JORJĀNI, ZAYN-AL-DIN ABU’L-ḤASAN ʿALI B. MOḤAMMAD B. ʿALI AL-ḤOSAYNI (b. in the village of Ṭāḡu near Astarābād in Gorgān, whence “Jorjāni,” on 22 Šaʿbān 740/22 February 1340; d. Shiraz, 6 Rabiʿ II 816/6 July 1413), prolific author and scholar of the early Timurid period.
Jorjāni was allegedly a distant descendant (14th generation) of Moḥammad b. Zayd … b. ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb, a Zaydi prince, known as al-dāʿi al-ṣaḡir, who, like his elder brother Ḥasan b. Zayd (al-dāʿi al-kabir), ruled over Ṭabarestān and Gorgān for a short period of time and died there in 900 (EI 2 VII, 1993, pp. 417-18). The details of the genealogy are unknown, but it is for that reason that Jorjāni is called in sources “al-Sayyed al-Šarif.” In Persian works, and especially in India, he also receives the title Mir.
The data on Jorjāni’s early studies have to be treated with caution. Arab authors of the late Mamluk period (ʿAyni, Saḵāwi, Soyuṭi, Dāwudi), who included entries about him in their biographical works, were not particularly well informed about his scholarly life outside their area. Persian sources (Mirḵᵛānd, Ḵᵛāndamir, and, in Arabic, Ḵᵛānsāri and Šuštari) are relatively late, and the Ottoman authors (especially Taşköprüzade) rely on a legendary tradition which came up among Jorjāni’s Turkish students. Carl Brockelmann (1868-1956, q.v.), who was the first to combine scattered data into a coherent picture (GAL S II, p. 305), had to leave many questions open. Jorjāni’s own biographical comments (in the prolegomena to his works, etc.) have not yet been systematically collected.
The education which Jorjāni received in his homeland was Muʿtazilite-oriented. He studied Zamaḵšari’s (d. 1144) al-Kaššāf, especially with regard to the Qurʾānic suras 2 and 3, and Sakkāki’s (d. 1229) Meftāḥ al-ʿolum (Saḵāwi, V, p. 328). In his twenties he started traveling in order to get teaching licenses (ejāza, q.v.). His first destination was Herat, not only because this town—ruled by the Kart dynasty (1245-1389) at that time—seemed to offer some personal safety (and perhaps better libraries) after the destructions in Persia caused by the Mongol invasion, but also because he hoped to meet a renowned teacher there, a certain Qoṭb-al-Din whose identity is never fully disclosed in sources. It was possibly not Qoṭb-al-Din Rāzi Taḥtāni who was meant (as assumed by Tritton, p. 602), for he lived in Damascus during his last years and died there in 1365 (GAL S II, p. 293), but rather Qoṭb-al-Din Rāzi Bowayhi, who died ten years later, in 1375 (Sellheim, I, p. 303; cf. Ḵᵛānsāri, VI, pp. 38 ff., especially p. 45). Bowayhi had written a commentary to Sakkāki’s Meftāḥ al-ʿolum, and the confusion may have been caused by the fact that later, for his own courses, Jorjāni used commentaries written by Taḥtāni, for which, however, he got an ejāza not in Herat but in Cairo (see works H a-b in the list below, with respect to Kātebi’s Šamsiya and Ormawi’s Maṭāleʿ al-anwār). But the facts are still not sufficiently clear, and we cannot yet even be sure that the two Rāzis were really different persons.
The story itself is based on Taşköprüzade (1985, p. 150), where the context is legendary, and we are perhaps simply dealing with an attempt at explaining Jorjāni’s further search of knowledge (ṭalab al-ʿelm), which led him—somewhat unusual for an Iranian—to Mamluk territory. For “Qoṭb-al-Din” is said to have advised Jorjāni to go to Egypt where a former student of his, a certain Mobā-rakšāh, was teaching. As a matter of fact, Jorjāni went to Anatolia first, obviously in search for a job at one of the madrasas in this developing area. We know about him staying at Konya, where he studied the works of Ebn al-ʿArabi and Ṣadr-al-Din Qonawi (Bayram, p. 180). He ended up in Qarāmān in southern Turkey, which was still the seat of an independent principality, where he hoped to meet (and perhaps replace) Šams-al-Din Moḥammad b. Aḥmad Niksāri (from Niksār, the old Neo-Caesarea in Bithynia) who, like himself, had been a specialist of Sak-kāki’s Meftāḥ al-ʿolum (Sellheim, I, p. 311). But Niksāri had already died, and Jorjāni joined Jamāl-al-Din Mo-ḥammad Āqsarāʾi (d. 1378?; cf. Sellheim, I, pp. 310 f., where Jalāl-al-Din should be changed to Jamāl-al-Din; see also GAL S II, p. 328; the report in Taşköprüzade, 1985, p. 19 is unreliable), a remote descendant of Faḵr-al-Din Rāzi (1150-1210, q.v.), who taught there at the al-Madrasa al-Musalsala.
The most important person for Jorjāni’s further career was, however, Āqsarāʾi’s pupil, Mollā Šams-al-Din (b.) al-Fanāri, who, in spite of being ten years younger (Sellheim, I, pp. 325 f.), persuaded Jorjāni to accompany him to Egypt. There Jorjāni could finally consult Mobārak-šāh “the logician” (al-manṭeqi), as he was called there, who still remains a mysterious person, and, besides him, a Hanafite jurist Akmal-al-Din Moḥammad Bābarti (d. 1384; cf. GAL² II, p. 97, S II, pp. 89 f., and IA2 IV, pp. 337 f.), who, like Mobārakšāh, was a foreigner in Cairo and yet had become, together with him, the mentor of a number of students from the young Ottoman Empire, who included, besides Mollā Fanāri, the physician Ḥājji Pāša, the poet Aḥmadi, and Badr-al-Din b. Qāżi Si-māwnā (EI ² I, pp. 299 and 869, III, p. 45; IA2 II, p. 165, V, p. 332, and XIV, pp. 492 ff.). Allegedly brought up in Qoṭb-al-Din Taḥtāni’s household in Herat (Taşköprüzade, 1985, p. 151), Mobārakšāh was never considered worthy of an entry in any of the Mamluk biographical sources. He left for the ḥājj shortly after Jorjāni had arrived and seems not to have come back (Taşköprüzade, 1985, p. 50). Turkish scholars tend to identify him with the amir Sayf-al-Din Mobārakšāh al-Ṭāzi (d. 1378), a member of the Mamluk aristocracy (cf. IA2 XIV, p. 493a). But this still needs further support; the source quoted (Ebn Qāżi Šohba, III, p. 585) does not mention any scholarly activities of this person.
For Jorjāni himself the stay in Cairo may have meant a further encouragement to adopt the Hanafite maḏhab, to which his Ottoman colleagues and his teacher Bābarti adhered. He also found Ashʿarite theology important now, for he studied Iji’s Mawāqef with Mobārakšāh who is said to have acquired this work from Iji himself (Saḵāwi, V, p. 329). Besides, Jorjāni seems to have had contacts with Sufi circles, for he is reported to have lived for four years in the Saʿid al-soʿadāʾ, an old Fatimid palace converted to ḵānqāh (q.v.) in Cairo, which had been dedicated by Saladin (Ṣalāḥ-al-Din Yusof b. Ayyub, d. 1193) as a hostel where migrating dervishes could stay free of charge (Denoix, p. 861). Jorjāni was in his early thirties then, and still a poor student. Bābarti, on the other hand, was suspected to be an adherent of Ebn al-ʿArabi’s (1165-1240, q.v.) doctrine (at least according to Ebn Ḵaldun who met him shortly before his death; cf. Ebn Ḥajar, V, p. 18).
In 1374 Jorjāni tried his luck in Asia Minor (belād al-Rum), although not in Constantinople as Brockelmann states (GAL S II, p. 305), since this town was still Christian, but perhaps in Bursa or even in far-away Edirne which had become the capital under Morād I (r. 1360-89) in 1366. In 1377 or 1378, Jorjāni was already back in Gorgān, where—at the advice of a certain Saʿd-al-Din Masʿud al-Onsi, a local scholar who in later (especially Ottoman) sources is confused with Saʿd-al-Din Masʿud b. ʿOmar Taftāzāni (cf. Madelung, p. 89)—he succeeded in winning the attention of the Mozaffarid ruler Šāh Šojāʿ (r. 1358-64 and 1366-84), who had been fighting his nephew Amir Yaḥyā and was now encamped on a plain near Astarābād. Jorjāni could only approach Šāh Šojāʿ under false pretences and in military disguise, but he then impressed the ruler so much by his scholarly proficiency that Šāh Šojāʿ asked Jorjāni to accompany him to Shiraz where Jorjāni was offered a position in a madrasa connected with a newly-founded hospital (dār al-šefāʾ).
At least this is how the situation is presented in Persian sources (Mirḵᵛānd, IV, p. 555, followed by Navāʾi, p. 69 and Ḵᵛānsāri, V, p. 302, though in both sources the dates are wrong). One may, however, also venture the hypothesis that Jorjāni pleased Šāh Šojāʿ by presenting to him a book on musical theory—a commentary on Ṣafi-al-Din Ormawi’s Ketāb al-adwār (Rieu, no. 823, work 5; cf. below, “Works,” O g), which Mobārakšāh had finished in 1375 and which is explicitly dedicated to Šāh Šojāʿ. In Shiraz, Jorjāni probably still met Ḥāfeẓ (d. 1390, q.v.), for he started teaching there in 1377. In 1380-81 or slightly later, he wrote a contribution to a jong (Tāj-al-Din Aḥmad Vazir, p. 36), but the pages, originally fols. 20-26, were removed from the manuscript and have been lost. Generally speaking, one may also assume that he had to take into account the tradition of ʿAżod-al-Din Iji (d. 1355) who had lived in the town and died only some twenty-five years ago.
With Taftāzāni, on the contrary, Jorjāni had no personal contacts until ten years later, when Timur (d. 1405, q.v.), during his first, still somewhat short-lived victory over the Mozaffarids, conquered Shiraz in 1387. Jorjāni’s house had been declared out of bounds when Timur’s troops started looting the town, but then he had to follow the conqueror to Samarqand, where Taftāzāni had been teaching with great success since 1385 (Taşköprüzade, 1985, p. 44; Yazdi, p. 193a). All of a sudden, Jorjāni found himself in the embarrassing situation of showing up as a competitor, but the two scholars differed with regard to insignificant details only. In theology, Taftāzāni followed the Central Asian Maturidite tradition, whereas Jorjāni, by his upbringing, was rather a Muʿtazilite who had adjusted to the Ashʿarite doctrine. In jurisprudence, Taftā-zāni had the advantage of being an expert not only in the Hanafite but also in Shafiʿite law. Nevertheless, the rivalry between Jorjāni and Taftāzāni gave occasion to frequent public discussions which seem to have pleased the audience, even when they merely focused on ludicrous minutiae like the hadith “Love of the cat is a part of the Faith” (ḥobb al-herra men al-imān; cf. Rex Smith, p. 141). The situation changed when Timur, who was normally absent from his capital because of numerous military campaigns, insisted on an arbitration and decided in favor of Jorjāni. Timur is said to have been influenced in his judgment by an old Muʿtazilite theologian of Khwarazmian origin, whose son was (later on?) Timur’s personal imam (Taşkö-prüzade, 1985, p. 43; cf. Ebn ʿArabšāh, p. 467). However, not being a scholar himself, Timur may have been ultimately rather impressed by Jorjāni’s nesba, that is, his descent from the Prophet (Taşköprüzade, 1985, p. 43). The questions discussed continued to instigate the ambition of later experts, especially in the Ottoman Empire (cf. Taşköprüzade’s Masālek al-ḵalāṣ fi mahālek al-ḵawāṣṣ or his Moḥākama bayna Saʿd-al-Din wa al-Sayyed al-Šarif, GAL² II, p. 561, nos. 17 and 19; for further texts see Gümüş in IA2 VIII, p. 135b).
Jorjāni never dissimulated his respect for Taftāzāni who was almost twenty years older. In 1379, having just established himself in Shiraz, Jorjāni published his notes to the Moṭawwal—the “long” commentary of Sakkāki, which Taftāzāni had written in 1347, at the age of 26 (Sellheim, I, p. 312). Jorjāni also wrote a commentary of his own to Sakkāki’s Meftāḥ al-ʿolum, but this work, entitled al-Meṣbāḥ, did not come out until after Taftāzāni’s death in 1401-02 and after Jorjāni had finished collecting all his materials in Šawwāl 803/May 1401 (Monzavi and Dānešpažuh, II, p. 416; Sellheim, I, p. 308). Most of Jorjāni’s large works seem to have been finished in Samarqand, for example, his famous commentary to Iji’s Mawāqef, which belongs to the year 1404 (van Ess, p. 270). Yet Jorjāni does not seem to have been happy in Samarqand (cf. his remark in the preface to al-Meṣbāḥ mentioned in Taşköprüzade, 1985, p. 44). The decisive debate with Taftāzāni apparently focused on the beginning of sura 2 (verses 2-5)—a passage that could be understood as supporting illuminative knowledge vs. rational theology (Laknawi, p. 128). In the long run, Jorjāni seems to have established contacts with Sufi masters, first with Ḵᵛāja ʿAlāʾ-al-Din ʿAṭṭār, who had come to Samarqand and died there in 1400 (cf. IA2 II, pp. 319 f.) and then with the latter’s disciple Neẓām-al-Din Ḵāmuš. This is why he is claimed by the later Naqšbandi tradition (Ṣafi-Kāšefi, pp. 106 ff., Ar. tr., pp. 87 ff.). Sufis who were affiliated to this brotherhood, like Ebrāhim Šāši, also came to study with him at the madrasa which Timur had founded in Samarqand (Ṣafi-Kāšefi, p. 216, Ar. tr. p. 165). The town was full of deported scholars (the Qurʾān specialist Ebn al-Jazari being one of them; cf. the list in Ebn ʿArabšāh, p. 467), and for a short moment it seemed to be the hub of the world. Jorjāni certainly witnessed the Mamluk delegation sent by Faraj b. Barquq (r. 1399-1405 and 1405-07), as well as the embassy of Clavijo (d. 1412, q.v.) who visited the “world-conqueror” in 1404.
Nevertheless, like many other deportees, Jorjāni left Samarqand immediately after Timur’s death on 17 Ša-ʿbān 807/18 February 1405 and returned to Shiraz (Ebn ʿArabšāh, p. 440). His family seems to have still lived there, and he found other Sufis to consult, especially Neʿmat-Allāh Kermāni (d. 1430-31), but little is known about this period of his life. In 1407 Jorjāni finished one of his astronomical works there (see list of works below, L a). Close to the Old Mosque, apparently on the ground of the madrasa, he built himself a tomb (Saḵāwi, V, pp. 329-30), and shortly before his death he answered a religious questionnaire which Eskandar Solṭān b. ʿOmar-Šayḵ (d. 1415, q.v.), Timur’s grandson and ruler of Fārs since 815/1412, had sent to him (and also separately to Neʿmat-Allāh Kermāni; see below, O b).
Jorjāni died on 6 Rabiʿ II 816/7 July 1413. The less precise date of 1411-12, given by the Mamluk historian al-ʿAyni in his ʿEqd al-jomān fi tāriḵ ahl al-zamān (which in principle is our oldest source), is ruled out by the fact that the aforementioned correspondence of Jorjāni with Eskandar Solṭān b. ʿOmar-Šayḵ took place in 1412-13 (Taşköprüzade, 1968, I, p. 208).
Like Taftāzāni, Jorjāni excelled as a scholar less by his originality than by his didactic skill. His works reflect the educational program of his time. Since he had difficulties to make a career (he was not born into a madrasa like many of his colleagues of earlier and more peaceful generations), he seems to have kept the notes of his courses and disputations in order to present them as a kind of diploma whenever he applied for a job (Ḵᵛānsāri, V, p. 303); later on he would make them available to public. This is why most of his works have the form of commentaries and glosses. He is said to have disliked the books which were so clear that they could not offer him any opportunity to explain something (Taşköprüzade, 1985, p. 19). Since he worked in different places and at different institutions, he had to teach on the basis of the texts which were available there and which corresponded to the local intellectual climate; this explains why he approached the same subject from different angles, by way of contrasting handbooks. Yet, he always respected the tradition; most of the school texts commented by him had been in use for generations. The “progressive” side of his program consisted of the “new” logic and an advanced disputational training. The collapse of the urban societies in Persia due to the political circumstances resulted in his having students from different social classes; some of them were poor and spoke only their native language. This is why some of Jorjāni’s primary texts are composed in Persian. The great number of grammatical works also suggests that he had to teach Arabic to the administrative staff at Timur’s court. His own command of the Arabic language was a matter of praise by the Yemeni scholar Šawkāni, who considered Jorjāni’s style as being less clumsy than what would usually be expected from an Iranian (ʿajami), obviously because of Jorjāni’s long stay in Egypt (Šawkāni, I, p. 489).
Mobility was nothing new for an Islamic scholar, but in Persia during Jorjāni’s time a career could only be made under the protection of a prince. By going to Egypt Jorjāni followed a trend which had come up two or three generations before, when central and western Persia had come under the domination of nomad dynasties which did not care much for urban civilization (Petry, pp. 61 ff.). He then tried to make himself known as an all-round expert, by advertising himself in the old disciplines of the religious syllabus (including mathematics and astronomy which were important in some legal issues and for the determination of the qebla direction), as well as for the new “meta-sciences” (adab al-baḥṯ, ʿelm al-ważʿ) which had become a favorite playground of late scholasticism.
Sometimes Jorjāni encountered criticism from experts, e.g., from Musā b. Moḥammad b. Maḥmud Qāżizāda-ye Rumi (1360-1437), who was one of his students and then concentrated on mathematics (Taşköprüzade, 1985, p. 16). But there were topics which Jorjāni never touched: ethics, for instance, in contrast to Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi (1201-74, q.v.); or astrology, in contrast to Faḵr-al-Din Rāzi (1150-1210, q.v.) and in spite of the fact that Timur appears to have favored it. In theology, he commented upon Sunnite as well as Shiʿite and on Muʿtazilite as well as Ashʿarite works. The only commitment he did keep was in law, to the Hanafite maḏhab. But even there his personal predilection may have gradually shifted from jurisprudence to Sufism. In this respect, he was an “ecumenical” type; he responded to the religious pluralism that prevailed in Persia up to the Safavid period.
Some of Jorjāni’s commentaries deal only with the beginning of the original text; the course did not get any further. On the other hand, digressions that originally formed a part of one of his commentaries were later on published by him as separate treatises (cf. below G, e and I, f). Many of his books are of small size, kinds of concise manuals, apt for memorizing, but they fitted their didactic purpose (like those of Moṣannefak, the “little Moṣannef,” an Iranian scholar of the next generation who owed his nickname to this kind of production), and they were used for centuries, not only in the Timurid educational system, but even more so in the Ottoman Empire and in India. There is no comprehensive study of his oeuvre. The list of works given below is of preliminary character; GAL is neither complete nor entirely reliable. Jorjāni may sometimes be confused with later members of his family, and the same work may appear under different titles. The new catalogues which appeared after GAL have to be consulted, especially those of the Iranian collections.
Among Jorjāni’s students one can mention the historian Ebn ʿArabšāh (1389-1450, q.v.), the Ottoman mufti Faḵr-al-Din ʿAjami (Taşköprüzade, 1985, pp. 59 ff.), a certain ʿAli ʿAjami (d. 1456) who became a teacher in Edirne and was then employed by Meḥmet (Moḥammad) II (r. 1444-46 and 1451-81) at his court in Constantinople (Taşköprüzade, pp. 101 f.), the religious scholar ʿAlāʾ-al-Din ʿAli b. Musā Rumi who remained the last living witness of Jorjāni’s disputations with Taftāzāni (Taşköprüzade, 1985, p. 47; cf. Saḵāwi, V, p. 329, and GAL² II, p. 137, no. 17, S II, p. 139, no. 19), the mathematician Qāżizāda-ye Rumi (Taşköprüzade, 1985, pp. 14 ff. and GAL² II, p. 275 S I, p. 865), the two Shafiʿite jurists ʿAfif-al-Din Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-al-Raḥim Jerehi (d. 1435-36; cf. Saḵāwi, VIII, pp. 50 f., no. 57) and Abu’l-Fotuḥ Aḥmad b. ʿAbd-Allāh Ṭāwusi (b. ca. 1388, d. ca. 1466; cf. Saḵāwi, I, pp. 360 f.), both of whom lived in Shiraz and were quoted, by way of their mašyaḵas, as witnesses for Jorjāni’s correct date of death.
Jorjāni’s courses seem to have been taken over by members of his family. Reports about that, however, are obfuscated by denominational prejudice. Jorjāni himself, coming from an Alid background, seems to have had Shiʿite leanings originally, which he gave up only when he had to teach in Shiraz (Jāmi, p. 389, followed by Ṣafi-Kāšefi, pp. 106 and 88). Late Shiʿite sources (Šuštari, II, pp. 220 f.; Ḵᵛānsāri, V, p. 305) mention a son of Jorjāni, named Šams-al-Din Moḥammad, who was a committed Shiʿite. In contrast to this, Sunnite authors also mention a son of Jorjāni by the name of Nur-al-Din Moḥammad (GAL² II, p. 271, S II, p. 294). Both persons may be identical; at least they are both said to have completed their father’s gloss to Astarābādi’s Šarḥ al-motawasseṭ (see below N, b), and to have translated the two logical treatises originally written in Persian (see below H f-g). But a better solution might be to assume that Jorjāni had two families, one in Shiraz and the other in Samarqand. Saḵāwi mentions a son of Jorjāni by the name of Šams-al-Din Moḥammad, who had a post in Samarqand at the same madrasa where Jorjāni himself had been teaching. He was the one who completed the father’s gloss to the Hedāya (see below, C b), and Ebn ʿArabšāh studied with both the father and the son alike (Saḵāwi, IX, p. 22, no. 62; cf. Idem, II, p. 127). Nur-al-Din, on the contrary, may have lived in Shiraz where the family retained their influence at the hospital (dār al-šefāʾ). He had the nickname (laqab) Šams-al-Maʿāli (Matvievskaya and Rozenfel’d, II, pp. 476, no. 424a) and may be identical with the son mentioned by Saḵāwi (V, p. 330) in the biography of the father—the one who died at the early age of less than forty years in 1434 and was buried next to his father in Shiraz (cf. GAL² II, p. 271). The same date of death is, however, also connected with Šams-al-Din, erroneously as it seems (Ḵᵛānsāri, V, p. 305; Dehḵodā, XI, p. 328). Brockelmann ascribes one of the Arabic versions of the logical treatises not to the son but to a grandson called Moḥammad (GAL S II, p. 306, no. 35a), and he also mentions a great-grandson named Šams-al-Din Moḥammad Ḥosayni (GAL S I, p. 840) who, by the similarity of his name, may have contributed to the confusion created in the Safavid texts. He was the person whom Saḵāwi met at Mecca in 1481 and from whom he got a list of Jor-jāni’s writings, which has been used in most of the later sources (Saḵāwi, V, pp. 328 and 329). He was, however, a member of the Ebn ʿArabšāh family and was related to Jorjāni through maternal line only (Saḵāwi, VII, p. 210, no. 516; cf. Idem, II, pp. 126 ff.). He was born in Shiraz, but since his father, Jaʿfar b. ʿAli, had the same mixed genealogy as himself, both families seem to have intermarried already in Samarqand. Saḵāwi noted that the son did not remember Jorjāni’s name correctly.
Another late descendant of Jorjāni, by the name of Šarif-al-Din ʿAli Ṣadr, was killed in the battle of Čālderān (q.v.) in 1514, when he fought on the Persian side against the Ottomans (Navāʾi, pp. 227 f.; quoted as Sayyed Šarif Širāzi by Savory, pp. 103 f.). He had the title Amir (Mir), like his brother Ḥabib-Allāh who was a judge (qāżi) in Shiraz (Navāʾi, pp. 245 f.). Jorjāni’s library still existed at that time, for we hear that it was looted later on under Shah Ṭahmāsp I (r. 1524-76, q.v.), when its owner, a descendant of Šarif-al-Din by the name of Mirzā Maḵdum b. Moʿin-al-Din Ašraf, who also had Neʿmat-Allāh Ker-māni among his ancestors, was thrown into jail because of his Sunnite convictions. He was set free when Ṭah-māsp I’s successor Esmāʿil II (r. 1576-78) initiated a Sunnite reaction and invited him to his court, but after Esmāʿil II’s assassination in 1578 he had to take refuge in Istanbul where he dedicated two books to Morād III (r. 1574-95), one of them entitled al-Nawāqeż le-bonyān al-rawāfeż (GAL² II, pp. 586 f., S II, p. 658, where “al-Ḥasani” has probably to be changed to “al-Ḥosayni”; cf. Ḥājji Ḵalifa, p. 823). The book (wrongly attributed to Jorjāni’s son Nur-al-Din in GAL S II, p. 294) was finished in 1580, and Mirzā Maḵdum died in Mecca in 1587 (cf. Eberhard, pp. 47, 56 ff., 65 f., and 180 ff.). His son, Mir Abu’l-Fatḥ Ḥosayni ʿArabšāhi Šarafi, who died rather early in 1568-69, had supported Ṭahmāsp I’s policy and was sponsored by the shah because of his scholarly proficiency. He wrote, among other things, a Qurʾānic commentary entitled Tafsir-e Šāhi (cf. Monzavi and Dāneš-pažuh, I, p. 60) and, like his ancestor, a commentary to Iji’s Adab al-baḥṯ (Ṭehrāni, XIII, p. 54, no. 173; cf. also GAL S I, pp. 707 and 322). The nesba ʿArabšāhi shows that Mirzā Maḵdum, in spite of living in Shiraz, ultimately belonged to the Samarqandi branch of the family. Two late descendants of his, Abu Jamil ʿAbd-al-Karim (d. 1726) and his son, are mentioned in a manuscript of the British Library (Rieu, p. 465). ʿEṣām-al-Din Ebrāhim b. Moḥammad b. ʿArabšāh Esfarāʾeni (GAL S II, p. 571; cf. below H j) was probably also a distant relative of Jorjāni. The history of the family requires further research.
Works, arranged in order of disciplines:
a) Tafsir al-Zahrāwayn (suras “al-Baqara” and “Āl ʿEmrān”), on the basis of Zamaḵšari’s Kaššāf (cf. Saḵāwi, V, p. 328; Ḥājji Ḵalifa, p. 448); = GAL² I, p. 346, S I, p. 508 no. 9?
b)Ḥāšiya ʿalā awāʾel al-Kaššāf, different from a) (cf. Šawkāni, I, p. 488) and not pursued beyond sura 2:25 (published in the margins of Kaššāf, Cairo 1948, vol. I; cf. Nowayheż, I, p. 381a).
c)Ḥāšiya ʿalā awāʾel al-Bayżāwi (Šawkāni, I, p. 488 = Saḵāwi, V, p. 329, followed by Ḥājji Ḵalifa, p. 193?).
d)Resāla fi al-āfāq wa al-anfos (= Qurʾān 41:53); cf. Saḵāwi, V, p. 329.
e)Tarjomān al-Qorʾān, Persian dictionary of the Qurʾān (Storey, I, pp. 36 f.), put into alphabetical order (without consideration of the Arabic roots) by ʿĀdel b. ʿAli b. ʿĀdel al-Ḥāfeẓ (9th/15th century?) and edited in this form by Moḥammad Dabir-Siāqi (Tehran, 1954).
f)Tajwid al-Qorʾān, in Persian (printed 1284/1905).
B. Rhetoric:For his entire life, Jorjāni taught rhetoric on the basis of Sakkāki’s Meftāḥ al-ʿolum, the third part of which is dedicated to it.
a) Ḥāšiya to Taftāzāni’s Moṭawwal which is a commentary to Qazwini’s abridgment of this third part of Sakkāki’s work, finished in 781/1379; GAL² I, p. 354, S I, p. 516, no. 4a.
b)Al-Meṣbāḥ, Jorjāni’s own commentary to part III (GAL² I, p. 353, S I, p. 515, no. 5; Sellheim, I, p. 308) which continued to be used besides Taftāzāni’s work (cf. Subtelny and Khalidov in JAOS 115 , p. 226, no. 1.10) and attracted many supracommentaries (Sellheim, II, pp. 77 ff.). The Ottoman sultan Bayazid II (r. 1481-1512) allowed a prize to every scholar who treated this text (Ḡazzi, I, p. 122).
c)The commentary to Iji’s Fawāʾed al-Ḡiāṯiya attributed to Jorjāni (GAL S II, p. 292, no. IX 1b), but it is perhaps a work of his son Nur-al-Din (cf. Taşköprüzade, 1968, I, p. 213).
a) Supracommentary to the Weqāya ( = Weqāyat al-rewāya fi masāʾel al-Hedāya, cf. Sellheim, I, pp. 115) of Borhān-al-šariʿa Maḥmud al-Maḥbubi (d. ca. 690/1291), which is a commentary to Marḡināni’s Hedāya (Saḵāwi, V, p. 329).
b)Ḥawāši to Marḡināni’s (d. 593/1197) Hedāya itself (Saḵāwi, p. 329). Jorjāni seems to have composed them when he taught in Samarqand, for they were finished after his death (or departure ?) by one of his sons who lived there (Saḵāwi, IX, p. 22, no. 62).
c)Al-Šāfi fi al-feqh (GAL² II, p. 281, no. 12).
d)A Commentary to the Farāʾeż Serājiya, the Hanafite manual of law of succession written by Serāj-al-Din al-Sajāwandi (late 12th century; GAL² I, pp. 470 f., S I, p. 650, no. 5; Sellheim, I, p. 103). Also called al-Ḥawāši al-šarifiya fi al-farāʾeż (GAL S I, p. 306, no. 37).
e)Ḥawāši to Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi’s Jawāher al-farāʾeż (GAL² I, p. 670).
a) Commentary to Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-Allāh al-Ḵaṭib al-Tabrizi’s Meškāt al-maṣābiḥ, composed in 737/1336, a revised edition of Baḡawi’s (d. 1117) Maṣābiḥ al-sonna (GAL² I, p. 449, S I, p. 621 b). According to Laknawi (p. 131) simply an abridgment of Ṭibi’s (d. 1343) commentary, with a few additions.
b)Epitome of Ṭibi’s Ḵolāṣa fi oṣul maʿrefat al-ḥadiṯ (GAL S II, p. 67).
c)Moḵtaṣar fi oṣul al-ḥadiṯ (GAL S II, p. 306, no. 10; ed. Foʾād ʿAbd-al-Monʿem Aḥmad, Mecca, 1403/1983) = Moḵtaṣar jāmeʿ le-maʿrefat ʿelm al-ḥadiṯ (Quiring-Zoche, pp. 56 f., no. 56). Possibly commented upon by his son Moḥammad (GAL² II, p. 281, no. 10).
d)Al-Dibāj al-moḏahhab fi moṣṭalaḥ al-ḥadiṯ, printed Cairo in 1931 with a commentary. Identical with c) or with a manuscript in Princeton (Mach, p. 51, no. 568?).
a)Commentary to ʿAżod-al-Din Iji’s (d. 1355) Mawāqef fi ʿelm al-kalām (GAL² I, p. 269, no. 1, S I, pp. 289 f., no. 1a). Printed in Istanbul (1867-68), in India (1877), in Cairo (1907), etc.
b)Ḥawāši to Maḥmud Eṣfahāni’s (d. 1348) commentary to Bayżāwi’s Ṭawāleʿ al-anwār (GAL² I, p. 533, no. VI 2a).
c)Ḥawāši to Maḥmud Eṣfahāni’s “old commentary” to Nāṣir-al-Din Ṭusi’s Tajrid al-ʿaqāʾed (GAL² I, pp. 670 f., S I, p. 926). Jorjāni leans heavily on a Ḥāšiya written by Naṣir-al-Din ʿAli b. Moḥammad Kāši (d. 1373-74; cf. Monzavi and Dānešpažuh, III, p. 231, no. 178). Jorjāni’s notes were used in the lowest type of madrasa founded in the Ottoman Empire by Meḥ-met (Moḥammad) II. The “new commentary” by ʿAli Qušči (d. 1474) did not yet exist.
d)Taʿliqāt to a few passages from Mayṯam al-Baḥrāni (d. 1300; cf. Ḵᵛānsāri, V, p. 301).
e)Ketāb dalāʾel al-eʿjāz (GAL² II, p. 281, no. 45).
f)Resāla fi kalemāt Lā elāha ellā Allāh = Resālat al-tawḥid (GAL S II, p. 306, no. 14).
g)Resāla fi ʿadam kawn afʿāl Allāh moʿallalatan be al-aḡrāż (GAL² II, p. 281, no. 46) = Resāla fi al-ḡaraż wa al-ḡāya (Mach, p. 267, no. 3118)?
h)Resāla fi al-afʿāl al-eḵtiāriya (Mach, p. 215, no. 2510); mentioned without title in GAL² II, p. 281, no. 14; identical with Resālat al-qadar (mentioned by Bagdatlı, p. 729)?
i)Resāla dar oṣul-e din, in Persian (GAL S II, p. 306, no. 44).
j)Resāla fi bayān al-ferqa al-nājiya; Istanbul, MS. Fatih 5436/10.
F. Oṣul works:
a)Al-Tawżiḥ = Ḥawāši ʿalā awāʾel al-talwiḥ, explanatory notes to the Talwiḥ fi kašf ḥaqāʾeq al-tanqiḥ of Taftāzāni’s commentary to Maḥbubi’s (d. 1347) Tanqiḥ al-oṣul (GAL² II, p. 278c).
b)Al-Ḥāšiya al-Šarifiya = Ḥawāši to the Awāʾel of Iji’s commentary of Ibn al-Ḥājeb’s (d. 1249) Montahā (al-woṣul elā ʿelmay al-jadal wa al-oṣul) (GAL² I, p. 372, S I, p. 538, no. VIII 3b), published Cairo, 1973.
c)Resālat al-tanāqoż, a short note on a problem concerning inference by analogy; MS. Baghdad, Makt. al-Awqāf (Cat. Joburi II, p. 166, no. 2849).
G. New methodological sciences:
a)Commentary to Iji’s Resāla fi adab al-baḥṯ (GAL² II, p. 267, S II, p. 287 II, no. 1). The science of adab al-baḥṯ deals with the art of disputation and was established as an independent discipline in Samarqand, by Šams-al-Din Samarqandi (d. 1303; cf. L. B. Miller in EI ² VIII, p. 1038).
b)Al-Resāla al-Šarifiya fi qawāʿed al-baḥṯ (GAL² II, p. 280, S II, p. 305, no. 7), identical with Al-Ādāb al-šarifiya, ed. ʿAli Moṣṭafā Ḡorābi (Cairo, 1949), a concise treatise on the terminology and rules of disputation, which was heavily used and commented upon in India.c
c) Commentary to Iji’s Resāla ważʿiya, on semiotics (GAL² II, p. 268, S II, p. 288 III, no. 1).
d)Gloss to the same text, different from c); cf. Mach, p. 293, nos. 3422-23.
e)Al-Resāla al-ḥarfiya, on the semantic function or the modus significandi (ważʿ) of the particle (ḥarf; GAL² II, p. 281, S II, p. 309, no. 9). Cf. B. Weiss in Arabica 23, 1976, pp. 26 ff. The same text also in Jorjāni’s Ḥāšiya to Taftāzāni’s Moṭawwal (cf. Mach, pp. 295 f., no. 3444).
a)Al-Ḥāšiya al-ṣaḡira, also called Kuček = Gloss to Qoṭb-al-Din Rāzi Taḥtāni’s commentary of the first part (= al-Taṣawworāt) of Najm-al-Din Kātebi’s (d. 1276 ?) Resāla šamsiya (GAL² I, p. 612, S I, p. 845, no. 1a); printed in Istanbul (1844), Lucknow (1876), Tehran (1878), etc.
b)Gloss to Taḥtāni’s commentary of Ormawi’s (d. 682/1283) Maṭāleʿ al-anwār fi al-manṭeq (GAL² I, p. 614, S I, p. 848, no. 2a).
c)Gloss to the Lawāmeʿ al-maṭāleʿ, Ormawi’s own commentary to his Maṭāleʿ (GAL² I, p. 614, no. 1).
d)Commentary to Abhari’s (d. 1225) Isāḡuji (GAL S I, p. 842 g).
e)Ḥawāši for a commentary to Abhari’s Hedāyat al-ḥekma (only attested in Šawkāni, I, p. 488; confused with GAL S I, p. 840, no. 4a?).
f)Taʿliq al-qiās = note to Analytica Priora (Dānešpažuh, Manṭeqiyāt III, pp. 221 ff.).
g)Resāla fi al-moḡālaṭāt; Princeton (Mach and Ormsby, p. 280, no. 1236).
h)Jāmeʿ al-moqaddemāt (?); printed Tehran, 1868, etc.; identical with the Kalām fi ektesāb al-moqaddemāt (Dānešpažuh, Manṭeqiyāt III, pp. 266 ff.)?
i)Al-Resāla al-kobrā fi al-manṭeq; ed. Modarres Čahārdehi (Tehran, 1955).
j)Al-Resāla al-ṣoḡrā fi al-manṭeq; ed. Moḥyi-al-Din Ṣabri Kordi (Cairo, 1910), in Majmuʿat al-rasāʾel (pp. 281-91, under the title Al-Oṣul al-manṭeqiya, and then in Cairo in 1917, together with Sohrawardi’s Hayākel al-nur); ed. A. N. Nader, Beirut, 1983. Treatises i) and j) were originally written in Persian and then translated into Arabic; they were afterwards known as al-Dorra and al-Ḡorra respectively (GAL S II, p. 306, nos. 35 and 35a). Al-Resāla al-ṣoḡrā had originally been written by Jorjāni for his little son Moḥammad, obviously as a text which the boy had to learn by heart; Jorjāni’s son later on also translated it into Persian. The same may have been true for al-Resāla al-kobrā, for it sometimes bears the title Al-Resāla al-waladiya (Mach, p. 279, no. 3258). There is, however, a second translation of it by ʿEṣām-al-Din al-Esfarāʾeni (d. 1537), a pupil of Jāmi (GAL² II, p. 281, S II, p. 306, no. 8), in which Al-Resāla al-waladiya is treated as a separate work.
k)Resāla fi al-tardid al-enfeṣāli (GAL S II, p. 306, no. 36), a short note (9 lines only) on disjunctive judgments.
a)Ḥawāši to Ṭusi’s Commentary on Ebn Sinā’s Al-Ešārāt wa al-tanbihāt (Saḵāwi, V, p. 329; Šawkāni, I, p. 477; GAL S I, p. 816).
b)Ḥawāši to Najm-al-Din Kātebi’s commentary to his own Ketāb ḥekmat al-ʿayn (GAL² I, pp. 613 f., S I, p. 847, no. 1a.7).
c)Ḥawāši to Sohrawardi’s Ḥekmat al-ešrāq (Saḵāwi, V, p. 329, 16).
d)Commentary to Ebn Sinā’s Qaṣidat al-nafs?; cf. Princeton (Mach and Ormsby, p. 212, no. 2482).
e)Bayān tamṯil al-mawjudāt be-al-ašyāʾ al-nuriya (GAL S II, p. 306, no. 41).f)Resāla fi taḥqiq nafs al-amr (GAL² II, p. 280, no. 6). Probably inspired by a passage in Jorjāni’s gloss to Ṭusi’s Tajrid (cf. Flügel, III, pp. 215 f.); edited by Recep Duran in AÜDTCF Araştırma Dergisi 14, 1992, p. 97 ff.
g)Resāla fi taḥqiq al-wāqeʿ (GAL² II, p. 281, no. 47); identical with f)?
h)Resāla fi taḥqiq al-kolliyāt (GAL² II, p. 280, S II, p. 305, no. 4). However, a work under the same or a similar title (Resāla fi al-kolliyāt wa taḥqiqehā) is also attributed to Taḥtāni (GAL² II, p. 271, no. 2).
i)Al-Resāla al-merʾātiya = Resāla fi taḥqiq al-ʿelm be wajh wa al-ʿelm be al-šayʾ men ḏāleka al-wajh; Princeton (Mach, p. 280, no. 3261). Identical with h)? Note that the title Al-Resala al-merʾātiya seems to have been used for different works (cf. Joburi, Cat. Bagdad, Makt. al-Awqāf II, p. 270, nos. 3326-28 and III, p. 206, no. 5079).
j)Resāla dar marāteb-e mowjudāt, in Persian; translated into Arabic by Kamāl-al-Din Naysāburi in 1471 in Damascus under the title Resāla fi taḥqiq al-mabāḥeṯ al-mowjudiya wa al-maqāṣed al-oṣuliya (GAL² II, p. 281, no. 11; cf. Cat. Munich, p. 296, no. 659); edited by Recep Duran in AÜDFD 35, 1992, fasc. 2, pp. 61 ff. The Persian text is also available in Munich, Pers. Mss. (Cat., p. 20, no. 61); the Arabic version is also mentioned in GAL² II, p. 280, no. 5, but under the title Marāteb al-mowjudāt.
a)Ḥawāši to Euclid’s Elements which he used in the “Recension” established by Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi in Taḥrir oṣul al-handasa le-Oqlides (Saḵāwi, V, p. 329; for MSS see Matvievskaya and Rozenfel’d, II, p. 476, M1). The Taḥrir existed in two different versions (Youschkevitch, pp. 120 ff.; cf. Murdoch in DSB IV, pp. 453 f.).
b)Ḥawāši to Šams-al-Din Samarqandi’s (see above, G a)) Aškāl al-taʾsis, a treatise on 35 fundamental positions in the first book of Euclid’s Elements (Saḵāwi, V, p. 329, taken over [?] by Šawkāni, I, p. 488). The main commentary on this work was written by Jorjāni’s disciple, Qāżizāda-ye Rumi (GAL² I, p. 616, S I, p. 850; cf. L. B. Miller in EI ² VIII, p. 1038). Matvievskaya and Rozenfel’d also mention (II, p. 476, M2) Jorjāni’s commentary on Sajāwandi’s manual of law of succession (C d)) under “mathematics.”
a) Commentary to Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi’s Taḏkera fi ʿelm al-hayʾa (GAL I, p. 675, S I, p. 931, no. 40c; Matvievskaya and Rozenfel’d, II, p. 476, A1), completed in 1409 in Shiraz (Ragep, I, p. 62).
b)Commentary to Čaḡmini’s (d. 1345 ?) Molaḵḵaṣ fi al-hayʾa (GAL² I, p. 624, S I, p. 865, no. 2; Matvievskaya and Rozenfel’d, II, p. 476, A2).
M. Optics (?):
Resāla fi bayān nesbat al-baṣira elā modrakātehā (GAL S II, p. 306, no. 34).
a)Ḥawāši to Rażi-al-Din Astarābādi’s (d. 1287) commentary of Ebn al-Ḥājeb’s Kāfiya on syntax (cf. GAL S I, p. 532, no. 5).
b)Ḥawāši to Rokn-al-Din Astarābādi’s (d. 1315 ?) “Middle Commentary” (al-Šarḥ al-motawasseṭ) of the same work (GAL² I, p. 368, S I, p. 532, no. 8b). Incomplete, finished by Jorjāni’s son Moḥammad.
c)Ḥawāši to Ḵabiṣi’s (d. 1398) commentary (al-Mowaš-šaḥ) of the same work (GAL² I, p. 368).
d)Šarḥ al-Kāfiya, in Persian; printed in Calcutta in 1862. The work was called Gipāyi, allegedly because Jorjāni had once taught Arabic grammar to the son of a cook on the basis of the Kāfiya, and the cook, by way of remuneration, every day offered to Jorjāni a gipā (a popular dish made of rice stuffed into a mutton paunch; Monzavi and Dānešpažuh, III/4, p. 2302).
e)Ḥawāši to Rażi-al-Din Astarābādi’s Šāfiya, on morphology (GAL S I, p. 535).
f)Commentary to ʿAbd-al-Qāhir Jorjāni’s (d. 1078) Ketāb al-ʿawāmel al-meʾa (= Eʿrāb al-ʿawāmel; GAL S I, p. 504, no. 17); printed in Tehran in 1891.
g)Šarḥ Noqrakār (Saḵāwi, V, p. 329, 15). Commentary to Noqrakār’s (d. 1374) commentary of Abarquhi’s (late 7/13th century) Lobb al-albāb fi ʿelm al-eʿrāb ? (Sellheim, I, pp. 251, 273, and 278 ff.).
h)Commentary to ʿEzz-al-Din Zanjāni’s (d. 1262) Mabādeʾ al-taṣrif (= al-Taṣrif al-ʿEzzi; GAL² I, p. 336, S I, p. 498, no. 2a).
i)Ṣarf-i Mir, in Persian (known as Bedān after its introductory formula fa-aʿlam) = Taṣrif al-Sayyed al-Šarif (GAL S II, p. 306, no. 38; Storey, III, pp. 156 f.). Printed in India many times.
j)Naḥw-i Mir, in Persian (GAL S II, p. 306, no. 39; Storey, III, pp. 157 f., no. 2).
k)Adapted version (taʿliqa) of Abu Naṣr Masʿud b. Abi Bakr Farāhi’s (d. 1243 ?) Neṣāb al-ṣebyān ( = al-Neṣāb fi loḡat al-ʿajam), an Arabic-Persian vocabulary in verse (Saḵāwi, V, p. 329; Ḥājji Ḵalifa, p. 1954; cf. GAL² II, p. 246, S II, p. 258).
a)Resāla dar moʿammā, in Persian; MS Columbia University, OR 300 (Cat. p. 34, no. 39; cf. Shams Anwari-Alhosseyni, Loḡaz und Mo’ammā, Berlin, 1986, pp. 57 and 259). Persian sources also speak of a “big book” on this subject, apparently in Arabic (Ḵᵛānsāri, V, p. 301; Dehḵodā, XI, p. 323c no. 4) = Al-Alfiya fi al-moʿammā wa al-alḡāz (Bagdatlı, p. 728).
b)Answers to some questions concerning popular religion asked by Eskandar b. ʿOmar-Šayḵ, in Persian; MSS in Monzavi and Dānešpažuh, III/1, p. 193 no. 128 and p. 266, no. 225; summary in Ḵᵛānsāri, V, p. 306; cf. Aubin, pp. 78 f. The Timurid Eskandar is confused by Saḵāwi (V, p. 329) with a homonymous Qarā Qoyunlu ruler (r. 1420-38) and therefore erroneously located in Tabriz.
c)A commentary to Kaʿb b. Zohayr’s Borda (Saḵāwi, V, p. 329).
d)A commentary on the Ḵoṭbat al-bayān attributed to ʿAli, probably apocryphal (Monzavi and Dānešpažuh, II, p. 114; cf. MS Najaf 1031 in Torāṯonā 21, 2005, nos. 81-82, p. 199).
e)Occasional poetry (GAL² II, p. 281, no. 15; a few Persian verses mentioned in Ḵᵛānsāri, V, p. 307).
f)Resāla fi al-ṣawt (Saḵāwi, V, p. 329).
g)H. G. Farmer, in his preface to Manubi’s French translation of Mobārakšāh’s (see above) commentary of Ormawi’s (d. 1294) Ketāb al-adwār, tentatively attributed the text to Jorjāni instead (cf. R. d’Erlanger, La musique arabe, vol. III, Paris, 1938 p. xiii). He repeated this in his The Sources of Arabian Music (Leiden, 1965, p. 58, no. 295), and it was taken over in GAL² I, p. 653. However, he does not give any reasons, and the text is clearly called Šarḥ Mawlānā Mobārakšāh (cf. GAL S I, p. 907; Matvievskaya and Rozenfel’d II, p. 464, no. 416b; and Neubauer in EI ² VIII, p. 806b, s. v. Ṣafi-al-Din).
P. Encyclopedic works:
a)Maqālid al-ʿolum fi al-ḥodud wa al-rosum, a “pocket encyclopedia of 21 sciences” (Farmer, p. 58, no. 296; GAL² II, p. 280, no. 3).
b)Resāla fi taqsim al-ʿolum/al-ʿelm (GAL² II, p. 280, no. 1; Mach, p. 280, no. 3262; Ormsby and Mach, p. 268, no. 1175).
Q. Reference Works:
a)Ketāb al-taʿrifāt, dictionary of the technical terms used in the madrasa-disciplines (GAL² II, p. 280, S II, p. 305, no. 2; ed. G. Flügel, Leipzig 1845; repr. Beirut, 1969, Tunis, 1971; tr. M. Gloton, Teheran, 1994; source analysis by J. L. Janssens in BPhM 39, 1997, pp. 131 ff.).
b)Eṣṭelāḥāt al-šayḵ Moḥyi-al-Din Ebn al-ʿArabi (GAL S II, p. 306, no. 32); ed. Flügel (together with a)), pp. 283-98. Identical with Eṣṭelāḥāt al-Ṣufiya (Cairo, 1866 and 1938)? The work is sometimes said to be written by Ebn al-ʿArabi himself; the Taʿrifāt also contains mystical terms.
a)Taʿliqa to ʿOmar Sohrawardi’s ʿAwāref al-maʿāref (Ḥājji Ḵalifa, p. 1177).
b)Resāla-ye šowqiya, in Persian; MS Istanbul, Esad Efendi 1755/4.
c)Resāla fi al-wojud ʿalā aṣl al-ṣufiya (Laknawi, p. 130). Apparently identical with the Resāla-ye Hast o nist mentioned by Saḵāwi (V, p. 329) and printed in Tehran in 1903 (cf. Monzavi and Dānešpažuh, III/1, pp. 514 f., no. 577).
d)Ḥājji Ḵalifa states (p. 851) that Jorjāni participated in the composition of the Resāla-ye Bahāʾiya. Saḵāwi mentions (V, p. 329) a treatise of Jorjāni entitled Fi manāqeb al-ḵᵛāja Bahāʾ-al-Din al-molaqqab be Naqš-band, but the Naqšbandi sources do not say anything about this (cf. Paul, pp. 5 ff.). They hint, however, at the fact that Jorjāni was approached by Bahāʾ-al-Din’s disciples for historical advice (Ṣafi-Kāšefi, p. 5 [Pers.], p. 14 [Ar.] with regard to the chronology of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq); he may therefore have contributed some scholarly or stylistic assistance. He does not seem to have met Bahāʾ-al-Din personally (who died already in 1389, and in Boḵārā at that; cf. H. Algar in EIr III, p. 434).
e)Two letters addressed to ʿAlāʾ-al-Din ʿAṭṭār (Ṣafi-Kāšefi, pp. 107 and 88).]
Sources: Aḥmad b. ʿAli b. Ḥajar ʿAsqa-lāni, al-Dorar al-kāmena fi aʿyān al-meʾa al-ṯāmena, ed. M. S. Jādd-al-Ḥaqq, 5 vols., Cairo, 1966.
İsmail Pas a Bagdatlı, Hadiyat al-ʿārefin: asmāʾ al-moʾallefin wa āṯār al-moṣannefin, 2 vols., Istanbul, 1951-55, pp. 728 f.
Moḥammad b. ʿAli Dāwudi, Ṭabaqāt al-mofasserin, ed. ʿA. M. ʿOmar, 2 vols., Cairo, 1972; vol. I, no. 371, pp. 428 ff.
Ebn ʿArabšāh, ʿAjāʾeb al-maqdur fi nawāʾeb Teymur, ed. F. al-Ḥemṣi, Beirut, 1986.
Ebn Qāżi Šohba, Taʾrikò, ed. ʿA. Darviš, 3 vols., Damascus, 1994.
Najm-al-Din Moḥammad Ḡazzi, Al-Kawākeb al-sāʾera be aʾyān al-meʾa al-ʿāšera, ed. J. S. Jabbur, 3 vols., 2nd ed., Beirut, 1979.
Ḥājji Ḵalifa, Kašf al-ẓonun ʿan asāmi al-kotob wa al-fonun, 2 vols., Istanbul, 1941.
ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Jāmi, Nafaḥāt al-ons men ḥażarāt al-qods, ed. M. Towḥidipur, Tehran, 1958, p. 389.
ʿAbd-al-Majid b. Moḥammad Ḵāni, al-Hadāʾeq al-wardiya, [Damascus], 1890-91, p. 149.
Ḡiāṯ-al-Din Moḥammad b. Homām-al-Din Ḵᵛāndamir, Tāriḵ-e ḥabib al-siar fi aḵbār-e afrād-e bašar, ed. J. Homāʾi, 4 vols., Tehran, 1945.
Moḥammad-Bāqer Ḵᵛānsāri, Rawżāt al-jannāt fi aḥwāl al-ʿolamāʾ wa al-sādāt: zendegāni-e mašāhir wa dānešmandān-e Eslāmi az ṣadr-e Eslām tā zamān-e mo-ʾallef, 8 vols., Qom, 1970-72; vol. V, no. 522, pp. 300 ff.
Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-al-Ḥayy Laknawi, al-Fawāʾed al-bahiya fi tarājem al-ḥanafiya, ed. M. B. A. al-Na-ʿsāni al-Ḥalabi, Cairo, 1906, pp. 125 ff.
Moḥammad b. Ḵāvandšāh Mirḵᵛānd, Rawżat al-ṣafāʾ, 10 vols., Tehran, 1960.
Moḥammad-ʿAli Modarres, Reyḥānat al-adab fi tarājem al-maʿrufin be al-konya wa laqab yā konā wa alqāb, 4th ed., 8 vols. in 4, Tehran, 1995, vol. II, no. 646, pp. 322 ff.
Faḵr-al-Din ʿAli Ṣafi-Kāšefi, Rašaḥāt ʿayn al-ḥayāt, lithogr. ed., Lucknow, 1897; Ar. tr. by M. M. al-Qāzāni al-Manzalāwi, Cairo, 1883.
Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Saḵāwi, Al-Żawʾ al-lāmeʿ le-ahl al-qarn al-tāseʿ, ed. Ḥosām-al-Din al-Qodsi, 12 vols., Cairo, 1934-36; vol. V, no. 1078, pp. 328 ff.
Moḥammad b. ʿAli Šawkāni, Al-Badr al-ṭāleʿ be maḥāsen man baʿd al-qarn al-sābeʿ, 2 vols., Cairo, 1929-30; vol. I, no. 237, pp. 488 ff.
Abu’l-Fażl Soyuṭi, Boḡyat al-woʿāt fi ṭabaqāt al-loḡawiyyin wa al-noḥāt, ed. M. A. Ebrāhim, 2 vols., Cairo, 1964; vol. II, no. 1777, pp. 196 f.
Nur-Allāh Aḥmad Šuštari, Majāles al-moʾmenin, 2 vols., Tehran, 1955-56; vol. II, pp. 217 ff.
Tāj-al-Din Aḥmad Vazir, Bayāż-e Tāj-al-Din Aḥmad Vazir, ed. I. Afšār and M. Teymuri, Isfahan, 1974.
Aḥ-mad b. Moṣṭafā Taşköprüzade (Tāškopruzāda), Meftāḥ al-saʿāda wa meṣbāḥ al-seyāda fi mowżuʿāt al-ʿolum, ed. K. Bakri and ʿA. Abu’l-Nur, 3 vols., Cairo, 1968.
Idem, Al-Šaqāʾeq al-noʿmāniya fi ʿolamāʾ al-dawla al-ʿOṯmāniya, ed. A. Ṣobḥi Forāt, Istanbul, 1985.
Āqā Bozorg Ṭehrāni, Al-Ḏariʿa elā taṣānif al-šiʿa, 24 vols. in 27, Najaf and Tehran, 1936-78.
Šaraf-al-Din ʿAli Yazdi, Ẓafar-nāma, ed. A. Urunbaev, facs. ed., Tashkent, 1972.
Studies. J. Aubin, “Le mécénat timouride à Chiraz,” Stud. Isl. 8, 1957, pp. 71-88.
M. Balivet, Islam mystique et révolution armée dans les Balkans Ottomans. Vie du Cheikh Bedreddin, le “hallâj des Turcs,” Istanbul, 1995, p. 43.
M. Bayram, “The Library of Sadr-al-Din Qunavī and Its Books,” in Theoretical Approaches to the Transmission and Edition of Oriental Manuscripts, ed. J. Pfeiffer and M. Kropp, Beirut, 2007, pp. 177-83.
H. Daiber, Bibliography of Islamic Philosophy, 3 vols., Leiden, 1999-2007; vol. II, p. 103.
S. Denoix, “Saʿīd al-Suʿadāʾ,” EI ² VIII, 1995, p. 865.
E. Eberhard, Osmanische Polemik gegen die Safawiden im 16. Jahrhundert nach arabischen Handschriften, Freiburg, 1970.
G. Flügel, Katalog der arabischen, persischen und türkischen Handschriften der Kaiserlichen-königlichen Hofbibliothek zu Wien, 3 vols., Vienna, 1865-67.
Sadreddin Gümüş, “Seyyid Şerîf Cürcânî ve Arap Dilindeki Yeri,” Ph.D. diss., Istanbul University, 1984.
Idem, “Cürcânî,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islâm Ansiklopedisi VIII, 1993, pp. 134-36.
A. D. Knysh, Ibn ʿArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition, Albany, N.Y., 1999, pp. 143 f.
R. Mach, Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts (Yahuda Section) in the Garrett Collection, Princeton University Library, Princeton, 1977.
R. Mach and E. Ormsby, Handlist of Arabic Manuscripts (New Series) in the Princeton University Library, Princeton, 1987.
W. Madelung, “Al-Taftāzānī, Saʿd al-Dīn Masʿūd b. ʿUmar b. ʿAbd Allāh,” EI ² X, 2000, pp. 88-89.
G. P. Matvievskaya and B. A. Rozenfel’d, Matematiki i astronomy musul’manskogo srednevekov’ya i ikh trudy (Mathematicians and astronomers of Islamic Middle Ages and their works), 3 vols., Moscow, 1983; vol. II, no. 424, pp. 475 f.
ʿAli-Naqi Monzavi and Moḥammad-Taqi Dānešpažuh, Fehrest-e ketābḵāna-ye ehdāʾi-e Moḥammad Meškāt, 3 vols., Tehran, 1951-56.
ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Navāʾi, Rejāl-e ketāb-e Ḥabib al-siar az ḥamla-ye moḡol tā marg-e Šāh Esmāʿil-e awwal, Tehran, 1945, pp. 69 f.
ʿĀdel Noweyhiż, Moʿjam al-mofasserin men ṣadr al-islām ḥattā al-ʿaṣr al-ḥāżer, 2 vols., Beirut, 1984; vol. I, pp. 380 f.
J. Paul, Doctrine and Organization. The Khwājagān/Naqshbandiya in the First Generation after Bahāδuddin, Halle and Berlin, 1998.
C. F. Petry, The Civilian Elite of Cairo in the Later Middle Ages, Princeton, 1981.
R. Quiring-Zoche, Arabische Handschriften, pt. 5, Stuttgart, 2000. F. J. Ragep, ed., Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Memoir on Astronomy, 2 vols., New York, 1993.
G. Rex Smith, “Al-Birrah fi hubb al-hirrah,” in Arabian and Islamic Studies Presented to R. B. Serjeant on the Occasion of his Retirement from the Sir Thomas Adam’s Chair of Arabic at the University of Cambridge, ed. R. Bidwell and G. R. Smith, London, 1983, pp. 134-45.
Ch. Rieu, Supplement to the Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in the British Museum, London, 1894.
Moḥammad-Ḥosayn Ruḥāni, “Jorjāni, Sayyed Šarif-al-Din,” Dāʾerat al-maʿāref-e tašayyoʿ V, 1996, pp. 332-33.
R. M. Savory, “The Principal Offices of the Safavid State,” BSOAS 23, 1960, pp. 91-105.
R. Sellheim, Materialien zur arabischen Literaturgeschichte, 2 vols., Wiesbaden, 1976-87. H. Shushud, Masters of Wisdom of Central Asia, Oxford, 1983, pp. 70 and 77.
A. S. Tritton, “Al-Djurdjānī, ʿAli b. Muḥammad,” EI ² II, 1965, pp. 602-3.
A. Youschkevitch, Les mathématiques arabes, Paris, 1976.
Muhammad Halil Yınanç, İcazetnâmeler ve Seyyid Şerîf Cürcânî, Istanbul, 1944.
For Jorjāni’s role in the curriculum of Ottoman, Safavid, and Indian madrasas cf. F. Robinson, “Ottomans–Safavids–Mughals. Shared Knowledge and Connective Systems,” Journal of Islamic Studies 8, 1997, pp. 151 ff.; also Sh. Ahmed and N. Filipovic, “The Sultan’s Syllabus. A Curriculum for the Ottoman Imperial Medreses,” Stud. Isl. 98-99, 2004, pp. 183-218.
(Josef van Ess)
Originally Published: June 15, 2009
Last Updated: April 17, 2012
This article is available in print.
Vol. XV, Fasc. 1, pp. 21-29