tous les sujets catholiques de l’Empire ottoman, on peut conclure que la Porte ne traitait les catholiques comme une seule communauté. Bien d’avantage, il existait pour elle autant de communautés catholiques qu’il y avait d’évêques ou d’archevêques. Dans les deux brevets de nomination accordés aux évêques orthodoxes, on trouve par contre la mention d’une procédure d’enregistrement, détail absent dans les brevets de nomination accordés au clergé catholique. Il ressort ainsi que pour ces deux ecclésiastiques orthodoxes, l’octroi du berât n’était possible que si leur évêché avait été préalablement enregistré: «defterde pisḳopôsliği üzerinde muḳarrer olmağın bu berât-ı hümâyünı verdüm (Comme son évêché est confirmé dans le registre, je lui ai remis le présent berât impérial)», lit-on par exemple dans le brevet de Pâpâ Yani.67 A ce propos, il est intéressant de souligner que les archives ottomanes conservent des registres concernant l’organisation des évêchés orthodoxes. Dans les Piskopos mukâtaası defterleri (Kâmil Kepeci),68 on a en effet enregistré les berât et les ordres concernant les ecclésiastiques dépendant des patriarcats orthodoxes de Constantinople, de Jérusalem, d’Alexandrie, d’Antioche, d’Ohrid et d’Ipek (Peč) ainsi que les documents portant sur le patriarcat arménien de Constantinople, pour 64 “bir keşiş veyâ bir pâpâs mürd olub vâriṣi ḳalmasa evvelden olıgelen ḳânûn üzre rızḳınuñ beş biñden aşağası patrîḳ içün ẓabṭ olınub (si un moine ou un pope meurt sans héritier, en application du ḳânûn ayant cours précédemment, ce qui dans son héritage sera inférieur à 5000 [aspres] sera saisi pour le patriarche)”, Ibidem, l. 12-13 (translittération et traduction de M. Nicolas Vatin). 65 APO, dossier 1b, document 36. 66 Ibidem, l.2. 67 APO, dossier 1b, document 20, l. 6 (translittération et traduction par M.Nicolas Vatin). Le berât du moine Kalistos est lui aussi renouvelé parce qu’il “a été confirmé que cette métropolite [l’évêché des îles de Leros, Kalimnos et Astipalea] revenait bien au susdit [Kalistos] selon le registre kaghanien”, APO, dossier 1b, document 36, l. .5-6 (traduction par M.Nicolas Vatin). 68 Istanbul, Başbakanlık Arşivi. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul LE CLERGÉ CATHOLIQUE FACE AU POUVOIR OTTOMAN 217 une période allant de 1641 à 1837.69 Ces registres ont été émis par un des offices de la chancellerie des finances de l’Empire pour enregistrer tous les documents concernant les revenus liés à la charge d’évêque. Dans la liste des sièges de métropolites et des évêques que Halil İnalcık a tirée du premier de ce registre (1641-1651), on trouve aussi des évêchés/archevêchés catholiques, présentés cependant comme s’ils étaient dépendant des différents patriarcats orthodoxes.70 Ceci est tout à fait significatif de la position ambiguë de l’Église catholique face au pouvoir ottoman: cela prouve en effet que la Porte reconnaissait certes les ecclésiastiques catholiques, mais en les considérant cependant comme faisant partie de l’organisation de l’Église orthodoxe, au moins du point de vue fiscal et dans certaines régions de l’Empire. On sait d’ailleurs que cette situation peu claire pouvait donner lieu à des conflits entre les religieux orthodoxes et le clergé catholique, qui se livraient en effet à une rivalité parfois acharnée pour des questions de juridiction ecclésiastique (comme par exemple au sujet de la perception de la dîme que les fidèles devaient verser à l’Église), les deux parties tentant souvent de résoudre leur conflit en sollicitant des ordres du sultan en leur faveur.71 Dans les villages situés le long de la Bojana, où le patriarche orthodoxe de Peč avait essayé de percevoir de la population de rite latin les impôts dont ses ouailles étaient redevables, l’archevêque catholique d’Antivari, Marino Bizzi, s’était par exemple adressé aux cadi et voïvode d’Ulcinj pour mettre un terme à ces extorsions, en obtenant un ordre du sultan en sa faveur.72 Bien que ne pouvant pas arriver à des conclusions définitives vu le nombre limité d’exemples ici analysés, cette étude comparative de quelques berât accordés à des ecclésiastiques orthodoxes et catholiques s’est révélé, je crois, riche d’enseignements. Il a été montré que les évêques et les archevêques que Rome nommait dans les différents diocèses de l’Empire ottoman devaient obtenir un berât de la Porte. Grâce à ces berât, les religieux acquéraient en effet la reconnaissance officielle du sultan en tant que chefs des zimmî de rite latin. L’autorité fiscale et juridictionnelle de l’ecclésiastique était explicitée en matière de nomination des curés et des missionnaires, de contrôle de leur activité, de gestion des affaires internes à la communauté catholique. En cela, je l’ai souligné, la situation du 69 Sur ces registres, cf. İnalcık, “Ottoman Archival Materials”. 70 L’archevêché des catholiques (efrenciyye) d’Antivari apparaît ainsi dépendre du patriarcat de Constantinople; l’évêché des catholiques (efrenciyan) de l’île non identifiée d’Andrea du patriarche orthodoxe d’Ohrid ; l’évêché des chrétiens dépendant des religieux latins (ruhbânân-i Latin) des sancâk de Bosnie, Kilis, Hersek du patriarche orthodoxe de Peč (ibidem, p. 441-444). 71 Cf. par exemple Bizzi, “Relatione”, p. 128 et 131; Vincenzo Zmajevich, “Notizie Universali dello stato di Albania, e dell’operato da Monsig.r Vincenzo Zmaievich Arcivescovo di Antivari Visitatore Apostolico dell’Albania”, dans Quellen und Materialien zur Albanischen Geschichte im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, éd. Peter Bartl, Munich 1979, p. 127. 72 Bizzi, “Relatione”, p. 149-150. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELISABETTA BORROMEO 218 clergé catholique n’avait rien d’exceptionnel, les berât du clergé orthodoxe ayant la même teneur. On a vu que, à première vue, ces brevets de nomination octroyés aux ecclésiastiques orthodoxes ne présentaient pas de différences majeures dans leur structure et leur contenu, l’évêque se voyant attribuer les mêmes compétences que celles accordées aux ecclésiastiques catholiques pour ce qui relève de la discipline interne de la communauté et du statut personnel (mariage, héritage). Il semble cependant que les évêques orthodoxes jouissaient d’une protection plus poussée que les ecclésiastiques catholiques. À la fin du berât octroyé à Pâpâ Yani, on précise en effet qu’on ne doit pas convertir les mécréants (les ouailles de l’évêque) par la force à l’islam;73 que les musulmans n’ont pas le droit d’entrer dans son église pour commettre des actes de violences;74 «qu’on ne lui prenne pas sans raison ses chevaux et mulets quand il va collecter les taxes».75 Il s’agit d’un passage absent des trois berât accordés aux religieux catholiques, un silence très significatif: il révèle en effet la faiblesse de l’église catholique dans l’Empire ottoman, due, comme je l’ai rappelé à plusieurs reprises, à l’absence d’une autorité catholique suprême reconnue par la Porte. Ce vide de pouvoir explique aussi pourquoi le clergé orthodoxe et catholique n’accomplissaient pas les mêmes démarches pour obtenir le berât (et, par conséquence, n’étaient pas de la même façon légitimés par le pouvoir ottoman). Les berât octroyés aux ecclésiastiques catholiques étaient obtenus à titre individuel et non au nom de celui qui occupait la fonction de «patriarche latin», le vicaire patriarcal de Constantinople, qui ne fut jamais reconnu par la Porte en tant que chef des catholiques résidant dans l’Empire. Tout au contraire, c’était une instance laïque (la Magnifica Comunità di Pera), formellement reconnue par la Porte par les capitulations accordées aux Génois de Galata en 1453,76 qui représentait les catholiques dans la capitale. Néanmoins, son pouvoir déclina lorsqu’en 1682 la Congrégation de la Propaganda Fide lui enleva entièrement l’administration des biens ecclésiastiques. Ce développement fut accéleré par l’influence des puissances occidentales qui allait grandissant dans les affaires concernant les catholiques de l’Empire. C’était donc souvent (mais pas toujours) par l’intermédiaire des puis- 73 APO, dossier 1b, document 20, l. 16. 74 Ibidem, l. 16-17. 75 “rüsûm cem‘ine giderken atların ve ḳatırların kimesne bî-vech almıyalar”, Ibidem, l.16-17 (translittération et traduction par M. Nicolas Vatin). 76 Cet ‘ahdnâme fut renouvelé en 1613, 1617, 1624 et 1652. Sur les capitulations accordées aux Génois de Galata, cf. Halil İnalcık, “Ottoman Galata, 1453-1553”, dans Première rencontre internationale sur l’Empire ottoman et la Turquie moderne, Paris, 18-22 janvier 1985: 1. Recherches sur la ville ottomane: le cas du quartier de Galata. II. La vie politique, économique et socioculturelle de l’Empire ottoman à l’époque jeune-turque, éd. Edhem Eldem, Paris/Istanbul 1991, p. 17-31 et la bibliographie. Sur la Magnifica Comunità di Pera, cf. A. Belin, cit.; C. Saih, Notice historique sur la communauté latine ottomane, Constantinople 1908; E. Dalleggio d’Alessio, “La communauté latine de Constantinople au lendemain de la conquête ottomane”, Échos d’Orient 36 (1937), p. 309-317. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul LE CLERGÉ CATHOLIQUE FACE AU POUVOIR OTTOMAN 219 sances catholiques que l’ecclésiastique se voyait accorder un berât. D’ailleurs, Rome choisissait souvent les évêques et les archevêques sous la pression des pouvoirs européens. On a vu que Venise avait par exemple commencé à appuyer la nomination de Giovanni Andrea Carga longtemps avant sa nomination. Ces négociations masquaient souvent des conflits acharnés entre les puissances occidentales qui cherchaient à exercer et à affirmer leur influence dans l’Empire ottoman.77 La nomination par Rome (un processus souvent long) n’était ainsi que la première étape d’une procédure, parfois riche d’obstacles, auprès de la Porte pour que l’ecclésiastique soit reconnu dans ses fonctions par le pouvoir ottoman. L’absence d’un chef religieux reconnu, et, par conséquence, d’un contrôle centralisé des sujets catholiques de l’Empire, explique aussi pourquoi, contrairement au cas des ecclésiastiques orthodoxes, l’obtention des berât par les religieux catholiques ne requérait ni l’accord du patriarche (et pour cause) ni l’enregistrement préalable de leur évêché dans la chancellerie ottomane. À la différence de l’Église orthodoxe, à la tête de laquelle figurait le patriarche de Constantinople, les catholiques zimmî ne disposaient pas d’organisation qui était autorisée à les représenter comme un ensemble plus ou moins cohérent: le gouvernement ottoman ne leur donnait qu’une légitimation «régionale» par des berât accordés aux divers évêques et archevêques. De son côté, Rome tentait d’exercer son contrôle sur l’organisation ecclésiastique dans l’Empire ottoman et sur les catholiques de l’Empire en se servant des voies diplomatiques des puissances occidentales, qui ne se privèrent d’ailleurs pas de se disputer la protection des catholiques dans l’Empire ottoman. Sources d’archives Archives du monastère de Saint-Jean de Patmos (APO), dossier 1b. Archivio di Stato, Venezia (ASV), fonds Bailo a Constantinopoli (BC), busta 250-II, busta 345. Références bibliographiques Anastassiadou-Dumont, Meropi (éd.), Identités confessionnelles et espace urbain en terre d’Islam, numéro spécial de la Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 107-110 (2005). Argenti, Philip P. (éd.), The Religious Minorities of Chios, Jews and Roman Catholics, Londres 1970. Bartl, Peter, “Die Albaner-Versammlung von Dukagjin im Jahre 1608“, dans Beiträge zur Südosteuropa-Forschung. Anläßlich des II. Internationalen Balkanologenkongresses in Athen, 7.V.-13.V.1970, Munich 1970, p. 7-14. 77 Cf. Slot, Archipelagus. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELISABETTA BORROMEO 220 Belin, M.A., Histoire de la Latinité de Constantinople, Paris 21894. Bizzi, Marino, “Relatione della visita fatta da me Marino Bizzi, Arcivescovo d’Antivari, nelle parti della Turchia, Antivari, Albania e Servia. Alla Santità di Nostro Signore Papa Paolo Quinto”, dans [Franjo Rački (éd.)] “Izvještaj barskoga nadbiskupa Marina Bizzia o svojem putovanju god. 1610 po Arbanaskoj i Staroj Srbiji”, Starine. Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i umjetnosti 20 (1888), p. 51-156. Bon, Ottaviano, “Relazione del nobil homo ser Ottaviano Bon, ritornato dal bailaggio di Costantinopoli, letta nell'eccellentissimo Senato a IX giugno MDCIX”, dans Relazioni di ambasciatori veneti al senato. Vol. XIV. Relazioni inedite (1512-1789), éd. Maria Pia Pedani-Fabris, Padoue 1996, p. 479-523. −, “Massime essentiali dell’Impero ottomano dal Bailo Ottaviano Bon,” dans Le Relazioni degli Stati europei lette al Senato dagli ambasciatori veneziani nzl secolo decimosettimo - Turchia, éd. Nicolò Barozzi et Guglielmo Berchet, Venise 1871, p. 116-124. −, Relazione del Serraglio dell’imperatore de’ Turchi, Venise 1684. Braude, Benjamin et Bernard Lewis (éds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. The Functioning of a Plural Society 1-2, New York/Londres 1982. Cohen, Amnon, Jewish Life under Islam: Jerusalem in the sixteenth century, Cambridge, Mass./Londres 1984. Dalleggio d’Alessio, Eugène, “La communauté latine de Constantinople au lendemain de la conquête ottomane”, Échos d’Orient 36 (1937), p. 309-317. Desaive, Dilek, “Les documents en ottoman des fonds des archives du baile à Constantinople”, Turcica 33 (2001), p. 369-377. Dizionario biografico degli Italiani 1-70. General Editor: Alberto M. Ghisalberti, Rome 1960-2007. Düzdağ, E., Şeyhülislâm Ebussuûd Efendi Fetvaları: 16. Asır Türk Hayatı, Istanbul 1983. Džaja, S.M., Konfessionalität und Nationalität Bosniens und der Herzegowina. Voremanzipatorische Phase 1463-1804, Munich 1984. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition 1-11, Leiden 1960-2004. Farlato, Daniele, Illyrici sacri tomus septimus, Venise 1817. Frazee, Charles A., Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire, 1453- 1923, Londres 1983. Gök, Nedjet, “An introduction to the Berat in Ottoman Diplomatics”, Bulgarian Historical Review 3-4 (2001), p. 141-150. Goodwin, Godfrey (éd.), The Sultan’s Seraglio. An Intimate Portrait of Life at the Ottoman Court. From the Seventeenth-Century Edition of John Withers (1625, 1650), Londres 1996. Heyberger, Bernard, Les chrétiens du Proche-Orient au temps de la Réforme catholique (Syrie, Liban, Palestine, XVIIe-XVIIIe siècles), Rome 1994. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul LE CLERGÉ CATHOLIQUE FACE AU POUVOIR OTTOMAN 221 Hofmann, G., Vescovadi cattolici della Grecia. III Syros, Rome 1937. İnalcık, Halil, “Ottoman Archival Materials on Millets”, dans Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. The Functioning of a Plural Society 1-2, éd. Benjamin Braude et Bernard Lewis, New York/Londres 1982, v. 1, p. 447-448. −, “Ottoman Galata, 1453-1553”, dans Première rencontre internationale sur l’Empire ottoman et la Turquie moderne, Paris, 18-22 janvier 1985: I. Recherches sur la ville ottomane: La cas du quartier de Galata. II. La vie politique, économique et socio-culturelle de l’Empire ottoman à l’époque jeune-turque, éd. Edhem Eldem, Paris/Istanbul 1991, p. 17-116. Jačov, Marko, I Balcani tra Impero ottomano e potenze europee (sec. XVI e XVII). Il ruolo della diplomazia pontificia, Cosenza 1997. Jennings, Ronald C., Christians and Muslim in Ottoman Cyprus and the Mediterranean World, 1571-1640, New York/Londres 1993. Kabrda, Josef, Le système fiscal de l’église orthodoxe dans l’Empire ottoman, Brno 1969. Mantran, Robert, “Foreign Merchants and the Minorities in Istanbul during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, dans Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. The Functioning of a Plural Society 1-2, éd. Benjamin Braude et Bernard Lewis, New York/Londres 1982, v. 1, p. 127-137. Marmara, Rinaldo, “Comptes rendus du cimetière latin de Constantinople: Une source inconnue pour l'histoire de la latinité”, Journal asiatique 291 (2003), p. 221-247. −, Pancaldi. Quartier levantin du XIXe siècle, Istanbul, 2004. −, Le registre du bagne de Constantinople, Montpellier 2004. Masters, Bruce, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: The Roots of Sectarianism, Cambridge 2001. Matteucci, Gualberto, La missione francescana, II. Il suo organizzarsi e fecondo apostolato sotto i Turchi (1585-1704), Florence 1975. Metzler, Josef (éd.), Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum. 350 ans au service des missions. 1622-1972, Rome/Fribourg/Vienne 1971-1973. Pandžic', Bazilije, “L’opera della S. Congregazione per le popolazioni della Penisola Balcanica centrale”, dans Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum. 350 ans au service des missions. 1622-1972, éd. J. Metzler, Rome/Fribourg/Vienne 1971-1973, p. 292-315. Pétridès, Sophrone, “Le vénérable Jean-André Carga, évêque latin de Syra (1560- 1617)”, Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 5 (1900), p. 407-422. Petrocchi, Massimo, La politica della Santa Sede di fronte all’invasione ottomana, 1444-1718, Naples 1955. Pinzani, Francesco Luigi, Vita del venerabile Monsignore Giovanni Andrea Carga di Sandaniele, vescovo e martire di Sira, Sandaniele 1855. Poumarède, Géraud, Pour en finir avec la Croisade, Paris 2004. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELISABETTA BORROMEO 222 Rycaut, Paul, The present state of the Greek and Armenian churches, anno Christi 1678, Londres 1679. Saih, C., Notice historique sur la communauté latine ottomane, Constantinople 1908. Skendi, Stravo, Religion in Albania during Ottoman Rule, Balkan Cultural Studies, Boulder, CO 1988. Slot, B.J., Archipelagus Turbatus. Les Cyclades entre colonisation latine et occupation ottomane c.1500-1718 1-2, Istanbul 1982. Stadtmüller, Georg, “Die Visitationsreise des Erzbischofs Marino Bizzi”, dans Serta Monacensia, éd. Hans Joachim Kissling, Leiden 1952, p. 184-199. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Islâm Ansiklopedisi 1-, Istanbul 1988-. Vatin, Nicolas, “Note préliminaire au catalogage du fonds ottoman des archives du monastère de Saint-Jean à Patmos”, Turcica 33 (2001), p. 333-337. Zmajevich, Vincenzo, “Notizie Universali dello stato di Albania, e dell’operato da Monsig.r Vincenzo Zmaievich Arcivescovo di Antivari Visitatore Apostolico dell’Albania”, dans Quellen und Materialien zur Albanischen Geschichte im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, éd. Peter Bartl, Munich 1979, p. 3-169. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Apostasy or ‘a House Built on Sand’. Jews, Muslims and Christians in East-Syriac texts (1500-1850) Heleen Murre-van den Berg Introduction The Church of the East belongs to the more isolated minorities of the Ottoman Empire and Iran. From the sixteenth to the nineteenth century its adherents were usually known as “Nestorians”, at least to those outside the church. When the Abbasids ruled in Baghdad the religious and secular leader of this church, the Patriarch (katolīkos patrīarkā), was for a long time the most influential non-Muslim at court. Then again, in the early decades of Mongol reign over Persia, the Church of the East enjoyed privileges far above those of other religious groups in the region. However, in the fourteenth and early fifteenth century the church lost much of its former prominence. Most of its dioceses in China, Central Asia and Persia disappeared as a result of war losses, plagues and conversions to Islam.1 When in the early sixteenth century the Ottomans expanded their empire to the provinces of Baghdad, Mosul, Van and Diyarbakir, the former multi-national Church of the East had become a small, ethnic church in the periphery of the empires of the time. Even Baghdad had lost most of its Christians, the cities of Mosul and Diyarbakir being the only cultural centers of some importance that boasted sizable communities of the Church of the East. The majority of East- Syriac Christians, however, were found in the villages on the plains northwest and north of Mosul, in the mountainous region of Hakkari, and on the plains east of Hakkari in northwestern Iranian Azerbaijan. They lived among Kurdish, Azeri and Arab (mainly Sunni) Muslims, alongside other religious minorities such as Jews and Yezidis. When discussing the position of religious minorities in the two Middle Eastern empires of the time this group is worth a closer look, not least because their modern history is still largely unwritten. In this contribution I will address the question that arises directly from the theme of the present volume: how did the Church of the East position itself within the multi-religious context of its time? 1 On the history of the Church of the East, see Wilhelm Baum, Dietmar W. Winkler, The Church of the East: A Concise History, London/New York 2003, and Christoph Baumer, The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity, London/New York 2006. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul HELEEN MURRE-VAN DEN BERG 224 The Church of the East between 1500 and 1850 As stated above, around 1500 the Christians of the Church of the East had largely become a mono-ethnic, mono-lingual group; a group that spoke a modern dialect of Aramaic called Sureth and used Classical Syriac (also a form of Aramaic) in the church and for any formal writing. Additionally, some Arabic, Kurdish, (Azeri) Turkish and Persian was spoken by many members of this group, whereas a small minority of the Christians spoke Arabic as their first language. Even fewer were able to write in Persian or Arabic. The East Syriac community functioned as an independent ṭāʾifa, defined by religion, officially perhaps under the Greek patriarch, but in practice largely independent.2 A considerable part of this community lived in the Hakkari mountains, where Kurdish tribes were semi-autonomous. The Christian tribes (āshīrāṯē) were part of the tribal federations, and the day-to-day political dealings of the patriarch, their clerical and worldly leader, were with the Kurdish beys of the region rather than with the governors in the Ottoman cities.3 Most of the Christians, in the mountains as well on the Mosul plain, were small farmers in a rural economy. Landlords who resided in Mosul, most of them from influential Muslim families, held large tracts of lands, making most of their income by means of a variety of taxes on produce and land tenure.4 A small minority of the Christians of this region were relatively rich. In the city of Mosul there were important Christian merchant families, one of whose members became famous because of his travels to southern Europe, Mexico and Peru in the late seventeenth century.5 2 Surprisingly little is known about how this group functioned within the millet system before the 19th century; the sources suggest that the patriarch often had direct relations with the offices of the governors of Van or Diyarbakir, or even with the Sultan in Istanbul. The Greek patriarch appears to have played a minimal role. Two major incidents described in the literature are the conversion of Yohannan Sulaqa to Catholicism in the 1550s, and that of Yosep of Diyarbakir in the 1680s. In both cases, the traditional party strongly opposed this move with the help of the Ottoman authorities, who on request put Sulaqa in prison (which probably led to his death), whereas they delayed issuing the necessary berats to Yosep of Diyarbakir. Cf. Joseph Habbi, “Signification de l’union chaldéenne de Mar Sulaqa avec Rome en 1553,” L’Orient Syrien 11 (1966), pp. 99-132, 199-230, and Albert Lampart, Ein Märtyrer der Union mit Rom: Joseph I., 1681-1696, Patriarch der Chaldäer, Einsiedeln 1966. 3 This, of course, depended on where the patriarch was located; this varied considerably during the period; see my “The Patriarchs of the Church of the East from the Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries,” Hugoye 2 ii (1999) [http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/index.html]. 4 On the social-economic situation, see Dina Rizk Khoury, State and Provincial Society in the Ottoman Empire: Mosul, 1540-1834, Cambridge 1997. See in particular Ch. 7, “The Practice of Politics,” for examples involving the Christians of Alqosh, Telkepe and Qaraqosh. 5 For an English translation of the travelogue of Khoury Ilyas Hanna al-Mawsuli (1668- 1683), see Nabil Matar (ed. and transl.), In the Lands of the Christians: Arabic Travel Writing in the Seventeenth Century, New York/London 2003; for further references see also Georg Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, vol. 3 and 4: Die Schriftsteller von der Mitte des 15. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APOSTASY OR ‘A HOUSE BUILT ON SAND’ 225 This priest (ḥurī), Ilyās Ḥannā al-Mawṣulī, was a Chaldean, that is, like most of these merchant families he belonged to the Catholic part of the Church of the East. In the last decades of the seventeenth century, Capuchin missionaries had become active in Diyarbakir and Mosul, and had succeeded in converting part of the Church of the East to their creed. The patriarchate that arose due to their labors in Diyarbakir was more successful than the early union of the mid-sixteenth century, which had quickly fallen apart.6 Protestant missionaries arrived in the region in the 1830s, but their activities, which introduced the printing press and general education, belong to another chapter of the history of this church.7 The most important achievement of the Church of the East was the enormous amount of manuscripts produced in this period. The vast majority of East Syriac manuscripts that have survived until today, both in western and eastern collections, were written during this time. The majority of these are older texts, often of a liturgical nature, which were in active use in the period. New texts, however, were added to the earlier ones and testify to ongoing literary and theological developments. Most of the new texts have not been published or studied, but those that are available provide interesting insights into the theology and worldview of the times. For this contribution, two sources in the vernacular language are important. The first is a translation of the Gospel lectionary with interesting exegetical excursions, produced by deacon Israel of Alqosh in the late 60s of the eighteenth century.8 The second source consists of a number of popular hymns in Sureth, the durikyāṯā, composed by a priest from the early seventeenth century, also called Israel of Alqosh, and another seventeenth-century priest, Yosep of Telkepe. These hymns have been studied and edited by Alessandro Mengozzi and show some of the riches of the, largely unedited, popular Christian poetry of the time in Sureth and Classical Syriac.9 The creative use of traditional themes in commentary and poetry will be important for understanding the position of the bis zum Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts, Vatican 1951, vol. 4, pp. 97-9. On the Christian merchant families, see Khoury, State and Provincial Society, pp. 143, 147-48. 6 Lampart, Ein Märtyrer, pp. 216-19. Note that Ilyās’ journey is contemporaneous with the beginnings of the Capuchin mission in Mosul in the early 1660s, cf. Ignazio da Seggiano, L’opera dei Cappuccini per l’unione dei cristiani nel Vicino Oriente durante il secolo XVII, Rome 1962, p. 118. 7 H.L. Murre-van den Berg, From a Spoken to a Written Language: The Introduction and Development of Literary Urmia Aramaic in the Nineteenth Century, Leiden 1999. 8 The text has so far not been published; for a description see my “A Neo-Aramaic Gospel Lectionary Translation by Israel of Alqosh (Ms. Syr 147, Houghton Library, Harvard University, 1769/70),” in Loquentes Linguis: Studi linguistici e orientali in onore di Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti, eds. Pier Giorgio Borbone, Alessandro Mengozzi, Mauro Tosco, Wiesbaden 2006, pp. 523-33. A short description of the manuscript was published by Moshe H. Goshen- Gottstein, Syriac Manuscripts in the Harvard College Library: A Catalogue, Missoula, Montana 1979, p. 98. 9 Alessandro Mengozzi, Israel of Alqosh and Joseph of Telkepe: A Story in a Truthful Language, Religious Poems in Vernacular Syriac (North Iraq, 17th century) 1-2, Leuven 2002. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul HELEEN MURRE-VAN DEN BERG 226 Church of the East among the other religious communities. In addition to these theological texts, the colophons of the manuscripts of the period provide information essential for the understanding of the themes of the times. Many of these have been published in the manuscript catalogues, albeit partially.10 One of the most insightful early western texts on the Church of the East is the travelogue of the American missionary explorers Eli Smith and Harrison Dwight, who visited the Urmia region in the early spring of 1831. Their explicit aim was to gather as much information on the life and ritual of this community and their report provides important additions to the contemporary Syriac texts.11 Jews The Jews are prominently represented in the two vernacular genres mentioned above. Both in Israel of Alqosh’s commentary and in Yosep of Telkepe’s long didactic hymn on the Parables of the Gospel, there are frequent references to the Jews (yudāyē or cammā yudāyā). These references are stereotyped and belong to the traditional theological polemics between Jews and Christians, which are also found in the theology of the Church of the East. They all circle round one basic issue: the fact that the Jews did not accept the teachings of Christ, the Messiah, and that in their place others, the Syrians, were accepted as God’s people. Israel summarizes it as follows, commenting on Lk 13,22-35: That is, the Jews were first, they were God’s people (cammā d-alāhā), they became last. And we, Syrians, who were from among the gentiles (cammē), became God’s people (cammā d-alāhā); on that day of the Resurrection we will be first.12 According to the Syriac texts, the Jews assumed they needed no repentance; they were proud and hypocritical, and in addition became angry with those sinners who, like the Prodigal Son, repented and found God’s favor – themes that are all part of the traditional exegesis of many of the parables.13 The parable of the fig tree whose owner went to great lengths to stimulate it to bear fruit is applied by both Yosep of Telkepe and deacon Israel of Alqosh to God’s attempt to convert the Jews, up to the destruction of the Temple by the later Roman Emperor Titus – 10 See my “‘I the weak scribe’: Scribes in the Church of the East in the Ottoman Period,” The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 58 i/ii (2006), pp. 9-26. 11 Eli Smith and H.G.O. Dwight, Missionary Researches in Armenia: Including a Journey Through Asia Minor, and into Georgia and Persia with a Visit to the Nestorian and Chaldean Christians of Oormiah and Salmas, London 1834. 12 Commentary by Deacon Israel of Alqosh (Seventh Sunday of the Apostles), Houghton Ms. Syr. 147, 154. 13 See, e.g., the Gospel commentaries by Ishocdad of Merv (9th c.) that remained influential until well into the Ottoman period; Margaret Dunlop Gibson (edition and translation), James Rendel Harris (introduction), The Commentaries of Isho’dad of Merv, Bishop of H ̣adatha (c.850 A.D.): in Syriac and English 1-3, Cambridge 1911. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APOSTASY OR ‘A HOUSE BUILT ON SAND’ 227 all efforts being in vain, however.14 In the epilogue of another poem, Yosep of Telkepe suggests that at the end of times the Twelve Apostles will judge the Jews because they crucified “Christ their Lord.”15 More than proud and hypocritical, the Jews are considered foolish, because they did not understand what was so easy to see: that Jesus perfected the Jewish law, that prophecy ended with the Jews in Yuhannan, the son of Zkharya, that is, John the Baptist, the seal (ḥātem) of the prophets.16 Of course, not much is new here; the gist of these comments can easily be traced to exegetical traditions that go back to the earliest phases of Christian history and in some cases have an unambiguous basis in the text of the New Testament. What struck me, however, is that despite the relative prominence of these anti-Jewish themes, I have not so far encountered a single reference to the Jewish population of the time in the texts of this period. Neither in the poetry, nor in the colophons or other historical texts do the Jews of northern Mesopotamia play any role. We know from other sources that sizable Jewish communities existed side by side with the Christian communities, in towns and villages such as Nerwa, Urmia, Amadiyah, Alqosh, Dehok, Zakho, Cizre and Mosul.17 More than that, in these regions the Jews spoke a dialect of Aramaic closely related to that of the Christians, so much so that these dialects were often mutually intelligible.18 So far the only place where I have come across references to the relationships between the two groups is the texts written by the early Protestant missionaries. The most important ones are the notes of an early missionary physician, the American Asahel Grant, who traveled in the Hakkari Mountains in the early 1840s. He published a volume in which he argued that the “Nestorians” were no other than the ten lost tribes.19 Although most of his argument is based on millennialist interpretations of the Bible and on the many cultural connections between the Jews and Christians of the region (apart from language correspon- 14 Compare Yosep of Telkepe, “On Parables”, 108-116 (Mengozzi, Israel of Alqosh vol. 1, pp. 150-52, and vol. 2, pp. 231-32), and the rather similar exegetical comments on Lk 12,57-13, 17 (Sixth Sunday of the Apostles) in Houghton Ms. Syr. 147 (Gospel Lectionary of Deacon Israel of Alqosh), ff. 151-152. 15 “On Revealed Truth”, pp. 95-96 (Mengozzi, Israel of Alqosh, vol. 1, p. 83; vol. 2, p. 186). 16 “On Parables”, pp. 155-166 (Mengozzi, Israel of Alqosh, vol. 1, pp. 162-64; vol. 2, pp. 239- 40). 17 Ora Shwartz-Be’eri, The Jews of Kurdistan: Daily Life, Customs, Arts and Crafts, Jerusalem 2000, Simon Hopkins, “Yhudē Kurdīstān b-Ereṣ Yisrāēl” [The Kurdistani Jews in Israel], Pecamīm, Studies in Oriental Jewry 56 (1993), pp. 50-74. 18 D.T. Stoddard, A Grammar of the Modern Syriac Language as Spoken in Oroomiah, Persia, and in Koordistan, New Haven 1855 [also in the Journal of the American Oriental Society 5 (1855), pp. 1-180], p. 8, writes about the Jewish dialect of the Urmia region: “It is nearly allied to the Modern Syriac, and Jews and Nestorians can understand each other without great difficulty.” 19 Asahel Grant, The Nestorians or the Lost Tribes, London 1841 [reprint Piscataway. NJ 2002]. Grant (p. 126) also noted the close similarity and mutual intelligibility of the Aramaic language as spoken by Christians and Jews respectively. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul HELEEN MURRE-VAN DEN BERG 228 dences, he notes many similarities in ‘customs’), Grant also states that most of the Christians and Jews themselves firmly believed in that relationship. There are not many independent sources which confirm that such thoughts were present in the early nineteenth century,20 but I am inclined to accept that Grant based himself on what might have been a minority tradition regarding historical origins and ethnic relationships of the early nineteenth century.21 However, as far as I am aware, nothing of this has seeped through to the Syriac and Sureth texts of the time, and we are left with the fact that the Jews take their traditional position as the counterpoint to the sincere Christian, who is exhorted to repent and believe in Christ as the Son of God, rather than being haughty, angry or foolish. Christians Before looking into the references to Muslims, I would like to dwell for a moment on the Christian self-image sketched in the same texts. The first aspect that strikes the reader is the very confident tone in which the texts speak of the Christians of Mesopotamia, denoted variously as kresṭyānē,22 mšīḥāyē 23 or cammā mšīḥāyā.24 “We, Christians” or “we the Christian people” are part of the worldwide Christian Church and represent the eastern clime of the Church that the Apostles planted in all corners of the world. According to Yosep of Telkepe, we as Christians all profess the same faith, are baptized in the same 20 Grant, The Nestorians, pp. 118-128; an earlier indication (mentioned by Grant), is found in Smith, Missionary Researches, p. 393; bishop Mar Yosep of Ada (near Urumieh in Iran) is noted to have said that “his nation derive their name Nusrány, from Nazareth, where Christ was brought up; but added the singular assertion, that they are descended from the ten tribes of Israel.” The emphasis is by Smith, who does not, however, elaborate on the issue. That the whereabouts of the ten tribes were on the mind of early missionary explorers in the region is clear from Smith’s earlier remark (p. 358), when describing the Jews of Iran: “We naturally look among them for the remains of the ten tribes; but if such were their origin, all traces of it have been effaced. They now resemble their brethren elsewhere [..]”; it remains unclear whether Smith expected a different physiognomy or different beliefs in the descendents of the ten tribes. 21 One of the likely reasons for the disappearance and actual denial of such constructions today is the fact that another historical construction became much more popular: that of the ethnic connection with the ancient Assyrians of the region. Much has been written on this subject; for an overview see my From a Spoken to a Written Language, pp. 35-8. 22 Israel of Alqosh, “On Perfection,” p. 54 (Mengozzi, Israel of Alqosh, vol. 1, p. 19; vol. 2, p. 148), Yosep of Telkepe, “On Revealed Truth,” p. 2 (ibid. vol. 1, p. 52; vol. 2, p. 168), “On Revealed Truth,” p. 78 (ibid. vol. 1, p. 78; vol. 2, p. 183). 23 Yosep of Telkepe, “On Revealed Truth,” p. 83 (ibid. vol. I, p. 80; vol. 2, p. 184), Yosep of Telkepe, “On the Life-giving Words,” p. 5 (ibid. vol. 1, p. 92; vol. 2, p. 192). 24 Israel of Alqosh, “On the Sin of Man,” p. 101 (ibid. vol. 2, p. 41; vol. 2, p. 162), Yosep of Telkepe, “On Revealed Truth,” p. 12 (ibid. vol. 1, p. 54; vol. 2, p. 170),“On Revealed Truth,” p. 26 (ibid. vol. 1, p. 58; vol. 2, p. 172). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APOSTASY OR ‘A HOUSE BUILT ON SAND’ 229 names, and obey the same God, creator of the worlds.25 As Christians, we are kneaded together in one dough, whether from Jewish, Samaritan or gentile backgrounds.26 In the colophons, the patriarch, regularly styled “of the East”, is sometimes referred to as the universal father (ābā gāwānāyā),27 or even the “second Shimcun,”28 referring to a position equal to or even higher than the “patriarch of the Westerners,” the Pope.29 The global outlook of the Church of the East in this period is underlined by the often confident tone of the letters written by the prelates of the Church of the East to the Roman Catholic Church, accepting the Pope as the head of the global church, but also stressing that in the Church in the East, boasting its own apostolic origins, local ritual and custom should be preserved.30 25 Yosep of Telkepe, “On Parables,” pp. 4-8 (ibid. vol. 1, pp. 124-25; vol. 2, pp. 214-15). In the late 1820s, Mar Yoosuf, the bishop of Ada in Iran, expounded views similar to Smith’s (Researches, p. 391); he believed that the twelve apostles evangelized the different parts of the earth, resulting in twelve sects, upon which “each apostle gave to his own sect particular institutions, which are binding upon it, and not upon the others.” Smith added that according to Mar Yoosuf, “All the twelve are orthodox, but any new thirteenth or fourteenth sect he would immediately pronounce to be heretical.” 26 “On Parables,” pp. 24-27 (ibid. vol. 1, p. 129; vol. 2, p. 218). 27 Compare Joseph-Marie Sauget, Un gazzā chaldéen disparu et retrouvé: le MS. Borgia syriaque 60, Vatican 1987, pp. 51-3: “it was completed […] in the days of the universal father [ābā gāwānāyā] Mar Eliya Catholicos Patriarch of the East”. Elsewhere, the jurisdiction of the patriarchs of the Eliya-line is described as covering the “whole orthodox East;” cf. William Wright, A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts Preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge 1901, vol. 1: Camb. Add 1975 (Wasta 1586): “It was written in the days of the father and lord of the fathers and the head of the bishops of the pastors [..] Mar Eliya Catholicos Patriarch of the most important of the Eastern corners and of all the ends of the earth of the glorious orthodox faith [rēshāt penyātā madnḥāyā w-kul sāwpē tēbēylāyē datrīṣāy shubḥā],” and Camb. Add. 1981 (Monastery of Mar Awdisho Nuhraya, Dere, 1607): “It was written in the days of the watcher and shepherd and the head of the shepherds [etc.], Mar Eliya Catholicos Patriarch of the East, mother of the lights, and of the whole glorious orthodox earth [wa-d-tēbēyl kullāh da-triṣay shubḥā].” 28 For the Syriac text of the “Indian Letters” from the early sixteenth century, see J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino –Vaticana. De scriptoribus Syris Nestorianus, Rome 1725-28, vol. 3, p. 593. For more on this text, see my “The Church of the East in the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century: World Church or Ethnic Community?” in Redefining Christian Identity: Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam, eds. J.J. van Ginkel, H.L. Murre-van den Berg, T.M. van Lint, Leuven 2005, pp. 301-320. 29 The phrase “Mar Papa, Catholicus Patriarch of the Romans and all the westerners” occurs in a famous 14th-century text, cf. Paul Bedjan (ed.), Tashcītā d-Māry Yahbalāhā pāṭrīyārkā wa-d-Rabban Ṣāumā – Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois autres patriarches, d’un prêtre et de deux laïques, nestoriens, Paris/Leipzig 21895, p. 84. See also my “The Church of the East in Mesopotamia in the Early Fourteenth Century,” in Jingjiao. The Church of the East in China and Central Asia, ed. R. Malek in connection with P. Hofrichter, Sankt Augustin 2006, pp. 377-94. 30 For an overview of these contacts, see David Wilmshurst, The Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Church of the East, 1318-1913, Leuven 2000, pp. 21-32, and for some of the letters, Samuel Giamil, Genuinae Relationes inter Sedem Apostolicam et Assyriorum Orientalium seu Chaldaeorum Ecclesiam, Rome 1902; cf., e.g., the letter of Mar Shimun (Shimun XIII Denkha, d.d. 20 April 1670), pp. 197-201. (For an Italian summary of Shimun’s correspondence with Rome, © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul HELEEN MURRE-VAN DEN BERG 230 Such global Christian identities did not exclude the continued importance of local and regional identities. The most general term that in some contexts has ethnic or linguistic connotations is that of Surāyē, “Syrians,” a term used by Israel of Alqosh to address his hearers.31 However, he never uses it to distinguish Syrians from other Christians. The term is also used by the eighteen-century deacon Israel, and in his work seems to have even less ethnic connotations, being practically synonymous with “Christians”, as in the sentence: “And those who believed in him, were baptized and became Syrians”.32 Below the level of the “Christian” or “Syriac” people, the most important part of somebody’s identity was his or her family village, town and region. In the colophons, references to the regional origins of the scribes and the donors are given as a rule. Some scribes mention both their region of origin and their present location, as for instance priest Isa, son of priest Awraham son of priest Hormizd, who wrote in 1550: “their family (gens-hon) and their origin (ṭohem-hon) are from the village of the honeybees, Oz, which is near the strong citadel of Burdqeyl. And now the humble writer dwells in the village of Basuri”. Another example comes from a manuscript written in Alqosh in 1759 and commissioned by the learned priest Giwargis, “son of priest Hormiz, of the blessed village of Aradan, in the country (aṯrā) of Sapna.”33 Most of the manuscripts come from the regions in which tribal connections were less important but the clan (cāshīraṯ) continued to be an important focus, as indicated by a prayer by Yosep of Telkepe, in the epilogue of his poem “On Revealed Truth”:34 see Lampart, Ein Märtyrer, pp. 244-49.) This patriarch, in favor of establishing a union with Rome, paid the Pope all due respect (“Father of fathers” etc.), and acknowleded him as the rightful successor of Peter, with jurisdiction “over all four corners of the earth.” He also wrote a profession of faith that acknowledged Mary as the “mother of God” and Christ as endowed with “two natures, one person” (“person” as a rather inaccurate translation of qnumā). However, Mar Shimun also made clear that he did not want to change the ritual (taksa), because he did not want to introduce “confusion” in the “body of Christ”. This all the more so because “we are bound in the hands of the heathen and the Muslims, and it is difficult therefore to change the ecclesiastical rituals that are observed in our countries.” 31 Israel of Alqosh, “On Perfection,” p. 63 (Mengozzi, Israel of Alqosh, vol. 1, p. 22; vol. 2, p. 150), Israel of Alqosh, “On the Sin of Man,” p. 23 (ibid. vol. 1, p. 27; vol. , p. 153), Israel of Alqosh, “On Shmuni,” p. 3 (ibid. vol. 1, p. 3; vol. 2, p. 164). Note that in all three cases the context is practically identical: “(Listen), come, Syrians!” 32 Houghton Ms. Syr. 147, 177-8. Cf. also the introduction to the creed, at the end of the text: “All of us Syrians who are baptized, we believe in one God …” (p. 199). It is rather unlikely that Israel should have believed there were no other Christians than the Syrians. 33 Camb. Add 1983 and 1986 (Wright, A Catalogue, vol. 1, pp. 281-82 and vol. 1, pp. 308-9). On the formal aspects of the colophons of this period, see also my “‘I the weak scribe’”. 34 Yosep of Telkepe, “On Revealed Truth,” p. 125 (Mengozzi, Israel of Alqosh, vol. 1, p. 90; vol. 1, p. 125I). Note that he adds “strangers” (nuḥrāyē), but it is unclear which kind of ‘strange’ readers or listeners he envisaged. “Stranger” is also used to denote monks, especially solitary hermits. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APOSTASY OR ‘A HOUSE BUILT ON SAND’ 231 Pray and beg for me, oh my people (nashwāṯī) / and all you people of my village (bnay māṯī) / and also strangers and people of my clan (casheryāṯī) / that the Lord may forgive my sins. Despite the use of the term Surāyē that is also used by the Syrian Orthodox to denote themselves (pronounced as Suroyē), and the shared language between the two communities (Classical Syriac and various dialects of Neo-Aramaic), the confessional differences between these two communities are not forgotten. This is indicated in a passage by Israel of Alqosh, who contrasts the faithful adherence to the traditional faith by the “Easterners” (maddenḥāyē) with that of the “Jacobites” (yacqubāyē, i.e., Syrian Orthodox) who changed it.35 However, no re-baptism would be needed when they wanted to become part of the Church of the East, as would be the case when Muslims or other “unbelievers” wanted to become Christians.36 Polemics with the Roman Catholic missionaries and those “Easterners” that were attracted to uniatism is one of the most important characteristics of this period. The struggle between these two parties was fierce at times, and often fought with political means. However important the dogmatic, spiritual and liturgical issues, power struggles between various parties within the Church of the East contributed just as much to the growing divide between the Catholics and the tradionalist party.37 Dogmatically, discussions over the position of the Pope as the head of the worldwide church, the status of Nestorius and the veneration of Mary in its Latin manifestations formed bones of contention, but all these points also had consequences for the liturgy, which in the Catholic view needed numerous adaptations.38 The colophons of the manuscripts also reflect the significance of the new ecclesiastical structures. Whenever a scribe indicated his allegiance to a patriarch and bishop, he would explicitly also acknowledge either the traditional- 35 “On Perfection,” pp. 51-2 (Mengozzi, Israel of Alqosh, vol. 1, p. 18; vol. 2, p. 147 and vol. 2, pp. 60-1). 36 According to Scher, a manuscript written in Gazarta in 1613 (Seert 40) includes rites, “to confer baptism to the heathens”, to “the sick” and “prayers to recite over Jacobites and Melkites who want to become Nestorian”, see Addai Scher, Catalogue des manuscrits syriaques et arabes conservés dans la bibliothèque épiscopale de Séert (Kurdistan), Mosul 1905, pp. 27-8. 37 For further references, see Wilmshurst, The Ecclesiastical Organisation, Habbi, “Signification de l’union chaldéenn” Lampart, Ein Märtyrer. For the larger context of the Catholic missions in the Middle East, see Bernard Heyberger, Les chrétiens du Proche-Orient au temps de la réforme catholique (Syrie, Liban, Palestine XIIe-XIVe siècles), Rome 1994; Robert Haddad, “Conversion of Eastern Orthodox Christians to the Unia in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” in Conversion and Continuity. Indigenous Christian Communities in Islamic Lands: Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries, eds. M. Gervers, J. Bikhazi, Toronto 1990, pp. 449-59, and Bruce Masters, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World. The Roots of Sectarianism, Cambridge 2001. 38 Of the clergy, one of the most active in liturgical renewal was patriarch Yosep II, see Herman Teule, “Joseph II, Patriarch of the Chaldeans (1696-1713/4), and the Book of the Magnet. First Soundings,” in Studies on the Christian Arabic Heritage V, eds. Rifaat Ebied, Herman Teule, Leuven 2004, pp. 221-41. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul HELEEN MURRE-VAN DEN BERG 232 ist or the Catholic party.39 Only few copyists wrote colophons without indicating such allegiances, and it remains to be seen whether that was the result of a conscious neutrality, or has to be attributed to reasons unknown to us. Whether this means that references to inner-Christian polemics in the vernacular poetry of Yosep of Telkepe should be interpreted as referring to the discussions with Catholicism is difficult to prove. No explicit polemics with Catholicism occur in the early Sureth texts. Interestingly, the heretics of early Syriac Christianity, Simon, Marcion and Mani, are mentioned a few times. Yosep introduces them in “On the Life-giving Words”, to warn the people of false prophets who by their learning and ascetism deceive their hearers.40 The text suggests that these “learned nazirites” and “nominal Christians” (b-šemmā mšīḥāyē) should be sought within the Christian community rather than outside it, but Yosep does not identify them, at least not for modern-day readers. The same deliberate vagueness is found in prayers for “peace among each other” or “peace in monasteries and churches” to be found in the poems and the colophons, which might refer to a variety of inner-Christian struggles.41 Muslims The most important issue in the context of this volume is the way in which the Christians speak about Islam. How do they perceive the majority religion of their time and region? First of all we should be reminded of the fact that the texts contain precious little on Islam – at least not explicitly. No contemporary polemic or dialogical texts devoted to Islam have been found so far. In many ways, however, the texts reflect the fact that these Christians are part of the Islamic world of their time. The most important sign of this is that though Arabic was certainly not the first language of the majority of these Christians, the language and its cultural connota- 39 The combination of the place names and the ecclesiastical allegiance indicated in the manuscript colophons is generally used to track the relative importance of the Chaldean and various traditional hierarchies, see my “Patriarchs of the Church of the East” and Wilmshurst, The Ecclesiastical Organisation, for many examples. 40 “On the Live-giving Words,” pp. 101-3 (Mengozzi, Israel of Alqosh, vol. 1, pp. 114-15; vol. 2, p. 208). See also Yosep of Telkepe, “On Parables,” p. 20 (ibid. vol. 1, p. 128; vol. 2, p. 217), where the same trio is mentioned as an example of “later scholars” who “abandoned the teaching of our Lord”. 41 Yosep of Telkepe, “On Parables,” pp. 184-85 (ibid. vol. 1, p, 169; vol. 2, p. 244): “Give us peace among each other, the sons of the Christian people / and grant victory to their king and sovereign // May you grant victory and sow mercy in their hearts / and may peace be in their churches and their monasteries.” An example from a colophon from a manuscript written in Telkepe in 1706: “may blessing be upon them and may the Lord give them joyful times [zabnā pṣīḥā] and a peaceful church [cumra nīḥā] to read in it.” (Camb. Add 2017, Wright, A Catalogue, vol. 2, pp. 557-8). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APOSTASY OR ‘A HOUSE BUILT ON SAND’ 233 tions influenced the Syriac tradition at many levels. The most obvious is that of names: Arabic names such as cAbd Allah, cAbd al-Masīḥ and cAbd al-Aḥad are relatively numerous, also among those writing or sponsoring Syriac manuscripts.42 The incidental use of Arabic hijra dating, usually alongside the “Christian” Seleucid and (in later times) Western AD dating, show that at least some knowledge of this chronological system existed among Syriac scribes.43 Most importantly, the languages of the region, mostly Arabic but also including Kurdish, Turkish and Persian, were a source of many loanwords for modern Sureth. Most of these loanwords are culturally neutral, often referring to food, clothing, utensils and common daily activities.44 However, terms from the religious, Islamic context also occur in the Christian texts, and a few examples of these will be discussed later. Arabic was also considered the language of culture and education and in this period began to be used again as a literary language alongside Classical Syriac. New genres such as that of autobiography were written in it, as also testified by the second Chaldean patriarch Yosep (1696-1713/4). In his short autobiography he notes that, protected by the help of Christ, he went to study in a Muslim school, because in his opinion nothing of the kind existed among the Eastern Christians.45 However, Mar Yosep did not in the first place need such knowledge of Arabic in order to ameliorate Christian-Muslim relations, but to become part of the Catholic community of the Middle East. The Catholics, including the Western missionaries, used Arabic as a lingua franca that unified the Christians of the Arabic speaking provinces of the Ottoman Empire. In my opinion, the use of 42 Most of these Arabic names are connected with manuscripts from the western and southern regions, whereas combinations of Arabic and Syriac names also occur often. Kurdish names are less prominent, at least among the men. Many of these men were priests, deacons or monks, confirming that Arabic was acceptable also in clerical circles. For references in the manuscripts (Wilmshurst, The Ecclesiastical Organisation, pp. 382-501), see: cAbd Allāh in Gazarta 1540, Diyarbakir 1546, Hesna d-Kipa 1547, Mar Pethion 1560, Gazarta 1681, Mosul 1683 and Alqosh 1727, cAbd al-Masīḥ in Rabban Hormizd/Mar Augin 1558, Alqosh 1727, and cAbd al-Aḥad in Gazarta 1561, Gazarta 1569, Mar Pethion 1686, Mosul 1696, Sharukhiya 1696, Kirkuk 1727 and Qodshanis 1731. 43 Cf. Sebastian Brock, “The Use of Hijra Dating in Syriac Manuscripts: A Preliminary Investigation,” in Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam, eds. J.J. van Ginkel, H.L. Murre-van den Berg, T.M. van Lint, Leuven 2005, pp. 275- 90; Brock lists 25 examples from East Syriac manuscripts between 1500 and 1850. On a total of about 1500 dated manuscripts from that period this is not particularly high (1,6%), but significantly higher than for manuscripts of the West-Syriac tradition. 44 Cf. Mengozzi, Israel of Alqosh, pp. 100-2, where he discusses pairs of synonyms, one of which is often a loanword from one of the neighboring languages. See further Arthur J. Maclean, A Dictionary of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac as Spoken by the Eastern Syrians of Kurdistan, North-West Persia, and the plain of Mosul, Oxford 1901, who meticulously indicates the provenance of each word. 45 For the Syriac text see Giamil, Genuinae Relationes, p. 209, for more references, also to the Arabic version, see Teule, “Joseph II,” pp. 222-34. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul HELEEN MURRE-VAN DEN BERG 234 Arabic by the Chaldeans was more a part of Catholicism than of Muslim-Christian relationships.46 Whereas the use of Arabic indicates that the Christians were not isolated from their Muslim context and were part of the same cultural milieu, the texts in Syriac, and especially in Sureth, include unambiguous polemic references to this same Muslim context. Of these allusions, the most explicit refer to the political oppression the Christians felt themselves suffering under. A typical example is the prayers in the colophons asking for protection for a certain village. In 1735, in the difficult period following the first campaign of the Persian Nadir Shah in Northern Mesopotamia, the scribe Simeon of Alqosh prays for his village and the nearby monastery:47 This book was written in the blessed and blissful village, prosperous in the orthodox faith and strong in the Pauline Gospel, Alqosh, the village of Nahum the prophet, which was set and laid out by the Lord, the Spirit, near the most holy monastery of Mar Rabban Hormizd the Persian – may our Lord protect it with his mighty right hand, and may he silence and bring to an end the oppression of the oppressors (ṭlumyā d-ṭlumē) and the taxes of the sultans [sheqlā d-shulṭānē], through the prayers of Rabban Hormizd, Amen. A year later, in 1736, his uncle, the scribe and priest Yosep of Alqosh, used even stronger words when begging for the protection of his village Alqosh:48 May the Lord Christ build it, enlarge it with his strong right hand, and quiet and withdraw from it the oppression of the oppressors, and the injustice of the wicked, and turn away from it the rage and anger of evil and barbarous men; a strong foot, I say, and a destroying hand – through the prayers of the ark of light, Mary and of the prophets of the Old and the saints of the New, Amen. Earlier attestations of similar prayers, in connection with other villages, suggest that the phrases themselves were formulaic and part of the art of writing of the 46 See Hilary Kilpatrick, “From Literatur to Adab: The Literary Renaissance in Aleppo around 1700,” The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 58 (2006), pp. 195-220, and my “Classical Syriac, Neo-Aramaic and Arabic in the Church of the East and the Chaldean Church between 1500 and 1800”, Aramaic in its Historical and Linguistic Setting, eds. H. Gzella, M.L. Folmer, Wiesbaden 2008, pp. 335-52. 47 Camb. Add 1996, see Wright, A Catalogue, vol. 1, p. 424. For the economic effects of the wars with Persia in this region, see Khoury, State and Provincial Society, pp. 64-8; a lengthy Syrian Orthodox colophon written in Qaraqosh (near Mosul) in 1746 provides an eyewitness account of the second invasion of Nadir Shah in 1743, which included the pillaging of Rabban Hormizd and Alqosh. See M.H. Pognon, “Chronique Syriaque relative au siège de Mossoul par les Persans en 1743,” in Florilegium ou recueil des travaux d’érudition dédiés à monsieur le marquis Melchior de Vogüé, ed. G. Maspero, Paris 1909. 48 Cambridge Or. 1294 (1736), in A.E. Goodman, “The Jenks Collection of Syriac Manuscripts in the University Library, Cambridge,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1939), pp. 595-96; text in Classical Syriac (personal notes): macmar-lāh māran mšīḥā. māwreb-lāh byammīnēh ḥayltanāytā. w-nšallē w-nbaṭṭel mennāh ṭlumyā d-ṭlomē w-cāwlā d-cawwālē. w-mahpek mennāh ḥemtā w-rugzā d-(')nāshē bīšē barbarāyē. reglā cašīnya, āmarnā. w-īdā bazzuztā. b-ṣlut qbut nuhrā maryam. w-da-nbīyē da-b-cattīqā wa-d-qaddīšā da-b-ḥadta, amēyn. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APOSTASY OR ‘A HOUSE BUILT ON SAND’ 235 time. However, both their more frequent occurrence in certain difficult periods and their relatively concrete description of the hardships of the time indicate that they have to be taken seriously as a description of the types of hardship endured by the Christian community.49 Usually, those who caused this adversity are not mentioned by name. Yosep of Telkepe, however, explicitly links such troubles to the Muslim rulers. The epilogue of the poem “On Revealed Truth” opens with the following exhortation to prayer:50 Come, let us glorify, Christians/ and let us keep on beseeching Him / that he make peaceful times for us / and save us from the Muslims; That he save us from the Ishmaelites / from the nations51 and the barbarians / this life has been made bitter to us / May our Lord re-establish the Greeks; That he establish the Greeks in our days / so that we might rebuild all our churches / that he bring peace to our countries / and protect our priests and pastors. The combination of the prayers in the colophons with these lines in Yosep’s poetry leads to the conclusion that in the eyes of the Christians of Mesopotamia, Muslim rule was seen as an obstacle to peace and prosperity for their community. It is Muslim landlords that oppress the Christians by taxing them highly, by not securing peace, and by prohibiting the rebuilding of churches. The colophons of this period, which in general do not include historical comments, refer in a number of cases to concrete occasions when the patriarch or the scribe was personally affected by political upheavals, usually when Kurds in Northern Iraq caused unrest in the Alqosh region, notably in 1701-2, 1717, 1751, 1823 and 1844.52 One excep- 49 Two manuscripts from the late 16th century use the same expressions in different combinations, cf. Camb. Add 1975 (Wasta 1586), in Wright, A Catalogue, vol. 1, pp. 79-80, and Ms Sachau 31(Abnaya 1591), in Eduard Sachau, Verzeichniss der Syrischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, Berlin 1899, vol. 1, pp. 129-30. In this early period such notes might refer to the Celali rebellions, see Suraiya Faroqhi, Bruce McGowan, Donald Quataert, and Şevket Pamuk, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Volume Two: 1600-1914, Cambridge 1994, pp. 433-39. 50 Yosep of Telkepe, “On Revealed Truth,” pp. 85-7, in Mengozzi, Israel of Alqosh, vol. 1, pp. 80-1; vol. 2, pp. 184-85. 51 Note that one of the variants has “oppressors” (ṭlomē) rather than “nations” (ṭohmē). 52 On the Kurdish raids in 1701/2 that caused a copyist to leave his village, see the notes in Seert 34 (Monastery of Jacob the Recluse, 1611) and Seert 47 (Seert 1702), in Scher, Catalogue, pp. 24, 31-2; on the patriarch who left Alqosh for Telkepe for fear of the Kurds in 1717, see Mosul 31 (Telkepe 1717) in A. Scher, “Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques conservés dans la bibliothèque du patriarcat chaldéen de Mossoul” Revue des Bibliothèques 17 (1907), p. 236, and Ming. 595 (Telkepe 1717) in A. Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts now in the Possession of the Trustees of the Woodbrooke Settlement, Selly Oak, Birmingham, Cambridge 1933, vol. 1, p. 1134; on the flight of Mar Ishocyaw to Seert due to raids by Oz Bek in 1751, see Seert 54 (Sduh 1610) Scher, Catalogue, p. 37; on the occupation of Semel by the Kurds in 1823, see Mosul 6/Bidawid 116 (Alqosh 1823) in Scher, “Notice”, p. 230; on the attacks by the Kurdish emir of Rawanduz on Mosul, Amadiya and Alqosh in 1832, see Dawra Syr 525 (Rabban Hormizd 1832), note in Arabic in Petrus Haddad and Jacques Isaac, Al-Makhṭūṭāt al-Suryāniyya wa-l-cArabiyya fī khizānat al- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul HELEEN MURRE-VAN DEN BERG 236 tionally long and detailed note describes a conflict between Kurdish tribes near Amadiya in 1706, in which the Mezarnaye led by “someone called Mahdi” clashed with the Yezidi Daznaye, again leading to the patriarch’s flight from Alqosh.53 In the lines quoted above, Yosep further suggests that only a change of government from “Ishmaelites” to “Greeks” could guarantee better living conditions for the Christians. Although the term “Greeks” is vague and not connected to an existing country, it probably indicates a Christian rather than a Muslim administration. This is confirmed by texts of another type. The earliest example in this period is a Syriac letter written in India in the early 1500s, after the arrival of the Portuguese. These, according to the Indian bishops who wrote the letter, were sent by “the king of the Christians of the West” who “has sent powerful ships to our country of India.” According to the clerical author, this Western Christian intervention led to a welcome defeat of local rulers, and “fear and dread is in the heart of all the pagans and Muslims of these countries.”54 This text makes clear that the West was greatly appreciated as a help in the defeat of the Muslims, be it in India or in the Middle East. That ideas such as this were current among the Christians of Kurdistan is also confirmed by texts from the end of this period, when the missionary explorers Smith and Dwight visited the region in 1831. To their own amazement and dismay, these two American pastors were seen as forerunners of the liberators from Muslim oppression, in phrases reminiscent of the Syriac text of the early 1500s, referring to the passing of government into the hands of Christian kings in order to liberate the Christians from the oppression by the Muslims.55 rahbāniyya al Kaldāniyya fī Baghdad [‘Syriac and Arabic Manuscripts the Library of the Chaldean Monastery, Baghdad’], Baghdad 1988, pp. 238-39; on the events of 1843-1844, see Camb. Add 1981 (originally from 1607, repaired in Mosul 1844) in Wright, Manuscripts, vol. 1, pp. 189-92: “Today we are dwelling in the city of Mosul because we fled before the Emir of the Bohtaye, Badr Khan Bey, the oppressor, who laid waste the region of Diz and the whole region of Tiari – he struck them with the sword and destroyed all the monasteries and churches.” 53 Camb. Add. 2017 (Telkepe 1706), in Wright, Manuscripts, vol. 2, pp. 558-60. 54 Cf. Murre-van den Berg, “The Church of the East,” p. 318, and Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. 3, pp. 595-98. Another copy of this MS is found in Berlin 59 (Urmia region, 18th c.), see Sachau, Verzeichniss, vol. 1, pp. 201-2. 55 Smith, Researches, pp. 393-94, 406. I tend to think that this longstanding expectation of foreign help was one of the reasons why in the early 1840s the Patriarch of the Church of the East was eager to be in touch with the British, French and American missionaries in the region, thereby sowing seeds of distrust among his Kurdish neighbors, which combined with larger geo-political developments unrelated to the Assyrians culminated in the massacres of Assyrian Christians by Badr Khan Bey in 1843. This factor is overlooked in the otherwise insightful overviews in Sarah D. Shields, Mosul before Iraq: Like Bees Making Five-Sided Cells, Albany, NY 2000, pp. 51-8, and John Joseph, The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East: Encounters with Western Christian Mission, Archaeologists, and Colonial Powers, Leiden 2000, pp. 74-85. Among the Armenians, similar expectations of foreign support in shaking off Muslim rule were present, leading to a number of concrete attempts at cooperation between 1500 and 1800, see Razmik Panossian, The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commissars, London 2006, pp. 110-19. It is likely that the leadership in the East Syriac community was aware of these attempts among the Armenians. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APOSTASY OR ‘A HOUSE BUILT ON SAND’ 237 Although in these references Islam as a religion is not discussed and the charges against Muslims are political rather than religious, the proposed solution (the coming of Christian kings), suggests that in the eyes of the Christians the political or economic conflict was interpreted in religious terms. The first aspect reflecting this is the fact that, in line with countless earlier Christian authors, Muslim authority over Christians was seen as punishment for their sins. Yosep of Telkepe wrote in his poem “On Divine Economy”:56 Since we have trodden on our Lord’s commandments / we have been delivered into the hand of Muslims57 into the hand of the Ishmaelite people58 / an onager, a desert ass / so our Lord called Ishmael / from the time of Abraham the chosen59 From the time of Abraham father of kings / the Lord King of kings said / that kings will rise in Ishmael60 / The Lord causes kings to rise and fall May he make the evil kings fall / so that they remain confused in the anger of our Lord! / May he make the holy kings rise / so that they have mercy for all mankind! That they show mercy and justice / May he restore peace in the villages / so that they rebuild the churches / and raise in them praises to our Lord Syriac literature, especially that of community-oriented poets such as Yosep, following in the footsteps of, for instance, Giwargis Warda of the 13th c., has always used the oppression and the adversaries of the people to exhort them to repentance and faith.61 Even more, the rise of the kings from Ishmael is part of the promise made by God to Abraham. However, the same belief in God’s hand in the rise of Muslim kings also encourages the belief in a final overthrow of their rule: in the end “holy” kings will rise and restore peace in the villages. Mengozzi, who edited and studied these texts, notes the polemical use of Arabic and Muslim terminology. Words like hādīth and sharc (> di Marin Sanudo, Rome 1979, pp. 32-39; and Barbara von Palombini, Bündiswerben abendländischer Mächte um Persien 1453-1600, Wiesbaden 1968, pp. 43ff. 14 Even Shāh Ṭahmasb, despite his image as a dour bigot deadly afraid of contamination by non-Shīʿīs, in some ways lived up the traditional image of respect for people of the Book, in casu his Armenian subjects. As several royal decrees, farmans, confirm, he recognized © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul RUDI MATTHEE 250 Khudābandah, who in 1578 succeeded the ephemeral Shāh Ismāʿīl II. Early reports about Khudābandah’s Christian leanings came from an Armenian named Juan Bautista, who was sent to Iran by the viceroy of Naples. Shāh Khudābandah sent him back to Europe. Before going to Spain, Bautista first headed for Goa, where he spread a sensationalist account about the miraculous recuperation of Hamzah Mirza, the shāh’s son who, substituting for his purblind father, at the time was Iran’s effective ruler. Hamzah Mirza was said to been persuaded by his wife, the daughter of Alexander, the ruler of Kakheti, the eastern part of Georgia, to turn to the holy cross and to promise to convert upon recovery. Bautista made it sound as if the ruler and his son had sent him to Spain with gifts and a request for missionaries who would assist in the conversion of the country.15 Shāh ʿAbbās I and Christianity The Christian notion that, eventually, Muslim rulers might convert to Christianity has old prophetic roots going back at least a far as the Mongols. In the sixteenth century this dream not just included the Safavids from Shāh Ismāʿīl onward and the Mughals under Sultan Akbar, but even the Ottoman sultan, who in Western Europe was commonly seen as the Anti-Christ. In Iran, such hopes remained alive into the reign of Nadir Shāh in the 1740s, more than a century after reaching a high point with Shāh ʿAbbās I (1587-1629).16 The sources offer abundant information about the latter’s favorable treatment of Christian missionaries, his love of religious disputation, and his interest in Christianity, its symbols and its rituals. Hopes of conversion, raised by various early travelers returning from Iran, were fueled in particular by the high-profile apostasy of three members of a Safavid mission visiting Italy, followed by the conversion of another three from among the mission’s remaining members once they had reached Spain in 1601.17 As had been the case with the Mongols, there was a strong Christian impulse at the Safavid court and the country at large, and women were an important factor in this. It is known that several Mongol rulers had Christian spouses, and even if and sponsored Armenian monasteries and lay communities in places like Marand, Nakhjavan, Kachin, Tatev, and Agulis. See A.D. Papazian, Persidskie dokumenty Matenadarana, Ukazy, vypusk 1, Yerevan 1956, docs. 12-18; summaries in Renate Schimkoreit, Regesten publizierter safawidischer Herrscherurkunden. Erlasse und Staatsschreiben der frühen Neuzeit Irans, Berlin 1982, pp. 147-48, 150, 162. 15 Alonso, “El P. Simon de Moraes,” p. 358. 16 For the belief that Nadir Shāh was ready to convert to Christianity, see Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, pp. 637, and 986-87. 17 Three members of the Iranian mission sent to Europe by Shāh ʿAbbās in 1599 converted to Christianity during their stay in Italy; another three, among them the well-known Uruch Beg, better known as Don Juan of Persia, converted and defected after arriving in Spain. See Angelo Michele Piemontese, “Les célébrités du Janicule et les diplomates safavides émigrés à Rome,” Eurasian Studies 5 (2006), pp. 271-96. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE POLITICS OF PROTECTION 251 it never led to the conversion of their husbands and the elite, the influence of several of these women on their husbands is well documented. The Safavids, in turn, recruited many of their wives and concubines from the Christian nobility of the Caucasus, and over time Georgian and Armenian women came to inhabit the harems of the elite in great numbers. One of Shāh ʿAbbās’s own wives was a Christian. She apparently worked hard to serve Isfahan’s Christian community, taking advantage of the services of Asad Beg, a favorite of the shāh who had direct access to the palace. Among the letters that Da Costa and De Miranda brought with them one was directed to her.18 All this was not lost on the missionaries. It is not for nothing that Diego da Miranda was instructed by his superiors to try and reach the shāh through the latter’s spouse.19 Robert Sherley, having returned from Iran and writing from Rome in 1609, opined that Shāh ʿAbbās was particularly friendly toward Christians since he had taken a Christian wife, the daughter of Simon Khan, one of the kings of Georgia. He called this spouse the reason why many highly placed functionaries were either Christian or favorably disposed toward Christianity. The message that Sherley had brought with him from Iran for Pope Paul V included a request for military experts and a proposal for the formation of a defensive league with Christian nations. It also spoke of the shāh’s desire for Christian missionaries who would be given full freedom to preach; and it contained a promise that ʿAbbās would make his Christian, Armenian and Georgian subjects conform to the Catholic rite.20 Shāh ʿAbbās indeed appeared very sympathetic to the Christian faith. Gregarious and affable, he would sit with missionaries and query them on their faith and its tenets; witness reports have him ask the Fathers for saintly relics, make the sign of the cross over the wine cup of his European drinking partners, and drink to the health of the pope.21 Since the missionaries themselves are typically the source for this information, one should be cautious not to take everything they say at face value. Wishful thinking with regard to the shāh’s readiness to convert may have led them to exaggerate or misread signs. Intensely competitive, members of individual orders may also have been keen to demonstrate that the Safavid ruler was particularly friendly to them as individuals or to their particular order; and some stories may even be apocryphal. But collectively they do add up to a picture of a ruler who was extraordinarily eager to learn about Christianity and its sym- 18 It remains unclear if the letter reached its destination. See Alonso, “Una embajada de Clemente,” p. 9; Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, pp. 88-89. 19 Alonso, “Una embajada de Clemente,” p. 29. 20 In Angelo Michele Piemontese, “I due ambasciatori di Persia ricevuti da Papa Paolo V al Quirinale,” Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae 12 (2005), pp. 396-97. 21 Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, pp. 93-94; Report by Fr. Paolo Maria on the state of Catholicism in Persia, 8 April 1616, in Biblioteca da Ajuda, Lisbon, Cod. 46-X-17, fol. 593v; Carlos Alonso, “El primer viaje desde Persia a Roma del P. Vicente de S. Francisco, OCD (1609-1611),” Teresianum. Ephemerides Carmelitae 40 (1989), p. 540. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul RUDI MATTHEE 252 bols and who showed great affection for some of its representatives. Father Juan Tadeo, for one, not just became Shāh ʿAbbās’s friend but his confidant, in addition to serving him as interpreter. De Gouveia—whom the shāh came to dislike over time—claims that ʿAbbās had asked him, in the company of Konstantin Mirza, a renegade Georgian prince and one of the shāh’s favorites who also served as darughah, mayor, of Isfahan, to teach him how to cross himself.22 The Portuguese envoy also recounts how the shāh, accompanied by his son Safī Mīrzā, visited the Augustinian church in Isfahan, listened to chants and inquired about the meaning of the sign with the letters IHS that adorned the altar.23 Diogo de Santa Anna, the first prior of the Augustinian convent in Isfahan, called ʿAbbās very much inclined, inclinatissimo, toward Christians. He added that the monarch had not just made the sign of the cross in front of Christian fathers, but at one point had taken a necklace with a wooden cross from one of them and put it around his own neck. The Augustinian also opined that, either because the shāh was little firm in his Muslim faith, or because of the influence his Georgian harem women, with whom he conversed more than with anyone else, had on him, had told him that he knew Mary had given birth to Christ while being a virgin. ʿAbbās, he said, had told him personally that he was a Christian at heart, to which Diogo de Santa Anna had replied that in that case one should also profess it by mouth.24 The shāh showed an especially keen interest in the visual aspect of the Christian faith. He never went as far as the Mughal Sultan Akbar, who dressed “in the Portuguese manner, with a sword and dagger,”25 but like the latter, he appeared fascinated by Christian imagery, especially in the form of illustrated Bible manuscripts and other religious works. Aleixo de Meneses, the Goan archbishop, sent a lavishly illustrated copy of a “Life of Jesus Christ,” which the Gouveia delegation took with it as a gift for the Safavid ruler, justifying this choice by referring to ʿAbbās’s well known interest in Christianity.26 In 1608, during their first visit to Iran, the Carmelites presented the shāh with a richly bound and beautifully illustrated copy of the Old Testament, the so-called Morgan Bible. He expressed great curiosity about the volume, and in particular about the miniatures it contained, and ordered that the meaning of the text and the illustrations on each page be 22 Alonso, Antonio de Gouvea, p. 41. 23 De Gouveia, Relaçam, p. 209. 24 Carlos Alonso, “Due lettere riguardanti i primi tempi delle missioni agostiniane in Persia,” Analecta Augustiniana 24 (1961), pp. 156-7; Roberto Gulbenkian, “De ce qu’avec la grâce de Dieu, le Père `Servo sem proveito’ fit dans le royaume de Perse,” in Estudos Históricos 1- 3, ed. idem, Lisbon 1995, vol. 2, pp. 145-6. 25 Diogo de Couto, Da Ásia, Decada nona, Lisbon 1974, pp. 66-67, quoted in Pedro de Moura Carvalho, “Goa’s Pioneering Role in Transmitting European Traditions to the Mughal and Safavid Courts,” in Exotica: The Portuguese Discoveries and the Renaissance Kunstkammer, eds. Helmut Trnek and Nuno Vasallo e Silva, Lisbon 2001, p. 75. 26 Alonso, Antonio de Gouvea, p. 39. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE POLITICS OF PROTECTION 253 explained in Persian in the margins. Two years later, while attending the Armenian Celebration of the Epiphany, ʿAbbās read a passage from an old copy of the Gospels. In 1616, he ordered Juan Tadeo to translate the Psalms and the Gospels into Persian.27 In a report from Iran written in the same year, finally, F. Paulo Maria narrates how, during a dinner party, he presented the shāh with a work with the writings of Cardinal Belarminio, adding that the ruler had parts of the text read to him. The shāh told him that he often read the Gospels, referring to the copy that he had received from the Carmelite fathers. On the same occasion ʿAbbās indicated to this guest his great desire to travel to Rome and visit the pope. 28 In the letter Shāh ʿAbbās gave to De Gouveia to carry to King Philip III, the Safavid monarch assured the Spanish monarch that he favored the Christian faith in all respects and that he wished it would grow from day and to day, adding that he would welcome Christians and the Portuguese coming to his realm in great numbers and that he would do nothing to disturb them.29 The shāh at times even appeared to reinforce the idea that he was but one step away from converting, and on several occasions even endorsed Christianity in front of his own officials. Handed a relic by De Gouveia’s companion, Fray Christóbal do Espíritu Santo, he turned to his son Safī Mīrzā and the court officials who were gathered around him asking them if they would join him if he became a Christian. Their response was that they were his majesty’s servants and would follow him wherever he went.30 ʿAbbās made the same Safī Mirzā, the eldest of his sons and his heir-to-be (until he had him killed in 1615), promise to treat the missionaries as well as he did himself.31 At one point the Safavid ruler is said to have praised the rulers of Christian lands in front of his entourage, expressing his admiration for the fact that their subordinate officials rarely rebelled against them—to which the assembled Carmelite fathers judiciously responded that this was because Christianity teaches a king’s subjects to obey him unconditionally. In 1620, the shāh accepted 27 Roberto Gulbenkian, The Translation of the Four Gospels into Persian,” in Estudos Históricos 1- 3, ed. idem, Lisbon 1995, vol. 3, pp. 81-82, 85-86; Marianna Shreve Simpson, “Shah ʿAbbas and His Picture Bible,” in The Book of Kings. Art, War, and the Morgan Library’s Medieval Picture Bible, eds. William Noel and Daniel Weiss, London 2002, pp. 121-41; and Alonso, “El primer viaje,” pp. 538-39. The rulers of Mughal India evinced a similar interest in Christian images. It is said that Akbar and Jahāngīr were enthralled with the oil paintings filled with Christian themes presented to them as gifts by Jesuit fathers as of the 1580s. They ordered numerous copies to be made, including sensitive scenes such as the Crucifixion. See Heike Franke, “Herrscher zweier Welten. Selbstenszenierung der Mogulkaiser in Text und Bild,” Asiatische Studien 57 (2003), pp. 324-25. 28 Report by Fr. Paolo Maria on the state of Catholicism in Persia, 8 April 1616, in Biblioteca da Ajuda, Lisbon, Cod. 46-X-17, fols. 593v-94. 29 De Gouveia, Relaçam, p. 62. 30 António de Gouveia, Jornada do Arcebispo de Goa Dom Frey Aleixo de Menezes, Lisbon 1606, p. 134; idem, Relaçam, p. 60. 31 Carlos Alonso, “El primer viaje,” p. 540. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul RUDI MATTHEE 254 a copy of the Book of Psalms and told the people seated around him that whoever did not believe in its contents was an infidel.32 In the same year, visiting the house of the late Khajah Safar, the first leader, kalantar, of the Armenian community of New Julfa, he similarly insisted that whoever did not believe in Jesus Christ and was not convinced that he was the spirit of God, should be considered an unbeliever, kāfir.33 And in June 1621, ʿAbbās held an audience for a visiting Carmelite father and several representatives of the English East India Company, during which religious issues were discussed, in particular the doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and the question of allegiance to the pope. The shāh ended the session by saying: “I love the Lord Jesus Christ and St Mary so much that, were anyone in my kingdom to speak ill of or blaspheme against them, I would have them burnt alive.”34 Yet, for all his curiosity about Christianity, ʿAbbās never converted. His interest in the foreigners who visited his realm and the faith they brought with them was real, but all of it ultimately served a series of larger objectives and more pressing interests, his own as well as those of other forces in Safavid society. Counter Forces: A. Shāh ʿAbbās’s Motives The general attitude of toleration for Christianity and its adherents should not be interpreted as inherent philo-Christianity on the part of the Safavid elite. It should not be forgotten that Jesus Christ is recognized as a prophet in Islam, and that both he and his mother Mary are referred to in the Qurʾān and that a positive attitude towards them was only to be expected. One detects little sympathy for Christians in the brutality of Shāh ʿAbbās’s campaigns into Georgia, which devastated large tracts of land, destroyed thousands of Armenian homes, and resulted in tens of thousands of casualties and the reported enslavement of anywhere between 130,000 and 300,000 people.35 Nor did the shāh exhibit any pro- Christian feelings when he had Princess Ketevan, the mother of the renegade Georgian Prince Taymuraz, tortured to death for refusing to forsake the Christian faith, or when he ordered the execution of five of his tribal Lur subjects for con- 32 Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of Carmelites, pp. 240, 250 33 Ibid., p. 245. 34 Ibid., pp. 248-54. 35 Iskandar Bīg Turkman, Tārīkh-i ʿālam-ārā-yi ʿAbbāsī 1-2, ed. Īraj Afshār, Tehran 1350/1971, vol. 2, p. 875. Also see Lucien-Louis Bellan, Chah ʿAbbas I. Sa vie, son histoire, Paris 1932, pp. 224-26, 230; and Roberto Gulbenkian, “Relações religiosas entre os Arménios e os Agostinhos Portugueses na Pérsia no século XVII,” in Estudos Históricos 1-3, ed. idem, Lisbon 1995, vol. 1, p. 219. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE POLITICS OF PROTECTION 255 verting to Christianity.36 Even if the latter order had less to do with religion than with reasons of state—the people in question are said to have been caught as spies intent on assisting the Portuguese in Hormuz—the incident shows that the option of reneging on Islam was not available to everyone.37 For all their rapturous reports about Shāh ʿAbbās’s Christian inclinations, the missionaries themselves were not necessarily fooled either. Diogo de Santa Anna opined that the signals of ʿAbbās’s sympathy for Christianity were fallacious, that the shāh did not speak from the heart but out of deception, as a false Moor representing a fraudulent faith.38 A similar reaction comes from the Carmelite father who, in response to the shāh’s insistence that whoever did not believe in Jesus Christ as the spirit of God should be considered an unbeliever, exclaimed that the Safavid ruler was “either the most deceitful man in the world or else the man whom God has predestined to become a Christian.”39 Shāh ʿAbbās was neither. He was primarily interested in the missionaries as a liaison with the European powers, the enemies of his own main enemy, who might join him in his struggle against the Ottomans. Even if he had no intention to convert, there is enough evidence to suggest that he did have a genuine interest in Christianity, its tenets, its emotive symbolism and its artistic expressions—in part, no doubt, because of the resemblance to Shīʿī beliefs and practices some of these evince. But beginning with the letter he wrote to Philip III expressing his affection for Christianity, he clearly also manipulated missionaries and the Christian faith for political purposes, as he did with all groups and individuals in this orbit. ʿAbbās in fact owed a good deal of his success as a ruler over a fractious realm to a divide-and-rule strategy designed to balance constituencies. He practiced this strategy internally, in his dealings with the Qizilbash, the Turcoman warriors who provided the Safavids with tribal military support, and the ghulams, newly imported “royal slaves” of Armenian, Georgian and Circassian background who were given administrative and military rank and power precisely to outflank the Qizilbash. Keeping all of them on edge, he made sure that no single group or individual would gain the upper hand. Depending on his policy objectives of the moment, he now accommodated them, now kept them at arm’s length; he might extend favors and privileges to one group or another, to curtail their rights and even persecute them at a later point. Pietro della Valle’s sympathetic biography of ʿAbbās I, Delle conditioni di Abbàs Rè di Persia, brings out the complexity of the ruler and his ways by giving us a portrait of an Oriental despot driven to impul- 36 Report by Tadeo di San Elisio, in Biblioteca da Ajuda, Lisbon, 46-IX-19, fol. 229. For the events preceding the death of Ketevan, see Roberto Gulbenkian, “Relation véritable du glorieux martyre de la Reine Kétévan de Géorgie,” in Estudos Históricos 1-3, ed. idem, vol. 2, pp. 245-324. 37 See Pietro della Valle, Delle conditioni di Abbàs Rè di Persia, Venice 1628 [repr. Tehran 1976], pp. 54, 64. 38 Alonso, “Due lettere,” pp. 156-57. 39 Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of Carmelites, pp. 240-41. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul RUDI MATTHEE 256 sive acts of boundless generosity or gratuitous cruelty who was also a clear-eyed politician determined to attain his objectives. The shāh practiced the same type of strategy with foreigners. One of the reasons why he granted the English trading rights in Iran was to have a force at his disposal that could help him rein in the Portuguese, who had controlled the strategically located island of Hormuz since the early sixteenth century. Once the East India Company had begun operating in Iran, ʿAbbās warmed up to the Dutch, their main competitors who in 1623 joined the English in their search of Iranian silk, and turned them into a counterweight to the latter by giving them similar commercial privileges. The Westerners who came to Isfahan as agents of emperors, popes and commercial companies gave him ample opportunity to pursue this strategy. By quarreling along national lines, seeking to curry favor with the Safavid court for the purpose of gaining advantage over their competitors, they practically volunteered to be pawns in his divide-and-rule game.40 In his encounters with Europeans the shāh might cajole, jest and banter, get angry, or he might play the role of referee, as he did in 1621 during the aforementioned gathering with the agents of the East India Company, who maligned Catholics in front of the shāh, accusing them of idolatry by worshiping images and by making the sign of the cross. Rising above the fray, the shāh judiciously responded by inviting both parties to a discussion about the issues at hand.41 ʿAbbās’s shrewdness in balancing parties comes through in particular during audiences and receptions bringing together missionaries and his own high-ranking officials, including clerical ones, of which we have eyewitness testimony. On such occasions the monarch employed his foreign visitors to emphasize the nature of the hierarchy in his domain, to make his subordinates understand in no uncertain terms that he, the country’s supreme ruler, was in charge, to the point of having the power to change religion if he so pleased.42 An incident that took place in December of 1608, coinciding with Ramadan, epitomizes the awesomeness of such royal power, allowing the shāh not only to permit the consumption of alcohol at his court and not just to force his own clergy to drink wine, but to do so to the health of the head of the Christian church. During a meeting which included some Portuguese missionaries as well as Iranian clerics, including the ṣadr, the state’s highest religious official, Shāh ʿAbbās ordered that wine be brought for the Christian guests. He then invited everyone to drink a small amount. According to Antonio de Gouveia, the narrator of the story, the shāh whispered to him: “When you leave here and meet the 40 For this, see Rudi Matthee, “A Sugar Banquet for the Shah: Anglo-Dutch Competition at the Iranian Court of Šāh Sultān Husayn (r. 1694-1722),” Eurasian Studies 5 (2007), pp. 195- 218. 41 Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of Carmelites, p. 249. 42 Alonso, “El primer viaje,” p. 541. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE POLITICS OF PROTECTION 257 Pope, tell him how, during Ramadan, I ordered wine in the presence of all my judges and their chief, and made them all drink it. Tell him that, though I am not a Christian, I am worthy of his esteem.”43 B. The Armenians: Divergence and Division Shāh ʿAbbās’s approach to Western missionaries cannot be seen in isolation from the existence of a sizeable domestic community of Christians in Isfahan, the Armenians of New Julfa, whose had been transferred from their homeland in Armenia and settled in a newly built suburb just a few years prior to the establishment of the Augustinian mission in Isfahan. That move had taken place in the chaotic conditions of war, and no detailed information about the decision-making process leading up to it is available. Yet it is clear that the shāh decided to settle the Julfans near his capital in part because of their reputed entrepreneurial skills.44 For decades to come, this perceived usefulness would remain an implicit rationale for allowing them to live in relative security even as conversion campaigns targeted their coreligionists elsewhere. In the later seventeenth century the New Julfans, like all other non-Shīʿī groups in society, would suffer growing fiscal and religious pressure, yet they were never subjected to any outright religious persecution.45 The missionaries, frustrated in their dream of converting Muslims, came to see in Iran’s non-Catholics an alternative and promising target. Long a priority for the papacy, the desire to unify the wayward eastern Christian community with the Church of Rome had gained in urgency following the Council of Trent (1545- 63). The ultimate dream was articulated by Pietro della Valle, who, referring to Iran, spoke of the prospect of a “New Rome,” a “self-governing city of Oriental and Latin Christians.”46 The desire for unification was not necessarily a one-way affair. Among the Armenians there was a long-standing prophetic tradition going back as far as the Crusades about the inevitability of rejoining the Church of Rome. This legend grew and acquired its full form with the increasing oppression the Armenians of eastern Anatolia suffered following the rise and eastward expansion of the Ottomans. In 1549 this had prompted their leaders to send a delegation to Rome with 43 De Gouveia, Relaçam, p. 206v. 44 See the discussion in Edmund Herzig, “The Deportation of the Armenians in 1604-1605 and Europe’s Myth of Shah `Abbas I,” in Persian and Islamic Studies in Honour of P. W. Avery, ed. Charles Melville, Cambridge 1990, pp. 59-71. 45 For this, see Vazken Sarki Ghougassian, The Emergence of the Armenian Diocese of New Julfa in the Seventeenth Century, Atlanta 1998; and Rudi Matthee, “Christians in Safavid Iran: Hospitality and Harassment,” Studies on Persianate Societies 3 (2005), pp. 3-43. 46 See Joan-Pau Rubiés, Travel and Ethnology in the Renaissance: South India through European Eyes, 1250-1625, Cambridge 2000, p. 377, fn. 52. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul RUDI MATTHEE 258 an offer to submit to papal authority. 47 Ironically, at the turn of the seventeenth century, in the face of Turkish brutality during the Safavid-Ottoman wars, the Armenians of the Caucasus initially saw in Shāh ʿAbbās I their liberator on horseback, and people from many villages and towns beseeched the Safavid monarch to come to take control and reestablish justice. But with the deportation of 1604 the presumed savior turned into a tormentor, forcing the Armenians once again to redirect their hopes for salvation from the “Muslim yoke” to a Christian force arriving from the West.48 Hence the enthusiasm with which some of them, longing for the fulfillment of their prophecies, welcomed the Iberian missionaries and became attached to them.49 Amongst themselves, the Armenians were badly divided. The issue that tore them apart more than any other was that of conversion to Islam. Even before Shāh ʿAbbās instituted a rule whereby those who turned to the Muslim faith would automatically inherit all their relatives’ property, converts often managed to take advantage of their new status to abuse their former coreligionists. The Armenian chronicler Arak`el of Tabriz refers to Armenian apostates who “give bribes to Muslims and use them as witnesses against [other] Christians, dragging them in front of Muslim judges and demanding anything they can imagine.” The judges tended to side with the apostates, allowing the latter to extract money and property.50 The Armenians were further divided between the majority, who followed the Gregorian rite (and who were called Schismatics by the missionaries), and the minority, Catholic Armenians. Dominican missionaries visiting Armenia in the fourteenth century had managed to convert a number of Armenians to the Catholic faith. The group deported to Isfahan by Shāh ʿAbbās may thus have included a (small) Catholic contingent.51 It remains unclear how many of New Julfa’s approximately 5,000 inhabitants in the first decade of the seventeenth century were affiliated with Rome.52 The number given by one missionary, who in 1608 estimated Iran’s total Armenian population to be 400,000 households, 10,000 of 47 See Aschot Johannissjan, Israel Ory und die Armenische Befreiungsidee, Munich 1913, esp. pp. 24-31. 48 The initially favorable reception of Shāh ʿAbbās among the Armenians suffering from Ottoman treatment is also noted by Arak`el of Tabriz, The History of Vardapet Arak`el of Tabriz, ed. and trans. George A. Bournoutian, Costa Mesa 2005, p. 18. 49 For this, see Géraud Poumarède, Pour en finir avec la Croisade. Mythes et réalités de la lutte contre les Turcs aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles, Paris 2004, p. 130. 50 Arak`el of Tabriz, The History, p. 56. 51 P. Sebastián de San Pedro, however, who had visited Armenia, in 1606 wrote that all the people deported by Shāh ʿAbbās were “Schismatics.” See Carlos Alonso, “Una relación de P. Sebastián de San Pedro,” Archivo Agustiniano 81 (1999), pp. 149-66. 52 The number is given by De Gouveia, Relaçam, p. 139. Thomas Herbert in 1628 offers a number of 10,000, suggesting that, two decades later, the inhabitants had doubled in number. See Thomas Herbert, Travels in Persia 1627-1629, London 1928, p. 137. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE POLITICS OF PROTECTION 259 whom observed the Latin rite, is clearly wildly exaggerated, even if it may be proportionally correct.53 Regardless of absolute numbers, Catholics were and remained a relatively small minority among the Armenians of Isfahan. Just as their efforts to convert Muslims hardly had any results, the missionaries made only modest gains in their proselytizing activities among Iran’s Armenians. The Carmelite Vicente de S. Francisco in 1610 claimed that some 300 Julfan Armenians had gone over to the Catholic faith.54 De Gouveia mistakenly believed that Iran’s Armenians were followers of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Others thought it would be easy to bring Isfahan’s Armenian population under the control of Rome because the shāh, in his hatred of the Turks, would never allow them to turn to the Patriarch of Constantinople.55 Yet in reality, the vast majority of the New Julfans obeyed the Holy See of Echmiadzin in Armenia proper.56 And whereas the Augustinians may have taken the enthusiasm with which especially the Catholic Armenians welcomed them as a sign that all of them were willing to put themselves under papal authority, the Gregorian Armenians in fact greatly resented and resisted the foreign encroachment.57 Just as the missionaries sought to enlist the shāh in their efforts to bring Isfahan’s Armenian population under Vatican control, so the Gregorians tried to get the court behind their efforts to resist the missionaries. This question of denominational affiliation proved to be a very sensitive issue which ʿAbbās used to his own advantage, now pretending that he was willing to concede on this point, now showing his anger at the very idea that his subjects would be brought under foreign control. C. Shīʿī Clerical Opposition Of the various reasons why ʿAbbās never expelled the missionaries the most important may well be that they served as a useful counterweight to his own clerics. Pious Shīʿīs and especially members of the religious establishment naturally were none too happy about the foreign intruders. They looked on warily as thousands of Armenians, having been moved to Isfahan, were allowed to profess their religion openly in the suburb that was especially built for them. They bitterly complained to the shāh about the privileges enjoyed by the Julfans, who are said to have celebrated their freedom by organizing processions through town, including 53 Report by Paul Simon, in Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, p. 157. A total of 400,000 households would have given Iran an Armenian population of more than two million—out of an estimated total population of between six and nine million. 54 Alonso, “El primer viaje,” p. 537. 55 Alonso, “Una relación de P. Sebastián,” p. 165. 56 Alonso, Antonio de Gouvea, p. 78 57 Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, p. 100; Roberto Gulbenkian, “Deux lettres surprenantes du Catholicos arménien David IV à Philippe III d’Espagne, II de Portugal 1612- 1614,” in Estudos Históricos 1-3, ed. idem, vol. 1, p. 314. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul RUDI MATTHEE 260 the bazaar, while prominently displaying the cross.58 From the moment the missionaries set foot on Iranian soil, people of influence, both members of the shāh’s own entourage and high-ranking Shīʿī ʿulamāʾ, agitated against them, objecting in particular to their right to build churches and convents. In this context, De Gouveia tells an interesting story about Shāh ʿAbbās’s octogenarian mihmandar, royal host of official guests, ʿAlī Bēg, who was said to be quite zealous in his Muslim faith. On one occasion this official told the Portuguese diplomat-cum-missionary: “If only a few years ago one would have told us about the existence of a Christian church in this city, we would have burned both you and the church. Now, by contrast, not only do you have a church, but the shāh enters it and even allows you to remove slaves from his own house to take them to Christian lands.”59 There is no doubt that the Shīʿī ʿulamāʾ had a voice at Shāh ʿAbbās’s court. Their agitation played a role in the diminished warmth in the shāh’s reception of De Gouveia and his men in 1602.60 Yet the ability of Iran’s clerics to influence state policy was limited. The shāh maintained good relations with the ʿulamāʾ, granting them positions and emoluments, but he did not let them set his political agenda. They thus failed to dissuade him from allowing the Western missionaries to operate in his lands. Instead, as he did with all others, the shāh used them for his own purposes. One observer, a missionary himself, insisted that the shāh would have wanted to engage the European powers in a military coalition against the Ottomans before granting the missionaries the right to build convents and churches. Alluding to the balancing act that ʿAbbās was so good at playing, the same author claimed that the monarch’s strategy was in part informed by his desire to “shut up,” tapar la boca, Iran’s clerics, who were keen on the destruction of the Ottomans, albeit for different reasons.61 Broken Promises; Growing Frustration From the moment the missionaries entered Iran, fluctuations in political conditions had had a direct bearing on the way the shāh treated them. Politics had played a key role in the shāh’s very decision to allow these men in black to operate in his realm. As said, while he traveled with De Gouveia and his companions from Khurasan to Isfahan, he treated the Portuguese envoys amicably. Shortly after the party reached the capital, however, the shāh’s demeanor vis-à-vis the friars suddenly became markedly cooler. As De Gouveia tells it, one factor in this reversal may have been ʿAbbās’s annoyance with the constant quarreling between the two envoys. But the real reason for the ruler’s unhappiness was that he had just 58 Arak`el of Tabriz, The History, p. 55. 59 De Gouvea, Relaçam, p. 70. 60 Alonso, “Una embajada de Clemente,” p. 51; and idem, Antonio de Gouvea, p. 46. 61 Alonso, “Una embajada de Clemente,” p. 54. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE POLITICS OF PROTECTION 261 received word from Allāh Virdī Khān, his commander-in-chief who also served as the governor of Fars, about a pending Portuguese attack on Bahrain, the island he had conquered just a few years earlier.62 This pattern of treatment dictated by political circumstances and considerations comes into sharp focus in 1606-07, showing a ruler keen to exploit discord among his subjects, in this case personified by two rivals: Patriarch David IV, who had given up his position as head of the Holy See of Echmiadzin, near Yerevan, in order to accompany the Armenians to Isfahan during the deportation of 1604- 05, and Melchisedek of Garni who, receiving David’s title, had stayed behind in Echmiadzin. Once in Isfahan, David reclaimed the status of head of all Armenians, and was supported in this by the shāh and the clergy of New Julfa.63 Upon their arrival in Isfahan in 1605, the bedraggled Armenians were assisted in various ways by the Augustinians, who helped them build their first church. A close relationship soon developed between Diogo de Santa Anna and David. During a meeting between the two in February 1607, a hopeful Diogo de Santa Anna urged David to pledge allegiance to the pope. When David accepted, Diogo de Santa Anna encouraged him to publicize the pledge. In May of the same year the same prelate, induced by the payment of 1,000 cruzados which Alejo de Meneses had sent from India for the purpose, David, with six bishops and more than 100 Armenian priests publicly proclaimed their allegiance to the Church of Rome. He also wrote a letter to the pope in which he declared his willingness to abandon those tenets of the Armenian faith that did not accord with the Catholic rite.64 David had not consulted the Armenian notables, including the Bishop of New Julfa, on the matter, and controversy over the pledge soon erupted within the Armenian community. And it was not just the Gregorians who balked at the idea. Even David himself, mindful of its association with an age-old Armenian prophecy that foretold the subjugation of the Armenians to Christian princes, and worried about the shāh’s reaction, had second thoughts. ʿAbbās was fighting the Turks in far-away Shirvan, in the Caucasus, but rumor had it that his wrath would be terrible once the news would reach him. Diogo de Santa Anna and his companion, Bernardo de Azevedo, thus resolved to travel to Shamakhi, supposedly to offer the Safavid ruler their congratulations on his recent military victories, but really to plead their case with him.65 62 Ibid., p. 51; and Alonso, Antonio de Gouvea, p. 46. 63 Arak`el of Tabriz gives his own account of the circumstances in which David had been forced to consecrate Melchisedek katholikos, thus creating his own rival. See Arak`el of Tabriz, The History, p. 12. See also Gulbenkian, “Relações religiosas,” p. 220. 64 Gulbenkian, “De ce qu’avec la grâce de Dieu,” pp. 134ff; De Gouvea, Relaçam, pp. 159v- 63r.; Anon., Chronicle of the Carmelites, pp. 100-1. For the contents of the letters, see Carlos Alonso, “Cuatro cartas relacionadas con el acto de su misión dei [sic ] patriarca arménio David IV ai [sic] Papa Paulo (1607),” [ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/2824.pdf]. 65 Gulbenkian, “De ce qu’avec la grâce de Dieu,” 134ff; De Gouveia, Relaçam, fols. 159v-63r.; Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, pp. 100-1. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul RUDI MATTHEE 262 Shāh ʿAbbās, seemingly ready to appease the friars, at first reacted favorably to their request to have all Christians in his realm obey the pope as their supreme head. After consulting his officials, he expressed a willingness to grant this favor to the pope and the king of Spain, arguing that just as no one could be a good vassal without being loyal to his king, so no one could be a good Christian without obedience to the vicegerent of Christ.66 Yet the ensuing about-face once again shows how granting religious concessions to outsiders was part of the shāh’s larger political strategy. The Safavid ruler abruptly changed mien when he received word from merchants arriving from Aleppo that the Austrian Emperor Rudolph II had concluded a peace treaty with the Ottoman Sultan Aḥmad. This accord—the Peace of Zsitva Torok of 1606— halted hostilities between the Ottomans and their main European adversary, obviating any Christian assistance to Iran. After hearing the news, the shāh flew into a terrible rage when asked by the Augustinians to affix his seal to the letter in which David pledged his allegiance to the pope, threatening to expel the missionaries from his realm. His anger was all the greater for being told by some Armenians that the Franks were really out to turn his Armenian subjects into Portuguese, a people he had come to dislike for their overbearing behavior in Hormuz.67 ʿAbbās’s words to the friars left no doubt about his feelings at this point: “At a time when the Christian rulers betray me, both in words and deed, you want to own churches in my realm, you want the Armenians to be your subjects? You wish to ring church bells in public?”68 Father Tadeo, who by this time had spent a year in Iran, wrote of Shāh ʿAbbās: “… As to the character of this king, he is at heart a Mohammedan, and all he has done in the past has been feigned; now that he has won so many victories over the Turks, he does not care (a jot) for all the Christian princes and publicly mocks at them because they had not made war on the Turks….” 69 When they heard about the shāh’s reaction, De Gouveia insists, the New Julfans avoided meeting with the missionaries and refrained from going to their convent for many days.70 When after a four-year absence, ʿAbbās returned to Isfahan in November 1607, he initially refused to meet with the Augustinians and did not allow the Armenian clerics to visit them either. He similarly refused to receive the members of the Carmelite delegation who had just arrived, unless there would be an understanding that the topic of papal control would not be discussed. Yet, curious about the pope’s message and the letters from other European rulers brought by the Carmelites, he soon relented, judiciously deciding not to close the door on 66 Gulbenkian, “Deux lettres surprenantes.” 67 Gulbenkian, “De ce qu’avec la grâce de Dieu,” pp. 149-50; “Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, p. 101. 68 De Gouveia, Relaçam, p. 168v. 69 Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, p. 164. 70 Gulbenkian, “Relações religiosas,” pp. 226-27. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE POLITICS OF PROTECTION 263 European proposals and promises altogether. The message from the pope indeed made suggestions for a joint attack against the Ottomans. ʿAbbās, intent on marching against the Ottomans himself shortly, put his misgivings aside and wrote a letter to Pope Paul V agreeing to the proposal for joint action. He immediately followed up on the military project by preparing another campaign against the Ottomans. The letter Robert Sherley subsequently carried to Rome also contained ʿAbbās’s request for the Vatican to send a Frankish bishop as a supreme vicar for Iran’s Armenians. With this, Gulbenkian observes, the shāh killed two birds with one stone: he punished and humiliated Melchisedek, and he showed his displeasure with David for having volunteered to submit his congregation to papal jurisdiction.71 The Peace of Zsitva Torok, meanwhile, freeing up the Ottoman military in the Balkans, had led the sultan to turn down the conditions for peace Shāh ʿAbbās had sent to Istanbul with an envoy in 1607. This, in turn, prompted the Safavid ruler to prepare for a new round of war with his archenemies, which must have motivated him to maintain an amicable rapport with the newly arrived Carmelites.72 In the letter to Pope Paul V he sent with Father Vincente de S. Francisco upon the latter’s return to Europe in 1609, ʿAbbās boasted that at his orders Echmiadzin (Three Churches) at Yerevan, which had been destroyed by the Turks, had been rebuilt and restored to its former glory. He also whetted an age-old Christian appetite by pledging that, should he seize Jerusalem from the Ottomans, he would hand the city over to papal control.73 Nor did the shāh completely snub De Gouveia when the latter returned to Iran in 1608, charged with the establishment of a lasting Augustinian mission and determined to pursue the idea of Iran’s Gregorian Armenians putting themselves under papal authority. Friction marked the early encounter with ʿAbbās, for De Gouveia carried a letter from the King of Spain that while lauding the Safavid monarch’s victories against the Turks and urging him to keep up the struggle, also criticized the shāh for taking of Bahrain from the khan of Hormuz, an ally of the Portuguese.74 But still in need of European support, Shāh ʿAbbās sent De Gouveia back to Europe accompanied by an Iranian envoy named Jangīz Beg Rūmlū. In the letter the envoys carried with them, the Safavid ruler encouraged the Spanish-Portuguese king to keep fighting the Ottomans and reiterated the request for the sending of a prelate to serve as head of his Armenian subjects.75 At this point, though, ʿAbbās probably had few illusions regarding Iberian promises conveyed via the Augustinians. His energetic foreign policy had done nothing to make the 71 Gulbenkian, “Deux lettres surprenantes,” pp. 316-17. 72 Niels Steensgaard, The Asian Trade Revolution of the Seventeenth Century: The East India Companies and the Decline of the Caravan Trade, Chicago/London 1973, p. 267. 73 Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, pp. 190-1. 74 Ibid., p. 166. 75 De Gouveia, Relaçam, pp. 177-83. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul RUDI MATTHEE 264 dream of forging a grand anti-Ottoman coalition come true. The level of his frustration comes through in a letter Juan Tadeo wrote from Isfahan in May 1609, reporting how the shāh had threatened the Augustinian fathers with expulsion if the Spanish king did not make war on the Turks forthwith.76 Over time, the Safavid ruler only became more frustrated with the Christian inaction. The Frankish replacement for Melchisedek never arrived from Europe, even though the latter, worried that the pope might actually follow up, wrote several letters to Paul V expressing his own fealty to the Church of Rome.77 Most importantly, Shāh ʿAbbās in 1612 did what Father Vincente had assured the pope he never would do: he concluded his own peace agreement with the Ottomans, reclaiming all the land that he had previously lost to them, and lessening his dependence on the Europeans.78 The changed mood was fully revealed the following year, when De Gouveia returned to Iran for a third time, in possession of a mandate to bring the Armenians under papal jurisdiction. While sent as the Apostolic Vicar of Iran’s Armenians, he carried the official title of Bishop of Cyrene (North Africa), in an apparent effort to mask the true nature of his mission, which included a plan to exempt Iran’s Catholic Armenians from taxes levied at Hormuz.79 His hosts were not fooled, however; the relationship with the shāh quickly soured, and De Gouveia’s third mission turned into a disaster. There were several reasons for the shāh’s anger. De Gouveia had not brought proper compensation for the consignment of silk that he and Jangīz Beg had taken to Spain, arguing that the Spanish king had considered the silk a gift rather than vendible commodity. Intensely suspicious about papal intentions with regard to the ecclesiastical status of his Armenian subjects, ʿAbbās also took offense at the high-handedness of his Portuguese guest. Especially De Gouveia’s cavalier remarks questioning the shāh’s jurisdiction over his own Armenian subjects—whom he called his flock—were a major source of irritation. Threatening to make peace with the Ottomans if the catholic powers did not come through with the oft-made promise to wage war against his archenemy, the shāh finally told De Gouveia to go to hell. The bishop next wisely slipped out of the country.80 ʿAbbās then attacked and seized Bandar Gamru (Comorão), the 76 Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, p. 169. 77 Ibid., pp. 210, 454-5 78 Ibid., pp. 194-77. For Father Vicente’s remarks to the pope, see his report of 15 March 1610, in Alonso, “El primer viaje,” p. 541. 79 António de Gouveia, “Memorial sobre las cosas de la Christianidad de la Persia,” in Carlos Alonso, “La embajada persa de Denguiz-Beg y Antonio de Gouvea, osa, a la luz de nuevos documentos,” Archivo Agustiniano 64 (1980), pp. 63-66. De Gouveia in the same reports claims that the rulers of Georgia, Manūchihr Khān, and Armenia, Alexander, had asked the Vatican to send missionaries for the education of their Christian subjects. The papal letter of appointment, dated 19 August 1611, appears in Carlos Alonso, “El P. Antonio de Gouvea O.S.A. y la embajada persa de Dengîz Beg (1609-1612),” Analecta Augustiniana 38 (1975), pp. 81-2. 80 Alonso, Antonio de Gouvea, pp. 179, 181. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE POLITICS OF PROTECTION 265 only Portuguese-held port on Iran’s mainland, and in 1615 welcomed the English as a counterweight to the Portuguese. The one who suffered the most from this confrontation were the Julfan Armenians, however. ʿAbbās temporarily banned Isfahan’s Armenians from visiting the house of the Fathers and forced them to repay a loan that he had given them in 1608.81 In subsequent years the pressure on Christians continued to build up, to reach a high point in the early to mid 1620s. This was directly related to rising tensions with the Portuguese, culminating in their expulsion from Hormuz by way of a joint Anglo-Iranian expedition in 1622, and the military assistance Portuguese forces lent to Basra in its defense against Iranian aggression two years later. His anger with the Portuguese in 1626 finally impelled the shāh to make good on the oft-repeated threat to expel the Augustinian missionaries from Isfahan. They were not allowed to return until a year later, when it had become clear that they were innocent of “the troubles.”82 Yet the ones to bear the brunt of these tensions were, again, the Armenians, this time the non-Julfans. In 1621 the shāh ordered a campaign forcing the Christian inhabitants of villages around Isfahan to apostatize. For the next two years Armenian priests and lay people were forcibly circumcised, churches were turned into mosques, books and liturgical vessels were destroyed or confiscated.83 Pietro della Valle, who was in Iran at the time, recounts instances of Christians who refused to convert being tortured and killed. 84 The persecution of Armenians soon extended far beyond the vicinity of Isfahan. Following the Anglo-Iranian attack on Hormuz, the shāh decreed that the Armenians and other Christians who had been settled on the border of Bakhtiyari and Lur territory would have to convert to Islam and that their churches were to be turned into mosques. Rather than a precautionary measure designed to safeguard them against Lur attacks, as chronicler Iskandar Beg Munshi portrays the campaign, this conversion drive seems to have been part of a comprehensive offensive.85 After he took Baghdad and a large part of Mesopotamia in late 1623, the shāh forced the region’s Armenians to be circumcised.86 Despite many petitions of mercy, the campaign continued until 1624, when the shāh 81 Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, pp. 206-7; Della Valle, Delle conditioni, p. 75; Arak`el, The History, p. 116. 82 Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, pp. 281-2. For the affairs of Basra in this period, see Rudi Matthee, “Between Arabs, Turks and Iranians: The Town of Basra, 1600- 1700,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 69 (2006), pp. 53-78; and Willem Floor, The Persian Gulf: A Political and Economic History of the Five Port Cities, 1500-1730, Washington., D.C. 2006. 83 Della Valle, Delle conditioni, pp. 53, 65-8. For an overview, see Ghougassian, The Emergence of the Armenian Diocese, pp. 4-75. The same author also offers a lengthy overview of the Armenian villages around Isfahan, see ibid., pp. 38-42. 84 Rula Jurdi Abisaab, Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire, London/New York 2004, p. 79; Della Valle, Delle conditioni, p. 54. 85 Iskandar Big Turkman, Tarikh-i ʿālam-ārā-yi ʿAbbāsī, vol. 2, p. 960. 86 Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, p. 271. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul RUDI MATTHEE 266 halted it in exchange for a large sum of money. 87 The pressure on the Armenians did not end here, though, for shortly before his death the shāh issued his infamous decree giving any dhimmī apostate the right to inherit the “possession of the property of all his relatives, up to the seventh generation.”88 Not coincidentally, the Shīʿī ʿulamāʾ were involved—or perhaps better, were allowed to become involved—in these activities. Shaykh Bahāʾ al-Dīn ʿĀmilī (Shaykh Bahāʾī), theologian, polymath, and the capital’s shaykh al-islām, is said to have played a role in instigating the conversion campaign targeting Armenians.89 Hundreds of clerics participated in the terror accompanying the conversions. It is also surely no coincidence that in this same period, a prominent religious scholar like Aḥmad b. Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn ʿAlavī wrote a number of anti-Christian (and anti- Jewish) treatises.90 Conclusion Missionaries from the Iberian peninsula, active in Hormuz from 1548, entered the Iranian mainland at the turn of the seventeenth century, when Shāh ʿAbbās allowed first the Augustinians and then the Carmelites to establish convents in Isfahan and to engage in (circumscribed) proselytizing. As elsewhere in Muslim Middle East, these European men of the cloth were generally well received in Iran. The level of toleration offered to them was indeed remarkable; it is unthinkable that in contemporary Europe any non-Christian group, let alone a group intent on proselytizing for a different faith, would have been treated in a similar manner. There are several reasons why the European missionaries received a cordial reception in Isfahan—beyond the customary and celebrated hospitality of the Iranians. One is that, aside from serving as agents of Christianity, they were—and were seen as—diplomats who represented Catholic European rulers—the king of Spain and Portugal in the case of the Augustinians and the Papacy in the case of the Carmelites—and acted as a liaison between these and the Safavid court. Another is that the members of the political elite were intrigued by these men for their erudition and ability to engage in learned dispute about questions of shared interest. The ruling classes, the shāh in first place and members of the clergy not excepted, loved to sit the friars down in debate involving philosophical and religious issues, 87 Abisaab, Converting Persia, p. 79; Della Valle, Delle conditioni, p. 54. 88 Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, p. 288. 89 Ibid., p. 255. 90 Abisaab, Converting Persia, pp. 79-80; Anonymous (ed.), Chronicle of the Carmelites, p. 255; Pietro della Valle, Viaggi di Pietro della Valle Il pellegrino, descritti da lui medesimo in lettere familiari all’ erudito suo amico Mario Schipano divisi in tre parti cioè: la Turchia, la Persia e l’India 1-2, ed. D. Gancia, Brighton 1843, vol. 2, pp. 143-4. – See also Denis Halft’s contribution in this volume. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE POLITICS OF PROTECTION 267 including the differences between Christian and Muslim beliefs, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Trinity. Iranians from the shāh down were also fascinated by Christian ritual and symbolism, represented by the cross and the Crucifixion, by relics and the rosary. There was a certain predisposition in this shared interest. Georgian and Armenian ghulams increasingly held top positions in the Safavid administration. The harems of the king and the elite meanwhile came to be filled with Georgian women, many of whom remained attached to their Christian identity and passed it on to their husbands and sons. A convergence of sensibility with regard to the iconography and narrative structure between Catholicism and Shīʿī Islam cannot be discounted as a factor either. The interaction of the European friars with Iran’s political and religious authorities took place in the context of the country’s complex geopolitical relations with the West and its equally complex internal constellation of power. Several conclusions can be drawn from this. Beyond the curiosity and interest he indisputably displayed vis-à-vis Christianity and its agents, Shāh ʿAbbās approached the European men of the cloth with an eye to his geopolitical objectives beyond Iran and, to a lesser extent, his domestic concerns. The shāh’s foreign policy centered on his neighbors, the Ottomans, and the need to curb the military threat they posed to his realm. Maintaining a balance between various internal constituencies topped his domestic agenda. The missionaries served him in both areas. They were useful as interlocutors in his attempt to find ways to join forces with European powers against the Turks. They also facilitated him in controlling various constituencies among his own subjects. This included the Shīʿī clergy, a rising interest group with their own preferences and priorities, as well as the Julfan Armenians, who were important beyond their numbers, as a community with ties to European Christianity and on account for their trading activities, which is precisely why Shāh ʿAbbās had brought them to Isfahan. The fact that both groups had their own reasons to resent the presence and activities of the missionaries added more arrows to the shāh’s quiver. ʿAbbās used the Christian friars to keep his own clerics at bay. But he also maintained good relations with the ulama, allowing them to vilify non- Shīʿī minorities, including Christians, whenever it suited him. He manipulated the Armenian rift over possible allegiance to Rome to keep them divided. But just as he exploited their divisions, so he used the Armenians to keep the Frankish men of the cloth guessing about his true intentions with regard to his inner faith and his willingness to have Iran’s Christians brought under papal authority. Shāh ʿAbbās had a way of obscuring his political objectives behind his seemingly contradictory behavior: in discussions with foreign Christians he seemed earnestly curious about their faith and ebullient in proclaiming that he was but one step away from becoming Christian himself. During a drinking session he might fly into a rage, threatening the missionaries with expulsion or ordering a conversion campaign against his own Armenian subjects, only to call it off the © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul RUDI MATTHEE 268 next day, having sobered up, his anger subsided. All this bespeaks the potentate, the protean ruler with the mercurial temper—alternating between generosity and cruelty, jocularity and wrath—keen to impress his foreign guests, to intimidate his subordinates, and to keep his entire entourage in suspended animation. When he learned that the Europeans were not just not about to wage war against the Ottomans but had made peace with Istanbul, the shāh turned on the Portuguese missionaries, eventually expelling the Augustinians from Isfahan. Still, now vulnerable to a new Ottoman offensive himself, he also kept the door open to European initiatives—all the while keeping in touch with the Ottomans. When ʿAbbās offered Jerusalem to the Christians in 1609, he not only blatantly pandered to a dream that they had harbored for centuries, but he did so at the very same time that he was discussing a peace agreement with the Ottomans.91 Yet the rising tensions with the Portuguese erupting into war in the 1620s were especially fateful for Iran’s domestic Christians. The state launched a large-scale conversion campaign, mobilizing the ulama in the effort, which lasted for at least two years. In the end pragmatism prevailed, though: peripheral, rural Armenians bore the brunt of the persecution; the New Julfans were spared from the forced conversion drive; and the Augustinians were allowed to return to Isfahan. References Abisaab, Rula Jurdi, Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire, London / New York 2004. “Affari de Persia,” Biblioteca da Ajuda, Lisbon, Cod. 46-X-17, fols. 562ff. Alonso, Carlos, “Cuatro cartas relacionadas con el acto de su misión dei [sic] patriarca arménio David IV ai [sic] Papa Paulo V (1607),” [ler.letras.up.pt/ uploads/ficheiros/2824.pdf (consulted 28/01/2009)]. −, “Due lettere riguardanti i primi tempi delle missioni agostiniane in Persia,” Analecta Augustiniana 24 (1961), pp. 152-201. −, “El P. Antonio de Gouvea O.S.A. y la embajada persa de Dengîz Beg (1609- 1612),” Analecta Augustiniana 38 (1975), pp. 63-94. −, “El P. Simon de Moraes, pionero de las misiones augustinias en Persia († 1585),” Analecta Augustiniana 42 (1979), pp. 343-72. −, “El primer viaje desde Persia a Roma del P. Vicente de S. Francisco, OCD (1609-1611),” Teresianum. Ephemerides Carmelitae 40 ii (1989), pp. 517-50. −, “Nuevas aportaciones para la historia del primer viaje misional de los Carmelitas Descalzos a Persia (1603-1608),” Missionalia Hispanica 19 (1958), pp. 249-50. −, “Una embajada de Clemente VIII a Persia (1600-1609),” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 34 (1996), pp. 7-125. 91 Alonso, “El primer viaje,” pp. 525, 541. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE POLITICS OF PROTECTION 269 −, “Una relación de P. Sebastián de San Pedro,” Archivo Agustiniano 81 (1999), pp. 149-66. −, Antonio de Gouvea, O.S.A. Diplomático y visitador apostólico en Persia († 1628), Valladolid 2000. Anonymous (ed.), A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia and the Papal Mission of the XVIIth and XVIIIth Centuries 1-2, London 1939. Arak`el of Tabriz, The History of Vardapet Arak`el of Tabriz, ed. and trans. George A. Bournoutian, Costa Mesa 2005. Bartl, Peter, “‘Marciare verso Costantinopoli’—Zur Türkenpolitik Klemens’ VIII,” Saeculum 20 i (1969), pp. 44-56. Bellan, Lucien-Louis, Chah ʿAbbas I. Sa vie, son histoire, Paris 1932. Couto, Diogo de, Da Ásia, Decada nona, Lisbon 1974. Della Valle, Pietro, Delle conditioni di Abbàs Rè di Persia, Venice 1628 [repr. Tehran 1976]. −, Viaggi di Pietro della Valle Il pellegrino, descritti da lui medesimo in lettere familiari all’ erudito suo amico Mario Schipano divisi in tre parti cioè: la Turchia, la Persia e l’India 1-2, ed. D. Gancia, Brighton 1843. Floor, Willem, The Persian Gulf: A Political and Economic History of Five Port Cities, 1500-1730, Washington., D.C. 2006. Franke, Heike, “Herrscher zweier Welten: Selbstinszenierung der Mogulkaiser in Text und Bild,” Asiatische Studien / Etudes Asiatiques 57 (2003), pp. 321-50. Ghougassian, Vazken Sarki, The Emergence of the Armenian Diocese of New Julfa in the Seventeenth Century, Atlanta 1998. Gil Fernández, Luis, El imperio luso-español y la Persia safávida 1, (1582-1605), Madrid 2006. Gouveia, Antonio de, Jornada do Arcebispo de Goa Dom Frey Aleixo de Menezes, Lisbon 1606. −, “Memorial sobre las cosas de la Christianidad de la Persia,” in Carlos Alonso, “La embajada persa de Denguiz-Beg y Antonio de Gouvea, osa, a la luz de nuevos documentos,” Archivo Agustiniano 64 (1980), pp. 49-115. −, Relaçam em que se tratam as guerras e grandes victorias que alcançou o grãde rey da Persia Xá Abbas do grão Turco Mahometto, & seu filho Amethe, as quais resultarão das embaixadas q̃ue por mandado del rey D. Felippe II de Portugal fizeraõ algũs religiosos da ordem dos Eremeitaas de Santo Agostinho a Persia, Lisbon 1611. Gulbenkian, Roberto, “De ce qu’avec la grâce de Dieu, le Père `Servo sem proveito’ fit dans le royaume de Perse,” in Estudos Históricos 1-3, ed. idem, Lisbon 1995, vol. 2, pp. 131-59. −, “Deux lettres surprenantes du Catholicos arménien David IV à Philippe III d’Espagne, II de Portugal 1612-1614,” in Estudos Históricos 1-3, ed. idem, Lisbon 1995, vol. 1, pp. 301-56. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul RUDI MATTHEE 270 −, “Relações religiosas entre os Arménios e os Agostinhos Portugueses na Pérsia no século XVII,” in Estudos Históricos 1-3, ed. idem, Lisbon 1995, vol. 1, pp. 213-53. −, “Relation véritable du glorieux martyre de la Reine Kétévan de Géorgie,” in Estudos Históricos 1-3, ed. idem, Lisbon 1995, vol., 2, pp. 247-323. −, L’ambassade en Perse de Luis Pereira de Lacerda et des Pères Portugais de l’Ordre de Saint-Augustin Belchior dos Anjos et Guilherme de Santo Agostinho, Lisbon 1972. −, The Translation of the Four Gospels into Persian,” in Estudos Históricos 1-3, ed. idem, Lisbon 1995, vol. 3, pp. 9-108. Herbert, Thomas, Travels in Persia 1627-1629, London 1928. Herzig, Edmund, “The Deportation of the Armenians in 1604-1605 and Europe’s Myth of Shah `Abbas I,” in Persian and Islamic Studies in Honour of P. W. Avery, ed. Charles Melville, Cambridge 1990, pp. 59-71. Iskandar Bīg Turkman, Tārīkh-i ʿālam-ārā-yi ʿAbbāsī 1-2, ed. Īraj Afshār, Tehran 1350/1971. Johannissjan, Aschot, Israel Ory und die Armenische Befreiungsidee, Munich 1913. Matthee, Rudi, “A Sugar Banquet for the Shah: Anglo-Dutch Competition at the Iranian Court of Šāh Sultān Husayn (r. 1694-1722),” Eurasian Studies 5 (2007), pp. 195-218. −, “Between Arabs, Turks and Iranians: The Town of Basra, 1600-1700,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 69 (2006), pp. 53-78. −, “Christians in Safavid Iran: Hospitality and Harassment,” Studies on Persianate Societies 3 (2005), pp. 3-43. Moura Carvalho, Pedro de, “Goa’s Pioneering Role in Transmitting European Traditions to the Mughal and Safavid Courts,” in Exotica: The Portuguese Discoveries and the Renaissance Kunstkammer, eds. Helmut Trnek and Nuno Vasallo e Silva, Lisbon 2001. Palombini, Barbara von, Bündiswerben abendländischer Mächte um Persien 1453- 1600, Wiesbaden 1968. Papazian, A.D., Persidskie dokumenty Matenadarana, Ukazy, vypusk 1, Yerevan 1956. Piemontese, Angelo Michele, “I due ambasciatori di Persia ricevuti da Papa Paolo V al Quirinale,” Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae 12 (2005), pp. 57- 425. −, “Les célébrités du Janicule et les diplomates safavides émigrés à Rome,” Eurasian Studies 5 (2006), pp. 271-96. Poumarède, Géraud, Pour en finir avec la Croisade. Mythes et réalités de la lutte contre les Turcs aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles, Paris 2004. Report by Fr. Paolo Maria on the state of Catholicism in Persia, 8 April 1616, in Biblioteca da Ajuda, Lisbon, Cod. 46-X-17. Report by Tadeo di San Elisio, in Biblioteca da Ajuda, Lisbon, Cod. 46-IX-19. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE POLITICS OF PROTECTION 271 Rubiés, Joan-Pau, Travel and Ethnology in the Renaissance. South India through European Eyes, 1250-1625, Cambridge 2000. Scarcia Amoretti, Biancamaria (ed.), Šāh Ismā’īl I nei <> di Marin Sanudo, Rome 1979. Schimkoreit, Renate, Regesten publizierter safawidischer Herrscherurkunden. Erlasse und Staatsschreiben der frühen Neuzeit Irans, Berlin 1982. Simpson, Marianna Shreve, “Shah ʿAbbas and His Picture Bible,” in The Book of Kings. Art, War, and the Morgan Library’s Medieval Picture Bible, eds. William Noel and Daniel Weiss, London 2002, pp. 120-41. Steensgaard, Niels, The Asian Trade Revolution of the Seventeenth Century: The East India Companies and the Decline of the Caravan Trade, Chicago / London, 1973. Wicki, Joseph (ed.), Documenta Indica 1-18, Rome 1948-88. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Schiitische Polemik gegen das Christentum im safawidischen Iran des 11./17. Jhdts. Sayyid Aḥmad ʿAlawīs Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī dar radd-i šubha-yi naṣrānī 1 Dennis Halft OP Einführung Das theologisch-philosophische Denken des schiitischen Gelehrten und Vertreters der sog. „Schule von Isfahan“, Sayyid Aḥmad b. Zain al-ʿĀbidīn Ḥusainī ʿAlawī ʿĀmilī Iṣfahānī (st. zw. 1054/1644 und 1060/1650),2 ist bislang kaum erschlossen.3 1 Dieser Beitrag basiert auf den Forschungsergebnissen meiner Magisterarbeit, die ich 2008 an der Freien Universität Berlin vorgelegt habe. Ich danke herzlich Professor Dr. Sabine Schmidtke für ihre engagierte Supervision meiner Arbeit und für ihre hilfreichen Anmerkungen zu einer früheren Fassung dieses Beitrags. Ebenfalls danke ich der Begabtenförderung der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung für ihre langjährige finanzielle Unterstützung, ohne die mir auch das Quellenmaterial für diesen Beitrag nicht ohne weiteres zugänglich gewesen wäre. Der Kitābḫāna-yi Buzurg Āyatullāh Marʿašī Naǧafī in Qom und ihrem Präsidenten, Dr. S.M. Marashi Najafi, danke ich für die freundliche Bereitstellung von Kopien der iranischen Handschriften. Nicht zuletzt danke ich sehr dem dominikanischen Institut M.- Dominique Chenu in Berlin und seinen Mitarbeitern für ihre Unterstützung während meines dortigen Aufenthalts 2007/08. 2 Zu ʿAlawīs Biographie vgl. H. Corbin, „Aḥmad ʿAlawī“, in EIr, Bd. 1, S. 644-6; Muḥsin al- Amīn ʿĀmilī, Aʿyān aš-šīʿa 1-, ed. Ḥ. al-Amīn, Beirut 1960-, Bd. 2, S. 593-4; Ḥasan Amīn, Mustadrakāt aʿyān aš-šīʿa 1-, Beirut 1987-, Bd. 9, S. 11; Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan Ḥurr al- ʿĀmilī, Amal al-āmil 1-2, ed. A. al-Ḥusainī, Qom 1965-66, Bd. 1, S. 33, Nr. 20; ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿĪsā Afandī, Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ wa ḥiyāḍ al-fuḍalāʾ 1-6, ed. A. al-Ḥusainī, Qom 1401/1981, Bd. 1, S. 39; Āġā Buzurg aṭ-Ṭihrānī, Ṭabaqāt aʿlām aš-šīʿa 1-2, Beirut 1390-91/1971, 3-5, ed. ʿA.N. Munzawī, Beirut 1392-95/1972-75, 6, ed. ʿA.N. Munzawī, Teheran 1362/1983, Bd. 5, S. 27-30; ʿAbd al-Nabī al-Qazwīnī, Tatmīm amal al-āmil, ed. A. Ḥusainī, Qom 1407/1986- 87, S. 62-3, Nr. 14. Zu den drei Überlieferungserlaubnissen (iǧāzāt ar-riwāya), die ʿAlawī von Mīr Dāmād (1017/1608-09 und 1019/1610-11) und Šaiḫ Bahāʾī (1018/1609-10) erhielt, vgl. Muḥammad Bāqir b. Muḥammad Taqī Maǧlisī, Biḥār al-anwār. al-Ǧāmiʿa li-durar aḫbār al-aʾimma al-aṭhār 0-28, 35-110, ed. Ǧ. ʿAlawī [et. al.], Teheran 1376-1405/1957-85, Bd. 109, S. 152-7, Nr. 75-7. 3 Neben Jalaloddin Ashtiyani (vgl. seine Anthologie des philosophes iraniens depuis le XVIIème si- ècle jusqu’à nos jours (Introduction analytique par H. Corbin) 1-2, Paris/Teheran 1975, Bd. 1, S. 7-31) setzte sich Henry Corbin als einziger westlicher Wissenschaftler intensiver mit ʿAlawīs Schriften auseinander, vgl. sein „Theologoumena iranica“, Studia Iranica 5 (1976), S. 232-5; ders., „Annuaire 1976-1977. Shîʿisme et christianisme à Ispahan au XVIIe siècle: L’œuvre de Sayyed Ahmad ʿAlavî Ispahânî“, in Itinéraire d’un enseignement. Résumé des Conférences à l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Section des Sciences Religieuses) 1955-1979, ed. H. Corbin/Chr. Jambet, Teheran 1993, S. 169-73; ders., La philosophie iranienne islamique aux XVIIe à XVIIIe siècles, Paris 1981. Corbins Schlussfolgerungen sind jedoch kritisch zu überprüfen, da er seine Thesen nicht hinreichend anhand der Quellen belegt. Er sah in © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 274 In insgesamt sechs polemischen bzw. apologetischen Schriften, die er in den 1030er/1620er Jahren in Isfahan verfasste, setzt sich ʿAlawī dezidiert mit dem Judentum und Christentum, der Tora, dem Alten und Neuen Testament auseinander.4 ʿAlawīs erste Polemik gegen das Christentum Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī dar radd-i šubha-yi naṣrānī, die vor dem Hintergrund eines christlich-muslimischen Religionsgesprächs in Isfahan entstand, ist im Prolog auf Muḥarram 1031/ November-Dezember 1621 datiert.5 Folgt man dieser Prologdatierung unter Berücksichtigung der Kolophone der beiden ältesten überlieferten Cambridger Hss. Dd.6.83 und Ll.6.29 vom 5. Šaʿbān 1031/ 15. Juni 1622, muss ʿAlawī seine Polemik in weniger als sieben Monaten zwischen Anfang und Mitte 1031/ Ende 1621 und Mitte 1622 fertiggestellt haben. Dabei reagierte ʿAlawī mit seiner Widerlegung Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī auf eine im April 1621 auf Persisch verfasste Apologie des Christentums, die von dem Italiener Pietro Della Valle (1586-1652) stammt.6 Anlass für Della Valles Risāla, der er ʿAlawī den Vertreter einer vom Platonismus beeinflussten östlichen Theosophie schiitischer Deutung („išrāqī“, Pl. išrāqīyūn), die in der Tradition Mīr Dāmāds, Suhrawardīs und Ibn ʿArabīs stehe. Charakteristikum dieser Theosophie sei ʿAlawīs Interpretation des neutestamentlichen Parakleten in Joh als Prophet Mohammed. Laut Corbin verweise diese Prophetologie des „johannisme shîʿite“ auf die Wiederkunft des Mahdīs und finde ihre Parallele im Gedankengut der jüdisch-christlichen Gemeinde von Jerusalem, wie es im apokryphen Barnabasevangelium zum Ausdruck komme: „Tout se passe comme si l’idée judéo-chrétienne et ébionite du Verus Propheta [Hervorhebung H.C.] qui, refusée en définitive par le christianisme, devint l’héritage de l’Islam (…). La prophétologie s’enrichit ici de l’imâmologie shîʿite pour fonder l’ensemble de la théologie islamique sur une prophétologie du Paraclet“, vgl. Corbin, „Annuaire 1976-1977“, S. 170. 4 1. Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī dar radd-i šubha-yi naṣrānī, 2. Luġaz-i Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī, 3. Ṣawāʿiq-i raḥmān dar radd-i maẕhab-i yahūdān, 4. Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ dar taǧlīya wa taṣfīya-yi Āʾīna-yi ḥaqqnumā, 5. Risāla dar radd-i dībāča ka ʿālim-i naṣāra ka muṣannif-i Kitāb-i Āʾīna-yi ḥaqq-numā ast baʿd az dīdan-i Kitāb-i Miṣqal dar radd-i Āʾīna-aš, 6. Lamaʿāt-i malakūtīya. 5 Die Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī sind auch unter folgenden Titeln bekannt: al-Lawāmiʿ ar-rabbānīya fī radd aš-šubha an-naṣrānīya oder Lawāmiʿ al-ilāhīya. Siehe auch Ch.A. Storey, Adabīyāt-i fārsī bar mabnā-yi taʾlīf-i istūrī, tarǧamah-i Bregel, mutarǧimān-i Yaḥya Āryanpūr, Sīrus Īzadī [wa] Karīm Kišāwarz 1-2, ed. A. Munzawī, Teheran 1362/1983 (= Adabīyāt), Bd. 1, S. 180, Nr. 55; Āġā Buzurg aṭ-Ṭihrānī, ad-Ḏarīʿa ilā taṣānīf aš-šīʿa 1-25, Beirut 1403-06/1983-86 (= Ḏarīʿa), Bd. 8, S. 366-7, Nr. 490; M.ʿA. Rawżātī (ed.), Fihrist-i kutub-i ḫaṭṭī-yi kitābḫānahā-yi Iṣfahān 1-, Isfahan 1382-/1341-/[1962-], S. 177-81; Sayyid Aḥmad ʿAlawī, Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ dar taǧlīya wa taṣfīya-yi Āʾīna-yi ḥaqq-numā, ed. Ḥ.N. Iṣfahānī, Qom 1415/1373/1994, S. 101, Nr. 32; al-Laǧna al-ʿilmīya fī muʾassassat al-Imām aṣ-Ṣādiq, Muʿǧam at-turāṯ al-kalāmī. Muʿǧam yatanāwalu ḏikr asmāʾ al-muʾallafāt al-kalāmīya (al-maḫṭūṭāt wa al-maṭbūʿāt) ʿabra alqurūn wa al-maktabāt allatī tatawaffiru fīhā nusaḫuhā 1-5, Qom 1423/2002 (= Muʿǧam), Bd. 4, S. 574, Nr. 10208 sowie E.G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia 1-4, London 1902-28, Bd. 4, S. 421; A. Munzawī, Fihristwāra-yi kitābhā-yi fārsī 1-, Teheran 1374-/1995-96-, Bd. 9, S. 501 (die beiden Letzteren machen teilweise falsche Angaben). 6 L. Bianconi, Viaggio in Levante de Pietro Della Valle, Florenz 1942, S. 356; E. Rossi, Elenco dei manoscritti persiani nella Biblioteca Vaticana, Vatikanstadt 1948, S. 36-8; F. Richard, „Catholicisme et Islam chiite au « grand siècle ». Autour de quelques documents concernant les Missions catholiques au XVIIème siècle“, Euntes Docete. Commentaria Urbaniana 33 (1980), S. 383. Bis Anfang des 20. Jhdts. hielt sich die mittlerweile falsifizierte These, dass es sich bei ʿAlawīs Polemik um eine Erwiderung auf Jerónimo Xaviers christliche Apologie Āʾīna- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 275 nach seiner Rückkehr nach Italien 1626 den Titel Epistola ad nobilem Persam: De quibusdam controversiis fidei gab, war wiederum ein religiöses Streitgespräch zwischen katholischen und schiitischen Vertretern im Frühjahr 1030/1621 in Isfahan.7 Im Mittelpunkt dieses Beitrags steht zum einen der historische Kontext dieses Disputs, der indirekt als Auslöser für ʿAlawīs Beschäftigung mit dem Christentum und seinen normativen Quellen in den 1030er/1620er Jahren angesehen werden kann. Zum anderen widme ich mich in diesem Beitrag der Rezensionsgeschichte von ʿAlawīs Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī und ihrer Quellenlage. Dazu werde ich eine Bestandsaufnahme der mir zugänglichen Textzeugen von ʿAlawīs Replik durchführen und ihre Beziehungen zueinander prüfen. Die Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī sind in elf Handschriften überliefert, deren Datierung sich über rund 200 Jahre erstreckt. Trotz gegenteiliger Bekundungen ist das Autograph offenbar nicht überliefert oder zumindest verschollen.8 Sechs der elf überlieferten Manuskripte befinden sich in nahöstlichen, vorwiegend iranischen Beständen, die anderen fünf Handschriften lagern in europäischen Bibliotheken. Für meine Untersuchung konnte ich acht der elf Manuskripte sowie zwei Drucke heranziehen, die aber Transkripte jeweils einer Handschrift darstellen und keinen wissenschaftlichen Anforderungen an eine Edition genügen. Eine kritische Edition des Texts steht also noch aus. yi ḥaqq-numā handele, vgl. dazu S. Lee, Controversial Tracts on Christianity and Mohammedanism. By the late Rev. Henry Martyn ... and some of the most eminent Writers of Persia translated and explained: To which is appended an additional Tract on the same Question; And, in a Preface, some Account given of a former Controversy on this Subject, with Extracts from it, Cambridge 1824, S. xli-xlii; Ch. Rieu, Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum 1-3, London 1879-83, Bd. 1, S. 2829, Add. 25,857; Browne, Literary History 4, S. 421; E. Blochet, Catalogue des manuscrits persans de la Bibliothèque nationale 1-4, Paris 1905-34, Bd. 1, S. 34-5, Nr. 54. – Jüngst griff A. Amanat dies fälschlicherweise wieder auf, indem er ʿAlawīs Replik Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī auf die portugiesischen Jesuiten in Goa bezog, vgl. „Mujtahids and Missionaries. Shīʿī responses to Christian polemics in the early Qajar period“, in Religion and Society in Qajar Iran, ed. R. Gleave, London 2004, S. 253; leicht veränderter Nachdruck in ders., Apocalyptic Islam and Iranian Shiʿism, London 2009, S. 134. 7 Della Valles Risāla ist in den beiden Hss. Vat. Pers. 7 und 8¹ in der Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana in Rom überliefert. Erstere umfasst 18 Folien ohne Kolophon, die Letztere zählt 41 Folien (eine Seite jeweils unbeschrieben) ebenfalls ohne Kolophon. Für eine Beschreibung der Manuskripte vgl. Rossi, Elenco, S. 32-3. Vermutlich handelt es sich bei Hs. Vat. Pers. 8¹ um eine Kopie von Hs. Vat. Pers. 7, zu der parallel eine Übersetzung angefertigt werden sollte. Sie ist weitgehend mit Hs. Vat. Pers. 7 identisch, deren Korrekturen und Marginalien jedoch in Hs. Vat. Pers. 8¹ meist fehlen, vgl. dazu die Marginalien in Hs. Vat. Pers. 7, Fol. 5a, 8a, 11b, 12a, 16a. Aufgrund der fehlerhaften Nummerierung der Blätter beziehe ich mich in diesem Beitrag auf eine eigene fortlaufende Foliennummerierung. Zu einer ursprünglich von Della Valle geplanten Veröffentlichung des persischen Originals mit lateinischer Übersetzung in Italien scheint es jedoch vor seinem Tod nicht mehr gekommen zu sein, vgl. Bianconi, Viaggio, S. 356. 8 Corbin behauptete, ʿAlawīs Autograph entdeckt zu haben, ohne allerdings den Fundort zu nennen, vgl. Corbin, „Annuaire 1976-1977“, S. 170. Auch Rawżātī ging davon aus, im Besitz des Autographen zu sein, was aber als unwahrscheinlich gelten kann, wie weiter unten gezeigt wird. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 276 Obwohl ich in meiner Untersuchung die gegenseitigen Beziehungen der Handschriften herausarbeiten konnte, war es mir mangels entsprechender Indizien nicht möglich zu entscheiden, ob Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī in verschiedenen Rezensionen ʿAlawīs vorliegt. Da hierfür keine Nebenüberlieferung belegt ist, muss offen bleiben, welche Teile der Manuskripte tatsächlich auf den Verfasser zurückgehen. Möglicherweise liefern die Handschriften, die mir nicht zugänglich waren, hierfür Anhaltspunkte. In der folgenden Tabelle führe ich alle mir bekannten Manuskripte und Drucke von ʿAlawīs Polemik sowie deren Abkürzungen und Einteilungen in Handschriftengruppen auf, die ich in diesem Beitrag verwende:9 Abkürzung Signatur/ Bezeichnung Aufbewahrungsort/ Hg. Datierung/ Kolophon (Kol.) Handschriften (Hss.)-Gruppe Herangezogene Handschriften C1 Hs. Dd.6.83 Cambridge University Library 5. Šaʿbân 1031/ 15. Juni 1622 (Kol.) Hss.-Gruppe 1/1 C2 Hs. Ll.6.29 Cambridge University Library 5. Šaʿbân 1031/ 15. Juni 1622 (Kol.) Hss.-Gruppe 1/1 V Hs. Vat. Pers. 11 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rom 5. Ramażân 1031/ 14. Juli 1622 (Kol.) Hss.-Gruppe 1/2 M1 Hs. Marʿašî 8998 Kitâbḫâna-yi Buzurg Âyatullâh Marʿašî Naǧafî, Qom Vermerk von 1107/1696; 18. Šawwâl 1117/ 2. Februar 1706 (Kol.) Hss.-Gruppe 1/3 P Hs. Suppl. persan 10 Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris 1058/1648 (nur Jahreszahl) Hss.-Gruppe 2 E Hs. Árabe 1622 Real Biblioteca del Monasterio San Lorenzo de El Escorial, bei Madrid 1058/1648 (nur Jahreszahl) Hss.-Gruppe 2 M2 Hs. Marʿašî 75911 Kitâbḫâna-yi Buzurg Âyatullâh Marʿašî Naǧafî, Qom Widmung an Mîrzâ Muḥammad Amîn (Kol. nicht entzifferbar) Hss.-Gruppe 3/1 M3 Hs. Marʿašî 2400 Kitâbḫâna-yi Buzurg Âyatullâh Marʿašî Naǧafî, Qom Widmung an Schah Ṣafî (reg. 1039-52/ 1629-42); Vermerk von 1195/1780-81; 8. Ramażân 1204/ 22. Mai 1790 (Kol.) Hss.-Gruppe 3/2 9 Alle Referenzen zu ʿAlawīs Polemik gebe ich in diesem Beitrag nach der Abkürzung der jeweiligen Handschrift bzw. des Drucks an, gefolgt von der Folien- bzw. Seitenzahl und der Zeilenangabe (z.B. V 179b:4 = Hs. Vat. Pers 11, Fol. 179b, Zeile 4). Von den von mir herangezogenen Handschriften konnte ich Hss. Dd.6.83 und Ll.6.29 im Original berücksichtigen, die restlichen Manuskripte lagen mir in schwarz-weißer Reproduktion vor. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 277 Abkürzung Signatur/ Bezeichnung Aufbewahrungsort/ Hg. Datierung/ Kolophon (Kol.) Handschriften (Hss.)-Gruppe Nicht zugängliche Handschriften R Hs. Rawżâtî ursprünglich Privatbesitz von Muḥammad ʿAlî Rawżâtî, Isfahan (kein Kol.) möglicherweise Hss.-Gruppe 3/1 N Hs. Naǧaf 3192 Kitâbḫâna-yi Ḥusainîyayi Šûštarîhâ, Nadschaf 1230/1814-15 (Kol.) Ra Hs. Rašt Maktabat Ǧamʿîyat Našr at-Ṯaqâfa, Rascht 1233/1817-18 Drucke L [Auszüge aus Hs. Ll.6.29] Samuel Lee (ed.), Cambridge10 1824 S [Hs. Suppl. persan 10] Ḥasan Saʿîd (ed.), Teheran11 1406/1985-86 Nach den Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī verfasste ʿAlawī fünf weitere Schriften unterschiedlichen Umfangs – davon eine auf Arabisch und vier auf Persisch –, in denen er seine Auseinandersetzung mit den jüdisch-christlichen Offenbarungsschriften fortsetzt. Der arabische Logogriph Luġaz-i Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī zu seiner gleichnamigen Polemik entstand vermutlich ebenfalls 1031/1621-22.12 Im folgenden Jahr 1032/ 1622 widerlegte ʿAlawī in seiner zweiten antichristlichen Polemik Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ dar taǧlīya wa taṣfīya-yi Āʾīna-yi ḥaqq-numā eine Kurzfassung (muntaḫab) der persischen Apologie des Christentums Āʾīna-yi ḥaqq-numā aus dem Jahr 1609.13 Diese stammt aus der Feder des portugiesischen Jesuiten Jerónimo Xavier (1549-1617), einem Missionar am Hof der indischen Moguln.14 Vermutlich erreichte eine Ko- 10 Lee, Controversial Tracts, S. i-cxxvii. 11 Sayyid Aḥmad ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, in Dāʾirat al-maʿārif-i Qurʾān-i karīm 2, ed. Ḥ. Saʿīd, Teheran 1406/1985-86, S. 20-183. 12 A. Ḥusainī (ed.), at-Turāṯ al-ʿarabī fī ḫizānat maḫṭūṭāt maktabat Āyat Allāh al-ʿUzmā al-Marʿašī an-Naǧafī 1-6, Qom 1414/1993-94, Bd. 4, S. 400. Eine Beschreibung der einzig bekannten Hs. Marʿašī 75912 findet sich in ders. (ed.), Fihrist-i kitābḫāna-yi ʿummūmī-yi Ḥażrat Āyat Allāh al-ʿUzmā Naǧafī Marʿašī 1-, Qom 1354-/1975-76-, Bd. 19, S. 404, Nr. 7591/2. 13 Zu Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ vgl. Adabīyāt, Bd. 1, S. 180, Nr. 55; Ḏarīʿa, Bd. 21, S. 130-1, Nr. 4275; Rawżātī, Fihrist-i kutub, Bd. 1, S. 173-4; Richard, „Catholicisme“, S. 383-96; H. Corbin, „Aḥmad ʿAlawī“, in EIr, Bd. 1, S. 645-6; Munzawī, Fihristwāra, Bd. 9, S. 531-2; Muʿǧam, Bd. 5, S. 136, Nr. 10872. Ḥ.N. Iṣfahānī legte 1415/1994 eine Edition des Texts vor, vgl. ʿAlawī, Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ. 14 Zu Xavier vgl. J. Flores, „Two Portuguese Visions of Jahangir’s India: Jerónimo Xavier and Manuel Godinho de Erédia“, in Goa and the Great Mughal, ed. J. Flores/N.V. e Silva, London 2004, S. 48-56. Zu Āʾīna-yi ḥaqq-numā und Xaviers theologische Schriften vgl. A. Camps, „Jerome Xavier S.J. and the Muslims of the Mogul Empire: Controversial Works and Missionary Activity“, Neue Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft Suppl. 6 (1957), S. 16-22; ders., „Persian Works of Jerome Xavier, a Jesuit at the Mogul Court“, Islamic Culture 35 (1961), S. 169-71. Zu Xaviers Übersetzergehilfen vgl. A. Camps, „ʿAbd al-Sattār Lāhūrī“, in EIr, Bd. 1, S. 167. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 278 pie dieser Apologie das Safawidenreich als Geschenk des Moguls Ǧahāngīr (reg. 1013-37/1605-27)15 an Schah ʿAbbās I. (reg. 996-1038/1588-1629)16 und wurde ʿAlawī dank der unbeschuhten Karmeliter in Isfahan zugänglich.17 ʿAlawīs Widerlegung Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ, die offenbar eine stärkere Verbreitung als seine Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī erfuhr, rief auf christlicher Seite zahlreiche Gegenwiderlegungen hervor.18 Auf eine davon reagierte ʿAlawī selbst mit seiner Risāla dar radd-i dībāča ka ʿālim-i naṣāra ka muṣannif-i Kitāb-i Āʾīna-yi ḥaqq-numā ast baʿd az dīdan-i Kitāb-i Miṣqal dar radd-i Āʾīna-aš, die sich gegen einen gewissen „Pādirī Mīmīlād“ richtet, deren Datierung aber nicht bekannt ist.19 Zudem erfahren wir in ʿAlawīs Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ, dass er neben seiner Widerlegung Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī noch eine weitere Polemik, Ṣawāʿiq-i raḥmān dar radd-i maẕhab-i yahūdān, gegen das Judentum schrieb.20 Die Datierung dieser antijüdischen Polemik, die handschriftlich nicht belegt ist, muss entsprechend früher als Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ, also vor 1032/1622 angesetzt werden.21 Dass ʿAlawī in Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī hingegen nicht auf Ṣawāʿiq-i raḥmān verweist, könnte dafür sprechen, dass er seine Widerlegung des Judentums zwischen Muḥarram 1031/ November-Dezember 1621 und 1032/1622 fertigstellte. Vermut- 15 A.S. Bazmee Ansari, „Djahāngīr“, in EI, Bd. 2, S. 379-81. 16 R.M. Savory, „ʿAbbās I“, in EI, Bd. 1, S. 7-8; ders., „ʿAbbās I“, in EIr, Bd. 1, S. 71-5; A. Newman, Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire, London 2006, S. 50-72. 17 R.E. Waterfield, Christians in Persia: Assyrians, Armenians, Roman Catholics and Protestants, London 1973, S. 62-3; R. Gulbenkian, „The Translation of the Four Gospels into Persian“, Neue Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft 37 (1981), S. 38; leicht veränderter Nachdruck in ders., Estudos Históricos, Lissabon 1995, Bd. 3, S. 83. 18 Eine Aufzählung der Titel bietet F. Richard, „L’apport des missionnaires européens à la connaissance de l’Iran en Europe et de l’Europe en Iran“, in Etudes safavides, ed. J. Calmard, Paris/Teheran 1993, S. 260-2. Siehe auch G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur 1-5, Vatikan 1944-53, Bd. 4, S. 252-3, sowie M. Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache zwischen Muslimen, Christen und Juden, nebst Anhängen verwandten Inhalts, Leipzig 1877, S. 16-7. Zur Widerlegung des Jesuiten Aimé Chézaud Māsiḥ-i Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ-i Āʾīna-yi ḥaqq-numā, die sich unter Hs. III.F.29 in der Biblioteca Nazionale, Neapel, befindet (vgl. A.M. Piemontese, Catalogo dei manoscritti persiani conservati nelle biblioteche d’Italia, Rom 1989, Nr. 234, S. 201-4), vgl. Richard, „Catholicisme“, S. 383- 96; ders., „Le Père Aimé Chézaud controversiste et ses manuscrits persans“, Nāmeh-ye Bahārestān 6-7 (1385-86/2005-06), S. 7-18. 19 Die einzig bezeugte Handschrift befindet sich unter Hs. Faiẓīya 1393 in der Kitābḫāna-yi Madrasa-yi Faiẓīya, Qom. Ḥ.N. Iṣfahānī legte 1415/1994 eine Edition des Texts vor, vgl. ʿAlawī, „Risāla dar radd-i dībāča ka ʿālim-i naṣāra ka muṣannif-i Kitāb-i Āʾīna-yi ḥaqqnumā ast baʿd az dīdan-i Kitāb-i Miṣqal dar radd-i Āʾīna-aš“, veröffentlicht als Anhang mit eigener Seitennummerierung in ʿAlawī, Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ. 20 Zu den Verweisen auf Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī vgl. ʿAlawī, Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ, S. 157:9, 186:12, 189:12, 198:10, 231:5, 261:5 und 264:2 sowie zu Ṣawāʿiq-i raḥmān vgl. a.a.O., S. 215:17-8, 232:23 und 264:2. Im Prolog von Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ erläutert ʿAlawī, dass er in Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī die Fälschung der Evangelien und in Ṣawāʿiq-i raḥmān die der Tora, Psalmen und übrigen alttestamentlichen Bücher dargelegt habe, vgl. a.a.O., S. 115:13-8. 21 Zu Ṣawāʿiq-i raḥmān vgl. Ḏarīʿa, Bd. 15, S. 94, Nr. 261; A.-H. Hairi, „Reflections on the Shiʿi Responses to Missionary Thought and Activities in the Safavid Period“, in Etudes safavides, ed. J. Calmard, Paris/Teheran 1993, S. 156; Muʿǧam, Bd. 4, S. 172, Nr. 8352. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 279 lich verfasste ʿAlawī innerhalb von rund zwei Jahren zunächst Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī mit dem entsprechenden Logogriphen, dann Ṣawāʿiq-i raḥmān und schließlich Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ. ʿAlawīs letzte bekannte Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum, Lamaʿāt-i malakūtīya, ist ein Kommentar, der in der einzig bezeugten Handschrift auf Šawwāl 1034/ Juli 1625 datiert ist und Aussagen des Korans und der Evangelien gegenüberstellt.22 Römisch-katholische Ordensleute in Isfahan Die Konzentration an polemischen Schriften ʿAlawīs gegen Juden und Christen 1031-34/1621-25 findet ihren Widerhall im damaligen politischen Kontext des Safawidenreichs.23 Zu dieser Zeit waren seit rund zwei Jahrzehnten katholische Ordensmänner verschiedener europäischer Provenienz in der Hauptstadt Isfahan präsent.24 Bereits 1603 hatten sich dort portugiesische Augustiner niedergelassen, auf die unbeschuhte Karmeliter (1607) und französische Kapuziner (1628), später auch Jesuiten (1653) und Dominikaner (1684), folgten.25 Ziel ihrer Missionen war 22 Die Lamaʿāt-i malakūtīya sind auch unter folgenden Titeln bekannt: Lamʿa-yi malakūtīya/ lāhūtīya/ ilāhīya/ qudsīya. Eine Beschreibung der Hs. Marʿašī 75913 der Kitābḫāna-yi Buzurg Āyatullāh Marʿašī Naǧafī, Qom, findet sich in Ḥusainī, Fihrist-i kitābḫāna, Bd. 19, S. 405, Nr. 7591/3. Vgl. dazu auch Munzawī, Fihristwāra, Bd. 9, S. 499. R. Ǧaʿfariyān legte 1373/1994 eine Edition des Texts vor, vgl. Sayyid Aḥmad ʿAlawī, „Lamaʿāt-i malakūtīya“, in Mirās-i islāmī-yi Irān 3, ed. R. Ǧaʿfariyān, Teheran 1373/1994, S. 727-50. 23 In diesem Beitrag beschränke ich mich auf die Isfahaner Christen. Der Karmeliter John Thaddeus berichtete 1624 auch von „Jews in fairly large numbers, who had, and still have, their synagogues“, vgl. A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia and the Papal Mission of the XVIIth and XVIIIth Centuries 1-2, London 1939 (= Chronicle), Bd. 1, S. 158, Anm. 1. Ein solches Umfeld könnte Anreiz für ʿAlawī gewesen sein, sich auch mit dem jüdischen Glauben in seiner Polemik Ṣawāʿiq-i raḥmān zu befassen. – Zur Stellung von Nicht- Muslimen im Safawidenreich, vgl. R.M. Savory, „Relations between the Safavid State and its Non-Muslim Minorities“, Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 14 (2003), S. 435-58. 24 Zur Geschichte römisch-katholischer Orden im Iran vgl. die Beiträge von F. Richard, „Un lectionnaire persan des Évangiles copié en Crimée en 776H./1374“, Studia Iranica 10 (1981), S. 225-45; ders., „L’apport des missionnaires“. Allg. zur christlichen Missionsgeschichte im Iran vgl. Y. Armajan, „Christianity. VIII. Christian Missions in Persia“, in EIr, Bd. 5, S. 544-7; A. Camps, „Iran. V. Neuere Kirchengeschichte: 2. Römisch-katholische Kirche“, in LThK, Bd. 5, Sp. 581-2; F. Richard, „Iran. IV. Religionsgeschichte. 3. Christentum“, in RGG, Bd. 4, Sp. 226-7; Waterfield, Christians in Persia, S. 57-84; R. Matthee, „Christians in Safavid Iran: Hospitality and Harassment“, Studies on Persianate Societies 3 (1384/2005), S. 1-42; Q. Āryān, „Christianity. VI. In Persian Literature“, in EIr, Bd. 5, S. 539-42; ders., Čihra-yi Masīḥ dar adabiyāt-i fārsī, Teheran 1369/1990. 25 Zum Augustiner-Konvertiten ʿAlī Qulī Ǧadīd al-Islām vgl. F. Richard, „Un augustin portugais renégat apologiste de l’Islam chiite au début du XVIIIe siècle“, Moyen Orient & Océan Indien/ Middle East and Indian Ocean 1 (1984), S. 73-85; Hairi, „Reflections“, S. 160-3. Zu den Karmelitern vgl. Chronicle; F. Richard, „Carmelites in Persia“, in EIr, Bd. 4, S. 832-4. Aufschlussreich für die diplomatische Rolle der Karmeliter in Isfahan ist die Edition von 170 Briefen des Heiligen Stuhls, europäischer Fürsten und Könige sowie Schah ʿAbbās I., die sich unter Hs. III.F.30 in der Biblioteca Nazionale, Neapel, befinden (vgl. Piemontese, Catalogo, Nr. 235, S. 204-10), in Asnād-i pādiriyān-i karmilī bāzmānda az ʿaṣr-i Šāh ʿAbbās Ṣa- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 280 es unter anderem, den katholischen Glauben unter den Muslimen zu verbreiten und zugleich die orientalischen Kirchen in eine Union mit der römischkatholischen Kirche zu führen. Als Schah ʿAbbās I. die katholischen Missionare Anfang des 11./ Ende des 16. Jhdts. in das Safawidenreich eingeladen hatte, verband er dies mit politischem Pragmatismus.26 Er hoffte auf eine strategische Allianz mit dem Papst und den europäischen Fürsten- und Königshöfen gegen die verfeindeten Türken und Mamluken. Entsprechend fungierten die Ordensleute in Isfahan nicht nur als Repräsentanten ihrer Orden und der römischen Kirche, sondern auch als Diplomaten, die den Kontakt des Schahs zu den Höfen ihrer Heimatländer aufrechterhalten sollten. Aus diesem Grund räumte Schah ʿAbbās I. ihnen weitgehende Privilegien zur Gründung von Ordensniederlassungen und zur Pflege ihrer Kulthandlungen in Isfahan ein.27 Mit der Verschlechterung der politischen Beziehungen zwischen dem Schah und den katholischen Ländern Europas wandelte sich auch das Klima relativer religiöser Toleranz und Pluralität in der Safawidenhauptstadt, von dem die Ordensmänner bislang profitieren konnten.28 Als alle Bemühungen um ein Bündnis zwischen Schah ʿAbbās I. und den europäischen Herrschern gegen die Türken bis Ende der 1010er/1600er Jahre gescheitert waren,29 entwickelten sich die expandierenden europäischen Mächte selbst zur Bedrohung safawidischer Interessen. Bezeichnend hierfür ist der Konflikt um die Insel Hormuz im Persischen Golf, die die Safawiden schließlich 1031/1622 mit englischer Unterstützung von dessen Rivalen Portugal einnehmen konnten.30 Innenpolitisch gerieten die armenischen fawī (Remained Documents of Carmilite Padres Since Shah Abbas Era), ed. M. Sutūdih in Zusammenarbeit mit Ī. Afšār, Teheran 1383/2004 (= Asnād). Zur Kapuzinermission vgl. F. Richard, „Capuchins in Persia“, in EIr, Bd. 4, S. 786-8, bes. zu Raphaël du Mans (1613-96) und seinen Missionsbeschreibungen vgl. ders., „Du Mans“, in EIr, Bd. 7, S. 571-2; ders., Raphaël du Mans missionnaire en Perse au XVIIe s. 1-2, Paris 1995. Zur Jesuitenmission vgl. a.a.O., Bd. 2, S. 201-57, zum Jesuiten Aimé Chézaud (1604-64) vgl. ders., „Le Père Aimé Chézaud“. Zu den Dominikanern vgl. Ambrosius Eszer, „Sebastianus Knab O.P. Erzbischof von Naxiǰewan (1682-1690). Neue Forschungen zu seinem Leben“, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 43 (1973), S. 273. 26 Matthee, „Christians“, S. 21-3. 27 F. Richard, „Les privilèges accordés aux religieux catholiques par les Safavides. Quelques documents inédits“, Dabireh 6 (1989), S. 167-82. Zur Gründung des Isfahaner Karmeliterkonvents vgl. Chronicle, Bd. 2, S. 923. 28 R.J. Abisaab, Converting Persia. Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire, London 2004, S. 79-81. 29 Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 163. 30 Pietro Della Valle, Eines vornehmen Römischen Patritii Reiß-Beschreibung in unterschiedliche Theile der Welt, nemlich in Türckey, Egypten, Palestina, Persien, Ost-Indien und andere weit entlegene Landschaften, samt einer ausführlichen Erzehlung aller Denck- und Merckwürdigster Sachen, so darinnen zu finden und anzutreffen, nebenst den Sitten und Gebräuchen dieser Nationen und anderen Dingen, dergleichen zuvor niemals von anderen angemercket und beschrieben worden. Erstlich von dem Authore selbst, der diese Reisen gethan, in Italianischer Sprach beschrieben und in vier- und fünffzig Send-Schreiben in vier Theile verfasset, nachgehends aus dieser in die Französische und Hol- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 281 Christen ebenso wie die Ordensmänner in Isfahan in den 1030er/1620er Jahren unter Verdacht, sich illoyal zu Schah ʿAbbās I. zu verhalten und als fünfte Kolonne der verfeindeten katholischen Portugiesen zu agieren. Christlich-muslimischer Religionsdisput In diesen Zeitraum fällt ein katholisch-schiitisches Streitgespräch im Frühjahr 1030/1621 in Isfahan, das eine theologische Debatte um die „wahre“ Religion auslöste, die im 11./17. Jhdt. mittels zahlreicher polemischer und apologetischer Schriften von christlicher wie muslimischer Seite im Iran verstärkt geführt wurde.31 Aus diesem Streitgespräch, an dem Della Valle – wahrscheinlich aber nicht ʿAlawī – teilnahm, resultierte schließlich die christlich-apologetische Risāla des Italieners, die ʿAlawī wenige Monate später in Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī zu widerlegen versuchte. Neben diesen beiden Quellen dokumentieren Della Valles Reiseberichte Viaggi, die insgesamt 36 italienische Briefe von seinen Orientreisen umfassen, ausführlich die Umstände des Isfahaner Religionsgesprächs vom Frühjahr 1030/1621, namentlich das 14. Sendschreiben vom 24. September 1621 aus Isfahan und das 17. Sendschreiben vom 29. November 1622 aus Combrù.32 Seine fast zwölfjährige Reise durch den Orient, die Della Valle im Juni 1614 ursprünglich als Pilgerfahrt ins Heilige Land angetreten hatte, führten den Laienkaländische, anjezo aber auß dem Original in die Hoch-Teutsche Sprach übersetzet, mit schönen Kupfferen geziert und vieren wohlanständigen Registeren versehen, ed. Johann-Hermann Widerhold, Genf 1674, S. 168; Abisaab, Converting Persia, S. 79-80; Matthee, „Christians“, S. 22. 31 Einen Überblick dazu bieten Richard, „Catholicisme“; R. Pourjavady/S. Schmidtke, „Muslim Polemics against Judaism and Christianity in 18th Century Iran. The Literary Sources of Āqā Muḥammad ʿAlī Bihbahānī’s (1144/1732-1216/1801) Rādd-i Shubuhāt al-Kuffār“, Studia Iranica 35 (2006), S. 71-6. Für christliche Widerlegungen des Islams im 17. Jhdt. vgl. Richard, „Catholicisme“; ders., „Trois conférences de controverse islamo-chrétienne en Géorgie vers 1665-1666“, Bedi Kartlisa 40 (1982), S. 253-9; ders., „Le Franciscain Dominicus Germanus de Silésie. Grammairien et auteur d’apologie en persan“, Islamochristiana 10 (1984), S. 91-107; ders., „Le Père Aimé Chézaud“. Für schiitische Angriffe auf das Christentum im 17. Jhdt. vgl. Richard, „Trois conférences“; ders., „Un augustin portugais“; Hairi, „Reflections“. Für das ausgehende 18. und 19. Jhdt. vgl. Amanat, „Mujtahids and Missionaries“, S. 247-69. Vgl. auch die Auflistung muslimischer Polemiken gegen das Christentum verschiedener Jhdte. in Āryān, Čihra-yi Masīḥ, S. 156-62. 32 Im Folgenden zitiere ich Della Valles Reiseberichte nach der weiter oben angeführten deutschen Ausgabe von 1674. In seinen 6. bis 18. Sendschreiben im dritten Teil widmet sich Della Valle ausführlich seinen Reisen durch das Safawidenreich. Vergleichsweise ziehe ich die jüngste vollständige Edition aus dem Italienischen heran: Pietro Della Valle, Viaggi di Pietro Della Valle, il pellegrino. Descritti da lui medesimo in lettere familiari all’erudito suo amico Mario Schipano. Divisi in tre parti. Cioè: la Turchia, la Persia e l’India. Colla vita e ritratto dell’autore 1-2, ed. G. Gancia, Brighton 1843. Daneben stütze ich mich auf einen Tagebucheintrag Della Valles in seinem Diario vom 14. September 1621. Diesen zitiere ich im Folgenden nach Rossi, Elenco, da keine Edition von Hs. Fondo Ottoboniano Latino 3382 aus der Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana in Rom vorliegt. Della Valles Risāla, die ebenfalls nicht ediert ist, zitiere ich nach den oben angeführten Hss. Vat Pers. 7 und 81. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 282 tholiken aus einer aristokratischen römischen Familie durch den Nahen Osten, Persien und Indien.33 Von „some 61 books in Arabic, Persian and Turkish“ wird berichtet, die Della Valle währenddessen gesammelt und nach Europa gebracht haben soll.34 Auf seinen Reisen durch das Safawidenreich hielt sich Della Valle zweimal in Isfahan auf, nämlich vom Februar bis Dezember 1617 und vom Dezember 1618 bis Oktober 1621.35 Seine Idee, eine Gemeinde chaldäischer und nestorianischer Christen unter dem Schutz des Schahs in Isfahan zu gründen, ließen sich auch mit Unterstützung seiner Frau Maʿanī Ǧuwairī36 – Tochter eines Nestorianers und einer Armenierin aus Bagdad – nicht realisieren.37 Während seiner Zeit in Isfahan freundete sich Della Valle mit den dortigen unbeschuhten Karmelitern, besonders dem Spanier und späteren Bischof von Isfahan John Thaddeus (1574-1633),38 und den Augustinern, darunter der Portugiese Manuel della Madre di Dio,39 an. Dabei verbrachte er im September 1621 auch „mehrere Tage“ im Isfahaner Karmeliterkonvent.40 Wie wir aus Della Valles Reiseberichten erfahren, ereignete sich das katholischschiitische Streitgespräch zufällig und informell anlässlich eines Besuchs im Haus eines Isfahaner Schiiten zwischen dem 1. April und Ostern (11. April) 1621. Diesem „vornehmen persianischen Edelmann“41 namens Mīr Muḥammad ʿAbd al- Wahhābī42 hatte Della Valle gemeinsam mit „seinem guten Freund“43 Manuel della Madre di Dio bereits Ende März 1621 einen ersten Besuch abgestattet. Anfang April 1621 trafen die beiden Katholiken dann im Haus ʿAbd al-Wahhābīs, wie Della Valle zu Beginn seiner Risāla ausführt, auf „einige [schiitische] Theologen- 33 J. Gurney, „Della Valle“, in EIr, Bd. 7, S. 251-4; Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 234-5. 34 Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 235. 35 Gurney, „Della Valle“, in EIr, Bd. 7, S. 251-4. 36 Gurney, „Della Valle“, in EIr, Bd. 7, S. 251-2. 37 Andernorts wird Maʿanī Ǧuwairī, die Della Valle um 1616 heiratete, auch als „Assyrerin“ bzw. Chaldäerin beschrieben, vgl. Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 234. 38 Della Valle nennt John Thaddeus of S. Elisaeus (Johann Thaddäus, Spanier, in Persien حوان genannt, vgl. Chronicle, Bd. 2, S. 920-34) vielfach in seinen Reiseberichten, vgl. Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung (Nummerierung der Sendschreiben in römischen Ziffern mit Datierung): VI. (24.8.1619), S. 4, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22-3; VII. (21.10.1619), S. 28-31; VIII. (4.4.1620), S. 33, 36, 41-2, 44-50; IX. (20.6.1620), S. 56-9; X. (2.8.1620), S. 62; XI. (8.8.1620), S. 64-5, 68-70; XII. (22.2.1621), S. 72-5, 84, 89; XIV. (24.9.1621), S. 110, 112, 123. 39 Den Augustiner Manuel (Emanuel) della Madre di Dio nennt Della Valle in seinen Reiseberichten, vgl. Reiß-Beschreibung: VII., S. 28; XI., S. 70; XIV., S. 116. 40 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 118. 41 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 116. Im Italienischen heißt es „persiano di qualità“, vgl. ders., Viaggi, S. 223. 42 In den einschlägigen Ṭabaqāt-Werken findet sich kein Eintrag unter diesem Namen. Möglicherweise handelt es sich um einen Isfahaner Notablen, der keine bekannteren Schriften hervorbrachte und daher in den Ṭabaqāt-Werken unerwähnt bleibt. 43 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 116. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 283 schüler (ǧamʿī ṭālib-i ʿulamān)“44 sowie einen „Mīrzā“ und einen „Mullā“.45 Die Atmosphäre des Streitgesprächs beschreibt Della Valle wie folgt: „Denselben Tag / an welchem ich diesen Herrn [Mīr Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Wahhābī] besucht / traff ich in seinem Hauß unterschiedliche andere Außländer46 / alles Leuthe von gutem Ansehen / an / welche für die lange Weile mit einander spracheten. Unter andern war ihrer Lehrer47 einer darbey / welcher das meiste geredt / nicht weiß ich / ob er eben so geschickt gewest / als viel Worte er gemacht. Nachdem wir uns nun mit ihnen in Gespräch eingelassen / kamen wir alsobald / wie gemeiniglich der Gebrauch ist / von Glaubens-Sachen zu reden / worinnen die Persianer sehr neugierig seyn / und gern davon reden hören; ja sie lassen es mit grosser Gedult geschehen / wann man etwas wider sie redt / und sagen kein Wort darwider (…).“48 Wie Della Valle berichtet, fand das Gespräch in persischer Sprache statt, die sowohl er als auch Manuel della Madre di Dio beherrschten. Der Inhalt des Disputs drehte sich um drei Themen, die „fast alle unsere [christlich-muslimischen] Strittigkeiten in sich begreiffen“, nämlich (1) die Ablehnung Mohammeds und des Korans seitens der Christen bei gleichzeitiger Akzeptanz des Alten Testaments, (2) der Vorwurf der Muslime an die Christen, sie hätten die göttliche Offenbarung in den Evangelien verfälscht, (3) und die aus muslimischer Sicht angebliche Ikonolatrie der Christen.49 Nach diesem Streitgespräch entschloss sich Della Valle auf Gutheißen der Augustiner, den schiitischen Gesprächspartnern die katholische Position zu den drei Streitfragen noch einmal ausführlich und auf Persisch in einem Traktat zu erläutern, das er schließlich „in fünff / oder sechs Tagen“ vor Ostern (11. April) 1621 fertigstellte.50 Seine Apologie ist also kein Produkt bloßer theoretischer Überlegungen, sondern Ergebnis einer persönlichen Begegnung mit Andersgläubigen, die Della Valle von der Richtigkeit seines katholischen Glaubens überzeugen wollte. 44 Hss. Vat. Pers. 7, Fol. 1b:10 und 81 Fol. 1b:10; Rossi, Elenco, S. 32, Vat. Pers. 7. 45 Hss. Vat. Pers. 7, Fol. 17b:5 und 81 Fol. 39b:9-10. 46 Im Italienischen heißt es ebenfalls „diversi altri forestieri“, vgl. Della Valle, Viaggi, S. 224. Ich gehe davon aus, dass damit „fremde“ Perser gemeint sind, mit denen Della Valle nicht bekannt war. Weitere anwesende Europäer hätte Della Valle vermutlich – wie Manuel della Madre di Dio – namentlich aufgeführt. 47 Im Italienischen heißt es „un dottor“, vgl. Della Valle, Viaggi, S. 224. Vermutlich handelt es sich um die gleiche Person, die weiter oben „Mullā“ und weiter unten „Doctor“ genannt wird. Die Identität dieses Schiiten ist unbekannt. Dafür, dass es sich um ʿAlawī gehandelt haben könnte, gibt es keine Anhaltspunkte. 48 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 117. 49 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 117. Diese drei strittigen Punkte zählt Della Valle auch zu Beginn seiner Apologie auf, vgl. Hss. Vat. Pers. 7, Fol. 1b:10-2a:5 und 81, Fol. 2b:1-7; Rossi, Elenco, S. 32. Zu Della Valles entsprechender Gliederung seiner Apologie in drei Kapitel vgl. [Referenzen beziehen sich auf Hss. Vat. Pers. 7/81]: erstes Kapitel 2b:4-10a:6/3b:9- 22b:5; zweites Kapitel 10a:7-14b:2/22b:6-33b:3; drittes Kapitel 14b:3-17a:9/33b:4-39b:4. 50 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 117. Richards Angabe, Della Valle habe seine Risāla im November oder Dezember 1621 verfasst, trifft nicht zu, vgl. Richard, „Le Père Aimé Chézaud“, S. 13. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 284 Della Valle traf jedoch auf die unerwartete Schwierigkeit, dass kein persischer Kopist bereit war, seine islamkritische Schrift in professionelle Reinschrift zu setzen, bevor er den schiitischen Gelehrten seine Risāla übergeben wollte.51 Nachdem er nach monatelanger Suche schließlich einen Kopisten gefunden hatte, übergab Della Valle fünf Monate später am Fest Kreuzerhöhung (14. September) 1621 ʿAbd al- Wahhābī, dem Gastgeber des Streitgesprächs, seine Apologie. Die Übergabe der Risāla verband Della Valle mit dem Wunsch an ʿAbd al-Wahhābī, „dasselbe / nebenst seinem Doctor, zu lesen / und es den vornehmsten / und gelehrtesten in ihrem Gesetz zu weisen / welche ich auch / daß sie darauf antworten / und darwider schreiben sollten / heraus gefordert / (…) [und diese Risāla habe ich] mit meiner eigenen Hand Unterschrifft / und auffgedrucktem gewöhnlichen Bettschafft eigenhändig überliefert / und ihn dabey mündlich sehr hoch gebetten / daß er dasselbe / wem er wollte / ja dem König [Schah] selbst / zu lesen geben wolle / welches ich mir für eine grosse Ehre halten würde.“52 Della Valle zeigt hier ein ernsthaftes Interesse an einer theologischen Auseinandersetzung mit den schiitischen Gelehrten, auch wenn sich seine Intention dem apologetischen Denken seiner Zeit entsprechend klar auf die Widerlegung des muslimischen Gesprächspartners richtete.53 Zugleich bemühte sich Della Valle, die Voraussetzung für einen Austausch zwischen Persern und Europäern zu schaffen, indem er „etliche Persianische Sachen in die Lateinische Sprach“ übersetzte, darunter „Tacuim“ [Taqwīm] und „das Bekandtnus deß Glaubens der Persianer“, von denen der Karmeliter P. Visitator Vincent of S. Francis im September 1621 (unfertige) Kopien nach Rom mitgenommen haben soll.54 Neben Della Valles Apologie muss spätestens 1032/1622 auch Xaviers Āʾīna-yi ḥaqq-numā aus dem Jahr 1609 in Isfahan bekannt gewesen sein, wie die Datierung von ʿAlawīs Replik Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ zeigt. Della Valle kannte die Schrift des Jesuiten aus Indien 1030/1621 aber offenbar noch nicht, da er sich sicher wähnt, mit seiner Risāla die erste Widerlegung des Islams in persischer Sprache überhaupt verfasst zu haben.55 Wenige Tage nach Übergabe seiner Risāla an ʿAbd al-Wahhābī reiste Della Valle am 1. Oktober 1621 aus Isfahan in Richtung Schiraz ab. Wie uns Della Valle rund ein Jahr später aus Combrù am Persischen Golf mitteilt, hatte kurz nach seiner Weiterreise ʿAbd al-Wahhābī vergebens versucht, ihn bei den Isfahaner Augustinern zu erreichen, um ihm seine Risāla, versehen mit eigenen Kommentaren und 51 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 117 52 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 117. In seinem Diario erwähnt Della Valle die Übergabe seiner Apologie unter dem gleichen Datumseintrag, vgl. Rossi, Elenco, S. 33, Hs. Vat. Pers. 7. 53 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 118. 54 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 118; Chronicle, Bd. 2, S. 1026. Möglicherweise handelt es sich hierbei um Kopien des Almanachs (Taqwīm) von Naṣīr ad-Dīn aṭ-Ṭūsī von 672/1273- 74 und des anonymem Kitāb-i wāǧibāt-i żarūrīya über schiitische Glaubensgrundsätze (uṣūl ad-dīn), die in der Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rom, unter Hss. Vat. Pers. 123 und Barb. Orient. 1021 bzw. Vat. Pers. 83 überliefert sind, vgl. Rossi, Elenco, S. 39, 158-9 und 33-4. 55 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 118. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 285 Anmerkungen, „statt einer Antwort“ zurückzugeben.56 Eine ausführliche Replik von schiitischer Seite aus der Feder ʿAlawīs ließ aber nicht lange auf sich warten. Dank der Begegnung mit dem schottischen Reisenden George Strachan (Georgius Strachanus)57 am 24. Oktober 1622 in Combrù erfuhr Della Valle von ʿAlawīs Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī und erhielt sogar eine Kopie der Replik.58 Dieses Exemplar umfasste nach Della Valles Angaben „fünff und zwanzig Blätter“, während seine eigene Risāla „nicht mehr als etwa zwey oder drey Blätter“ aufwies.59 Wahrscheinlich verstand Della Valle unter „Blatt“ eine Lage von etwa 8 Folien, so dass man auf rund 200 Folien für Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī und rund 20 Folien für Della Valles Risāla käme, was der Größenordnung der überlieferten Manuskripte entspräche. Wie Della Valle von seinem schottischen Freund erfuhr, hatte seine Apologie während seiner Abwesenheit ein gewisses Aufsehen unter den Schiiten in Isfahan hervorgerufen. Offenbar sah sich der Gelehrte Mīr Dāmād (st. 1041/1631)60 aus den Reihen der hochrangigen schiitischen Kleriker veranlasst, seinen Cousin, Schwiegersohn und Schüler ʿAlawī mit der Widerlegung der Apologie Della Valles zu beauftragen.61 Della Valle schreibt: „Dieses Buch [ʿAlawīs Replik] / wie mir der Herr Strachanus erzehlte / war aus Befehl der vornehmsten von der Mahometische Sect / erst vor etlich wenig Monaten / zu einer Antwort auf die jenige Schrifft / welche ich vor etlicher Zeit geschrieben / und wider die Mahometaner / wegen etlicher strittigen Glaubens-Artikel heraus gegeben / zu Hisphahàn [Isfahan] offentlich außgangen. Ich erfreuete mich höchlich hierüber / daß mein Brief [Risāla] bey Hofe so grosses Wesen und Unruhe verursachet; und daß man / nachdem derselbe von ihren Gelehrten gelesen / und untersucht worden / aus einhelligem Rath beschlossen / denselben bester massen zu beantworten. Es nennen die Persia- 56 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 225-6. 57 Della Valle stellt George Strachan, „mein schon vor vielen Jahrenher in Persien gewesener guter Freund und alter Bakandter“, als schottischen Reisenden vor, der am 24. Oktober 1622 in Combrù zu ihm stieß, vgl. Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 222. Zu Strachans Reisen durch Persien vgl. G.L. Dellavida, George Strachan: Memorials of a Wandering Scottish Scholar of the Seventeenth Century, Aberdeen 1956, S. 40-72. 58 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 225. Möglicherweise handelt es sich dabei um Hs. Vat. Pers. 11 (datiert auf den 5. Ramażān 1031/ 14. Juli 1622) aus der Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana in Rom, die auf der letzten Folie den Vermerk „Disputa de Persiani contro li Christiani. Valle 52“ trägt. 59 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 226. Im Italienischen heißt es ebenfalls „un libro formato che si stende in venticinque fogli simili“ bzw. „mia epistoletta che non occupò più di due o tre fogli di carta“, vgl. Della Valle, Viaggi, S. 445. 60 Muḥammad Bāqir Dāmād b. Mīr Šams ad-Dīn Muḥammad Ḥusainī Astarābādī, vgl. A. Newman, „Dāmād, Mīr(-e),” in EIr, Bd. 6, S. 623-6; Abisaab, Converting Persia, S. 71-2; al- Amīn ʿĀmilī, Aʿyān, Bd. 9, S. 189; Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī, Amal, Bd. 2, S. 249-50, Nr. 734; Afandī, Riyāḍ, Bd. 5, S. 40-4; a.a.O., Bd. 7, S. 134; aṭ-Ṭihrānī, Ṭabaqāt, Bd. 5, S. 67-70. Von Mīr Dāmād berichten die Ṭabaqāt-Werke, dass er eine enge Verbindung zu Schah ʿAbbās I. und später Schah Ṣafī (reg. 1039-52/1629-42) gepflegt habe. 61 Möglicherweise spielte auch der Schah hierbei eine Rolle. Unklar ist, von welcher Qualität die Beziehungen ʿAlawīs zu Schah ʿAbbās I. und den anderen schiitischen Klerikern waren. Richard bezeichnet ʿAlawī als „‘chapelain‘ (pish-namâz) de Shâh ʿAbbâs Ier“, nennt aber keine Quelle, vgl. Richard, „Le Père Aimé Chézaud“, S. 13. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 286 ner ihr höchstes Oberhaupt ihrer Sect / in geistlichen Sachen / Mustehèd [muǧtahid]; welche Würde der Zeit der Mir Muhammèd Baqir,62 deß Königs nächster Anverwandter / welcher ein betagter Mann war / und mir zu Hisphahàn bekandt gewest / vertritt (…). Auf dieses Manns hohes Ansehen nun / und mit dessen Gutheissen / wurde ein Lehrer / Nahmens Amèh Ben Zeinel abedin, el Alevi [Aḥmad b. Zain al-ʿĀbidīn al-ʿAlawī], das ist / Ahmèd, des Zeinel abedin Sohn / und ein Alevi, (welches letzte Wort entweder ein Zunahme seines Stammes / oder ein Nahme seines Vatterlands gewest seyn mag) verordnet / meinen Brief zu widerlegen. Dieser war nun der Verfasser solcher Antwort / welche er mit zweyen Reimzeilen intitulirt hat Elluvamea errebbàni, Fi red scebeh el Nasràni [Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī dar radd-i šubha-yi naṣrānī]; welches so viel gesagt ist / Der widerstrahlende herrliche Glanz gegen den Nazarener [Hervorhebung Ed.]; oder mit einem Wort: Die Gegen-Antwort auf deß Nazareners Schrifft [Hervorhebung Ed.]; welchen Nahmen sie zum öfftern den Christen geben.“63 Wie Della Valle berichtet, wurde ʿAlawīs Widerlegung gezielt unter den Europäern in Isfahan verbreitet, indem die schiitische Seite veranlasste, „[sie] in alle Buchläden zu Hisphahàn in grosser Menge außzutheilen / daß man dieselbe verkauffen / und wann die Buchführer einen Francken [Europäer] vorbey gehen sahen / ihme dieses Buch zu kauffen anbieten sollte; weil sie höchlich verlangeten / daß es allenthalben / insonderheit unter den Christen / bekandt werden möchte.“64 Diese gezielte Reaktion des schiitischen Klerus deutet daraufhin, dass ʿAlawīs Replik nicht allein Della Valle galt, sondern „das ganze Christenthumb bestreiten“65 sollte, einschließlich seiner Repräsentanten in den Isfahaner Augustiner- und Karmeliterkonventen. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist auch verständlich, warum ʿAlawī den Namen seines Kontrahenten und den Titel seiner Vorlage in Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī verschweigt und nur von „einem der europäischen Priester und Mönche (baʿżī az qissīsān wa rahbānān az farangiyān)“66 spricht, obwohl Della Valle Laienautor war. Anders als der Italiener hatte ʿAlawī offenbar kein Interesse an einer Fortführung der theologischen Debatte mit den christlichen Vertretern in Isfahan. Hingegen prophezeite Della Valle noch vor seiner Weiterreise nach Indien, dass „es nicht lang anstehen [werde] / daß diese [ʿAlawīs Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī] ihre Antwort / beydes von mir / als andern / die verständiger sind als ich / dergestalt werde widerlegt werden.“67 Eine solche Gegenwiderlegung Della Valles ist allerdings nicht bezeugt. 62 Vermutlich handelt es sich um den oben erwähnten Muḥammad Bāqir Dāmād, genannt Mīr Dāmād. 63 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 225. 64 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 226. 65 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 227. 66 ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 20. Daneben findet sich eine allgemeine Anspielung auf die Präsenz der Europäer (farangiyān, inglīz) in Isfahan, vgl. a.a.O., S. 145. Diese Anspielung geht auf einen Wortlaut zurück, der sich in Della Valles Apologie findet, vgl. Hss. Vat. Pers. 7 Fol. 11b:6-7 und 81 Fol. 26b:2-4. 67 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 227 und 232. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 287 Verhältnis zwischen Safawiden und Europäern Im Umgang mit den Europäern zeigte Schah ʿAbbās I. ein starkes Interesse an der christlichen Religion. Wie wir von dem Karmeliter Vincent of S. Francis in einem Brief vom 5. Juni 1621 erfahren, hatte der Schah kurz zuvor einen Religionsdisput abhalten lassen, zu dem er Vertreter der englischen East India Company sowie den spanischen Gesandten und Vincent of S. Francis als katholische Vertreter zur Audienz lud.68 Mit dieser Form des vor dem Herrscher ausgetragenen Streitgesprächs zwischen verschiedenen religiösen Repräsentanten griff der Schah eine Tradition auf, die auch die indischen Moguln Akbar I. (reg. 963-1014/1556-1605)69 und Ǧahāngīr (reg. 1013-37/1605-27) pflegten.70 So befragte Schah ʿAbbās I. beide Seiten zum Unterschied zwischen „Catholics and English“,71 besonders hinsichtlich (1) des Fastens, (2) des Kreuzzeichens und der Ikonolatrie, (3) des freien menschlichen Willens und (4) des Primats des römischen Bischofs.72 Dabei verstand der Schah es, konfessionelle Streitigkeiten zwischen den Europäern zu seinem politischen Vorteil zu nutzen. Als es Anfang der 1030er/1620er Jahre zu Spannungen zwischen dem Safawidenreich und den expandierenden Europäern kam, wirkten sich diese auch auf die christlich-muslimischen Beziehungen aus.73 Bereits in der zweiten Jahreshälfte 1621 nahmen die Konflikte zwischen Safawiden und Portugiesen um die Insel Hormuz zu.74 Gegen Ende des Jahres schloss der Schah ein Bündnis mit den Engländern – den Rivalen der katholischen Portugiesen im Indischen Ozean –, um die portugiesische Herrschaft über die Inseln Kefem und Hormuz sowie die Häfen der Portugiesen am Persischen Golf zu beenden.75 Um die Jahreswende 1621/22 gelang es den Safawiden mit englischer Hilfe, die beiden Inseln zu erobern. Am 1. Mai 1622 übergaben die Portugiesen schließlich die bedeutende Festung Hormuz an die Safawiden.76 Diese politische und militärische Auseinandersetzung scheint sich auch unmittelbar auf das Verhältnis des Schahs zu den Ordensmännern in Isfahan ausgewirkt zu haben. 68 Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 248-55; a.a.O., Bd. 2, S. 922-3; Asnād, Nr. 147, S. 199-215. – Vgl. hierzu auch Rudi Matthees Beitrag in diesem Band. 69 F. Lehmann, „Akbar I“, in EIr, Bd. 1, S. 707-11. 70 G.A. Bailey, „Between Religions: Christianity in a Muslim Empire“, in Goa and the Great Mughal, ed. J. Flores/N.V. e Silva, London 2004, S. 148-54. 71 Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 249. 72 Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 249-52. 73 Vgl. hierzu auch Rudi Matthees Beitrag in diesem Band. 74 Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 258. 75 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 111-4 und 166. Zuvor war es bereits am 27.12.1620 zu einer Seeschlacht zwischen der englischen und der portugiesischen Flotte gekommen, bei der die portugiesischen Schiffe fliehen konnten, vgl. a.a.O., S. 91-2 und 108. Zu den Vereinbarungen Schah ʿAbbās I. mit der englischen East India Company vgl. Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 259; Newman, Safavid Iran, S. 60-3. 76 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 167-8 und 175; Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 266-7. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 288 Im August 1621 hatte sich bereits der Argwohn Schah ʿAbbās I. innenpolitisch gegen die christlichen Armenier in einer Kampagne zu deren Zwangsbekehrung zum Islam in 43 armenischen Dörfern um Isfahan entladen.77 Grund hierfür war der Verdacht des Schahs, die Armenier könnten eine zu enge Bindung zu den katholischen Ordensleuten entwickelt haben, die ihre Loyalität zum Schah infragestelle.78 Darüberhinaus kam es im Frühjahr 1622 zu Übergriffen gegen die Ordensniederlassungen der Augustiner und Karmeliter in Isfahan. Nachdem unter den Safawiden bekannt geworden war, dass John Thaddeus und die Karmeliter erfolgreich unter Muslimen missioniert hatten, wurden fünf schiitische Konvertiten zum Christentum, darunter der Gärtner des Karmeliterkonvents, Elia, hingerichtet.79 Offenbar sollte dadurch ein Exempel statuiert werden.80 Die Getreuen des Schahs wie auch „more than 200 (Mullas)“ aus dem schiitischen Klerus waren empört über die christlichen Missionare und verlangten vom Schah die Todesstrafe für die Karmeliter.81 Daraufhin ließ „der König (…) die PP. Carmeliter / und alle / die im Kloster gewest / in Arest nehmen / und ihr ganzes Convent genau durchsuchen lassen / weil ihm von etlichen gesagt worden / daß viel Mahometaner / die sie zum Christlichen Glauben bekehret / darinnen verborgen waren.“82 Zwar wurde der Hausarrest gegen die Karmeliter und Augustiner wenige Monate später im Oktober 1622 wieder aufgehoben,83 die Beziehungen der katholischen, häufig aus Portugal oder Spanien stammenden Ordensmänner zu Schah ʿAbbās I. waren aber nachhaltig gestört. Offenbar fürchtete der Schah eine Kollaboration der Missionare mit den verfeindeten Portugiesen, um seine christlichen Untertanen entlang konfessioneller Grenzen gegen ihn aufzubringen.84 77 Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 255-7 und 271. 78 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 112-3. Zu den Armeniern unter safawidischer Herrschaft vgl. M. van Esbroek/H. Papazian, „Armenia and Iran. V. Accounts of Iran. VI. Armeno- Iranian Relations in the Islamic Period. The Safavids and their successors“, in EIr, Bd. 2, S. 471-5; V. Gregorian, „Minorities of Isfahan: The Armenian Community of Isfahan 1587- 1722“, Iranian Studies 7 (1974), S. 652-80. 79 Während Della Valle vier Personen angibt, nennen John Thaddeus und Martino Garayzabal (Garazzabal, Ordensname: Prosper of the Holy Spirit) fünf Konvertiten (Elia, Chaffadir, Alexander, Joseph, Hebrain), die ums Leben kamen, vgl. Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 167-8 und 194; Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 259-66; a.a.O., Bd. 2, S. 925-6; Martino Garayzabal (Garazzabal), A briefe relation of the late martyrdome of fiue Persians conuerted to the Catholique faith by the reformed Carmelites, who remaine in the mission of Persia, with the King of Persia, in his citty of Haspahan. And of the increase of the Christian faith in those parts. Gathered out of the letters, which the Fathers labouring in the said mission, haue written vnto their generall: which letters are printed in the Italian and French, and are now translated into English for the good of the Church, Doway 1623; Asnād, Nr. 155-6 und 158, S. 223-46 und 248-9. 80 Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 261, Anm. 2. 81 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 168; Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 261. 82 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 194. 83 Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 194; Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 265. 84 Matthee, „Christians“, S. 23. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 289 Dem schiitischen Klerus war der Einfluss der europäischen Ordensmänner auf Schah ʿAbbās I. schon länger ein Dorn im Auge. Die Verschlechterung der politischen Beziehungen zwischen Safawiden und Portugiesen sowie die missionarischen Aktivitäten der Katholiken nutzten die schiitischen Kleriker, um den Karmelitern Proselytismus vorzuwerfen und sie beim Schah zu diskreditieren. Offenbar fürchteten sie um die muslimisch-schiitische Identität ihres Herrschers und den eigenen Machtbereich. Dies legt ein Bericht der Karmeliter nahe, der sich auf die Folgen des Streitgesprächs Della Valles mit den schiitischen Gelehrten vom April 1621 in Isfahan bezieht: „One reason for the severity [of the Mullas] was that in 1621 Pietro della Valle (as he himself recounts) one day had a religious disputation with a Mulla and, on returning home, drew up in Persian a thesis [his Risāla] on the points disputed and, after submitting it to the Religious communities, sent it to the Mulla. The Mulla replied with a volume against the Christian Faith [ʿAlawī’s Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī], while the Shiah priesthood as a whole made an outcry to the Shah, reproaching him for lack of zeal in his own religion. The incident and revelation (…) of [Fr. John Thaddeus’] activities and conversions in their midst gave them the opportunity (…) to accuse the Carmelites of having baptized not five, but 7,000 Muslims, and they depicted the future as gloomy.“85 Erst vor dem Hintergrund des politischen Kontexts wird ʿAlawīs intensive Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum und seinen normativen Quellen 1031-34/ 1621-25 verständlich.86 Neben Della Valles Apologie waren auch die Verschlechterung der politischen Beziehungen zwischen Safawiden und Portugiesen und die Missgunst des schiitischen Klerus gegenüber den Ordensmännern in Isfahan Anlass für ʿAlawīs Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī. ʿAlawī kam dabei offenbar die Aufgabe zu, im Auftrag des Schahs und der schiitischen Kleriker gegen die Christen und Missionare zu polemisieren, um auf die verfeindeten Portugiesen Druck auszuüben.87 Das Verhältnis des Schahs zum Christentum war also eingebunden in dessen Politik gegenüber den europäischen Mächten, so dass das Bild einer religiös-toleranten Herrschaft Schah ʿAbbās I. angesichts der Ereignisse um das Isfahaner Religionsgespräch vom April 1621 differenziert werden muss. 85 Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 261, Anm. 1. 86 Abisaab, Converting Persia, S. 79-81. 87 Zum Verhältnis hoher schiitischer Gelehrter wie Mīr Dāmād und Šaiḫ Bahāʾī zum Schah vgl. Abisaab, Converting Persia, S. 61-70; Newman, „Safavid Iran“, S. 68-71. Eine armenische Quelle schreibt Šaiḫ Bahāʾī im Zusammenhang mit der Zwangsbekehrung der Armenier 1621 die Äußerung zu: „It was expedient that all Christians should be made Muslims“, vgl. Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 255. Möglicherweise hatte Bahāʾī im Namen des Schahs zu dieser Kampagne gegen die Armenier aufgerufen, vgl. Matthee, „Christians“, S. 22. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 290 Feb.-Dez. 1617 Erster Aufenthalt Della Valles in Isfahan Dez. 1618-Okt. 1621 Zweiter Aufenthalt Della Valles in Isfahan 27. Dez. 1620 Seeschlacht zwischen der englischen und der portugiesischen Flotte Ende März 1621 Erster Besuch Della Valles mit dem Augustiner Manuel della Madre di Dio im Haus Mîr Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Wahhâbîs Zwischen 1. und 11. April (Ostern) 1621 Zweiter Besuch Della Valles mit Manuel della Madre di Dio im Haus Mîr Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Wahhâbîs: Streitgespräch mit schiitischen Gelehrten über die „wahre“ Religion Vor 11. April (Ostern) 1621 Della Valle verfasst in fünf bis sechs Tagen seine christliche Apologie auf Persisch Vor Juni 1621 Religionsdisput zwischen Engländern und Katholiken über Glaubensfragen vor Schah ʿAbbâs I. Vor Sept. 1621 Kampagne Schah ʿAbbâs I. gegen christliche Armenier um Isfahan zu deren Zwangsbekehrung zum Islam 14. Sept. 1621 (Kreuzerhöhung) Della Valles Übergabe seiner Apologie an Mîr Muḥammad ʿAbd al- Wahhâbî [undatiert] Kenntnisnahme Della Valles Apologie durch den „muǧtahid Mîr Muḥammad Bâqir“, vermutlich Mîr Dâmâd, der seinen Cousin, Schwiegersohn und Schüler ʿAlawî mit der Widerlegung der Apologie beauftragt 1. Okt. 1621 Abreise Della Valles aus Isfahan Vor Jahresende 1621 Mîr Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Wahhâbî sucht Della Valle vergeblich im Isfahaner Augustinerkonvent auf, um ihm seine Kommentare zur Apologie „statt einer Antwort“ zu geben Muḥarram 1031/ Nov.-Dez. 1621 Datierung ʿAlawîs im Prolog seiner ersten Widerlegung des Christentums Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî [undatiert] ʿAlawîs Luġaz-i Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Ende 1621 Bündnisschluss Schah ʿAbbâs I. mit den Engländern gegen die Portugiesen Jahreswechsel 1621/22 Eroberung der Inseln Kefem und Hormuz im Persischen Golf durch Safawiden und Engländer gegen portugiesischen Widerstand 1. Mai 1622 Übergabe der Festung Hormuz von Portugiesen an Safawiden Frühjahr 1622 Übergriffe der Safawiden gegen muslimische Konvertiten zum Christentum in Karmeliter- und Augustinerkonventen in Isfahan; fünf Konvertiten sterben Okt. 1622 Aufhebung des Hausarrests von Karmelitern und Augustinern in Isfahan 24. Okt. 1622 George Strachan überbringt Della Valle in Combrù eine Kopie von ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî; Della Valle erklärt, eine Replik auf ʿAlawî verfassen zu wollen, setzt seine Reise nach Indien aber fort Vor 1032/1622-23 ʿAlawî verfasst seine Widerlegung des Judentums Ṣawâʿiq-i raḥmân 1032/1622-23 Datierung ʿAlawîs im Prolog seiner zweiten Widerlegung des Christentums Miṣqal-i ṣafâʾ in Replik auf Xaviers Âʾîna-yi ḥaqq-numâ von 1609 [undatiert] ʿAlawîs Risâla dar radd-i dîbâča in Replik auf die Widerlegung eines gewissen „Pâdirî Mîmîlâd“ Šawwâl 1034/ Juli 1625 Datierung des Kolophons von ʿAlawîs Lamaʿât-i malakûtîya gegen das Christentum © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 291 ʿAlawīs Argumentation in Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī88 In Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī verfolgt ʿAlawī mit seiner Argumentation zwei Ziele: In Erwiderung auf Della Valle versucht er, (1) zum einen die Prophetenschaft Mohammeds in der Bibel nachzuweisen, (2) zum anderen die Fälschung der Evangelien zu belegen, um ihnen die Autorität göttlicher Offenbarung abzusprechen. Hinter diesem Argumentationsmuster verbirgt sich eine teleologische Lesart der Bibel, die das Alte und Neue Testament in das heilsgeschichtliche Offenbarungsverständnis der Muslime einordnet.89 Demnach habe sich das Wort Gottes in einer Abfolge von Tora (taurāt), Psalmen (zabūr), Evangelium (inǧīl) und Koran (qurʾān) sukzessive an die Propheten Moses, David, Jesus und Mohammed offenbart. Durch Herabsendung des Korans an Mohammed, das „Siegel der Propheten“ (ḫātim al-anbiyāʾ), habe die göttliche Offenbarung in den Offenbarungsschriften ihren Abschluss gefunden.90 Von diesem Offenbarungsverständnis ausgehend bedient sich ʿAlawī zwei Argumentationslinien. Einerseits will er anhand von (1) Bibelexegese zeigen, dass Mohammed bereits in der Heiligen Schrift vorausgesagt wurde. So führt er beispielsweise im ersten Kapitel einzelne Metaphern des Alten Testaments wie den Kamelreiter oder das Gebirge Paran an, um sie als Prophezeiung Mohammeds oder seines Geburtsorts Mekka zu deuten.91 Aus dem Neuen Testament zieht er besonders den in Joh angekündigten Parakleten (fāraqlīṭ) heran, den er als Propheten Mohammed interpretiert.92 Andererseits erhebt ʿAlawī gegen die Jünger und Evangelisten den (2) Vorwurf, die „wahre“ Offenbarung Gottes an den Propheten Jesus (Masīḥ) entstellt zu ha- 88 Die folgende Darstellung gibt einen groben Überblick über ʿAlawīs Argumentation anhand des Teheraner Drucks, vgl. ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd. 89 Diese Lesart kann direkt aus den Suren 7,157 und 61,6 abgeleitet werden, vgl. H. Lazarus- Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds. Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism, Princeton 1992, S. 47. 90 Nicht eindeutig ist, ob ʿAlawī unter taurāt – neben dem Pentateuch – auch andere alttestamentliche Bücher versteht. Daneben verwendet er für die Bezeichnung des Alten Testaments die Begriffe kitābhā-yi muqaddas-i qadīm und dīgar-i kitābhā-yi muqaddas-i payġambarān sowie ʿahd al-ʿatīq als Pendant zum Neuen Testament (ʿahd al-ǧadīd). Im Einzelnen muss überprüft werden, auf welche Teile der Bibel sich ʿAlawī jeweils bezieht. 91 ʿAlawī nennt folgende Schriftstellen, vgl. ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 27-8 [Entsprechungen in der Einheitsübersetzung]: Jes [21,7(?)]; Dtn [33,2]; Hab [3,3]. 92 ʿAlawī nennt folgende Schriftstellen, vgl. ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 22-5 [Entsprechungen in der Einheitsübersetzung]: Joh 33 [14,12.15-16.23-24]; 34 [14,26-27(?)]; 35 [15,26-27; 16,7.12-13(?)]; 19 [?]. Auf die muslimische Argumentation zur Deutung des Parakleten geht auch Della Valle in seiner Risāla ein, vgl. Della Valle, Reiß-Beschreibung, S. 226. Zu den Argumenten ʿAlawīs vgl. ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 27:9-13. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 292 ben.93 Aufgrund dieser Verfälschung sei die Offenbarung des Korans (kitāb-i fāraqlīṭ) an den „Parakleten“ Mohammed ergangen. Diesen hermeneutischen Zirkelschluss, die Bibel einerseits als exegetische Quelle heranzuziehen, sie andererseits aber als göttliche Offenbarung zu verwerfen, löst ʿAlawī indes nicht auf.94 So versucht er im zweiten Kapitel, textuelle und logische Widersprüche in den Evangelien herauszuarbeiten, die er als Belege für eine Fälschung des an Jesus ergangenen Gesetzes deutet. Diese Widersprüche klassifiziert ʿAlawī in vier Kategorien. Als Beweis für (1) einander widersprechende Aussagen über Jesus in den Evangelien führt er die unterschiedlichen Bezeichnungen Jesu wie „Sohn Gottes“, „Sohn Davids“ und „Menschensohn“ heran.95 Als Beispiel für (2) logische Widersprüche zwischen den einzelnen Evangelien nennt ʿAlawī ihre voneinander abweichenden Darstellungen zu Jesu Tod, Begräbnis und Auferstehung.96 Zu (3) jenen Aussagen der Evangelien, die ʿAlawī mit dem Wesen Gottes oder Jesu unvereinbar scheinen, zählt er Jesu Versuchungen durch den Teufel97 oder seine letzten Worte am Kreuz.98 Als Beispiel für (4) Widersprüche der (vermeintlich offenbarten) Gesetze (aḥkām-i šarīʿat) der Evangelien zu denen des Alten Testaments nennt ʿAlawī Jesu Bruch der Sabbatruhe für eine Krankenheilung.99 Insgesamt zeigt ʿAlawī in seiner Argumentation eine starke Tendenz zu einem buchstäblichen Schriftverständnis. Grundlage der letztgenannten Kategorie ist ʿAlawīs Differenzierung zwischen der Autorität eines Propheten (nabī) einerseits und eines Gesandten und Schriftbesitzers (rasūl wa ṣāḥib-i kitāb) andererseits. Während der Prophet keine frühere Offenbarung abrogieren dürfe, verfüge der Gesandte und Schriftbesitzer über die 93 ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 98-102. Zum taḥrīf-Vorwurf gegenüber den Juden vgl. C. Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Ḥazm, Leiden 1996, S. 223-48. Die muslimischerseits häufig gegen die „Echtheit“ der Bibel vorgebrachten Argumentationslinien der Abrogation (nasḫ) und des Fehlens einer ununterbrochenen Überlieferung (tawātur) spielen hingegen eine untergeordnete Rolle in ʿAlawīs Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī, vgl. dazu Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, S. 19-49. Zum taḥrīf-Vorwurf und zur christlich-muslimischen Auseinandersetzung vgl. S.H. Griffith, „Gospel“, in EQ, Bd. 2, S. 342-3; D. Thomas, „The Bible and the Kalām“, in The Bible in Arab Christianity, ed. D. Thomas, Leiden 2007, S. 175-91; C. Wilde, „Is There Room for Corruption in the ‘Books’ of God?“, in The Bible in Arab Christianity, S. 225-40. 94 Zur Problematik muslimischer Bibelexegese vgl. Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds, S. 47-9. In diesem exegetischen Dilemma befindet sich auch Della Valle, wenn er in seiner christlichen Apologie dem Koran einen göttlichen Charakter abspricht, zugleich aber auf Grundlage von Koranversen argumentiert, vgl. dazu ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 90-1 und 157-8. 95 ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 102-4. 96 ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 112-4. 97 ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 123-4. 98 ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 126-7. 99 ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 55-6. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 293 göttliche Vollmacht zur Abrogation zuvor offenbarter Gesetze (nāsiḫ baʿżī aḥkām-i šarīʿat-i sābiq).100 Somit könne laut ʿAlawī das dem Propheten Jesu offenbarte Gesetz (šarīʿat-i Masīḥ) nicht rechtmäßig gegen das mosaische Gesetz (nāmūs-i Mūsā) stehen. Der Kernvorwurf ʿAlawīs an die Christen lautet daher, dass es sich bei den kanonischen Evangelien nicht um das offenbarte Wort Gottes handeln könne, weil Jesus darin Glaubensgrundsätze (bāb-i iʿtiqādāt wa uṣūl) der vorherigen Propheten verletze, obwohl er als nabī keine Berechtigung zur Abrogation habe. Hingegen stünde der Gesandte und Schriftbesitzer Mohammed in der Kontinuität der Propheten, auch wenn er von deren Gesetzen in ihrer praktischen Anwendung (dar baʿżī az furūʿ wa ʿamaliyāt) abweichen könne.101 Beispiel hierfür sei die Polygynie im Islam. Nach ʿAlawīs Auffassung breche der Koran nicht mit dem dekalogischen Verbot der Vielehe, da unter Ehebruch nicht die Vielzahl (rechtlich legitimierter) Eheschließungen, sondern der Geschlechtsverkehr ohne Ehevertrag (ʿaqd-i šarʿī) zu fassen sei.102 Da Jesus die Polygynie – wie sie schon von den Propheten des Alten Testaments praktiziert worden sei – aber grundsätzlich ablehne, stünde er im Widerspruch zu den Gesetzen der Propheten (šarāʾi-i anbiyāʾ). Folglich könne es sich bei Jesu Aussagen, wie sie in den kanonischen Evangelien überliefert sind, nicht um die Offenbarung des göttlichen Wortes handeln. Neben diesen Aspekten zur Fälschung der Evangelien setzt sich ʿAlawī in seinem zweiten Kapitel auch mit dem christlichen Verständnis von Trinität und Inkarnation auseinander.103 Die christliche Auffassung, dass Jesus Anspruch auf Wesenseinheit mit Gott erhoben habe, betrachtet ʿAlawī als Angriff auf die Einheit (aḥadīyat) und Ewigkeit (ṣamadīyat) Gottes.104 Hauptkritikpunkt ist dabei die Einführung verschiedener Hypostasen in ein anthropomorph verstandenes Gottesbild, das sich Christen von der Inkarnation Gottes in Jesus und der trinitarischen Beziehung von Gott-Vater, Sohn und Heiliger Geist machten. Deshalb widerspricht ʿAlawī grundsätzlich der Vorstellung, Gott verfüge über Akzidenzien, die ihn zu einem teilbaren, körperlichen und unvollkommenen Wesen herabsetzten.105 Die Vorstellung etwa, dass Gott einen (leiblichen) Sohn gezeugt habe, offenbare die Absurdität des Christentums. An diese Kritik am christlichen Gottesbild schließt ʿAlawī einen Vergleich der Christologien verschiedener 100 ʿ Alawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 33-7. Zur Frage der Abrogation des mosaischen Gesetzes durch den Koran vgl. Adang, Muslim Writers, S. 192-222. 101 ʿ Alawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 68-70. 102 ʿ Alawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 84-7 und 90-4. 103 Diese Themen bilden bereits in den frühen Polemiken des 3./9. Jhdts. die Hauptkritik des Islams am Christentum, vgl. dazu D. Thomas, „Trinity“, in EQ, Bd. 5, S. 368-72; ders., „The Bible and the Kalām“, in The Bible in Arab Christianity, S. 175-91. 104 ʿ Alawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 114-7. 105 ʿ Alawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 139-42. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 294 orientalischer Kirchen wie der sog. Melkiten, Nestorianer und Jakobiten an. Deren Differenzen über christologische Positionen wie den Monophysitismus106 deutet ʿAlawī als weiteren Beleg für die Verfälschung der an Jesus ergangenen göttlichen Offenbarung durch die Christen. Biblische Schriftbelege in Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī Seine Argumentation macht ʿAlawī an zahlreichen Bibel- und Koranstellen fest. Neben den koranischen Zitaten, die ʿAlawī vor allem im Schlussteil seiner Widerlegung zur Ehrung des Gesandten Mohammed (dar šarafhā-yi hażrat-i rasūl-i akram) anführt,107 nennt er eine Reihe alttestamentlicher,108 überwiegend aber neutestamentliche Schriftbelege109 aus den Evangelien nach Mt, Mk, Lk und Joh. Wäh- 106 Monophysitismus bezeichnet „jene Lehre, die von Christus nach der Einung von Gottheit und Menschheit eine einzige [Hervorhebung LThK] Natur (…) aussagt“, vgl. Th. Hainthaler, „Monophysitismus“, in LThK, Bd. 7, Sp. 418-21. 107 Hier zitiert nach ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd und kanonisch geordnet nach der Kairiner Zählung: 2,42(zweimal).79(dreimal).124.136.178.185.251; 3,9.26.41.78(zweimal). 103.110.125; 4,46; 5,24.43-44(zweimal).45.47-49.72-73.116; 6,45.101; 7,23.60-61.65-66.138. 157.159; 8,1.33; 9,26.31.77.107; 10,4; 12,42; 14,18; 15,9; 16,60.103; 17,43(zweimal).79 (zweimal).81.87.101-102; 20,25.84.114; 21,107; 23,45-46.97; 25,4; 27,40; 29,40; 33,(?); 34,10.28; 36,69; 37,36-37.61; 39,46; 48,18; 50,22; 52,4.30; 53,1.9.37; 55,74; 56,39-40; 58,22; 61,6; 63,1; 65,10; 71,1.21; 81,22; 87,18; 94,1.4; 100,7; 108,1. 108 Hier zitiert nach ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd und kanonisch geordnet nach Pentateuch, prophetischen Büchern, Psalmen [Parallelstellen nach Kapitel- und Verseinteilung der lateinischen Vulgata, soweit durch Konkordanz zur Einheitsübersetzung identifizierbar]: [Gen 17,20]; 31 [?]. [Ex 15(?)]; 16 [20,14.17]; [34,21(?)]. [Lev 19,18(?)]. [Dtn 33,2]. [Jes 21,7(?)]; [66,21(?)]. [Hab 3,3ff.]. [Ps 9,21(?)]; [50,2]. In Lee, Controversial Tracts, au- ßerdem: [Ex 15(?)]; [Dan 2,31f.]. 109 Hier zitiert nach ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd und kanonisch geordnet nach Mt, Mk, Lk, Joh, Briefen und Offb [Parallelstellen nach Kapitel- und Verseinteilung der lateinischen Vulgata, soweit durch Konkordanz zur Einheitsübersetzung identifizierbar]: Mt 4 [5,18(?)]; 6 [4,1-11(?)]; 7 (27?) [10,23(?)]; 8 [?]; 9 [5,29-32(?).33-36(dreimal).38-39(zweimal)]; 15 [8,1-4(?)]; 18 [8,20(?)]; 19 ( 9?) [5,32(?)(zweimal)]; 19 [8,23-27.29(?)]; 20 [8,29(?)]; 24 [9,18-26]; 25 [9,27(?)(zweimal)]; 36 [12,40]; 39 [13,41-42]; 50 [16,13-20; 17,10-13(?).14-21]; 51 [16,21(zweimal)-23]; 53 [17,1-12]; 55 [17,22-23]; 57 [18,18-19]; 59 [19,9(?)(viermal)]; 67 [21,18-21(zweimal)]; 78 (87?) [24,3-6]; [24,24(?)]; [26,39]; 92 [28,16ff.]; 93 [26,69-75]; [27,46(?)]; 100 [27,57-61; 28,1-8]. Mk 8 [2,27-28]; 9 [3,1-6]; 14 [4,35-41]; 16 [5,21-43]; 23 [9,2-10]; [9,14-29]; 27 [8,27-33]; 31 [10,2-12(?)(10-11, dreimal)]; 36 [11,12-14]; [11,23]; 42 [13,3-7]; [14,36]; [15,34(?)]; 44 [15,42-47; 16,1-8]; 50 [14,30.66-72]; [16,15-16(?)]. Lk 7 [2,21]; 10 [6,27ff.(?)]; 11 [4,1-13]; 18 [6,5]; 19 [6,6-11]; 29 [8,22-25]; 31 [8,40-56]; 34 [9,22.28-36]; [9,37-42]; 36 [9,43b-45(?)]; 60 [16,18(?)]; [17,6]; 75 [21,7-9]; [22,42]; 81 [22,54-62]; [23,34]; 86 [18,31-34(?)]; 86 [23,50-56; 24,1-12]. Joh [1,1-3.10-14(zweimal)]; [1,18]; 10 [5,6-17]; 11 [5,21-23]; 12 [5,33-37]; 20 [8,12-16 (15-16, zweimal)]; 15 [?]; 16 [6,1- 15]; 17 [6,56]; 18 [7,14-24]; 19 [8,1-11(zweimal).15]; 20 [8,14-18]; 21 [8,45-49]; 33 [10,38(?)]; [14,8-10]; 33 [14,12(zweimal).15-16.23-24]; 34 [14,26-27(?)]; 35 [15,26-27; 16,7.12-13(?)(zweimal)]; 39 [18,16-18]; 43 [19,31-42]; 44 [20,1-10]. [Gal 5,2-4(?)(zweimal)]; [1 Joh 3,1]. [Offb 3,3; 5,1ff.(?); 16,15(?)]. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 295 rend er alttestamentliche Belege auf Arabisch anführt und auf Persisch erläutert,110 zitiert er neutestamentliche Verse ausschließlich auf Persisch. Auf diese neutestamentlichen Verse verweist ʿAlawī unter Angabe einer Sequenz (faṣl) in den Evangelien, die sich deutlich von der Kapiteleinteilung der Vulgata unterscheidet. Offenbar folgt diese Sequenzeinteilung einer unbekannten Zähltradition, die im Gegensatz zur Vulgataeinteilung von 28 (Mt), 16 (Mk), 24 (Lk) und 21 (Joh) Kapiteln eine Spanne von 100 (Mt), 50 (Mk), 86 (Lk) und 44 (Joh) Sequenzen umfasst. Eine solche Zitation nach der erweiterten faṣl-Zählung ist auch in ʿAlawīs späterer Polemik Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ belegt.111 Zudem lässt der Vergleich mit den Schriftbelegen, auf die Della Valle im Zusammenhang seiner Argumentation in seiner Risāla verweist, vermuten, dass auch er sich auf die unbekannte faṣl-Zählung beruft.112 Möglicherweise verwendeten ʿAlawī und Della Valle eine identische Fassung der Evangelien, die ihnen auf Arabisch oder Persisch vorgelegen haben könnte. Die Tatsache, dass ʿAlawī auf Persisch aus den Evangelien zitiert, könnte dafür sprechen, dass er – anders als bei den arabischen Schriftbelegen aus dem Alten Testament – eine persische Evangelienübersetzung heranzog. Allerdings geben die Nebenüberlieferungen kein klares Bild ab, ob eine solche Übersetzung um 1031/1621 in Isfahan kursierte.113 110 Offenbar zitiert ʿAlawī aus einer arabischen Übersetzung des Alten Testaments. Ausnahmen sind zwei hebräische Zitate in arabischen Lettern, Gen 17,20 und Dtn 33,2. Richard vermutet, dass ʿAlawī dafür die Hilfe eines Rabbiners oder jüdischen Konvertiten in Anspruch genommen habe, vgl. Richard, „Le Père Aimé Chézaud“, S. 13 und 16. Da die Zitate aber fehlerhaft und nur in Abschrift der Kopisten erhalten sind, lässt sich weder über ʿAlawīs Hebräischkenntnisse noch seine Beziehung zu den Isfahaner Juden eine gesicherte Aussage treffen. Corbins Schlussfolgerung, „ce théologien-philosophe (…) savait, chose remarquable, parfaitement l‘hébreu“, und seine Annahme von „quelque relation rabbinique secrète“ haben in den mir vorliegenden Quellen keine Grundlage, vgl. Corbin, „Annuaire 1976-1977“, S. 169; auch ders., „Theologoumena“, S. 233. Gen 17,20 lautet in ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 28: عشام و نا سـتا ليب مبادماذ ىيائ ىتيحر وىي ائی حفر وىي ائ رساحىت هجهو کودمل یلعو شايمال عشور منيش M3 13a:5-7 gibt hingegen an: يل َوشما ِع َل ََ يو ِ ُمشا ْختِ َ َّنا َ ِبرياخىت ِه ِايىت ْ ْوحفرييت ْْ ِ ْ ُايىت ُ ِوحربىت ِ َ ِايىت ُ ْ ِ َبماد َماد ِ ْنمي َ ِ ُسور َش ُ تا َع َال ِمْي ِلغوي َ ُ ْكوذيل َ ِ ُ Im Pentateuch heißt es: ְוִהְפֵריִתי אֹתֹו ֵּבַרְכִּתי ׀ ִהֵּנה ְׁשַמְעִּתיָך ּוְלִיְׁשָמֵעאל ׃ָּגדֹול ְלגֹוי ּוְנַתִּתיו יֹוִליד ְנִׂשיִאם ְׁשֵנים־ָעָׂשר ְמאֹד ִּבְמאֹד אֹתֹו ְוִהְרֵּביִתי אֹתֹו . Dtn 33,2 erscheint nur in M2 und M3, wo es auf Fol. 11a:6-8 heißt: َيوهر ْ ٰذوان ٱُ َابءی اٰنيَْمسِّ ُ َوزرح َ َ ِسعيِْم َ فهو ُموٰال َْريَ ْفارن َمهِر ْحيُ َ َواات َ َوووتْريِم َ ُ ْقودش َ َ ْ َ ُالمو َدات ِاتش نويِمْيِم َ Im Pentateuch lautet es: ְוָאָתה ָּפאָרן ֵמַהר הֹוִפיַע ָלמֹו ִמֵּׂשִעיר ְוָזַרח ָּבא ִמִּסיַני ְיהָוה ַוּיֹאַמר ָלמֹו׃] כ ֵאְׁשָּדת [ִמיִמינֹו קֶֹדׁש ֵמִרְבבֹת . 111 ʿ Alawī, Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ. Richard wies bereits auf die „numérotation inaccoutumée“ der Kapitel der Evangelien in Miṣqal-i ṣafāʾ hin, vgl. Richard, „Catholicisme“, S. 364, Anm. 76. Auch Corbin bemerkte: „La numérotation des chapitres diffère de celle des éditions canoniques“, vgl. Corbin, „Annuaire 1976-1977“, S. 169. 112 Ein direkter Vergleich der Schriftbelege ist nicht möglich, da Della Valle nicht wörtlich aus den Evangelien zitiert, hier nach Hss. Vat. Pers. 7 und 81: Mt 9 (99?); 14; 59 (zweimal); 78. Mk 31; 42; 43. Lk 60; 75. Joh 32. Außerdem aus dem Alten Testament: Ex 16; Num 23. 113 Gesichert ist lediglich eine persische Übersetzung der Psalmen Davids, die John Thaddeus 1616-18 aus dem Hebräischen anfertigte (vgl. Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 231). Kopien dieser Übersetzung befinden sich heute in der Bodleian Library, Oxford, unter Hss. Bodleian 1827-9, der Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rom, unter Hss. Vat. Pers. 42 und evtl. 37 sowie in der © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 296 Spezifikum für diese Fassung der Evangelien, die ʿAlawī und Della Valle als Quelle gedient haben könnte, ist die bereits erwähnte faṣl-Zählung, die in den wenigsten persischen Evangelienhandschriften belegt ist. Eine solche Zähltradition findet sich etwa in der nicht datierten Hs. Bodleian 1840 der Bodleian Library in Oxford mit 101 (Mt), 54 (Mk), 86 (Lk) und 46 (Joh) Sequenzen114 sowie in der Hs. Suppl. persan 6 der Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris mit 100 (Mt), 54 (Mk), 86 (Lk) und 47 (Joh) Sequenzen.115 Letztere Handschrift weist die Besonderheit auf, dass sie parallel zur unbekannten Zählung nach Sequenzen (faṣl) die Einteilung in Kapitel der Vulgata (aṣḥāḥ) nennt. Einem Kapitel können demnach bis zu vier Sequenzen entsprechen: Biblioteca Nazionale Estense, Modena, unter Hs. Estense ā.G.3.34 (vgl. E. Sachau/H. Ethé/A.F.L. Beeston, Catalogue of the Persian, Turkish, Hindūstānī, and Pushtū Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library 1-3, Oxford 1889-1954, Bd. 1, Sp. 1050-1; Rossi, Elenco, S. 72-3 und 65; Piemontese, Catalogo, Nr. 218, S. 183). Entgegen seiner Ankündigung im März 1616 scheint Thaddeus aber keine Übersetzung der Evangelien ins Persische angefertigt zu haben, da sowohl er im Frühjahr 1618 als auch sein Freund Della Valle im April 1621 lediglich von einem Evangelium in arabischer Sprache berichten (vgl. Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 233; a.a.O., Bd. 2, S. 922 und 924; Hss. Vat. Pers. 7, Fol. 3b:3-4 und 81, Fol. 6b:3-4). Gulbenkian geht hingegen davon aus, dass Thaddeus auch die Evangelien ins Persische übersetzte (vgl. Gulbenkian, „Translation“ (III), S. 40-1, Anm. 179). Dies wird gestützt von einer Überlieferung, nach der Thaddeus dem Schah 1618 die Psalmen und das Neue Testament in persischer Sprache übergeben haben soll (vgl. Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 241). Lokalisierung und Identifizierung der zahlreichen überlieferten persischen Evangelienhandschriften stehen weitestgehend noch aus. Rossi berichtet von über 36 Hss. allein in europäischen Beständen, vgl. Rossi, Elenco, S. 16-7 (Hs. Vat. Pers. 74 fehlt hier) und 27-8 (Hs. Ambrosiana 82 fehlt hier, die er auf S. 30 nennt). Zu persischen Bibelübersetzungen vgl. K.J. Thomas, „Bible. III. Chronology of Translations of the Bible“, in EIr, Bd. 4, S. 203-6; ders./F. Vahma, „Bible. VII. Persian Translations of the Bible“, a.a.O., S. 209-13; W.J. Fischel, „The Bible in Persian Translation. A Contribution to the History of Bible Translation in Persia and India“, The Harvard Theological Review 45 (1952), S. 3-45; Gulbenkian, „Translation“; Richard, „Un lectionnaire“; ders. „Les frères Vecchietti, diplomates, érudits et aventuriers“, in The Republic of Letters and the Levant, ed. A. Hamilton/M.H. van den Boogert/B. Westerweel, Leiden 2005, S. 11-26. 114 E. Sachau/H. Ethé/A.F.L. Beeston, Catalogue, Bd. 1, Sp. 1055-6. Hs. Bodleian 1840 umfasst 181 Fol. (Mt 2a-54a; Mk 55b-87a; Lk 88b-142a; Joh 143b-181b). Im Gegensatz zu Hs. Suppl. persan 6 lag mir Hs. Bodleian 1840 nicht vor, so dass ich auf diese nicht näher eingehen kann. 115 Zu Anāǧīl, Hs. Suppl. persan 6 (Paris) vgl. Blochet, Catalogue, Bd. 1, S. 6, Nr. 7. Die Handschrift umfasst 203 Fol. (Mt 1b-62a; Mk 62b-98b; Lk 99a-159b; Joh 160a-203a) und ist auf das Jahr 1746 datiert. Eine weitere Kopie dieser Übersetzung, datiert auf Raǧab 1159/ Juli- Aug. 1746, befindet sich in der Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rom, unter Hs. Borg. Pers. 18, vgl. Rossi, Elenco, S. 172-3. Der Katalog erwähnt keine Besonderheiten in der Einteilung der Kapitel (aṣḥāḥ) in Hs. Borg. Pers. 18. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 297 Mt Mk Lk Joh faṣl aṣḥâḥ faṣl aṣḥâḥ faṣl aṣḥâḥ faṣl aṣḥâḥ 1-2 I 1-4 I 1-4 I 1-3 I 3 II 5-8(?) II 5-8 II 4-5 II 4 III 9-11 III 9-10 III 6 III 5-7116 IV 12-14 IV 11-13 IV 7-9(?) IV 8-11 V 15-16 V 14-17 V 10-12 V 12-13 VI 17-20 VI 18-21 VI 13-17117 VI 14-19 VII 21-23 VII 22-25 VII 18-19118 VII 20-22 VIII 24-27 VIII 26-31 VIII 20-21 VIII 23-25 IX 28-30 IX 32-37 IX 22 IX 26-29 X 31-34 X 38-41 X 23-24(?) X 30-32 XI 35-37 XI 42-46119 XI 25-26 XI 33-36 XII 38-41 XII 47-49 XII 27(?)-30 XII 37-41 XIII 42-44 XIII 50-53 XIII 31-32120 XIII 42-44 XIV 45-50 XIV 54-56 XIV 33-34 XIV 45-48 XV 51-54 XV 57-58 XV 35(?)- 36121 XV 49-52122 XVI ø XVI 59-61 XVI 37(?) XVI 53-55 XVII 62 XVII 38 XVII 56-58 XVIII 63-66 XVIII 39 XVIII 59-61 XIX 67-69 XIX 40-42 XIX 62-65 XX 70-73 XX 43-44 XX 66-70 XXI 74-77 XXI 45-47 (?) XXI 71-75 XXII 78-82 XXII 76-77 XXIII 83(?)-85 XXIII 78-79 XXIV 86 XXIV 80-82 XXV 83-92 XXVI 93-98 XXVII 99-100 XXVIII 116 Mt 7 teilt sich zwischen IV und V auf. 117 Joh 17 teilt sich zwischen VI und VII auf. 118 Joh 19 teilt sich zwischen VII und VIII auf. 119 Mk 46 teilt sich zwischen XI und XII auf. 120 Joh 32 teilt sich zwischen XIII und XIV auf. 121 Joh 36 teilt sich zwischen XV und XVI auf. 122 Mt 52 teilt sich zwischen XVI und XVII auf. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 298 Der Vergleich von ʿAlawīs neutestamentlichen Zitaten und Belegen in Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī mit diesen beiden Zählungen bestätigt, dass ʿAlawī – und vermutlich auch Della Valle – eine Fassung der Evangelien heranzogen, der eine solche Sequenzeneinteilung wie in Hs. Suppl. persan 6 zu Grunde lag. Allerdings scheidet Hs. Suppl. persan 6 als mögliche Quelle aus, da ihre Datierung in das Jahr 1746, also rund 120 Jahre nach ʿAlawīs und Della Valles Schriften, fällt.123 Auch wenn hier weder die gesuchte Übersetzung der Evangelien noch die – möglicherweise ostkirchliche – Herkunft der erweiterten faṣl-Zählung bestimmt werden kann,124 so ist es bemerkenswert, dass die von ʿAlawī und vermutlich Della Valle verwendete Zähltradition neben der undatierten Hs. Bodleian 1840 noch 120 Jahre später in einer persischen Übersetzung der Evangelien in Hs. Suppl. persan 6 belegt ist. Detailanalyse zwischen den Textzeugen der Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī Die Erschließung der Rezensionsgeschichte von ʿAlawīs antichristlicher Polemik erfordert eine Bestandsaufnahme der überlieferten Handschriften. Die folgende vergleichende tabellarische Analyse der mir vorliegenden Manuskripte und Drucke veranschaulicht die Differenzen zwischen den Textzeugen der Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī. Die Klärung ihrer Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse ermöglicht eine Unterteilung der acht weiter unten beschriebenen Manuskripte in einzelne Handschriftengruppen. 123 Vermutlich handelt es sich bei Hs. Suppl. persan 6 um eine Übersetzung der Vulgata, die sich im Besitz der Jesuiten befand. Eine handschriftliche Anmerkung auf Fol. 1a identifiziert sie als eine Kopie der 1152/1739 von Nādir Schah (reg. 1147-60/1736-47) in Auftrag gegebenen Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments ins Persische. Mit diesem Vorhaben wollte Nādir Schah an den Mogul Akbar I. sowie Schah ʿAbbās I. anknüpfen, die sich bereits um die Übersetzung von Teilen der Bibel ins Persische bemüht hatten. Der Schah hatte nach seinem siegreichen Indienfeldzug 1152/1739 seinen Hofhistoriker Mīrzā Mahdī zusammen mit dem Gelehrten Mīr Muḥammad Maʿṣūm Ḥusainī al-Ḫātūnābādī und seinem Sohn ʿAbd al-Ġānī mit einem umfangreichen „ökumenischen“ Unternehmen beauftragt. Mit Hilfe von vier Rabbinern, acht christlichen Klerikern und vier Mullas sollten sie eine wörtliche Übersetzung der gesamten Bibel und des Korans ins Persische anfertigen, die schließlich 1154/1741 fertiggestellt wurde. Unter den vier Rabbinern für die hebräischen Texte befand sich Bābā b. Nūrīel. An einer Übersetzung der Evangelien auf der Basis einer arabischen Übersetzung der Vulgata arbeiteten drei Karmeliter, Bischof Philip Mary (of S. Augustine, 1688-1749, Italiener, vgl. Chronicle, Bd. 2, S. 984-9), Urban of S. Elisaeus (von St. Elisaeus, 1687-1755, Italiener und Provinzvikar, vgl. Chronicle, Bd. 2, S. 1014-20) und Thomas Aquinas (of S. Francis Xavier (?), 1702-44, Italiener, vgl. Chronicle, Bd. 2, S. 1012- 3). Zu den Übersetzern der weiteren Teile des Neuen Testaments zählten armenisch-katholische und -orthodoxe Priester und Mönche. Zu den Umständen der Erstellung dieser Übersetzung vgl. Fischel, „The Bible“, S. 30-42; Gulbenkian, „Translation“ (III), S. 45-48; K.J. Thomas/F. Vahma, „Bible. VII. Persian Translations of the Bible“, in EIr, Bd. 4, S. 213. Zu den Bemühungen von Akbar I. um eine persische Übersetzung der Bibel vgl. Fischel, „The Bible“, S. 17-21. 124 John Thaddeus berichtete 1624 von Armeniern, Georgiern, Jakobiten, Syrern und Chaldäern unter den Isfahaner Christen, vgl. Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 158, Anm. 1. Dies könnte ein Indiz dafür sein, dass die Herkunft der erweiterten faṣl-Zähltradition unter den orientalischen Kirchen zu suchen ist. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 299 Neben Textauslassungen (ø), die mindestens zwei Zeilen umfassen oder von besonderem Interesse für die Analyse sind, gibt die Tabelle Parallelstellen zu anderen Handschriften und Drucken wieder, die farblich einheitlich hervorgehoben sind. Ein Stichwort zum Inhalt der jeweiligen Passage ergänzt die Übersicht. Da das umfangreiche Corpus der Polemik mit bis zu 279 Folien eine Unterteilung des Texts erfordert, nehme ich in kursiver Schrift eine fortlaufende Gliederung anhand der Zitate aus Della Valles Risāla (DV) vor, die ʿAlawī in seiner Replik zum Gegenstand der Auseinandersetzung macht. Diese 20 Abschnitte aus Dellas Valles Apologie machen rund die Hälfte des Textmaterials seiner Risāla aus, deren Parallelstellen ich zum Vergleich anhand der Hss. Vat. Pers. 7 und 81 angebe. Meist führt ʿAlawī diese Zitate mit der Formel ānča gufta bi-īn ʿibārat ka oder mī-gūyīd bi-īn ʿibārat ka ein und kennzeichnet ihr Ende mit intahā. Jedes Zitat aus Della Valles Risāla leitet in der Regel ein Gegenargument ʿAlawīs ein, das er anhand eines oder mehrerer Schriftbelege aus dem Alten und Neuen Testament, ggfls. unter Hinzuziehung des Korans, belegt. Zusätzlich habe ich in der Tabelle ʿAlawīs Gliederung seiner Polemik in zwei Kapitel (bāb, I bzw. II) vermerkt, die den beiden ersten Kapiteln der Apologie Della Valles entsprechen und die Argumentationslinien zur Prophetenschaft Mohammeds und zur Fälschung der Evangelien aufgreifen.125 Della Valles drittes Kapitel, in dem er den muslimischen Vorwurf der Ikonolatrie zu entkräften versucht, führt ʿAlawī hingegen nicht gesondert an, greift die Thematik jedoch am Ende seines zweiten Kapitels auf.126 Daneben habe ich die Einteilung des Herausgebers des Teheraner Drucks in weitere Unterkapitel (faṣl, 1-6 bzw. 1-2) aufgenommen, um die Vergleichbarkeit aller überlieferten Textzeugen zu ermöglichen. 125 ʿ Alawī bemerkt zum Aufbau seiner Replik am Ende des ersten Kapitels: „So wie der Christ [Della Valle] das erste Kapitel [seiner Apologie] beendet hat, das die Gründe für die Verneinung der Prophetenschaft Mohammeds enthält, ist Euch [nun] deutlich geworden, dass jeder von ihnen durch viele Beweise, die klarer sind als der Mond in einer mondhellen Nacht, falsifiziert ist. Wenden wir uns dem zweiten Kapitel [Della Valles Apologie] zu, das darlegt, warum keine Fälschung in den Evangelien stattgefunden haben soll (Čun naṣrānī fāriġ šud az bāb-i awwal ka muštamil bar asbāb-i nafī-yi nubuwwat-i ḥażrat-i Muḥammad ast wa ẓāhir gardīd buṭlān-i har-yik az ānhā bi-čandīn dalīl ka raušantar-and az qamr fī lailat al-qamrā mutawaǧǧih-i bāb-i duyyum ka dar bayān-i wāqiʿ na-būdan-i taġyīr dar anāǧīl ast gardīda.)“, vgl. ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 97. 126 ʿ Alawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 166:21-167:5; Lee, Controversial Tracts, S. xcix-c. Im Schlussteil von M3 findet sich eine ausführlichere Passage zur christlichen Bilder- und Kreuzverehrung, die dem dritten Kapitel von Della Valles Apologie geschuldet sein könnte. Auf die Frage der Echtheit der allein in M3 angeführten Zitate nach Della Valle gehe ich weiter unten ein. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 300 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 Prolog 2b:1-4a:7 3b:1-5a:8 1b:1-3a:8 1b:1-2b:3 1b:1-2a:11 [20:1- 21:16] 1b:1-3b:7 1b:1-3a:2 1b:1-3b:5 Vorgezogene Nennung ʿAlawîs ø (2b) ø (3b) ø (1b) ø (1b) ø (1b) [20] ø (1b) 1b:4-5 ø (1b) Widmung an Schah Ṣafî ø (2b) ø (3b) ø (1b) ø (1b) ø (1b) [20] ø (1b) ø (1b) 1b:5-2b:3 Widmung an Mîrzâ Muḥammad Amîn ø (2b) ø (3b) ø (1b) ø (1b) ø (1b) [20] ø (1b) 1b:5-12 ø (1b) Anrede der Muslime 2b:4-7 3b:4-7 1b:5-8 1b:3-5 1b:2-4 [20:2-4] 1b:3-5 ø (1b) ø (2b) Zelt-Metapher (Sure ?) 2b:7-3a:2 3b:7-4a:1 1b:8-11 1b:5-7 1b:4-6 [20:4-6] 1b:6-8 ø (1b) 2b:3-5 Sure 3,78 ø (3a) ø (4a) ø (2a) ø (2a) ø (1b) [20] ø (2b) 2a:5-8 2b:8-11 Nennung ʿAlawîs 3b:3-5 4b:3-6 [xlii:10- 11] 2b:3-5 2a:6-7 2a:1-3 [21:2-4] 2b:7-9 ø (2b) ø (3a) Sure 55,74 4a:1-3 5a:1-2 3a:2-3 2a:13-14 2a:7-8 [21:10-11] 3b:1-3 ø (2b) ø (3a) Deutung zur Sure 55,74 ø (4a) ø (5a) ø (3a) ø (2a) ø (2a) [21] ø (3b) 2b:6-10 3a:9-3b:1 Kap. I.1 [22-37] DV1 (Warnung Jesu vor falschen Propheten) 3a:1-7 [4b:8- 5b:5] 4a:10- 4b:7, 12a:1-5 5a:10- 5b:8, 9a:1- 6 3a:10- 3b:9, 11a:2-7 2b:5-13, 7a:14-7b:4 2a:14-2b:4 [22:4-11], 4b:13-5a:2 [26:9-13] 3b:10- 4b:5, 11b:11- 12b:2 3a:4-11, 9a:5-9 3b:7-4a:2, 9b:4-8 Definition des Parakleten (fâraqlîṭ) 5a (Marginalie) ø (6a) ø (4a) 3a (Marginalie) ø (2b) [23] ø (5b) 3b (Marginalie unleserlich) ø (4a) Menschliche Natur Jesu 6b:11- 7b:7 7b:11- 8b:7 [xliii:8-10] 6a:5- 6b:11 4a:10- 4b:9 ø (3b) [24] ø (8b) 5a:6-5b:9 5b:6- 6a:10 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 301 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 Joh 19127 zum Parakleten 8a:9-9a:2 ø128 7b:1-8a:4 5a:6-5b:3 ø (4a) [25] ø (9b) 6a:9-7b:9 6b:9-7a:9 Mk 23; Mt 50 zu Elija (Îlîyâ) 10a:10- 11b:7 ø 9b:2- 10b:9 6a:14- 7a:11 ø (4b) [26] ø (11b) 7b:11- 9a:1 8a:10- 9b:1 Anrede der Christen 13a:5-6 10a:7-8 [xlv:11- 12] 12a:10- 12b:1 8a:9-10 5b:3-4 [27:8-9] 13b:12-14 ø (10a)129 ø (10b) Mohammeds Abstammung 13b:9-11 10b:10-12 [xlv:25xlvi:2] 13a:4-7 8b:9-11 ø (5b) [26] ø (14b) ø (10b) ø (11a) Hebräisches Zitat [Dtn 33,2] ø (13b) ø (10b) ø (13a) ø (8b) ø (5b) [26] ø (14b) 10b:6-12 11a:4-10 Deutung zu [Dtn 33,2] ø (13b) ø (10b) ø (13a) ø (8b) ø (5b) [26] ø (14b) ø (10b) 11a:10- 11b:3 Zitat zum Kamelreiter (AT?) 13b:11- 14a:6 10b:12- 11a:6 [xlvii:1-4] 13a:7- 13b:2 8b:9-13 ø (5b) [26] ø (14b) 10b:12- 11a:3 11b:3-6 Hinweis auf Mohammed (Hab) ø (14a) ø (11a) ø (13b) ø (8b) ø (6a) [28] ø (15a) 11a:7- 12a:6 11b:10- 12b:11 Überleitung zu [Gen 17,20] 14b:7-9 11b:7-9 14a:4-7 9a:7-9 6a:7-9 [28:10-11] 15a:12-14 ø (12a) 130 ø (13a) Erläuterung 12er-Numerologie ø (17b) ø (14b) ø (17b) ø (11a) ø (7b) [30] ø (20b) 14b (Marginalie) 15a:11-12 Beispiel für Numerologie 18a:8- 18b:6 15a:9- 15b:7 18b:1- 19a:3 11a:12- 11b:9 ø (8a) [31] ø (21b) 15a:2- 15b:4 15b:9- 16b:1 Sure 50,22 18b:7-9 15b:8-9 19a:4-6 11b:9-12 8a:11-12 [31:7- 8]131 21b:14- 22b:1 ø (15b) ø (16b) 127 Biblische Schriftbelege gebe ich nach der von ʿAlawī und Della Valle verwendeten Sequenzeinteilung unbekannter Zähltradition an, ggfls. verweise ich in eckigen Klammern auf die Parallelstellen nach der Zählung der Vulgata, soweit durch Konkordanz zur Einheitsübersetzung identifizierbar. 128 C2 ist offenbar unvollständig. Zwei Folien fehlen, da C2 8b bei C1 7b:11 abbricht und C2 9a mit C1 12a:1 fortsetzt. 129 M2 und M3 verweisen stattdessen auf Dtn 18 (faṣl-i hiǧdahum sifr-i panǧum kitāb-i taurīya). 130 M2 und M3 verweisen stattdessen auf Gen (sifr-i awwal-i taurīya). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 302 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 Deutung zu [Gen 17,20] ø (18b) ø (15b) ø (19a) ø (11b) ø (8a) [31] ø (22b) 15b:5- 8132 16b:2-5 Universalanspruch des Islams 21a:5- 21b:6 18b:6- 19a:7 21b:8- 22a:10 13a:8- 13b:4 ø (9b) [33] ø (25b) 17b:1-11 18a:8- 18b:6 Prophetennamen ø (21b) ø (19a) ø (22a) ø (13b) ø (9b) [33] ø (25b) 17b:11- 19a:5 18b:6- 19b:9 Charakterisierung Mohammeds ø (22a/b) ø (20a/b) ø (23a) ø (14a) ø (9b) [34] ø (26b) 19b (zwei Marginalien) ø (20a/b) Licht- Metapher 22b:5-9 20a:6-10 23a:10- 23b:4 14a:7-11 ø (9b) [34] ø (27b) 19b:10- 20a:2 20b:3-7 Antichrist (daǧǧâl) 23b:5-11 21a:6-13 24b:1-8 14b:12- 15a:2 ø (10a) [34] ø (28b) 20b:7-12 20b:10- 21b:3 Prophetentum Mose 25a:11- 25b:3 22b:13- 23a:4 28a:9- 26b:2 ø (15b) ø (11b) [34] ø (30b) 22a:5-8 22b:6-10 Wundercharakter des Korans 25b:8- 26b:3 23a:11- 24a:4 26b:7- 27b:3 16a:4- 16b:2 ø (11b) [34] ø (30b) 22a:12- 23a:1 23a:2- 23b:4 Prophetensendung an Juden 28a:7-11 25b:9-15 29a:6-10 ø (17b) ø (12a) [37] ø (33b) ø (24a) ø (24b) Wunderbeweis für Prophetentum ø (28b) ø (26a) ø (29b) ø (17b) ø (12a) [37] ø (34b) 24b:2- 25a:6 25a:3- 25b:6 Kap. I.2 (Wunder Gottes) [38-47] Paraklet als Heiliger Geist 30b:2-3 28a:2-4 31a:11- 31b:2 ø (18b) ø (13a) [41] ø (37b) ø (26b) ø (27a) Götzenverehrung 31a:6-8 28b:7-10 32a:2-4 19a:9-10 13b:5-6 [41:16-17] 37b:14- 38b:2 27a:5-6 ø (27b) Deutung zu Ex 2 zu Moses ø (36a) ø (33b) ø (36b) ø (22a) ø (16a) [47] ø (46b) 31a:5- 31b:6 31a:6- 31b:6 Kap. I.3 [48-61] 131 P und E geben im Gegensatz zu C1, C2, V und M1 das Koranzitat nur unvollständig wieder. 132 M2 ist hier ausführlicher als M3. Der Kopist ergänzt durch eine zusätzliche Marginalie. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 303 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 Sure 2,136 37b:6-7 35a:7-9 38a:3-5 ø (23a) ø (16b) [49] ø (48b) 32b:9-11 32b:6-8 DV2 (Selbstzeugnis Mohammeds illegitim) 3b:8-4a:1 [6b:8-7b:2] 38a:6-10, 38b:3-6 35b:6-11 [l:10-14], 36a:4-7 38b:3-7, 11-39a:3 23a:12- 23b:1, 23b:5- 7133 17a:6-8 [50:4-7], 17a:12-14 [50:11-14] 49b:5-9, 50b:1-4 33a:6-10, 33b:2-5 33a:3-6, 10-12 DV3 (Warnung Jesu vor Mohammed und Koran) 4a:1-6, 4a:9- 4b:1 [7b:2-10, 8b:3-5] 41b:5- 42a:2, 42b:7-9 39a:6- 39b:2 [liii:18- 21], 40a:8-11 41b:11- 42a:8, 43a:1-3 25b:1-9, 26a:8-10 19a:2-7 [53:13- 21], 19b:5-6 [54:13-15] 55b:5-13, 56b:3-5 36a:1-8, 36b:10-12 35b:4-10, 36a:10-12 Erläuterung zur Auferstehung ø (45b) ø (43a) ø (46a) ø (28a) ø (21a) [57] ø (62b) 39a (Marginalie) 38b:5-6 Metapher der Frühgeburt (ḫidâǧ) 46a (Marginalie) ø (43b) ø (46b) ø (28b) ø (21b) [57] ø (63b) 39b (Marginalie) ø (39a) Ergänzung zu Schriftbesitzern ø (47b) ø (45a) ø (47b) 29a:15- 29b:2 22a:10-11 [58:21- 59:1] 65b:13- 66b:1 40b:11- 41a:1 40a:5-7 Ergänzung zu Imam ʿAlî ø (47b) ø (45a) ø (47b) ø (29b) ø (22a) [59] ø (66b) ø (41a) 40a:7-8 Hinweis auf Juden und Christen 48a:6-9 45b:7-12 48a:8-11 29b:10- 12134 22b:4-6 [59:10-13] 66b:12- 67b:2 ø (41a) ø (40b) Ergänzung zu Gesandten Gottes ø (49b) ø (47a) ø (49b) 30b:7-8 23a:12 [61:6] 69b:4-5 42a:11-12 41b:4-5 Kap. I.4 [62-75] DV4 (Zurückweisung der Autorität Mohammeds) 4b:2-5a:3 [8b:7-10b:1] 50a:1- 50b:6, 51a:6-8 47b:1- 48a:7 [lviii:12lix:2], 48b:7-10 49b:11- 50b:4, 51a:3-6 30b:14- 31a:13, 31b:8-10 23b:3-13 [63:3-15], 24a:7-8 [64:8-11] 69b:14- 71b:2, 72b:1-4 42b:6- 43a:8, 43b:5-8 41b:11- 42b:1, 42b:10- 43a:1 Verzehr von Tierfleisch ø (51b) ø (49a) ø (51a) ø (31b) ø (24a) [64] ø (72b) 43b (Marginalie) 43a:5- 43b:1 133 M1 ist offenbar unvollständig. Zwischen Fol. 24a/25b fehlt der Inhalt entsprechend C1 40a:2-41b:4. Stattdessen enthält M1 eine Folie aus einer unbekannten arabischen Quelle, die von einer anderen Hand stammt. 134 In M1, P und E findet sich nur der Hinweis auf Mönche (rahbānān) „ähnlich Paulus und Petrus“. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 304 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 Polemik gegen christliche Stämme (ʿIbâdûn) 53b:1-5 51a:1-7 [lxi:12-15] 53a:8- 53b:1 33a:7-10 25a:14- 25b:2 [66:13-16] 76b:2-6 45b:2-5 ø (45a) DV5 (Widerspruch Mohammeds zu Propheten) 5a:3-8 [10b:1- 8] 56a:10- 56b:7 53b:13- 54a:9 56a:6- 56b:3 35a:1-8 27a:1-8 [69:14- 21] 81b:5-14 47b:10- 48a:6 46b:11- 47a:6 Legitimität von Prophetentum 57a:1-4 54b:1-4 56b:7-10 35b:2-5 27a:11-14 [70:1-3] 82b:5-8 48a:9-12 ø (47a) DV6 (Schreiber- Parabel) 5a:10-6a:2 [11b:1-12b:5] 57b:4- 58a:8 55a:5- 55b:10 57b:1- 58a:5 36a:1-15 27b:9- 28a:6 [70:15- 71:3] 83b:8- 84b:12 48b:10- 49b:1 47b:7- 48a:8 Kap. I.5 [76-87] DV7 (Unmoral Mohammeds) 6a:2-6b:2135 [12b:13b:7] 62b:4- 63a:2 60a:4- 60b:2 62b:9- 63a:8 39a:10- 39b:3 30b:4-10 [77:3-11] 92b:4-13 52b:11- 53a:6 51b:8- 52a:3 Sure 2,102 ø (67b) ø (65a) ø (68a) ø (42a) ø (33a) [81] ø (100b) 56b (Marginalie) 55b:2-3 DV8 (Polygynie als Beweis für Falschheit des Korans) 6b:3-8 [13b:9- 14b:4], 6b:10- 7a:8 [14b:6- 15b:7] 68b:4-10, 74a:3- 74b:2 66a:4-11, 71b:3- 72a:2 69a:5-11, 74b:8- 75a:8 43a:2-6, 47a:6- 47b:1 33b:9-12 [82:4-9], 35a:13- 35b:6 [84:13- 23] 102b:3-9, 107b:5- 108b:3 57b:3-8, 63a:1-12 56a:8- 56b:1, 61b:6- 62a:4 Deutung Gen 14; 15; 35; 39 zur Polygynie ø (68b) ø (66a) 69a (Marginalie) 43a:7- 44b:3136 ø (33b) [82] ø (102b) 57b:8- 58b:10 56b:1- 57b:3 Polygynie Mohammeds 70b:2- 72b:9 68a:2- 70a:9 71a:4- 73b:3 45a:3- 46a:14 ø (34b) [83] ø (105b) 60a:6- 62a:1 58b:11- 60b:6 Scheidung gemäß Gesetz Mose 73b:8-9 71:9-11 74b:2-3 ø (47a) ø (35a) [84] ø (106b) ø (62b) ø (61b) 135 DV7 wird von ʿAlawī nicht vollständig zitiert. Die Zeilen der Hss. Vat. Pers. 7 Fol. 6a:7-10 und 81 Fol. 13b:1-5 sind in den Handschriften ausgelassen. 136 M1, M2 und M3 weisen leichte Abweichungen gegenüber V auf. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 305 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 Legitimität von Polygynie und Scheidung ø (76a) ø (73b) ø (76b) 48a:14- 49a:14 ø (36b) [86] ø (110b) 64b:6- 66b:8137 63a:8- 65a:6 Kap. I.6 [88-97] Bestätigung des Prophetentums Mohammeds 77a:5-7 74b:6-9 77b:8-11 50a:4-6 37a:3-5 [90:5-7] 112b:7-10 67b:4-6 ø (66a) DV9 (Ablehnung Mohammeds und des Korans) 8a:10-9a:4 [18b:4-19b:10] 77b:6- 78a:11, 79b:11- 80a:5 75a:7- 75b:14, 77a:12- 77b:6 78a:10- 79a:5, 80b:6-11 50a:15- 50b:14, 51b:12- 52a:1 37a:12- 37b:9 [90:16- 91:9], 38b:4-6 [92:11-14] 113b:1- 10138, 116b:4-8 68a:2- 68b:5, 69b:9- 70a:1 66a:12- 67a:3, 68a:6- 10139 Aufforderung zur Abkehr von Jesus 80a:5- 80b:1 77b:6- 78a:1 80b:11- 81a:7 52a:1- 7140 38b:6-11 [92:15-21] 116b:9- 117b:3 70a:1-7141 68a:11-12 DV10 (Widersprüche Mohammeds zu Jesus nach Mt 59; Mk 31; Lk 60) 9a:5-9b:2 [19b:10-20b:8] 81a:2-11 78b:2-13 81b:8- 82a:7 52b:2-10 39a:5-11 [93:7-15] 118b:2-12 70b:4- 71a:1 ø142 Widerspruch Jesu zu Moses ø (81b) ø (79a) ø (82a) 52b:12-14 39a:13-15 [93:18-19] 119b:2-3 71a:3-4 68b:2-3 137 M2 und M3 geben die Passage in ausführlicherer Form als M1 wieder. Dort fehlt M2 66a:4-66b:8 bzw. M3 64b:4-65a:6. In M3 65a wiederum fehlen die Zeilen M2 66b:1-2. 138 DV9 ist unvollständig. Offenbar fehlt in E eine Folie zwischen 112b/113a und 113b/114a. E 113b:1 setzt erst bei P 37b:2 ein, der Anfang von DV9 ist nicht erhalten. 139 DV9 ist unvollständig. 140 M1, P und E weisen leichte Abweichungen gegenüber C1, C2 und V sowie M2 und M3 auf. 141 M2 und M3 weisen leichte Abweichungen gegenüber C1, C2 und V sowie M1, P und E auf. 142 M3 ist offenbar unvollständig. Eine Folie zwischen M3 68a/68b fehlt, da M3 68a bei M2 70a:3 abbricht und auf M3 68b mit M2 71a:1 wieder einsetzt. Auf der fehlenden Folie befand sich vermutlich DV10 wie in M2 70b:4-71a:1 überliefert. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 306 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 DV11 (Jesu Scheidungsverbot nach Mt 9(?)143; 59) 9b:2-10a:6 [20b:9-22b:5] 82a:11- 83a:6 79b:12- 80b:7 83a:6- 84a:3 53a:15- 53b:13144 39b:15- 40a:12 [94:12- 95:2] 120b:10- 121b:12 71b:9- 72a:11 69a:7- 69b:9 Kap. II.1 [98-147] DV12 (Zurückweisung des Fälschungsvorwurfs gegen Evv.) 10a:7-11a:4 [22b:6-24b:8] 87a:2-10, 93a:3- 93b:5145 84b:2-14 [lxv:22- 27], 90b:3- 91a:6 88a:5- 88b:3, 94a:6- 94b:9 56a:11- 56b:4, 60a:4- 60b:2 42a:14- 42b:5 [101:3- 10], 45b:11- 46a:7 [106:5- 18] 130b:4-13, 140b:10- 141b:12 75b:1- 75b:8, 80a:12- 81a:2 72b:9- 73a:16, 77a:12- 77b:12 Kreuzigung Jesu und der Jünger 96b:6- 97a:1 94a:8- 94b:1 [lxxvi:3- 11] 98a:4-11 62b:2-7 47b:15- 48a:5 [109:10- 17] 147b:4-11 ø (83b) ø (80a) Mt, Lk, Joh zur Verleugnung Petri ø (101b) ø (99a) ø (103b) ø146 ø (50b) [113] ø (155b) 87b:1-9 84a:6- 84b:2 143 Dieser Schriftbeleg unterlag offensichtlich verschiedenen Kopistenfehlern und veranlasste ʿAlawī zu einer polemischen Spitze gegen Della Valle. Die Handschriften der Risāla Della Valles, Hss. Vat. Pers. 7 (Fol. 9b:3) und 81 (Fol. 20b:10), führen Mt 9 (nuhum) bzw. Mt 99 (nawad wa nuhum) an. Wie in C1 82b:1, C2 80a:1, M1 53b:1, P 39b:15, E 120b:11, M2 71b:10 und M3 69a:8 belegt ist, lag ʿAlawī hingegen eine Handschrift der Risāla vor, die auf Mt 19 (nūzdahum) verwies (V 83a:7 lässt die beiden Lesungen Mt 19 und 99 zu). Dies zeigen ʿAlawīs Äußerungen in seiner Replik, dass Mt 19 (nach Vulgata-Zählung Mt 8,23-27, Sturm auf dem See) nicht zum Kontext der Argumentation Della Valles zur Ehescheidung passe, vgl. ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿīd, S. 95 und 97. Wahrscheinlich bezog sich Della Valle in seiner Risāla auf Mt 9 (nach Vulgata-Zählung Mt 5,32, Jesu Verbot der Ehescheidung). Dass ʿAlawī diesen Schriftbeleg in den Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī diskutiert, bestätigt, dass er wie Della Valle eine Fassung des Evangeliums nach Mt mit derselben Sequenzeinteilung heranzog, die der oben beschriebenen unbekannten Zähltradition folgt. 144 In M1 fehlt der Inhalt entsprechend C1 82b:8-9. 145 In C1 93b, C2 91a und V 94b fehlt der Inhalt von Hss. Vat. Pers. 7 Fol. 11a:1-2 und 81 Fol. 24b:3-5, wie er auch in M1 60a:14-15, P 46a:4-5, E 141b:7-9, M2 80b:10-12 und M3 77b:9-10 wiedergegeben wird. 146 M1 ist offenbar unvollständig, da zwischen Fol. 65a/66b ein Blatt mit dem Inhalt entsprechend C1 101a:9-102b:11 fehlt. Stattdessen enthält M1 an gleicher Stelle einen unbekannten persischen Text, der weder von der Hand des Kopisten von M1 noch von der des Schreibers der Fol. 24b/25a stammt. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 307 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 Elija nicht identisch mit Joh d.T. 103a (Marginalie) ø (100b) 105a (Marginalie) 66b:4-7 51b:4-6 [114:20- 115:1] 158b:5-8 89a (Marginalie) ø (85b) Gottesanspruch Jesu 104a:4-5 ø (101b) 106a:3-4 67a:10-11 52a:6-7 [115:20- 21] 160b:4-5 89b:7-9 ø (86b) Verweis auf Miṣqal-i ṣafâ ø (104a) ø (101b) ø (106a) ø (67a) ø (52a) [115] ø (160b) 89b:9-11 86b:1-2 Gottesanspruch Jesu 104b:10- 11 102a:11- 12 106b:10- 11 67b:9-10 52b:4-5 [116:10- 11] 161b:8-9 90a:12- 90b:1 ø (86b) Erklärung zu Lug und Trug (turrahât) 105a (Marginalie) ø (102b) 107a (Marginalie) 67b:12 52b:6-7 [116:13- 14] 161b:12 90b (Marginalie) ø (87a) Mt zu Petrus 106b:7-8 104a:8-10 108b:11- 109a:2 68b:14-15 ø (53b) [117] ø (164b) 91b:8-9 88a:10-12 Mt 88; Mk 46 zu Jesu Auslieferung 108a:10- 108b:3 105b:12- 106a:2-4 [lxxxii:13- 17] 110b:8- 111a:1 69a:14- 70a:3 54a:15- 54b:4 [119:11- 14] 167b:1-6 93a:4-7 ø (89b) Vorwurf des Fanatismus unter Jüngern 109b:5-7 107a:6-9 112b:4-6 70b:7-9 55a:5-7 [120:9-11] 169b:2-4 94a:2-4 ø (90a) Gottesanspruch Jesu 110a:4-9 107b:4-12 112b:3-9 70b:15- 71a:5 55a:12- 55b:1 [120:18- 23] 169b:12- 170b:3 94a:10- 94b:3 ø (90b) Gottessohnschaft ø (110a) ø (107b) ø (112b) ø (71a) ø (55b) [120] ø [170b] 94b (Marginalie) 90b:4-5 Ergänzung zu Joh d.T. 112a:3-5 109b:4-6 114b:4-6 ø (72a) 56a:14-15 [122:10- 12] 172b:13- 173b:1 95b:10-12 92a:1-3 Abweichen der Evv. und Jünger von Gott ø (113a) ø (110b) 115a (Marginalie) 72b:6-13 56b:11- 57a:2 [123:2-8] 174b:5-13 96b:3-10 92b:5-12 Ergänzung zum Lügen 115b:7-11 113a:9-14 118a:8- 118b:1 ø (74b) 58b:2-4 [125:16- 18] 179b:10- 13 99a:7-10 95a:6-9 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 308 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 Kreuzigung widerlege Evv. 116b:5- 117a:10 114a:6- 114b:14 ø (119a) 75a:7- 75b:3147 59a:1-13 [126:9- 127:1] 181b:3- 182b:7 99b (Marginalie) 95b:11- 96a:11 DV13 (Umstände der Fälschung der Evv.) 11a:4-11b:3 [24b:8-25b:9] 148 117b:2- 118a:1, 124b:2-5 115a:2- 115b:1, 122a:2-5 119a:10- 119b:9, 127b:2-5 75b:5-14, 79b:14- 80a:1 59b:1-7 [127:4-13] 182b:11- 183b:7 100a:3-11, 105b:3-6 96b:1-9, 102a:2-4 Erklärung zu Glühwürmchen (yarâʿa) 119a (Marginalie) 116b:3 ø (121a) ø (76b) ø (60a) [128] ø (185b) 101a (Marginalie) ø (97b) Gründe für Fälschung der Evv. 119a:6-8 116b:7-9 121a:7-9 76b:7-8 60a:10-11 [128:13- 15] 185b:7-9 101a:11- 12 97b:8- 12149 Verrat des Judas 123b:8- 125a:1 121a:9- 122b:1 126b:5- 128a:2 79b:4- 80a:7150 ø (62b) [131] ø (192b) 105a:1- 105b:12 101a:12- 102a:10 Ergänzung zu Jüngern ø (125b) ø (123a) ø (128b) 80b:4-5 63a:3-4 [132:12- 13] 193b:13- 14 ø (106a) ø (102b) Unglauben der Jünger (ḥawâriyân) 126a:1-10 123b:1-10 129a:4- 129b:1 ø (80b) ø (63a) [132] ø (194b) 106b (Marginalie) 103a:5-12 Hinweis auf Joh 44 129b:4-5 127a:4-5 132b:10- 11 ø (80b) ø (65a) [135] ø (199b) 109a:8-9 105b:11- 12 Joh 37 zum Beten Jesu 130b:10- 131a:4 128a:11- 128b:5 134a:5-10 ø (83b) ø (65b) [136] ø (201b) 110a:7-12 106b:9- 107a:1 Wesen Gottes in der Trinität 136a:9- 136b:10 133b:10- 134a:11 139b (Marginalie) 86b:9- 87a:4 68a:14- 68b:8 [140:10- 21] 209b:11- 210b:9151 114a:1- 11152 110b:5- 111a:4153 147 M1 gibt diese Textpassage verkürzt ohne den Inhalt entsprechend C1 117a:5-6 und 8-10 wieder. 148 DV13 wird von ʿAlawī nicht vollständig zitiert. Die Zeilen der Hss. Vat. Pers. 7 Fol. 11a:8- 10 und 81 Fol. 25b:3-5 sind in den Handschriften ausgelassen. 149 M3 weicht von C1, C2, V, M1 und M2 deutlich ab. 150 M1 gibt diesen Textabschnitt verkürzt ohne den Inhalt entsprechend C1 123b:11-124a:5 wieder. 151 E gleicht P, es fehlen jedoch die Zeilen P 68b:7-8. 152 M2 und M3 weisen Abweichungen gegenüber C1, C2, V, M1, P und E auf. 153 M3 ähnelt M2, es fehlen jedoch die Zeilen M2 114a:7-9. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 309 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 Beziehung zwischen Gott-Vater und Sohn 136b:11- 137a:6 134a:11- 134b:7 ø (139b) 87a:4-10 68b:9-13 [140:21- 141:3] 210b:9- 211b:2 114a:12- 114b:5154 111a:4-10 Polemik gegen Melkiten 138b:9-11 136a:10- 13 [lxxxix:22- 25]155 141b:1-4 88a:13-15 69b:10-12 [142:11- 14] 213b:12- 214b:2 115b:11- 116a:2156 112b:3-6 Wesenseinheit Gottes 139a:8- 140a:5 136b:10- 137b:6 [xc:7-21] 142a:2- 143a:3 88b:7- 89a:10 ø (70a) [142] ø (214b) 116a:9- 117a:3 113a:1- 113b:6 Überleitung zur Deutung des mosaischen Gesetzes 141b:11- 142a:1 139a:13- 139b:1 145a:3-4 90a:14-15 70b:15- 71a:1 [144:7-9] 217b:9-10 118a:12- 118b:1 ø (115a) DV14 (Rechtfertigung der Evv. durch Universalität des Christentums) 11b:3-12b:1157 [25b:9-28b:3] 143a:4- 143b:9, 145a:4- 145b:3 140b:4- 141a:12, 142b:5- 143a:3 146a:11- 147a:8, 148b:5- 149a:3 91a:7- 91b:7, 92b:1-9 71b:5- 72a:2 [145:6- 21], 72b:8- 14 [146:25- 147:7] 219b:8- 221b:10, 222b:12- 223b:6 119a:10- 119b:12,1 20b:9- 121a:5 115b:11- 116b:1, 117a:10- 117b:6 Mond- Metapher 144a:5-7 141b:6-8 147b:4-6 91b:13-15 72a:7-9 [146:7-8] 221b:4-5 ø (120a) ø (116b) Kap. II.2 [148-167] DV15 (Verbreitung der Bibel als Beweis ihrer Echtheit) 12b:8-13a:5 [29b:1-10] 146b:5- 147a:4 144a:5- 144b:4 150a:9- 150b:8 93b:1-9 73b:2-9 [149:5- 14] 225b:4-14 122a:3-11 118b:3-11 Widersprüchlichkeiten der Evv. 147a:5- 147b:2 144b:5- 13158 150b:9- 151a:6 93b:10- 94a:1 ø (73b) [149] ø (226b) 122a:12- 122b:6 118b:12- 119a:5 154 M2 und M3 weisen Abweichungen gegenüber C1, C2, V, M1, P und E auf. 155 Der Vergleich mit C1 zeigt, dass der Kopist von C2 bei seiner Abschrift in die nachfolgende Zeile rutschte und irrtümlich den Jakobiten die Beschreibung der Melkiten zuordnete. Gleiches ist in L lxxxix:22 zu beobachten. Dies legt nahe, dass C2 Quelle für Lees auszugsweisen Druck war. 156 M2 und M3 weisen Abweichungen gegenüber C1, C2, V, M1, P und E auf. 157 DV14 wird von ʿAlawī nicht vollständig zitiert. Die Zeilen der Hss. Vat. Pers. 7 Fol. 11b:8- 12a:4 und 81 Fol. 26b:5-27b:3 sind in den Handschriften ausgelassen. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 310 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 Fälschung der Evv. 147b:5-6 ø 151a:9-11 94a:4-5 73b:12-13 [150:2-3] 226b:4-5 ø (122b) ø (119a) Christen in Afrika, Spanien und aṣ- Ṣaqâliba159 ø (148b) ø (145b) 152b:3- 9160 ø (94b) ø (74a) [150] ø (227b) 123b:3-6 120a:2-5 Mariologie der Nestorianer ø (148b) ø (145b) ø (152b) ø (94b) ø (74a) [150] ø (227b) 123b:7-9 120a:6-8 Mariologie der Barbarânîya161, Sure 5,115 ø (148b) ø (145b) 153a:1-8 ø (94b) ø (74a) [150] ø (228b) 123b:11- 124a:3162 120a:10- 120b:3 Wesenseinheit und Trinität ø (149a) ø (146a) 153b:7- 154a:8 ø (95a) ø (74b) [151] ø (228b) 124a:11- 124b:9 120b:11- 121a:10 Menschliche Natur Jesu 149a:5-7 146a:6-8 [xcv:8-10] 154a:8-10 95a:2-3 ø (74b) [151] ø (228b) 124b:9-11 121a:10- 11 Tod und Auferstehung Jesu ø (149a) ø (146a) 154b:3- 155b:3 ø (95a) ø (74b) [151] ø (228b) 125a:1- 125b:8 121b:2- 122a:8 Menschliche Natur Jesu ø (149a) ø (146a) ø (155b) ø (95a) ø (74b) [151] ø (228b) 125b (Marginalie) 122a:8-10 Ergänzung Heiliger Geist 151a:1-2 148a:1-2 157b:2 96a:6-7 ø (75b) [152] ø (231b) 127a:2-3 123b:3-4 Wesenseinheit Gott-Vater und Sohn 151a:5- 151b:10 148a:5- 148b:12 157b:5- 158a:10 96a:10- 96b:8 ø (75b) [152] ø (231b) 127a:6- 127b:7 123b:6- 124a:7 158 C2 bricht am Ende der Folie ab. Vermutlich hat der Kopist eine Folie seiner Vorlage (C1 147b) übergangen, da er auf C2 145a mit dem Inhalt von C1 148a fortfährt. 159 C1 150a:7. In V 152b:3 heißt es aṣ-Ṣafālīya, in M2 123b:3 und M3 120a:2 aṣ-Ṣaqālibīya. Wie bereits Saʿīd vermutete, könnte es sich um die Bezeichnung eines russischen oder slawischen Stamms handeln. Siehe hierzu ʿAlawī, „Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī“, ed. Saʿid, , S. 152, Anm. 6. 160 Der Kopist gibt die gleiche Textpassage auch in V 156b:1-7 wieder, bezieht sie aber nur in V 152b auf die Nestorianer. Während in C1, C2, M1, P und E die Ergänzung an dieser Stelle fehlt, erscheint sie in M2 und M3 gekürzt und ohne Nennung der Nestorianer. 161 Offenbar handelt es sich hierbei um eine pejorative Fremdbezeichnung für eine christliche Denomination. 162 M2 und M3 weisen Abweichungen gegenüber V auf. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 311 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 Keine Präexistenz des Gottessohns ø (152a) ø (149a) ø (158a) ø (96b) 75b:9-11 [152:19- 21] 231b:10- 12 ø (127b) ø (124a) Christologie der Jakobiten 152a:1- 153a:8 149a:1- 150a:8 158b:1- 159:6 96b:10- 97b:3 75b:11- 76b:1 [152:22- 153:22] 231b:12- 233b:12 ø (127b) ø (124a) Überleitung zu DV16 153a:8-10 150a:9-12 ø (159b)163 97b:3-5 76b:1-3 [154:1-2] 233b:12- 234b:1 127b:9-11 124a:9-11 DV16 (Offenbarungsglaube ohne Koran) 13a:5-13b:2 [29b:10- 30b:10] 153a:9- 153b:8 150a:11- 150b:10 159b:6- 160a:5 97b:5-13 76b:3-10 [154:2-11] 234b:1-10 127b:10- 128a:7 124a:10- 124b:7 Hinweis auf Miṣqal-i ṣafâ ø (154b) ø (151b) ø (161a) ø (98a) ø (77a) [155] ø (236b) 129a:2-3 125b:1-2 Muslime als Gemeinde des Parakleten 157a:11- 158b:11 154a:12- 155b:12 163b:10- 165a:9 100a:3- 100b:14 ø (78b) [157] ø (240b) 131a:2- 132a:4164 127a:11- 128a:12 Verlust des wahren Ev. ø (158b) ø (155b) 165a:10- 165b:2 ø (100b) ø (78b) [157] ø (240b) 132a:4- 10165 128a:12- 128b:6 Ergänzung zur Fälschung der Evv. 159b:1-2 156b:1-3 166a:5-6 101a:10- 11 79a:1-2 [157:14- 15] 242b:2-3 ø ø (129a) Sure 3,78; 5,44 161a:10- 161b:3 158a:13- 158b:3 168a:4-7 ø (102a) ø (79b) [159] ø (245b) 133a:7-9 130a:12- 130b:3 DV17 (Mohammeds Gegnerschaft zu Christen) 13b:3-9 [31b:1- 7] 162a:1-8 159a:1-9 168b:6- 169a:3 102b:5-10 80a:6-10 [159:20- 160:5] 245b:10- 246b:4 133b:4-10 130b:9- 131a:2 Mohammed in Joh 162a:9- 162b:1 159a:10- 159b:1 169a:5-8 102b:11- 14 80a:11-13 [160:6-9] 246b:6-8 ø (133b) ø (131a) Licht- Metapher 162b:5-10 159b:5-11 169b:2-8 103a:2-6 80b:1-3 [160:12- 14]166 246b:12- 247b:1 134a:3- 9167 131a:7- 131b:1 163 Die entsprechende Textpassage fehlt hier. Dass der Kopist sie absichtlich nicht von seiner Vorlage übernahm, zeigt ein Schreibfehler in V 156b:9-157a:1. Hier fügte er die Passage an anderer Stelle als in C1 ein, tilgte sie aber wieder. 164 In M2 und M3 fehlt der Inhalt entsprechend C1 158b:5-7. 165 M2 ist offenbar unvollständig. Eine Folie zwischen M2 132a/132b fehlt, da M2 132a bei M3 128b:8 abbricht und M2 132b mit M3 129b:7 fortfährt. Zudem weichen M2 und M3 stark von V ab. 166 P und E weisen Abweichungen gegenüber C1, C2, V und M1 sowie M2 und M3 auf. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 312 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 Sure 3,71 163a:6-9 160a:7-10 170a:5-9 103a:12- 14 ø (80b) [160] ø (247b) 134b:6-9 131b:9- 132a:1 Gesetz Mohammeds 163b:6- 164a:4 160b:7- 161a:5 170b:6- 171a:6 103b:5-13 80b:13- 81a:4 [161:2-9] 248b:2-10 135a:4- 9168 132a:7-12 DV18 (Gegen Prophetentum Mohammeds)169 14a:1-8 [31b:9- 32b:7] 164a:4- 164b:2 161a:5- 161b:2 171a:6- 171b:7 103b:13- 104a:7 81a:5-12 [161:9- 19] 248b:10- 249b:6 135a:16- 135b:6 132b:1-7 Offenbarungsverständnis 164b:9- 165b:9 161b:11- 162b:9170 172a:4- 173a:5 104a:13- 105a:1 ø (81b) [162] ø (249b) 136a:1- 136b:6 133a:1- 2171 Koran und Paraklet 165b:9- 166a:2 162b:9- 163a:2 173a:5-9 105a:1-4 81b:3-5 [162:1-4] 249b:14- 250b:4 136b:7-9 ø (133a) Überleitung zur Diskussion der Auferstehung 166a:6-7 163a:7-8 173b:3-4 105a:7-8 81b:8-9 [162:7-8] 250b:7-8 136b:12- 137a:1 ø (133a) Hinweis auf Miṣqal-i ṣafâ ø (166a) ø (163a) ø (173b) ø (105a) ø (81b) [162] ø (250b) 137a:3-7 133a:6-10 Positionen zur leiblichen Auferstehung 168a:1-7 165a:2-7 175b:1- 6172 106a:9-14 82b:6-9 [163:22- 164:5] 253b:3-8 138a:11- 138b:5173 134a:11- 134b:4 Redaktion Schlussteil von M3174 ø (171a) ø (168a) ø (178b) ø (108a) ø (84a) [166] ø (257b) ø (140b) 136b:8- 153b Gedichtverse 171b:7-10 168b:8-11 179a:11- 179b:4 108b:2-5 84b:5-7 [167:2-5] 258b:10- 13 141a:7- 9175 ø 167 M2 und M3 weichen stark von C1, C2, V und M1 sowie P und E ab. 168 M2 und M3 weichen jeweils von C1, C2, V, M1, P und E ab, M3 stärker als M2. 169 DV18 weicht in den überlieferten Manuskripten von Hss. Vat. Pers. 7 und 81 ab. 170 In C2 fehlt der Inhalt von C1 165a:4-6 und 165a:9-10. Erstere Passage hat der Kopist am Ende von C2 162a nachgetragen. 171 In M3 133a:1-2 ist nur der Beginn der Textstelle erhalten. 172 V weicht von C1, C2, M1, P und E sowie von M2 und M3 ab. 173 M2 und M3 weichen von C1, C2, M1, P und E sowie von V ab. 174 Ab M3 136b weist diese Handschrift eine eigene Textredaktion auf, die keiner anderen entspricht. Die Passage M3 134a:9-134b:6 wiederholt sich auf M3 138b:12-139a:10. 175 M2 weicht von C1, C2, V, M1, P und E ab. Es findet sich erneut ein Hinweis auf Miṣqal-i ṣafā. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 313 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 DV19 (Gottesanspruch Jesu) ø176 ø ø ø ø ø ø ø 148b:10- 149a:8 DV20 (Wahrheitsanspruch der Evv.) ø ø ø ø ø ø ø ø 149b:10- 150b:5 Ehrerbietungen an Propheten177 171b-187b 168b-185a 179b-195a 108b-118a 84b-92a [168-183] 258b-278b 141a-153a 152a-153b Mohammed als Paraklet178 171b:11- 172a:11 168b:12- 169a:12 179b:4- 180a:4 108b:5-15 84b:7-15 [169:1-10] 258b:13- 259b:10 141a:10- 141b:5 ø Ergänzung zu Ungläubigen 178a:3-4 175b:3-5 ø (185b) ø (112a) ø (88a) [175] ø (267b) ø (145b) ø Ergänzung zu Mohammed 178a:11- 178b:1 175b:13- 176a:1 ø (186a) ø (112b) ø (88a) [176] ø (267b) ø (145b) ø Ergänzung zur Offenbarung 179a:3-4 176b:3-5 ø (186b) ø (112b) ø (88a) [176] ø (268b) ø (146a) ø Paraklet als Gesandter ø (180a) ø (177b) 187b:8- 188a:1 113a:14- 113b:3 88b:14- 89a:2 [177:11- 15] 269b:13- 270b:4 146b:12- 147a:4 ø Verrat der Jünger an Jesus179 180b:5- 181b:4 178a:6- 179a:4 188b (Marginalie) 113b:14- 114b:1 89a:11- 89b:13 [178:7-25] 271b:3- 272b:10 147b:1- 148a:6 ø Suren zur Offenbarung 184a:2- 185a:11 181b:3- 182b:13 ø (191a) ø (116a) ø (91a) [181] ø (276b) ø (150a) ø Suren zu Gottesnamen ø (185b) ø (183a) 191a:5- 192a:8 116a:2- 116b:6 ø (91a) [181] ø (276b) 150a:4- 150b:12 ø Gedichtvers 186a:3-4 183b:3-5 192b:11- 193a:2 116b:15- 117a:2 ø (91b) [181] ø (277b) 151a:7-11 ø 176 DV19 und 20 können anhand der Hss. Vat. Pers. 7 und 81 nicht als Zitate Della Valles identifiziert werden. Möglicherweise handelt es sich hierbei um spätere Hinzufügungen, die deshalb ausschließlich in M3 belegt sind. 177 Während C1 171b:10 und C2 168b:12 den Schlussteil mit yā maʿšar an-naṣārā einleiten, weisen V 179b:4, P 84b:7 und E 258b:13 ihn als ḫitām makkī (mekkanischer Epilog) oder ḫitām miskī (Moschus gleicher Epilog) aus. Letztere Lesung ist eindeutig in M1 108b:5, M2 141a:9 und M3 152a:4 belegt. 178 Diese Textpassage liegt in drei voneinander leicht abweichenden Versionen vor, nämlich C1, C2 sowie V, M1, P, E sowie M2. 179 Diese Passage ist in zwei voneinander leicht abweichenden Textversionen belegt, nämlich C1, C2 sowie V, M1, P, E, M2. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 314 ʿAlawîs Lawâmiʿ-i rabbânî Hss.-Gruppe 1 Hss.-Gruppe 3 Della Valles Risâla Gruppe 1/1 Gruppe 1/2 Gruppe 1/3 Hss.-Gruppe 2 Gruppe 3/1 Gruppe 3/2 Inhalt Vat. Pers. 7 [81] C1 C2 [L] V M1 P [S] E M2 M3 Gedichtverse und Suren 186a :11- 186b:1, 2- 7, 8- 187a:3, 5- 7 183b:14- 184a:1, 2- 7, 8- 184b:3, 6- 8 193a:11- 193b:1, 2- 8, 9- 194a:6, 7- 9 117a:8-9, 10-14, 15- 117b:5, 9- 10 ø (91b/92a) [182/183] ø (277b/278 a) 151b:6, 8- 12, 152a:1-6, 8-9 ø Gedichtverse 187a:7-9 184b:9-11 [ci:1-2] ø (194a) 117b:12- 13 92a:2-4 [182:19- 22] 278a:3-5 152a:11- 152b:1 ø Die folgende Beschreibung der einzelnen Manuskripte und Drucke erlaubt eine Zuordnung der Textzeugen zu verschiedenen Handschriftengruppen und gibt so Auskunft über die weitere Rezensionsgeschichte von ʿAlawīs Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī. Hs. Dd.6.83 (Cambridge) Hs. Dd.6.83 der Cambridge University Library (C1) umfasst 190 Folien, die ca. 13,5 × 9 cm (Text: 9 × 4,5 cm) groß und elfzeilig beschrieben sind.180 Die Handschrift ist in gutem Zustand, lediglich einzelne Blätter sind durch leichten Insektenfraß beschädigt. Außer der ersten Folie trägt das Papier kein Wasserzeichen. Die Taʿlīq-Schrift des Kopisten ist sauber gearbeitet und gut lesbar. Die Kopie wurde am Mittwoch, den 5. Šaʿbān 1031/ 15. Juni 1622 von dem Baumeister (miʿmār) und offenbar auch professionellen Kopisten Ṣadr ad-Dīn b. Ǧaʿfar ʿAlī angefertigt. Eigennamen, Titel, Eulogien, Koranzitate, Zitate aus Della Valles Apologie und aus dem Alten Testament sind rot überstrichen. Anreden der Christen, Überschriften und einzelne Propheten- und Imamnamen sind in roter Tinte gearbeitet. Das hebräische Zitat in arabischen Lettern, Gen 17,20, ist fehlerhaft wiedergegeben.181 In C1 sind sechs Marginalien belegt, die alle von der Hand des Kopisten stammen. Zwei von ihnen erläutern die Gestalt des Parakleten (fāraqlīṭ) und Elijas (Īlīyā).182 Neben einer Ergänzung zu den Prophetennamen werden zusätzlich die drei arabischen Begriffe turraha (Lüge), ḥūt (Fisch) und yarāʿa (Glühwürmchen) als Glosse erläutert.183 Offenbar wollte der Kopist dem wenig arabischkundigen Leser 180 E.G. Browne, A Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge 1896, S. 7-9, Nr. VII; ders., Literary History, Bd. 4, S. 421; ders., „Fihris al-maḫṭūṭāt al-islāmīya bi-Maktabat Ǧāmiʿat Kambriǧ. al-qism al-ḫāmis. Tarǧamat d. Yaḥya al-Ǧubūrī“, al-Maurid 10 iii-iv (1981), S. 429. 181 C1 14b:10-15a:1. 182 C1 5a, 103a. 183 C1 15b, 105a, 110b, 119a. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 315 eine Verstehenshilfe geben. Die Lexik von C1, C2, V, M1, P und E ist im Vergleich zu M2 und M3 insgesamt stärker arabisch als persisch geprägt. Am Ende einer Marginalie findet sich die arabische Ziffer 12. Möglicherweise handelt es sich dabei um ein Kürzel zur Identifizierung des Kopisten.184 Wie in C1 ist für alle Handschriften der Polemik ʿAlawīs die direkte Anrede der Christen kennzeichnend, die überwiegend mit yā maʿšar an-naṣārā (o ihr Christen) erfolgt. Daneben finden sich weitere arabische Formen wie ayyuhā an-naṣrānī oder yā maʿšar al-ʿuqalāʾ (o ihr Verständigen). Jesus wird in der Polemik ganz überwiegend als Masīḥ (Messias) bezeichnet, es finden sich aber auch die muslimischen und christlichen Namensformen ʿĪsā185 bzw. Yasūʿ.186 Dabei fällt auf, dass sich die Verwendung der christlichen Bezeichnung Yasūʿ auf eine rund 20 Folien umfassende Passage im zweiten Kapitel der Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī konzentriert, die den Fälschungsvorwurf gegen die Evangelien beschreibt. Möglicherweise ist dies Indiz für eine ungenannte Quelle ʿAlawīs, auf die er sich in diesem Abschnitt stützt oder Teile daraus entnommen hat. Dafür spräche ebenfalls, dass ʿAlawī in diesem Abschnitt an drei Stellen erläutert, dass Yasūʿ und Masīḥ gleichbedeutend sind, obwohl er den Eigennamen bereits zuvor zweimal verwendete und aus dem Gesamtkontext kein zusätzlicher Erklärungsbedarf für den Leser bestünde. Hs. Ll.6.29 (Cambridge) Hs. Ll.6.29 der Cambridge University Library (C2) umfasst 186 Blätter,187 die ca. 15,5 × 10 cm (Text: zwischen 8 × 7 und 12,5 × 9 cm) groß sind und kein Wasserzeichen tragen.188 Der Kolophon ist identisch mit dem von C1. Im Vergleich zu C1 fehlen zwischen Fol. 8b/9a der Inhalt entsprechend C1 8a-11b sowie zwischen Fol. 144b/145a der Inhalt entsprechend C1 147b. Vermutlich ist Ersteres auf den Verlust von 4 Blättern, Letzteres auf eine Nachlässigkeit des Kopisten zurückzuführen, der eine Seite zu kopieren vergaß. Die Anzahl der Zeilen variiert je nach Folie zwischen 12 und 17 Zeilen. Die Abschrift ist unsauber in bräunlicher Tinte gearbeitet und weist zahlreiche Streichungen, Tintenflecke und Verwischungen auf. 184 C1 119a. Die gleiche Ziffer findet sich auch am Ende mehrerer Marginalien in M3 2b, 4a (unten), 4b, 5a, 6a, 9a. Ein Zusammenhang ist jedoch unwahrscheinlich, da zwischen der Datierung der beiden Handschriften rund 170 Jahre liegen. 185 C1 135b:9. In Della Valles Apologie findet sich hingegen nur die muslimische Namensform, vgl. Hss. Vat. Pers. 7 und 81. 186 C1 99b:3, 102a:5, 103a:8, 110b:10, 121a:5 (zu den letzten drei Stellen findet sich eine Erklärung, dass Yasūʿ gleichbedeutend mit Masīḥ sei), 181a:7 („Yasūʿ nāṣirī“). 187 Fol. 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 16b, 186a und 186b sind unbeschrieben. 188 Browne, Catalogue, S. 9-10, Nr. VIII; ders., Literary History, Bd. 4, S. 421; ders., „Fihris“, S. 429. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 316 Browne war der Meinung, dass es sich bei C2 um eine flüchtige Kopie von C1 handele, was der Vergleich zwischen beiden Handschriften bestätigt.189 Eine foliengenaue Abschrift, um die der Kopist sichtlich bemüht war, gelang ihm aber nicht immer. Dennoch übernahm er stets die Kustoden von C1, auch wenn sie nicht mit dem Beginn des folgenden Blattes von C2 übereinstimmten und so ihre eigentliche Funktion verloren.190 Bei seiner Abschrift überging der Kopist die sechs Marginalien von C1 und ließ gelegentlich einzelne Zeilen aus.191 Ein Kopistenfehler auf Fol. 170b unterstreicht, dass C2 von C1 kopiert wurde.192 Lee mutmaßte, dass der Kopist kein Muttersprachler, sondern vermutlich Europäer gewesen sei.193 Wahrscheinlich war C2 Vorlage für Lees auszugsweisen Druck der Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī von 1824. Hs. Vat. Pers. 11 (Vatikan) Hs. Vat. Pers. 11 der Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana in Rom (V) umfasst 195 Blätter.194 Jede Folie ist ca. 14 × 9 cm groß und elfzeilig beschrieben. Die Handschrift ist in gutem Zustand, die Taʿlīq-Schrift mit Šekaste-Zügen gut lesbar. Überschriften, Aufzählungen und die Anrede der Christen yā maʿšar an-naṣārā sind laut Katalog in roter Tinte hervorgehoben. Die Anrede ayyuhā an-naṣrānī ist seltener belegt als in C1. Der Kolophon datiert V auf Freitag, den 5. Ramażān 1031/ 14. Juli 1622, kopiert von einem gewissen Muḥammad Bāqir b. Malik ʿAlī Iṣfahānī. Das hebräische Zitat in arabischen Lettern, Gen 17,20, ist wie in C1/ C2 erhalten, aber ebenfalls fehlerhaft.195 Ebenso sind Eigennamen, Eulogien, Koranzitate und Zitate aus Della Valles Apologie in V überstrichen. Vermutlich wurde die Kopie von dem spanischen Karmeliter Prosper dello Spirito Santo nach Rom gebracht, wie aus einem Brief vom 27. Februar 1625 aus Aleppo hervorgeht.196 Trotz zahlreicher Parallelen mit C1/ C2 und M1 weist V besonders im zweiten Kapitel einzelne Abweichungen auf. Eine getilgte Passage in V, die in C1 und M1 an anderer Stelle erscheint, zeigt, dass der Kopist gegenüber seiner Vorlage zu kür- 189 Browne, Catalogue, S. 10. 190 C2 3b/4a, 4b/5a. 191 Auf C2 101b fehlen die Zeilen C1 104a:4-5 sowie auf C2 162a die Zeilen C1 165a:4-6 und 9-10. 192 Auf C2 170b begann der Kopist mit der Abschrift von C1 173b, rutschte in der zweiten Zeile jedoch zu C2 174a. Als ihm der Fehler am Ende des Blattes auffiel, strich er die Seite durch und begann auf C2 171a erneut mit der Abschrift von C1 173b. 193 Lee, Controversial Tracts, S. xlii: „[The manuscript is] written in a very careless and incorrect manner by some European.“ 194 Rossi, Elenco, S. 36-8. 195 V 14a:7-9. 196 Chronicle, Bd. 1, S. 265; a.a.O., Bd. 2, S. 996. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SCHIITISCHE POLEMIK GEGEN DAS CHRISTENTUM IM SAFAWIDISCHEN IRAN 317 zen versuchte.197 So fehlen in V solche Passagen, die in C1 und M1 die Kreuzigung oder die Wesenseinheit von Gott-Vater und Sohn thematisieren.198 Verschiedene Marginalien in V,199 darunter auch die Randbemerkungen zu Elija und turraha aus C1,200 legen aber nahe, dass entweder V mit C1 kollationiert wurde oder beide Handschriften auf eine gemeinsame Vorlage zurückgehen. Möglicherweise handelt es sich dabei um das Autograph, da die Kolophone der beiden Handschriften eine geringe zeitliche Distanz von höchstens sieben oder acht Monaten zur Prologdatierung der Polemik aufweisen. Einige Marginalien aus V, die nicht in C1/ C2 erscheinen, sind auch in späteren Handschriften belegt. So sind die Randvermerke zur Polygynie201 in M1, M2 und M3 und zum Abfall der Jünger von Gott202 in M1, P, E, M2 und M3 erhalten. Daneben sind Ergänzungen von V gegenüber C1/ C2 und M1 zur Theologie anderer christlicher Denominationen,203 zur Trinität und Wesenseinheit Gottes204 sowie zum Verlust des „wahren“ Evangeliums205 in M2 und M3 überliefert. Die Erläuterungen zum Parakleten und den Namen Gottes206 finden sich hingegen nur in M1, P, E und M2 bzw. M1 und M2. Insgesamt legt dies nahe, dass V Quelle für M1 und möglicherweise auch unabhängig davon Vorlage für M2/ M3 war. Alle Hinzufügungen in V gegenüber C1/ C2 und M1 fügen sich in die laufende Argumentation ein, weisen jedoch stärkere Bezüge zur orientalischen Tradition des Christentums und ihrer Theologie auf. Ob es sich dabei um Ergänzungen ʿAlawīs oder des Kopisten handelt, kann nicht entschieden werden. Hs. Marʿašī 8998 (Qom) Hs. Marʿašī 8998 der Kitābḫāna-yi Buzurg Āyatullāh Marʿašī Naǧafī in Qom (M1) umfasst 118 Folien.207 Jedes Blatt misst ca. 18 × 12 cm und hat 15 Zeilen. Die Taʿlīq-Schrift ist gut lesbar. Überschriften, Eigennamen und die Anrede der Christen sind laut Katalog in roter Tinte hervorgehoben, Zitate aus Della Valles Risāla und teilweise aus dem Koran sind überstrichen. DV 5 wurde vom Kopisten versehentlich zweifach kopiert.208 Das hebräische Zitat in arabischen Lettern, Gen 197 V 156b/157a, C1 153a:8-10, M1 97b:3-5. 198 V 119a, 121a (fehlt auch in M1 76b), 139b, 159b, 194a. 199 V 90b, 139b. 200 V 105a, 107a. 201 V 69a. 202 V 115a. 203 V 152b:3-9, 153a:1-8. 204 V 153b:7-154a:8, 154b:3-155b:3. 205 V 165a:10-165b:2. 206 V 187b:8-188a:1, 191a:5-192a:8. 207 Ḥusainī, Fihrist-i kitābḫāna, Bd. 23, S. 158-9, Nr. 8998; Muʿǧam, Bd. 4, S. 574, Nr. 10208. 208 M1 35a:1-8, 10-15. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul DENNIS HALFT OP 318 17,20, ist wie in C1/ C2 und V fehlerhaft erhalten.209 Zwischen M1 24a/25b und 65a/66a fehlen Folien mit dem Inhalt entsprechend C1 40a:2-41b:4 bzw. 101a:9- 102b:11. Stattdessen geben M1 24b/25a einen arabischen Text ohne volle Diakritika und M1 65b/66a einen persischen Text in Šekaste-Zügen von einer jeweils anderen Hand als der des Kopisten von M1 wieder. Auf Fol. 1a findet sich ein Waqf-Vermerk, der M1 als eine Stiftung Schah Sulaimāns (reg. 1076-1105/1666-94) ausweist und in den Monat Ḏū al-Qaʿda 1107/ Juni-Juli 1696 datiert ist. Daraus geht hervor, dass der bekannte schiitische Gelehrte Muḥammad Bāqir al-Maǧlisī (st. 1110/1698-99 oder 1111/1700) ʿAlawīs Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī anhand von M1 studierte und vervielfältigen ließ. Der Kolophon datiert M1 hingegen auf den 18. Šawwāl 1117/ 2. Februar 1706, kopiert von einem gewissen Muḥammad Riżā b. Muḥammad Hāšim Harmīǧardī (!).210 Trotz der vergleichsweise späten Datierung der Abschrift scheint in M1 eine Textfassung erhalten zu sein, die den frühsten überlieferten Handschriften C1/ C2 und V ähnelt. So ist die Marginalie zum Parakleten aus C1 – im Unterschied zu allen anderen Manuskripten – auch in M1 belegt.211 Einzelne Korrekturen am Rand zeigen, dass M1 mit einer Vorlage kollationiert wurde. Unabhängig von C1/ C2 war vermutlich auch V Quelle für M1 (sowie für M2 und M3), da in allen drei Handschriften eine Marginalie zur Polygynie b