In 1420 a convert to Islam named Ê¿AbdallÄh b. Ê¿AbdallÄh al-TarǧumÄn completed the polemical text in Arabic entitled Tuḥfat al-AdÄ«b fÄ« al-radd Ê¿alÄ ahl al-á¹£alÄ«b (Gift of the Lettered One for the Refutation of the People of the Cross).1 In the first part of this account, he tells the story of how he, a native of Mallorca, who was educated in theology in Lleida and in Bologna to become a Franciscan priest, discovered the truth of Islam in the Gospel of John and travelled to Tunis where he converted in the presence of the Hafsid sultan AbÅ« al-âAbbÄs Aḥmad around 1387. In the second part of the Tuḥfa, al-TarǧumÄn speaks about his career as the customs official and interpreter in the service of the sultan, as well as about the biography of his patron and political situation in Tunis at the time. Finally, in the third and longest part that consists of nine chapters, Ê¿AbdallÄh al-TarǧumÄn turns to the polemic against Christianity based mostly on the quotations from the scriptures, with some references to the Qurâan, ḥadīṯ and works of the well-known Muslim polemicists against Christianity, such as al-JÄḥiáº, al-HaÅ¡Ä«mÄ«, al-ṬabarÄ«, al-Ä azalÄ«, Ibn Ḥazm, and Ibn Taymiyyah. The overall polemical argument of the Tuḥfa is in line with the traditional Muslim polemical concept of taḥrÄ«f, which maintains that the Christian (and Jewish) scriptures originally faithfully transmitted the word of God and teachings of the prophets but were corrupted over time, which led to Christianityâs supersession by Islam.2
Only towards the end of the nineteenth century was it established that Ê¿AbdallÄh al-TarǧumÄn was in fact the Muslim name of Fra Anselm Turmeda,
The ensuing discussion will first focus on the circumstances of the Tuḥfaâs arrival in the Ottoman Empire, the historical context in which it transpired, and the people who were instrumental in this textual transfer, as a window
1 Part IâÊ¿AbdallÄh b. Ê¿AbdallÄh al-TarǧumÄnâs Tuḥfa Travels to the Ottoman Empire
On zi l-hicce 20, 1012/May 9, 1604, only a few months after Ottoman Sultan Ahmed I (1603â17) acceded to the throne in Istanbul, a charismatic Å¡eiḫ (Sufi elder) from Tunis by the name of AbÅ«âl-Ä ayṯ b. Muḥammad al-QaÅ¡Å¡ÄÅ¡ (d. 1621) dedicated to the young sovereign a copy of Ê¿AbdallÄh al-TarǧumÄnâs work whose translation into Ottoman Turkish he commissioned from a certain Muḥammad b. Å aâban (Tr. Mehmed b. Åaâban).6 In his dedication, the Å¡eiḫ praises the
At this early stage of Sultan Ahmedâs reign, it was certainly hard to predict what the young rulerâs guiding principles and impact would be. Ahmed I acceded to the throne in the middle of the Thirteen Years War that pitted the Ottomans against the Habsburgs between 1593 and 1606, which was probably perceived by al-QaÅ¡Å¡ÄÅ¡ and other Muslims in North Africa as a highly meritorious act. Ahmed I was also a sultan who built his image and legitimacy by projecting an aura of piety and religious orthodoxy in the era when the prerogative to define and defend the correct belief and practice became increasingly politicized and contested not only in Europe but in the Ottoman Empire as well.8 Even if the Å¡eiḫâs praise about the sultanâs returning the Muslim community to the path of righteousness may have been premature in 1604, he would have approved of Ahmed Iâs later actions, such as his active diplomatic involvement on behalf of the Morisco refugees from Spain beginning in 1608, and his efforts to facilitate their post-expulsion settlement in North Africa and
According to MÃkel de Epalzaâs study of the manuscript traditions and dispersion of Ê¿AbdallÄh al-TarǧumÄnâs work, al-QaÅ¡Å¡ÄÅ¡âs 1604 commission of its translation into Ottoman Turkish, and the textâs subsequent arrival (at an unknown date) in the Ottoman Empire marked the onset of its spread and fame in the Islamic world, where it appears to have been unknown previously.11 The earliest surviving manuscript of the Tuḥfa is in fact the one from 1604 containing the dedication to the Ottoman sultan in al-QaÅ¡Å¡ÄÅ¡âs own hand, which makes the story of this manuscript as well as of the actors involved in its production and their motivation particularly interesting.
We are fortunate to have considerable information about al-QaÅ¡Å¡ÄÅ¡âs life and activities thanks to abundant contemporary primary sources about him, particularly of Tunisian provenance.12 However, it is interesting to examine how his Ottoman contemporaries viewed him. According to one of the most detailed sources on his life and deeds, the biographical dictionary of the Ottoman Halveti sheikh and poet Nevâizade Atai (1583â1635), al-QaÅ¡Å¡ÄÅ¡ belonged to the
Epalza speculates that prior to commissioning the translation of Ê¿AbdallÄh al-TarǧumÄnâs work al-QaÅ¡Å¡ÄÅ¡ may have drawn on the help of a prominent Morisco intellectual and author of other polemical texts, Aḥmad al-ḤanafÄ« (d. 1650?), who was familiar with the Tuḥfa and who may have worked over
As to the translator of the Tuḥfa into Ottoman Turkish, Muḥammad b. Å aâban, the only concrete biographical detail we learn from his introduction to the work is that he was from Maâarrat al-NuâmÄn, a city today in northwestern Syria.24 Without mentioning this fact, Epalza suggests that the translator could have been a relative of a Muḥammad b. Å aâban, who was the Hanafi imam of Tunis much later in 1097/1685.25 Ottoman sources, however, point to another probable candidate by the name of Muḥammad b. Å aâban. Nevâizade Atai gives a detailed biographical entry on a Muḥammad b. Å aâban from Trablus in Maghreb (Tripoli, Libya), a learned jurist who came to Istanbul in 1016 AH (1607/8) and became a protégé of the chief jurisprudent Sunâullah Efendi, reaching the rank of a senior judge (mollÄ). He died in 1020 AH (1611/12) leaving behind many works, among which a compilation of the deeds (manÄqib) of AbÅ«âl-Ä ayṯ b. Muḥammad al-QaÅ¡Å¡ÄÅ¡.26 While it is true that this biographical entry does not make a reference to Maâarrat al-NuâmÄn, other details of the career and timing suggest that this may be the person familiar with al-QaÅ¡Å¡ÄÅ¡ and accessible to him in 1604 in Maghreb to produce the translation of the Tuḥfa. His orientation towards Istanbul and its intellectual and scholarly circles also fits well with the overall circumstances of the manuscriptâs production and the translatorâs elaborate dedication of the work to Sultan Ahmed I.
Today, the copy of this manuscript is in the University Library of Leiden where it arrived sometime after the death of Levinus Warner (1619â65), the famous Dutch Orientalist, diplomat, and manuscript collector who seems to have acquired it in Istanbul during his residence there in the 1640s and 50s.27 Questions abound as to how this copy containing a dedication to the Ottoman sultan ended up in the hands of the Dutch Orientalist. As Jan Schmidt points out, the manuscript does not seem to have entered the imperial library because it does not bear a sultanic cipher (tuÄrÄ) or any other marks that would suggest its being processed by the Ottoman palace or a pious endowment (vakıf). On the other hand, the dedication in al-QaÅ¡Å¡ÄÅ¡âs own hand in a characteristic
This manuscript is one among about thousand Arabic, Hebrew, Turkish and Persian manuscripts Warner obtained through various intermediaries in Istanbul and Aleppo. His collection contains several other copies previously owned by intellectuals like Katip Ãelebi and Nevâizade Atai, the historian Hasan Beyzade, as well as high Ottoman dignitaries ranging from ÅeyhülislÄm Sadeddin Efendi and the chief white eunuch Gazanfer AÄa to possibly Sultan Murad IV himself.28 By looking at Warnerâs manuscript collection we begin to discern a network of European, Ottoman and North African intellectuals (Muslim, Christian and Jewish) as well as various intermediaries who facilitated the exchange of information, manuscripts, translations, etc. during early to mid seventeenth century29 Some manuscripts and translations that were copied in and exchanged among Istanbul, North Africa and various European intellectual centers are traceable to the Morisco disaspora. For instance, a Maliki legal manual by AbÅ« SaâÄ«d Jalaf b. AbÄ«âl-QÄsim al-AzdÄ« al-QayrawÄnÄ« al-BarÄá¸iâÄ« (mid-5th/11th century), today found in the Biblioteca de la Real Academia de la Historia in Madrid, was translated into Spanish and written in Arabic script in Constantinople in 1606 by a certain âAli b. Muḥammad b. Hader.30 More famously, the Spanish version of the Gospel of Barnabas, a text purporting to be the long-lost authentic version of the Gospel in which Muḥammadâs coming was prophesied by Jesus, was apparently translated from Italian into Spanish in Istanbul by a Morisco named Muá¹£tafa de Aranda some time in the first half of the seventeenth century, after which it began to circulate among Moriscos in Tunis as well as various Dutch and English antitrinitarians in Europe.31 Prior to a copy of it being purchased by Warner, Ê¿AbdallÄh al-TarǧumÄnâs Tuḥfa was mentioned in the 1630s in the polemical works of the North African-based Moriscos like Aḥmad al-ḤanafÄ« and Aḥmad ibn QÄsim al-ḤaǧarÄ«,32 both of whom had Istanbul connections. These examples shed
2 Part IIâÊ¿AbdallÄh al-TarǧumÄn âMeetsâ Mehmed b. Abdullah of Athens
Epalzaâs research suggests that after al-QaÅ¡Å¡ÄÅ¡ commissioned the translation of the Tuḥfa into Ottoman Turkish in 1604, two manuscript families of the text containing the translation appeared in the seventeenth century: the Tunisian (Maghrebi) and the Ottoman one. Other groups of manuscripts containing only the Arabic text begin to appear later, in the eighteenth and especially nineteenth centuries, throughout the Arab-speaking world.33 The second-oldest surviving manuscript of the translation is the copy today housed at the Süleymaniye Library, dated to AH 1106/1694.34 This copy, which was commisioned by the treasurer (hazÄ«nedÄr) Åahin Ahmed AÄa as a gift for Sultan Mustafa II (1695â1703), exhibits the characteristic features of Ottoman manuscript illumination.35 The question is what this manuscript was based on: were there copies of the Tuḥfa translation other than the autograph purchased by Warner in the 1640s or 50s circulating in the city, or did another copy arrive from North Africa at some point during the seventeenth century and serve as the basis for the 1694 manuscript? If other manuscripts were in circulation in Istanbul soon after 1604, what was the nature of the Ottoman reception of the Tuḥfa before 1694? Do we have any evidence that the text made an impact on the Ottoman audience?
What can be said with certainty is that a copy of the text was available to the Ottoman polymath Katip Ãelebi, since he mentions the Tuḥfa several times in his bibliographical dictionary written in Arabic, KaÅ¡f aáº-áºunÅ«n âan asÄmÄ«
However, I would suggest that the evidence of the Tuḥfaâs impact on the Ottoman audience soon after 1604 and prior to the 1650s can be discerned not only by following the trace of the surviving copies of the work itself but by expanding our investigation trans-textually and even trans-communally. I therefore contend that the evidence of the Tuḥfaâs appeal and circulation can be found in an untitled conversion narrative-cum-polemical treatise in Ottoman Turkish, written at the latest in the month of Ramadan 1034 (June-July, 1625)âthe date borne by the oldest surviving manuscript found to date. Ostensibly it was authored by a certain Mehmed b. Abdullah, a former Orthodox Christian priest originally from Athens who converted to Islam in the presence of Sultan Ahmed I, presumably sometime between 1603 and 1608.37 The authorship of this account is a particularly intriguing question to which we must return. However, for the sake of convenience, in the ensuing discussion I will refer to the author as âMehmed b. Abdullah,â a Christian convert to Islam from Athens, as the narrator introduces himself in the opening sentence.
Unknown until recently and heretofore unpublished, this narrative figures as one of the key texts for understanding the social, textual and linguistic dimensions of conversion to Islam in the Ottoman Empire in general, and in the seventeenth century in particular.38 Despite significant differences
Like Ê¿AbdallÄh b. Ê¿AbdallÄh al-TarǧumÄn, Mehmed b. Abdullah opens his account with a sentence about his place of originâin his case Athensâwhich is described as âthe source of philosophical sciencesâ (menbaâ-i âulÅ«m-i hikemÄ«ye). Just like the Tuḥfaâs author, he also begins the story with his education: he states that in this city he was raised and educated as a Christian in theological and philosophical, Greek sciences (fünÅ«n-i YÅ«nÄniyye).39 Incidentally, we know that at the turn of the seventeenth century Athens became something of a hub for neo-Aristotelian teachings thanks to Theophilos Corydalleus (1563â1646) who studied with Cesare Cremonini in Padua and established an academy in Athens sometime in the early 1600s, before becoming the Director of the Academy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople in 1624.40 Both authors therefore seem to have shared the exposure to the Aristotelian approach to the theological curriculum.41
In a further parallel to al-TarǧumÄnâs account, Mehmed states that early on into his education he became aware of certain contradictions and forebodings in the scriptures, which he nevertheless ignored at first. However, with Godâs guidance he immersed himself in the study of the Old and New Testaments as well as the Psalms only to discover that many of the verses offered definite proof of the prophecy of âthat pearl of the sea of existence, the spiritual teacher of the lovers of God, that brightly shining moon, Muḥammad Muá¹£tafa (peace be upon him) and confirm[ed] the eternity of his religion and sacred law.â Hereafter Mehmed begins to introduce and interpret the âtrueâ meaning of those verses from the scriptures that, according to him, announced the prophecy of Muḥammad. In order to display his expert knowledge, he cites those verses in Greek but transcribes them in Arabic script with vowel
The meaning of this passage is that Jacob addresses his noble sons and says âOh my sons, the line of prophecy and political dominion will not be cut off from you until he comes. After he arrives, they will be cut off. The whole world is awaiting his arrival.â
The Christian teachers of the Torah claim falsely that when Jacob says âhe will come,â he is in fact referring to the promised arrival of Jesus.
Mehmed explains that âthe divers in the sea of meaningsâ understand that Jacob could not have had Jesusâs arrival in mind because, even after his arrival Israel continued to exist and be prosperous, so it is obvious that its political dominion was not cut off. Mehmed then explains that this happened only after the coming of Muḥammad.42
Next Mehmed turns to the interpretation of the verse he says he found in the Torah. He is apparently referring to Deuteronomy 18: 18â19, which is also cited by al-TarǧumÄn. However, what Mehmed is in fact citing is Acts 3:22â23 that paraphrase these verses, which suggests his greater familiarity with the New than with the Old Testament: â⦠A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me ⦠And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.â43 Here he explains that Moses, to whom the verses are ascribed in Deuteronomy, promised the arrival of a prophet who would not be of Israelite
In his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust ⦠Yea, all kings shall fall down before him.
In other words, God says to David (peace be upon him): âAfter you I shall send a prophet bearing a sacred law, the lights of whose seal of prophecy will scatter rays to the east and west. The first of his community who will follow him will be of the Arab people. Those obstinate ones who oppose him will be overcome and abased. The rulers of the world will make his law a collar on the neck of obedience. His religion and law will last until the Day of Judgment.â As before, the band of opponents engages in nonsensical interpretation and once again say that it refers to Jesus. Since the reply to them is very apparent, there is no need to go into particulars.45
Let it be known that the writers of the Gospels were four of the apostles who were falcons fettered by unbreakable bonds to the company of Jesus (peace be upon him) and whose inspired words they registered in the pages of the Gospels. Consequently the Gospels consist of four parts known after their authors as the Gospels of John, Matthew, Luke and Mark.46
The Gospel of John contains the verbal description of Muḥammad, but since deviant Christians followed an interpretation of these words that was unacceptable, they fell into the pit of rebellion and were unable to save their necks from the deception of rebellion.48
The meaning is that Jesus says: âThe one who will come after, who was created before me, I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal.â It is well known that in explaining these passages the nonsensical Christians and the envious Jews make claims that identify the bearer of the prophetic mission spoken of in these verses either [for the Christians] as Jesus or [for the Jews] as the awaited Messiah, citing numerous untenable premises to support their deficient opinions ⦠Advocating their claims in this way, they say that these devotion-causing words about the acceptance of
servitude and bonds of submission that are implied in the untying of the strap of the sandal were uttered by John (the Baptist) about Jesus. However, it is not concealed from those who wear [lit. cover themselves] with the cloak of veracity and justice that the apostlesâ stream of belief was free from the rubbish of polytheism and obstinacy. The above-mentioned passage, being the words of Jesus, was recorded in the pages of the Gospel and has circulated among them from that time until now. So it is obvious that their recourse to such nonsensical interpretation is simply the lack of anything to lean on.49
This is a significant departure from the traditional line of argumentation by Muslim polemicists with Christianity, since it suggests that the Gospels and the evangelists were free of polytheism and that it was the interpretation of the text rather than the text of the Gospels themselves that was faulty.
Seeking to relate to the reader the process by which his spiritual and intellectual feverishness was increasing over time and how troubled he was becoming by the gradual realization of the truth of Muḥammadâs prophecy contained in the Scriptures, before every next verse Mehmed describes the increasingly troubled state of his consciousness. These introspective sections are enhanced by Persian verses composed specially for the account or drawn from such classics of Persian poetry as ǦalÄl ad-DÄ«n RÅ«mÄ«âs MaṯnawÄ«, HilÄlÄ« ChaÄ¡atÄyÄ«âs Å Äh u DarwÄ«Å¡ and NizÄmÄ« GanǧavÄ«âs Ḫusraw u Å Ä«rÄ«n.50 All verses contain imagery of an intense spiritual struggle, conjuring up the notion of the truth that is hidden behind a sequence of veils, and gradual illumination of Mehmedâs soul by the light of Islam. The poetic vocabulary of the Persian Sufi tradition in fact pervades the entire text: the central figure of the truth seeker, i.e. the future convert Mehmed, is represented as a diver for the pearls in the sea of truth, while the verses that he sees as implicit announcements of Muḥammadâs prophecy are described as a pearl necklace and Muḥammad himself as the largest, most valuable pearl of creation. By weaving in the imagery of light central to Sufi tradition, as well as various animal- and garden-related metaphors typical of the Ottoman divan poetry, the text aims to build up the authorâs credentials as a cultural broker versed in both non-Muslim scriptural tradition and the high register of the Ottoman literary idiom.
While I was in this state of bewilderment it occurred to me that all the learned men from the ranks of the infidels are in great Rome, that is also known as the Red Apple, the place of abode of the Pope who resolves all doubts. So I went there with the purpose of resolving the matter. I resided there for four years and diligently inquired into the thoughts of the erring sects. I was amazed to see all of them wandering in the wilderness of error.
The fact that an Orthodox Christian from Athens would seek clarification on religious issues in Rome should not surprise us. As it was mentioned above, in the early seventeenth century a neo-Aristotelian and a graduate of the university in Padua, Corydalleus, founded the academy of Athens. Already beginning in the 1570s Greek-speaking youths from the Ottoman Empire had the option of studying at the Greek College in Rome established by Pope Gregory XIII with the expressed purpose of promoting Catholicism among the Orthodox. The presence of Franciscan and Jesuit missionaries (the latter since the late sixteenth century) in the Ottoman lands, particularly in Rumeli, Constantinople, and along the Aegean coast, also led to an increased exposure of the Ottoman Orthodox Christians to the teachings of the post-Tridentine Catholic church. Moreover, since the second half of the sixteenth century and well into the seventeenth, the Orthodox Patriarchs in Constantinople themselves continuously wavered among professing allegiance to the Pope, embracing one of the Protestant denominations, or keeping to the Orthodoxy that was itself being redefined at this time as a consequence of the polemical dialogue with Islam, Calvinism, Lutheranism and post-Tridentine Catholicism.51
One of the current practices of the infidels is that they choose from among themselves a knowledgeable and experienced priest who is advanced in years and appoint him to a certain place. Whoever has doubts, whether religious or worldly, reveals them to him and gets his reply. He in turn does not disclose the questions he is asked, even if the matter is a capital offense; and if he does, he is removed from that office. This priest who can be trusted for advice is called in Greek pneumatikos and in Latin confessor.
Interestingly, in Part III, Chapter III of the Tuḥfa we also find a discussion of the sacrament of penance and the role of confessors in Latin Christendom, particularly in the city of Rome, that prompted scholars to speculate that this section was a later addition to the text. After giving a similar explanation of the confessorsâ function like Mehmed, Ê¿AbdallÄh al-TarǧumÄn dismisses them as sinful and no more worthy of absolving one of sins than an average person, and confession as no more than a way for the priests to enrich themselves.52 While Mehmed does not voice this exact criticism, his dismissal of the confessors and their competence is implicit in his final critique of the Christian priestly establishmentâs blind clinging to error.
I went to that priestâs place of seclusion, showed him the above-mentioned texts, and began to expound the heart-burning secret that was fixed in my nature. When he saw the deep trouble and confusion in me, he heaved a throat-burning and house-melting sigh, drew his head into the shirt-neck of perplexity and stood there for a while. Then gazing at
me with the eye of longing he said: âOh sorrowful one of the community of Jesus! If you remain constant in showing respect to the Christian rite with its ancestral rituals, the interpretation of the ancients, constantly repeated, is well knowI. Otherwise, if you turn in the direction of error and follow the siren call of personal interpretation (ictihÄd) ⦠the plain meaning of these letters and words is manifest and there is no possibility of other meanings. Accordingly, it is known and supported by scriptural authority, without regard to defects [in the argument?], who is referred to in these passages. For the preservation of the ancestors, refuge was sought in the margin of interpretation. If your desire is to respect the ancestral cloak, which is required by the human sense of honor, then stay with that. Otherwise, removing the curtain of custom in the lands of the Franks and unfurling the banner of the religion of Islam will condemn you to sacrificing your head. Do what you think is right!â
Upon hearing that, Mehmed concludes that the entire Christian ecclesiastical establishment is guilty of leading the people into heresy and confusion.54
I immediately turned the reins of intention in the direction of Islam. Passing over hill and dale, rolling up the stages of my journey, I arrived at the center of the circle of the pillar of Islam, the seat of the caliphs, Constantinople. Through the intercession of the teacher of the late Sultan Ahmed Han (may God grant him mercy and forgiveness) I entered the imperial council. That is to say, under the watchful imperial gaze of the late Sultan Ahmed Han himself, I received instruction in Islam in the glorious divan and my name became Mehemmed [Muḥammad] by the sultanâs own designation. After that, I exchanged my priestly garment for the splendid sultanic robe of honor and my Christian locks were shaved by the Ahmedian razor. I became a torch kindled by the light of religion and a slave in the court of the sultanic state. Finally, I did not know how to write Turkish language; my utmost desire was to withdraw into a corner of the imperial harem and occupy myself with learning the Qurâan and Muslim worship, so that eventually I would become laden with presents appropriate to my status.55
I have argued elsewhere that this triangulation among the convert, the Sultan and God in Ottoman self-narratives of conversion since the mid sixteenth century is a reflection of the Ottoman participation in a broader early modern age of âconfessionalization,â usually described as a simultaneous building of early modern state and religious identity.57 As the sixteenth century progressed and with it the political and religious rivalry of the Ottomans with the Catholic Habsburgs on the one hand and Shiâa Safavids on the other, the Ottomans moved towards a stricter definition of and enforcement of a Sunni orthodoxy that became central to their state and dynastic legitimacy.58 With religion and politics intertwined in this new way, conversion to Islam ceased to be an event of local importance and became tantamount to an act of pledging political allegiance to the Ottoman sultan.
As recent research suggests, the ritual of conversion in the imperial palace as well as circumcision by surgeon on the premises and dispensation of the new clothes and sometimes governmental positions to the converts became formalized precisely during Ahmed Iâs time.59 This new visibility of the conversion ritual was part and parcel of the overall imperial policy that was increasingly emphasizing sultanic piety and religious orthodoxy as the key aspect of the
While, as it was shown above, Mehmedâs narrative was not a close copy of al-TarǧumÄnâs Tuḥfa, it nevertheless displays three crucial parallels to it: (1) it opens with an auto-biographical section discussing the place of origin and theological education leading to doubts about the convertâs ancestral religion that strikingly resembles al-TarǧumÄnâs introduction; (2) it continues with a polemical part that displays the convertâs knowledge of the scriptures in the language spoken by his Christian community (in this case Greek); (3) it ends with the scene of conversion to Islam in the presence of the Muslim ruler (in this case, the Ottoman sultan) and with references to the imperial patronage that followed upon conversion. Furthermore, like al-TarǧumÄnâs account, it features the scene of encounter with a knowledgable priest whose interpretation of the scriptural verses causing the future convertâs confusion unequivocally points to the true religion and constitutes the decisive moment in the latterâs intention to embrace Islam. The existence of this scene and its identical function in both accounts by itself strongly suggests a close intertextual relationship.
Although there is no conclusive proof that Mehmed (or another possible editor of this work) read the Tuḥfa, circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that this was the case. This evidence is based primarily on the study of medieval and early modern self-narratives of conversion to Islam among which al-TarǧumÄnâs account stands out for its novel characteristics. Most notably, in the Tuḥfa the narrative of conversion moves, in Ryan Szpiechâs words, âfrom its position as an afterthought to its prominence as the opening frame of the entire discussion to follow.â61 Rather than constituting an appendix to the polemical
3 Part IIIâThe Questions of Authorship and Genre in the Formation of an Ottoman Corpus of Polemical Texts
The final comment in Mehmedâs account on his lack of facility with âTurkish languageâ together with the fact that the two oldest manuscript copies located so far give the name of a certain kadı (judge) Mahmud bin Hasan as the textâs müâellif raises questions about the accountâs authorship. In modern Turkish, the term müâellif denotes the âauthor, writer, editor or compilerâ and thus implies some sort of authorship of the text. What was meant by the same term in seventeenth-century Ottoman Turkish is more equivocal and some scholars have recently argued that it does not necessarily imply originality but may stand for a âcreative mediationâ or arrangement of the textâs sections.63 It is certainly
Given Mehmed b. Abdullahâs/ Mahmud b. Hasanâs highly ornate literary and multi-lingual style, it is perhaps surprising that this polemical conversion narrative was popular enough to be copied in the centuries after its composition. One indication of who the audience for this account may have been is the textual context in which it is found in the existing copies. For instance, the copy from 1035/1626 is found in a miscellany (mecmÅ«âa) with twelve other works of poetry by well-known, mostly Istanbul-based poets of the early seventeenth century.65 The copy from 1034/1625, on the other hand, is in a mecmÅ«âa with a work on the deeds of the Prophet and another work of religious nature.66 [Interestingly, another copy that came to my attention only after completing the original version of this article, found in a mecmÅ«âa dating from ca. 1680
By the eighteenth century, however, the text seems to have become disconnected from the collections of poetry and prose by literati from Veysiâs circle and inserted into a different context]. The account begins to appear together with other Ottoman polemical narratives that boasted translation of the scriptures, their transliteration into Arabic script, and a personal conversion story. In fact, one could argue that by the early eighteenth century a âcorpusâ71 of Ottoman self-narratives of conversion emerged showcasing their authorsâ ability to
In addition to the translation of al-TarǧumÄnâs account into Ottoman Turkish and Mehmed b. Abdullahâs account, this âcorpusâ included a text in Ottoman Turkish entitled KeÅfüâl esrÄr fi ilzÄmiâl-YehÅ«d vâel-ahbÄr [Unveiling the Secrets of Compelling the Jews and the Rabbis (to accept the proofs of Islam)], ostensibly by a Jewish convert named Yusuf ibn Ebi Abdiâd-Deyyan, that can be dated to 1651 and of which seven copies have been identified so far.72 This text begins with a first-person conversion narrative that bears interesting parallels to Mehmedâs and al-TarǧumÄnâs accounts in that it emphasizes the authorâs education in traditional rabbinical learning, his growing doubts from his childhood to his mature age about the truth of the Jewish scriptures, the evidence of Muḥammadâs prophecy that he eventually finds in the verses of the Torah that leads to his rejection of his ancestral religion and conversion to Islam. While we can certainly find the same tropes of the convertsâ education and portrayal of their conversion as a rational decision based on scriptural proofs in other earlier Jewish narratives of conversion to both Islam and Christianity, it is the preeminence of this motive in both contemporary European and Ottoman conversion narratives that is of particularly concern here. The polemical part of the account is a translation into Ottoman Turkish of Ahmed TaÅköprüzadeâs anti-Jewish polemical tract written in Arabic in the sixteenth century, although the author does not acknowledge this fact in the text.73
Furthermore, in a move similar to Mehmedâs, the author transcribes the verses from the Hebrew Bible in Arabic script and translates them into Ottoman Turkish, which, as Judith Pfeiffer points out in her study of this narrative, may be the earliest translations of the Torah into Ottoman Turkish. Given that the narrative also features references to intra-Jewish polemics and authors not cited in Ottoman anti-Jewish polemical narratives before, it seems that in this case we are also dealing with a creative author/editor who drew on his
Significantly, in another important parallel, the author of this account also refers, albeit somewhat obliquely, to his conversion in the presence of the sultan and to the latterâs subsequent patronage. He states: âI made it my responsibility and special duty to pray for the prolongation of the bounteous patronage of the shadow of God on earth under whose wings I was sheltered. I was assiduous in making known that my conversion was based on virtue and sincerity.â He also specifies âthat âgate to the refuge of happinessâ (i.e., the Sultan) elevated me to the might and loftiness of the right course.â75 The relationship between sultanic legitimacy and conversion to Islam in the seventeenth century has already been discussed above; however, it is important to emphasize that in the context of a general âturn to pietyâ that affected not only the sultan and members of his family and government but also âreligious specialistsâ of different social and educational backgrounds,76 non-Muslims and Jews in particular became targets of various initiatives to correct the morals of the society and purge it of elements of unbelief.77 Yusufâs insistence on the âsincerityâ of his conversion appears particularly important in light of other contemporary instances of conversion for reasons of fear or opportunity, like in the case of the famous Jewish messiah Sabbatai Zvi who converted to Islam undress duress in 1666.
The final text belonging to this âcorpusâ of Ottoman self-narratives of conversion cum polemical treatise is the so-called RisÄle-i IslÄmiyye [Treatise on
That these texts were related to each other seems to have been recognized by the readers and copyists who in some cases copied them back-to-back in their scrapbooks (mecmÅ«âas).80 However, it is striking that from this corpus of Ottoman narratives the one that won the day as the most popular, and that was published on several occasions, was none other than Ê¿AbdallÄh al-TarǧumÄnâs account. In terms of surviving manuscripts in Turkish libraries, there are at least fourteen copies of the Tuḥfa with Ottoman translation and another six in Arabic only.81 These numbers are supplemented by the availability in the Turkish libraries of the copies of three published editions in Arabic, from 1873 (London), 1895 (Cairo), and 1904 (Cairo), and the two editions published in Ottoman Turkish in Istanbul, in 1874 and 1886. Interestingly, however, instead of being based on Muḥammad b. Å aâbanâs translation from 1604 that was available in the manuscript collections throughout the capital, the first Ottoman Turkish edition from 1874 is a translation of the Arabic edition from 1873 that was published in London at the height of a global Muslim-Christian debate raging among scholars and missionaries from the British Isles to India, with a significant participation of the Ottoman intellectuals.82 This new Ottoman
The possibility that Ê¿AbdallÄh al-TarǧumÄnâs text was brought to the attention of the two Ottoman translators because it was published in Arabic in London and made available at booksellersâ stands in Istanbul,85 rather than because of its long-term popularity within the Ottoman Empire itself, is intriguing and meaningful. It would point to the unpredictable patterns of textual transmission and dissemination that are not necessarily âintra-culturalâ or vertical, as we might often expect, but also lateral and cross-confessional. Muslim literati could obviously sometimes be equally if not more estranged from their Muslim predecessors than from their non-Muslim contemporaries. If we allow for the fact that the age of confessionalization was a much broader phenomenon than the European and Middle Eastern historiographies of the early modern era would have us think, this should not surprise us. However, while the transmission of texts and compatibility of narrative strategies points to common conceptual frameworks and translatability of religio-political sensibilities in parts of early modern Christendom and Islamdom, it is important to keep in mind that these texts were used precisely to draw and redraw new confessional boundaries and delineate difference rather than underscore sameness.
This article is a revised version of âLeyendo la Tuḥfa de Ê¿AbdallÄh b. Ê¿AbdallÄh al-TarÅ·umÄn (1420) en el Imperio Otomano: polémica cristiano-musulmana e intertextualidad en la época de la Confesionalización,â Al-Qaná¹ara, 36 no. 2 (2015): 341â401. Revised sections, which introduce new information on the authorship of the conversion narrative of Mehmed b. Abdullah from Athens, are marked by square brackets. Since the publication of this essay in 2015, another detailed study of the narrative by Mehmed b. Abdullah as well as its critical transcription has been published by Irfan Ä°nce and Fuat Aydın (âBir 17. Yüzyıl Ä°htida Anlatısı: Bir Atinalı Mühtedi, Bir Osmanlı Kadısıâ [A 17th-Century Conversion Narrative: An Athenian Convert, An Ottoman Judge] in Sahn-ı Semânâdan Dârülfünûnâa Osmanlıâda Ä°lim ve Fikir Dünyası Ãlimler, Müesseseler ve Fikrî Eserler, XVII. Yüzyıl, ed. H. Aydar and A Fikri Yavuz, Istanbul, 2017), 507â78). The authors were not aware of my study while working on theirs, but managed to include various references to this essay in their discussion and offer some alternative viewpoints. The revised version of my essay does not engage with their publication.
I would like to thank John Curry, Sara Nur Yıldız, Gottfried Hagen, and especially Ferenc Csirkés for their helpful comments and suggestions while researching and writing this article. I am also indebted to Rashed Daher and Aziz al-Azmeh for their help with sources in Arabic, István Ormos for his help with sources in Arabic and Greek, and Ferenc Csirkés for his help with sources in Persian. For the revised version, I benefited from Ercan Akyolâs and Ä°smail Emre Pamukâ insights on the authorship of Mehmed b. Abdullahâs narrative. Thanks to Robert Dankoffâs generous help with transliteration and translation, I dared to append a critical edition and translation of a text in Ottoman Turkish. Whatever mistakes remain, they are mine only. Research for this essay was made possible by the American Council of Learned Societies/National Endowment for Humanities Fellowship; American Research Institute in Turkey/National Endowment for Humanities Fellowship, and Central European Universityâs Individual Research Scheme grant.
Transliteration
57 b86
RisÄle-i garÄ«bedir ki ahbÄr-i NasÄrÄâdan biri Ä°slÄm Åerefi ile müÅerref olup IncÄ«l ve TevrÄt ve ZebÅ«râda hazret-i risÄletin hakkında vÄkiâ olan nusÅ«si cemâ idüp tercüme itmiÅdir.87
Bu âabd-ı sÄdiküâl-iâtikÄdün maskat-ı reâsi ve menÅeâ-i vücÅ«dı menbaâ-i âulÅ«m-i hikemÄ«ye olan Åehr-i Atina olup, merÄsim-i meslÅ«k-dÄÅte-i kudemÄ-yı YÅ«nÄniyye henüz meskÅ«k-geÅte-i nakd-i kabul-i88 rahÄbÄ«ni olup, bu bende-i nÄçizlerinün dahi ÅiâÄr-ı vücÅ«d-i âadÄ«müât-temyÄ«zleri89 tırÄz-i dÄ«n-i NasrÄniyye ile mutarraz bulunup nuhle-i NasrÄniyye ile intihÄl ve pÄy-i ÅuâÅ«r ve tedeyyunum ÅikÄl-beste-i millet-i âĪseviyye olmaÄ¡la cÄnib-i Ähara harekete mecÄl olmayup hasb-i iâtibÄrüâd-deyyÄr bidÄyet-i âahd-i lazimüâl-cehd-i tufÅ«liyyetimden gÄyet-i eyyamâul-beyz-i kühÅ«lete varınca nakd-i himmet-i kÄmilüâl-âiyÄrımı masÄrıf-i âulÅ«m-i mesÄ«hÄ«yye tahsÄ«line sarf ve zimÄm-i kesb-i hÄizüâl-iâtibÄr-ı ihtiyÄrımı cÄnib-i tekmÄ«l-i fünÅ«n-i YÅ«nÄniyyeâye âatf idüp resÄ«de-i âahd olan evrÄk-i kühne[de]90 batÄ[rı]k91 felÄsifenin dahi hilÄl-i sutÅ«r-i saâbüâl-âusÅ«rında niçe akvÄl-i acÄ«be ve emsÄl-i pür âiber-i garÄ«beâye92 nazar-ı ÅuâÅ«r ve ittılÄâım ki93 taâalluk itdi.94 DefeâÄtle rehÄbÄ«n-i Åöhret-ÅiâÄr-i diyÄr ve esÄkife-i95 intihÄ-disÄr96 ile
Fe-liâllÄh al-hamd ki kÄâid-i ahkÄm-i kazÄ ve kader, âÄlem-i âibdÄâ ve fitretâde rakabe-i vücÅ«d-i selÄmet-i mevâÅ«dimi rıbka-i kabÅ«l-i Ä°slÄm ile mutavvak itmek ile hüsn-i kabÅ«l-i tevfÄ«k virüp waâllÄhu yahdÄ« man yashÄâu 98 delÄletiyle asl-ı asÄ«l-i matÄlib-i âÄliye olan ahkÄm-i dÄ«n ve tarÄ«kati ve ÄâmÄl-i lÄzimetüâl-imtisÄl-i ÅerÄ«âatı muhteviye olan kütüb-i semÄviyye ve nusah-i dÄ«niyye tetebbuâına99 sevk-i taleb-i hÄtır100 erzÄnÄ« kıldı. Bu iâtibÄr ile gitdikçe mutezÄyidüâÅ-ÅuÄ¡l veâl-tetebbuâ olup âÄmme-i YehÅ«d ve NasÄrÄ sohbetinde müteffiküâl-ÄrÄâ oldukları TevrÄt ve ZebÅ«r ve Ä°ncÄ«lâde ki tÄâife-i Firenc beyninde lisÄni-i Latinâde mutedÄvel ve gürÅ«h-i NasÄrÄ miyÄnında zebÄn-ı YÅ«nÄnâa tercüme ile müstaâmeldür, ol dürr-i deryÄ-yı hestÄ«, bedraka-i hüdÄ-perestÄ«, mÄh-i sipihr-i safÄ hazret-i Muḥammaduâl-MustafÄ âaleyhiâs-selÄmâın sıdk-i nübuvvetini nÄtık ve bakÄ-yı din ve ÅerÄ«âatini musaddık niçe nusÅ«s-i kÄtiâatüâl-iÅkÄl ve nukÅ«l-i sÄdıkatüâ l-meâÄle musÄrif olup
58 a
girÄn hÄb-i zulmet-i cehÄletden bÄ«-dÄr ve sermest-i sahbÄ-yı zalÄlet iken huÅyÄr oldum. Bu mukaddime zikr-i nusÅ«sdan mukaddem lÄzimüâz-zikr olmaÄ¡in bast olunur ki aksÄm dahi zÄhirden vesÄtat-i lisÄn-i melek ile ve emÄret-i melik ile ki hÄtır-i melik denilur dahi zÄhirun bu iki kısmı esnÄf-i101 keferenin müsellemleri olmayup ancak ilhÄm-i rabbÄni ile
kalb-i cÄzimüâl-beyÄn-ı nebÄ«ye tebeddÄ« iden kısmına kÄâillerdir ve raây-i ictihÄd-ı nebÄ« ile sÄdır olan dahi bÄtına mÄâillerdür. MeÄer ki nefs-i nebÄ«ye mahsÅ«s maslahat içün melek tevassut ide hazret-i CibraâÄ«l âaleyhiâs-selÄmâun ZekeriyyÄ âaleyhi ezkÄât-tahÄyÄ hazreretlerine tebÅÄ«r-i veled-i sÄlih içün nuzÅ«li gibi TevrÄtâda bulunan nusÅ«sdur ki zikr olunur: ippon kai anabaten erripsen eis thalassan102 manzÅ«m-i riÅte-i sutÅ«r-ı TevrÄt olan âukud-i leÄli-i
âalÄ tarÄ«kiâl-Ä«sÄ[l]104 ihdÄ-yı ümmet buyurup Hazret-i MÅ«sÄ âaleyhiâs-selÄm dahi tekye- zede-i âasÄ-yı nübüvvet iken lÄyiha-i nebeviyyesinden sudÅ«r idüp muhÄkÄ«-i ümmet olmuÅdur. MaâÄnası bizüm hefevÄt [ve cerÄyim] ile güzerÄn iden ömrümüz105 Åiddet-i tÅ«fÄn-ı ÅitÄda endÄhte-i bahr-i cÅ«ÅÄn nÄ-peydÄ kenÄr olan Åahs-i nÄ-tuvÄna benzer ki keÅtÄ« ve keÅtÄ«bÄn-ı meded-res necÄt olmazsa garka-i girdÄb-ı helÄk olması mukarrerdür. Pes bizi dahi lücce-i hefevÄt-ı106 mahÄlik-i mecÄzÄ«den ve varta-i mehÄvif-i107 tÅ«fÄn-i maâÄsÄ«den tahlÄ«se keÅtÄ«-i ÅerÄ«âat ve keÅtÄ«bÄn-ı bahr-i hakÄ«kat-ÅinÄsdan lÄbüdâdür ki selÄmet-resan-ı sÄhil-i necÄt ola. MuhakkikÄn-i NasÄrÄ ve YehÅ«d sefÄ«ne-i NÅ«h âaleyhiâs-selÄm zÄhirde numÅ«dÄr-i hakÄ«kat mefhÅ«m olmak üzre temsÄ«len Ä«rÄd itmiÅlerdür. Bu bendeleri dahi çün bu kelimÄt-i hikmet-ÄmÄ«zin dürer-i maâÄnÄ«sini riÅte-i [fehm ve]108 kabÅ«le çekdüm Äb-i hidÄyet rÄ«hte-i rÅ«y-i hÄb-ÄlÅ«d olup rakde-i109 gafletden uyandım ve keÅtÄ« ve keÅtÄ«bÄn tecessüs 110 lÄzime-i zimmet-i himmet bilüp Ä¡avta-hÄr-i lücce-i taleb ve tafakkud olup serÄpÄ-yı tayy-i sahÄâif-i111 TevrÄt içün semend-i sebuk-seyr-i tabâime irhÄ-yı âinÄn-ı tetebbuâ idüp mahall-i Äharda bu nakli dahi buldum ki zikr olunur: ouk ekleipsei archÅn eks iouda kai Ägoumenos ek tÅn mÄrÅn autou eÅs an elthÄ ta apokeimena112 autÅ kai autos prosdokia ethnÅn.113 Bu nakl dahi sahÄâif-i TevrÄtâda mersÅ«me-i yeraâa-i MÅ«sÄ âaleyhiâs-selÄmâdur ki hazret-i YaâkÅ«b âaleyhiâs-selÄm evlÄd-i emcÄdına114 ÅÄ«rÄze-i bend-i mecmÅ«âa-i vasiyyet oldukda nigÄÅte-i safha-i hÄtıraları ve gümaÅte-i âuhde-i tezkÄ«rleri kılınup Hazret-i Musa âaleyhiâs-selÄm dahi hikmet-efÅÄn-ı115 resÄlet iken mülheme-i gaybiyyesinden kudÅ«m-ı behcet-lüzÅ«m-i seyyid-i âÄlemden mujde-resÄn-ı ümmet olmuÅdur. MaânÄsı budur ki Hazret-i YaâkÅ«b
58 b
mevâÅ«d (promised) üâl-kudÅ«m Hazret-i119 âĪsa âaleyhiâs-selÄmâdır diyü iddiâÄ-yı bÄtıl iderler. LÄkin gavvÄsÄn-ı bahr-i maâÄnÄ« bu dürri berÄverde-i nutk itmiÅlerdir ki Hazret-i YaâkÅ«b âaleyhiâs-selÄmâin âol geldikde sizden nübüvvet ve saltanat munkatiâ olurâ kaydı viÅÄh-i gerden-i kelÄm-ı sadÄkat-nizÄmı olan120 muddeâÄları sıhr-pezÄ«r-i butlÄn olup beste-zebÄn olurlar. Hazret-i âĪsa âaleyhiâs-selÄmâın zamÄn-ı nübüvvetinde henüz devletmendÄn-ı Ä°srÄâÄ«lÄ« huÅÄre-çīn-i mÄâide-i saltanat121 ve tÅ«tÄ«-i sebz-minkÄr-ı zÄ«net-serÄy122 Åeker-hvÄy-ı hükÅ«met olup peyvend-i feysal-yÄfte-i nübüvvetleri bÄz-i beste-i âahd idi. BerÄ«n takdÄ«r vukÅ«â-i inkıtÄâ-ı nübbüvet ve saltanat mukarrer ve müyesser olmaduġı zÄhirdür. BergeÅtegÄn-ı tÄ«h-i zalÄl âanede-i YehÅ«d dahi bu sevÄdın tebyÄ«zinde Hazret-i Muḥammad âaleyhiâs-selÄm ancak kavmına mebâÅ«s olup muntazarüâl-kudÅ«m-ı âÄmme-i âÄlem olan sÄhib-i devlet henüz kadem-nihÄde-i âÄlem-i ÅehÄdet olmadı, intizÄr-i âÄlem kemÄkÄn ber-karÄrdır diyü daâvÄ-yı bÄtıl iderler. LÄkin tevcÄ«h-i müddeâÄda mutÄraha-i efkÄr tahkÄ«k iden hakk-guyÄn rikÄb-i devlet-i Ä°srÄâÄ«liyye munhaliâüâl-viÅÄh-i âizzet kılınup nihÄl-i ser-sebz-i IsmÄâÄ«lÄ« niÅÄnde-i bÄg-i risÄlet olıcak kayd-ı sÄbık mefhÅ«mi üzre Ä°srÄâiliyyeâden riÅte-i nübüvvet ve saltanatın takarrur-ı inkıtÄâı müstelzem tahakkuk-i nübüvvet-i Hazret-i Muhammed âaleyhiâs-selÄm olduġı zÄhirdir. Anların henüz intizÄrları kemÄl-i inkÄr ve fesÄd-ı kÄrlarına ÅÄhiddür. Beyt: Kasd-i Ä«Å¡Än ǧüz siyeh-rÅ«yÄ« nebÅ«d/ Ḫayr-i dÄ«n key ǧüst tersÄ ve YehÅ«d. Pes bu naklın mefhÅ«mi hayÄle bend-i suver-i Ä¡arÄ«be olup tahakkuk-ı risÄlet-i Muhammediyye gitdikçe bu âabd-i vÄhilerine Ä«rÄs-i hulecÄn itmekle tazÄâif-i tettebuâa bÄdi olup123 sevk-i ilÄhÄ« ile bu nakl dahÄ« TevrÄtâde buldum ki zikr olunur: â¦prophÄtÄn umin anastÄsei kurios o theos ek tÅn adelphÅn umÅn Ås eme autou estai de pasa psuchÄ124 Ätis ean mÄ akousÄ tou
59 a
choun leixousinâ¦kai proskunÄsousin auto pantes oi basileis panta ta ethnÄ.â131 Yaâni Hakk teâÄla hazretleri dahi tarÄ«kiyle Hazret-i DÄvÅ«d âaleyhiâs-selÄmâa
59 b
küfr olmaÄ¡la yeksere nÅ«r-i Ä°slamâla efrÅ«hte-çerÄÄ¡ olmaÄ¡a cesÄret idemeyüp bu kÄrin husÅ«l-ı fercÄmın diyÄr-i Rumâun meÅÄhÄ«r-i rehÄbini ile istiÅÄreâye havÄle itdüm. Beyt: Ãü Äyed müškilÄ« pÄ«Å¡-i hıredmend / ki zâºÄn müškil Å¡eved der kÄr-i Å« bend / küned âakl-i diger bÄ âakl-i hod yÄr / ki tÄ der hall-i Än gerded mededkÄr / zi yek Å¡emâ-eÅ¡ negÄ«red nÅ«r hÄne / fürÅ« zed Å¡emâ-i dÄ«ger der miyÄne. Egerçe hÄmil-i Åerr olan delil-i hayr olmaz, lÄkin esnÄ-yı munÄzarada zuhÅ«r-i hakk
60 a
hÄric-i dÄâire-i tezebzüb164 kadem-nihÄde olmamıÅdur. Hemandem dil ve cÄna beyt: Der ÄteÅ¡ mÄndÄ« ey nefs-i belÄkeÅ¡ 165 / MüselmÄn Å¡ev müsellem gerd ez ateÅ¡ 166 hitÄbiyle çünki dergÄh-ı kuds-penÄh-ı ilÄhÄ«den Ä¡ayrı merceâ ve multecÄ kalmaduġı muteâayyin ve mü[te]beyyin oldı rÅ« bi-dergÄh olup beyt: hudÄ-yÄ tuâÄ« benderÄ destgÄ«r / büved benderÄ ez hudÄ nÄgüzÄ«r / bibahÅ¡ÄyiÅ¡-i hÄ«Å¡ yÄrÄ«m dih / zi-Ä¡avÄ¡Ä-yı hod destgÄ«rÄ«m dih / tu-rÄ hÄhem ez her murÄdÄ« ki hest / ki Äyed be-tu her murÄdÄ« be-dest / ne men çÄre-i hÄ«Å¡ dÄnem ne kes / tu dÄnÄ« çünÄn kün ki dÄnÄ« ve bes / safÄyÄ« dih Ä«n hÄk-i tÄrÄ«krÄ / ki bÄ«nend ez-Ä«n167 rÄh-i bÄrÄ«krÄ. Ãün bu tazzaruâı
Translation
57 b
This is a curious treatise by a learned Christian who, having been honored by the glory of Islam, collected the verses from the Gospel and the Torah and the Psalms about the holy mission of prophethood and translated them.
This true-believing slaveâs [i.e. worshipper of God] place of birth is the city of Athens, the source of the philosophical sciences. The established practices that were observed by the ancient Greeks being the currency accepted by the Christian monks, this insignificant slaveâs undistinguished character was decorated with the ornament of the Christian religion. I was endowed with the marriage-gift of the Christians, and the foot of my conscience and religiosity was shackled to the Christian community so that movement elsewhere was impossible. Because of my monastic promise, from the earliest effort of my childhood to the peak of the bright days of maturity I expended the coin of my
In the ancient writings of the olden times and among verses difficult to fathom of the patriarchal philosophers97173I became aware of many wondrous words and parables full of strange clues admonitions. Having engaged in extensive discussions with the celebrated monks of the country and the bishops clothed in the mantle of prohibition, I was favored with robes of honor and distinction. Praise be to God Who is the commander of the ordinances of destiny, and Who graciously bestowed divine guidance in the realm of creation and natural religion by furnishing the neck of my body, to which safety was promised, with the collar of acceptance of Islam. With the motto of âGod guides whom He willâ he urged me to study the celestial books and scriptures containing the ordinances of religion and righteousness and the deeds of the sacred law that must be followed. With this consideration in mind I gradually increased my occupation and study. In the Torah and Psalms and Gospelâupon which all the Jews and Christians agree and which circulate among the Franks (Western Christians) in Latin and among the Eastern Christians in GreekâI turned my attention to the many doubt-resolving verses and authentic narratives that express the truth of the prophecy of that pearl of the sea of existence, the spiritual teacher of the lovers of God, that brightly shining moon, Muḥammad Mustafa (peace be upon him) and confirm the eternity of his religion and sacred law.
58 a
I woke up from the heavy sleep of the darkness of ignorance and sobered up from the drunkenness of the wine of error.
This prologue was necessary before discussing those verses. Now I will expand on the topic. They [verses] are of two types: exoteric, inspired by the tongue of angels and given by command of the Kingâthese are also referred to as thoughts inspired by the King (hÄtır-i melik).174 These two types of exoteric verses are not acknowledged by the various infidels who only assent to the type that becomes manifest to the heart of the prophet, decisive in its eloquence, by divine inspiration, and who are also inclined to the esoteric verses that issue from independent judgment of the prophet. Unless an angel mediates the affair relating to the person of the prophet himself, just as Gabriel (peace be upon him) revealed [lit. descended] to Zechariah (the purest greetings be upon him) the good news of the birth of a virtuous child, as mentioned
The spiritual leaders of the Christians and Jews understand Noahâs ark (peace be upon him) exoterically as the exemplar of truth. I too, having drawn the pearls of meaning of these words of wisdom on the string of understanding and acceptance, the water of guidance having been sprinkled on the face of drowsiness, awoke from the sleep of neglect. Realizing that it was my duty to search out the boat and the boatman, I became a diver in the sea of investigation. Giving the steed of my nature free rein in order to study the whole contents of the Torah I found in another place the following passage: âThe sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.â176 This passage is also in the pages of the Torah from the pen of Moses (peace be upon him). It is the headband of the verses comprising the testament of Jacob (peace be upon him) to his noble sons, drawing on the pages of their minds and delegating the duty of remembrance. And Moses (peace be upon him) as well, during his wisdom-scattering prophetic mission, by divine inspiration heralded to his community the glorious arrival of the lord of the world [i.e., the Prophet Muḥammad]. The meaning of this passage is that Jacob addresses his noble sons and says: âOh my sons, the line of prophecy and political dominion will not be cut off from you until he arrives. After he arrives, they will be cut off. The whole world is awaiting his coming.â
The Christian teachers of the Torah claim falsely that Jacob
58 b
is referring to the promised arrival of Jesus. But the divers in the sea of meanings interpret this pearl [i.e. eloquent saying] to mean that when Jacob says, âWhen he arrives, the line of prophecy and political dominion will be cut off
The obstinate Jews as well, wandering in the wilderness of error, when they interpret this passage [lit. when they make a fair copy of this rough draft] make the false claim that Muḥammad (peace be upon him) was sent only to his own people and that the owner of the divine right to rule whose arrival is awaited by everyone has not yet placed his foot into the visible world, and that the universal expectation remains unchanged. But the interpretation of the speakers of truth regarding this claim is that when the necklace of the reign of the Israelites is removed from their neck and the young sapling of the Ishmailites is planted in the garden of prophecy, according to the sense of what was recorded above, it is obvious that the thread of prophecy and political dominion will certainly be cut off from the Israelites and the truth of the prophecy of Muḥammad will necessarily appear. Their futile expectation testifies to their great denial of truth and to the corruption of their deeds.
Verse: Their purpose was nothing but disgrace. / How could Christians or Jews seek the goodness of religion?178
Then the meaning of this passage took wondrous forms in my imagination and the truth of Muḥammadâs prophecy excited me more and more and caused me to increase my studies. With the divine urging I also found this passage in the Torah: âA prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me⦠And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.â179 This verse
Verse: Passion for you enters our head. / Look what things there are rolling in a perplexed head!
An internal struggle with the deceitful heart of madness in the ambush of investigation incited a strong desire to study the Psalms of David. There I found this doubt-resolving passage: âIn his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dustâ¦
59 a
Yea, all kings shall fall down before him.â180 In other words, God says to David (peace be upon him): âAfter you I shall send a prophet bearing a sacred law
Let it be known that the writers of the Gospels were four of the apostles who were falcons fettered by unbreakable bonds to the company of Jesus (peace be upon him) and whose inspired words they registered in the pages of the Gospels. Consequently the Gospels consist of four parts known after their authors as the Gospels of John, Matthew, Luke and Mark. The Gospel of John contains the verbal description of Muḥammad, but since deviant Christians followed an interpretation of these words that was unacceptable, they fell into the pit of rebellion and were unable to save their necks from the deception of rebellion.
The Gospel of Matthew as well contains the following passage which cuts the veins of opponents and eloquently attests to the necessity of the glorious arrival of Muḥammad, lord of the world (peace and great honor be upon him): âHe that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me ⦠the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose.â181 The meaning is that Jesus says: âThe one who will come after, who was created before me, I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal.â It is well known that in explaining these passages, the nonsensical Christians and the envious Jews make claims that identify the bearer of the prophetic mission spoken of in these verses either [for the Christians] as Jesus or [for the Jews] as the awaited Messiah, citing numerous untenable premises to support their deficient opinions. Now when Jesus brought forth the platter of speech from the gem shop of holiness he strung this pearl of truth on the cord of eloquence and defeated the band of opponents with the tumult of âNow the truth is out.â182 They were like so many dogs who swallowed pins and with wounded throats no longer able to scream could only persist in denial and infidelity. Advocating their claims in this way, they say that these devotion-causing words about the acceptance of servitude and bonds of submission that are
Verse: The pain I had became a hundred-fold stronger. / The confusion I was in went beyond the limit.
My affliction of suffering made these collected passages the repeated litany of the tongue of my soul. The more I examined them the more I saw that their virgin meanings, taking shape in my imagination, were all betrothed to the prophethood of Muḥammad (prayers and peace be upon him) and their implications that emerged from the nuptial chamber of these lines as if seated on the bridal throne embraced the prophetic neck of Muḥammad. As the jewels of their secrets that comprised their hidden words were pierced with the attributes of Muḥammad Mustafa, gradually my certainty increased and the witness of the love of Islam began to appear in the polished mirror of my nature. But not having the courage to abandon completely the old established rituals, to untie the girdle of unbelief
59 b
and to be completely illumined by the light of Islam, I had recourse in the resolution of this matter to consultation with famous monks of the lands of Rum.
Verses: When the sage faces a problem / that hinders him in his dealings / he adds another wise mind to his own / to have help in solving it. / As his house cannot be lit by a single candle / he puts another candle in the middle.183
Although the bearer of evil cannot be the guide to good, there was a possibility that in the course of discussion the truth would emerge. If they could realize that the interpretation they held was nonsensical, it would facilitate proving
Verse: The rust of sorrow has not left the mirror of my disposition. / Alas, the beloved who reveals his face has not died but he is gone. / The rose of my purpose has not blossomed in the garden of inner meaning. / Despite my efforts the palm-tree of the plain of my hopes has not given fruit. / Alas, the white falcon of aspiration soared up / but did not catch the partridge of my heartâs desire afflicted by a hundred pains. / In the bridal chamber of renunciation remained concealed with wonder / The virgin meaning of desire and did not present the belovedâs face.
Verse: I gave up my secret and told everything that was in my heart.
I realized that all this tribe of error were fomenting nonsense in the purgatory of ignorance. Not one
60 a
stepped outside the circle of confusion. As soon as according to the verse: You have remained in the fire, o suffering soul. / Be a Muslim, become free from the fire!185 it became clear no refuge remained for me but the sacred convent of Godâs protection.
Verse: O, God, you are the one that helps this slave. / You are indispensable for this slave. / Give me your mercy as company. / Help me out of my own tumult. / Of all my wishes I want You, / for with You every desire is obtained. / Neither I nor anyone else knows a solution, / but You know, so act
accordingly, that is enough. / Give purity to this dark earth / so that they can see this narrow road.
When I had finished this humble prayer, a voice from the unseen world addressed the ear of my soul as follows.
Verse: Oh you who follow cupidity and desire! / This is not the (right) road. Where are you going? / The travelers of the path have gone in another direction. / So you are going the wrong way.
I immediately turned the reins of intention in the direction of Islam. Passing over hill and dale, rolling up the stages of my journey, I arrived at the center of the circle of the pillar of Islam, the seat of the caliphs, Constantinople. Through the intercession of the teacher of the late Sultan Ahmed Han (may God grant him mercy and forgiveness) I entered the imperial council. That is to say, under the watchful imperial gaze of the late Sultan Ahmed Han himself, I received instruction in Islam in the glorious divan and my name became Mehemmed [Muḥammad] by the sultanâs own designation. After that, I exchanged my priestly garment for the splendid sultanic robe of honor and my Christian locks were shaved by the Ahmedian razor. I became a torch kindled by the light of religion and a slave in the court of the sultanic state. Finally, I did not know how to write Turkish language; my utmost desire was to withdraw into a corner of the imperial harem and occupy myself with learning the Qurâan and Muslim worship, so that eventually I would become laden with presents appropriate to my status.
I, the writer of this document, the poor Mahmud bin Hasan, the judge, wrote this in the month of Ramadan in the year 1035.
Manuscript material:
Translations of the Tuḥfa into Ottoman Turkish:
Ms Or. 432, Levinus Warner collection, Leiden University Library
Ms Hamidiye 719, Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul
Conversion narrative of Mehmed of Athens:
Ms Reisülküttab 800, 153b-159b, Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul
Ms Ali Nihat Tarlan 144, 57b-60a, Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul
Ms N. F. 380, 227b- 231a, Ãsterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna
Ms Giresun Yazmaları 171/3, 46b-51b, Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul
[Ms Nurosmaniye 3292, 323b-331a, Nurosmaniye Library, Istanbul]
Conversion narrative of Yusuf ibn Ebi Abdiâd-Deyyan:
Ms Or. 2050/2, Oriental Collection, âSS Cyril and Methodiusâ National Library, Sofia
Abdesselam, Ahmed. Les historiens tunisiens des XVIIe, XVIIIe et XIXe siècles. Tunis: Klincksieck, 1973.
Abun-Nasr, Jamil M. A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Ãlvarez, Lourdes MarÃa. âAnselm Turmeda: The Visionary Humanism of a Muslim Convert and Catalan Prophet.â In Meeting the Foreign in the Middle Ages, edited by Albrecht Classen. New York, London: Routledge, 2002.
Atâî, Nevâîzâde. Hadâyikuâl-hakâik fî tekmiletiâÅ-Åakâik, edited by A. Ãzcan. Ä°stanbul: ÃaÄrı Yayınları, 1989.
Baer, Marc. Honored by the Glory of Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Bernabé Pons, Luis F. El evangelio de San Bernabé: un evangelio islámico español. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, 1995.
Bernabé Pons, Luis F. âNotas sobre la cohésion de la comunidad morisca más allá su expulsión de España.â Al-Qaná¹ara 29, no. 2 (2008): 307â32. https://doi.org/10.3989/alqantara.2008.v29.i2.60
Boase, Roger. âAutobiography of a Muslim Convert: Anslem Turmeda (ca. 1353âca. 1430).â Al-Masaq 9 (1996â97): 45â98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503119608577027
Börekci, Günhan. âFactions and Favorites at the Court of Sultan Ahmed I (r. 1603â1617) and His Immediate Predecessors.â PhD Thesis, The Ohio State University, 2010.
Boubaker, Sadok. âActivités économiques des morisques et conjuncture dans la régence de Tunis au XVIIe siècle.â In Cartas de La Goleta. Actas del Coloquio Internacional âLos moriscos y Túnezâ, coordinated by V. Fanjul Marlé, 2: 129â38. Tunis: Embajada de España en Túnez, 2009.
Burak, Guy. âFaith, law and empire in the Ottoman âage of confessionalizationâ (fifteenth â seventeenth centuries): the case of ârenewal of faithâ.â Mediterranean Historical Review 28, no.1 (2013): 1â23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518967.2013.782670
Chakib, Benafri. âEndülüsâte son Müslüman kalıntısı Moriskoâlarin Cezayirâe Göçü ve Osmanlı Yardımı (1492â1614).â MA thesis, Hacettepe Ãniversitesi, Ankara, 1989.
CoÅan, M. Esad. Risâle-i IslâmiyyeâMatbaacı Ä°brahim-i Müteferrika ve Risâle-i Islâmiyye Adlı Eserinin Tenkitli Metni, edited by Necdet Yılmaz, 2nd ed. Ä°stanbul: Server Ä°letiÅim, 2010.
Epalza, MÃkel de. âArabismos en el manuscrito castellano del Morisco tunesino Ahmad al-Hanafi.â In Homenaje a Ãlvaro Galmés de Fuentes, 2: 515â28. Oviedo, Madrid: Universidad de Oviedo, Gredos, 1987.
Epalza, MÃkel de. Fray Anselm Turmeda (âAbdallÄh al-TaryumÄn) y su polémica islamo-cristiana. Edición, traducción y estudio de la Tuḥfa, 2nd ed., Madrid: Hiperión, 1994.
Epalza, MÃkel de. âMoriscos y andalusÃes en Túnez durante el siglo XVII.â Al-Andalus 34, no. 2 (1969): 247â327.
Epalza, MÃkel de. âNota sobre un nuevo âfalsoâ en árabe, de moriscos en el exilio, antes de la expulsión general (¿Túnez, 1603?): la pseudo-Tuḥfa de Turmeda (3a parte).â Sharq al-Andalus 18 (2003â7): 133â44. http://dx.doi.org/10.14198/ShAnd.2003-2007.18.06
Epalza, MÃkel de. âSidi Bulgayz, protector de los Moriscos exiliados en Túnez, (s. XVII).â Sharq al-Andalus 16â17 (1999â2002): 141â72. https://www.cervantesvirtual.com/nd/ark:/59851/bmckh113
Fierro, Maribel. âEl Tahá¸Ä«b de al-BarÄá¸iâÄ« en al-Andalus: a propósito de un manuscrito aljamiado de la Real Academia de la Historia.â Al-Qaná¹ara 21, no. 1 (2000): 227â36. https://doi.org/10.3989/alqantara.2000.v21.i1.415
GarcÃa-Arenal, Mercedes. âDreams and Reason: Autobiographies of Converts in Religious Polemics.â In Conversions islamiques: identités religieuses en Islam méditerranéen, edited by Mercedes GarcÃa-Arenal, 89â118. Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 2002.
Griffith, Sidney H. âThe Gospel in Arabic: An Inquiry into its Appearance in the First Abbasid Century.â Oriens Christianus 69 (1985): 126â67.
Hagen, Gottfried, âKatib Ãelebi.â In Historians of the Ottoman Empire (accessible at http://ottomanhistorians.uchicago.edu/en/historian/katib-celebi [accessed on 25/10/2024])
al-ḤajarÄ«, Aḥmad ibn QÄsim. KitÄb nÄá¹£ir al-dÄ«n âalÄâl-qawm al-kÄfirÄ«n = (The supporter of religion against the infidels); general introduction, critical edition and annotated translation, re-edited, revised, un updated in the light of recent publications and the primitive version found in the hitherto unknown manuscript preserved in al-Azhar, edited and translated by P. S. Van Koningsveld, Q. al-Samarrai, G. A. Wiegers. Madrid: CSIC, 1997.
Kâtip, Ãelebi. KeÅfüâz-zunûn an esâmiâl-kütübi veâl fünûn, translated by RüÅtü Balci, 5 vols. Ä°stanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2012 (2007).
Khuja, Husayn. Dhayl bashÄâir ahl al-Ä«mÄn bÄ« futūḥÄt Äl âUthmÄn. Edited by al-Tahir al-Mamuri. Tunis/ Libya, 1395/1975.
KrstiÄ, Tijana. Contested Conversions to Islam: Narratives of Religious Change in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2011.
KrstiÄ, Tijana. âContesting Subjecthood and Sovereignty in Ottoman Galata in the Age of Confessionalization: The Carazo Afair, 1613â1617.â Oriente Moderno 93 (2013): 422â53. https://doi.org/10.1163/22138617-12340024
KrstiÄ, Tijana. âIlluminated by the Light of Islam and the Glory of the Ottoman Sultanate: Self-Narratives of Conversion to Islam in the Age of Confessionalization.â Comparative Studies in Society and History 51, no. 1 (2009): 54â58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417509000036
KrstiÄ, Tijana. âLeyendo la Tuḥfa de Ê¿AbdallÄh b. Ê¿AbdallÄh al-TarÅ·umÄn (1420) en el Imperio Otomano: polémica cristiano-musulmana e intertextualidad en la época de la âConfesionalización.â Al-Qaná¹ara 36, no. 2 (2015): 341â401. https://doi.org/10.3989/alqantara.2015.010
Le Strange, Guy (ed.). Don Juan of Persia: A Shiâah Catholic, 1560â1604. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1926.
Levi Della Vida, Giorgio. âManoscritti Arabi di Origine Spagnola nella Biblioteca Vaticana.â Studi e Testi 219â220 (1962): 133â89.
Lotz-Heumann, Ute. âThe Concept of âConfessionalizationââA Historiographical Paradigm in Dispute.â Memoria y Civilización 4 (2001): 93â114. https://doi.org/10.15581/001.4.33834
Mazur, Peter and Abigail Shinn. âIntroduction: Conversion Narratives in the Early Modern World.â Journal of Early Modern History 17 (2013): 427â36. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700658-12342375
NiyazioÄlu, Aslı. Dreams and Lives in Ottoman Istanbul: A Seventeenth-Century Biographerâs Perspective. London and New York: Routledge, 2017.
Paker, Saliha. âTranslation, the Pursuit of Inventiveness and Ottoman Poetics: A Systemic Approach.â In Culture Contacts and the Making of Cultures, edited by R. Sela-Sheffy and G. Toury, 459â74. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2011.
Peri, Henri. âLâaccueil par des Tunisiens aux Morisques expluses dâEspagne: un temoignage morisque.â In Recueil dâetudes sur les Moriscos andalous en Tunisie, edited by MÃkel de Epalza and Ramon Petit, 128â34. Madrid: Instituto hispano-árabe de Cultura, 1973.
Pfeiffer, Judith. âConfessional Polarization in the 17th-Century Ottoman Empire and Yusuf Ä°bn Ebi âAbdüâd-Deyyanâs KeÅfüâl-esrÄr fÄ« ilzÄmiâl-YehÅ«d veâl-ahbÄr.â In Contacts and Controversies between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Pre-Modern Iran, edited by C. Adang and S. Schmidtke, 15â56. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2010.
Podskalsky, Gerhard. Griechische Theologie in der Zeit der Türkenschaft (1481â1821). München: C. H. Beck Verlag, 1987.
Reynolds, Dwight. F. (ed.). Interpreting the Self: Autobiography in the Arabic Literary Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.
Runciman, Steven. The Great Church in Captivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968.
Schmidt, Jan. âAn Ostrich Egg for Golius; the John Rylands Library Ms Persian 913 and the History of Early Modern Contacts between the Dutch Republic and the Islamic World.â In The Joys of Philology, edited by Jan Schmidt, 2: 9â74. Istanbul: Isis Press, 2002.
Schmidt, Jan. Catalogue of Turkish Manuscripts in the Library of Leiden University and Other Collections in the Netherlands, 3 Vols. Leiden: Leiden University Library, 2000â6.
Schmidtke, Sabine and Camilla Adang. âAḥmad b. Muá¹£á¹afÄ á¹¬ashkubrÄ«zÄdeâs (d. 968/1561) Polemical Tract Against Judaism.â Al-Qaná¹ara 29, no.1 (2008): 79â113. https://doi.org/10.3989/alqantara.2008.v29.i1.50
Spiro, Jean. Le present de lâhomme lettré pour refuter les partisans de la croix. Paris: E. Leroux, 1886.
Szpiech, Ryan. Conversion and Narrative. Reading and Religious Authority in Medieval Polemic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013.
Szpiech, Ryan. âThe Original is Unfaithful to the Translation: Conversion and Authenticity in Abner of Burgos and Anselm Turmeda.â eHumanista 14 (2010): 146â77 https://www.ehumanista.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.span.d7_eh/files/sitefiles/ehumanista/volume14/Szpiech.pdf [accessed on 25/10/2024]).
Strauss, Johann. âMüdafaaâya Mukabele et Mukabeleâye Müdafaa: une controverse islamo-chrétienne dans la presse dâIstanbul (1883).â In Querelles privées et contestations publiquesâLe role de la presse dans la formation de lâopinion publique au proche orient, edited by C. Herzog, R. Motika and M. Ursinus, 55â98. Isis: Istanbul, 2002.
Temimi, Abdeljelil. âEvolution dâattitude des autorites de la regence de Tunis face a lâacceuil des Morisques, a la lumiere dâun nouveau firman du sultan ottoman.â Revue dâhistoire maghrebine 69â70 (1993): 169â80.
Temimi, Abdeljelil. Le Gouvernement Ottoman et le Problème Morisque. Zaghouan: Centre dâétudes et de recherches ottomanes, morisques, de documentation et dâ information, 1989.
Temimi, Abdeljelil. âPolitique ottomane face a lâexpulsion des Morisques and leur passage en France et Venice 1609â10.â Revue dâhistoire maghrebine 79â80 (1995): 397â420.
Temimi, Abdeljelil. âPolitique ottomane face à lâimplantation et à lâinsertion des Morisques en Anatolie.â In Lâexpulsió dels moriscos, edited by MÃkel de Epalza, 164â70. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya, 1994.
TerzioÄlu, Derin. âHow to Conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization: A Historiographical Discussion.â Turcica 44 (2012â13): 301â38. https://doi.org/10.2143/TURC.44.0.2988854
TerzioÄlu, Derin. âWhere Ä°lm-i hal Meets Catechism: Islamic Manuals of Religious Instruction in the Ottoman Empire in the Age of Confessionalization.â Past & Present 220 (2013): 79â114. https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtt001
Tezcan, Baki. âÄ°brâhîm Müteferrika ve Risâle-i Ä°slâmiyye.â In Kitaplara Vakfedilen Bir Ãmre Tuhfe: Ä°smail E. Erünsalâa ArmaÄan, edited by Hatice Aynur, Bilgin Aydın, Mustafa Birol Ãlker, 1: 515â56. Ä°stanbul: Ãlke Yayınları, 2014.
Tezcan, Baki. The Second Ottoman Empire. Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Tornberg, C. Codices Arabici, Persici et Turcici Bibliothecae Regiae Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala: Universitas Upsaliensis, 1849.
Turki, Abdelmajid. âDocuments sur le dernier exode des Andalous vers la Tunisie.â In Recueil dâetudes sur les Moriscos andalous en Tunisie, edited by MÃkel de Epalza and Ramon Petit, 114â27. Madrid: Instituto hispano-árabe de Cultura, 1973.
Wiegers, Gerard. âEuropean converts to Islam in the Maghrib and the polemical writings of the Moriscos.â In Conversions islamiques: identités religieuses en Islam méditerranéen, edited by Mercedes GarcÃa-Arenal, 207â23. Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 2002.
Names and titles in Arabic and Persian are transcribed according to the system of the Brillâs simple Arabic transliteration system. Names in Ottoman Turkish are given according to modern Turkish orthography. This orthography is modified to indicate long vowels, as well as letters âayn (â) and hamze (â) when transcribing special Ottoman terms and quotations from the text given in the appendix.
On the argument of the Tuḥfa see MÃkel de Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda (âAbdallÄh al-TaryumÄn) y su polémica islamo-cristiana. Edición, traducción y estudio de la Tuḥfa (Madrid: Hiperión, 1994), 85â91.
His other works include Llibre de bons amonestaments [Book of good admonishments] (ca. 1396â98), Cobles de la divisió del regne de Mallorques [Popular songs of the division of the Majorcan Kingdom] (1398), four short, rhymed Profecies (ca. 1405 and after), and Disputa de lâase [Dispute of the mule] (ca. 1417â18).
For recent discussions on this issue and overview of the scholarly debates see Lourdes MarÃa Ãlvarez, âAnselm Turmeda: The Visionary Humanism of a Muslim Convert and Catalan Prophet,â in Meeting the Foreign in the Middle Ages, ed. A. Classen (New York, London: Routledge, 2002), 172â79; Ryan Szpiech, âThe Original is Unfaithful to the Translation: Conversion and Authenticity in Abner of Burgos and Anselm Turmeda,â eHumanista 14 (2010): 146â77; and Szpiech, Conversion and Narrative. Reading and Religious Authority in Medieval Polemic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 200â13.
A French translation by J. Spiro appeared in 1886. It was preceded by two translations into Ottoman Turkish published in 1874 and 1876, which are discussed later in the article. Spanish translation was undertaken by Epalza in 1971, in the first edition of his Fray Anselm Turmeda. Recently, three translations into English of the introductory, self-narrative part of the Tuḥfa were published. See Roger Boase, âAutobiography of a Muslim Convert: Anselm Turmeda (c. 1353âc. 1430),â Al-Masaq 9 (1996â97): 45â98; Mercedes GarcÃa-Arenal, âDreams and Reason: Autobiographies of Converts in Religious Polemics,â in Conversions islamiques: identités religieuses en Islam méditerranéen, ed. M. GarcÃa-Arenal (Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 2002), 89â118; and Dwight Reynolds(ed.), Interpreting the Self: Autobiography in the Arabic Literary Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), 194â201.
Leiden University Library [UBL], Levinus Warner collection, ms Or. 432. For the sheikhâs dedication see verso side of the fourth and recto side of the fifth leaf, and for the mention of translator Muḥammad b. Å aâbanâs name see folio 2b. For the full description of the manuscript see Jan Schmidt, Catalogue of Turkish Manuscripts in the Library of Leiden University and Other Collections in the Netherlands (Leiden: Leiden University Library, 2000), 1: 107â10.
In the introduction to his translation, which follows the sheikhâs dedication, Muḥammad b. Å aâban also discusses the utility of having a work on the basic principles of faith (of the so-called aqÄid genre) accessible in simple Turkish language due to its potential to keep infidelity in check and correct the practices of Muslims who cannot access the works of highly learned men. Furthermore, he reflects on the dangers of distorting the meaning of the original text in Arabic through translation, indicating that the method he would employ will be to give both the original text and its paraphrase in Turkish. See UBL Or. 432, 2a. I thank Rashed Daher for translating this section of the introduction for me.
On the process of fashioning of a Sunni religious orthodoxy and its politicization in the Ottoman Empire, which could be related to the debate on âconfessionalizationâ in early modern Europe, see Tijana KrstiÄ, âIlluminated by the Light of Islam and the Glory of the Ottoman Sultanate: Self-Narratives of Conversion to Islam in the Age of Confessionalization,â Comparative Studies in Society and History 51, no. 1 (2009): 54â58; and Derin TerzioÄlu, âHow to Conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization: A Historiographical Discussion,â Turcica 44 (2012â13): 301â38. For developments specifically in Ahmed Iâs reign see Baki Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire. Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 46â78; and KrstiÄ, âContesting Subjecthood and Sovereignty in Ottoman Galata in the Age of Confessionalization: The Carazo Afair, 1613â1617,â Oriente Moderno 93 (2013): 422â53.
On Ottoman sultans,â including Ahmed Iâs, involvement with the Morisco issue see Abdeljelil Temimi, Le Gouvernement Ottoman et le Problème Morisque (Zaghouan: Centre dâétudes et de recherches ottomanes, morisques, de documentation et dâ information, 1989). See also his âPolitique ottomane face a lâexpulsion des Morisques and leur passage en France et Venice 1609â10,â Revue dâhistoire maghrebine 79â80 (1995): 397â420 and âPolitique Ottomane face à lâimplantation et à lâinsertion des Morisques en Anatolie,â in Lâexpulsió dels moriscos, ed. M. de Epalza (Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya, 1994), 164â70.
See, for instance, Abdelmajid Turki, âDocuments sur le dernier exode des Andalous vers la Tunisie,â in Recueil dâetudes sur les Moriscos andalous en Tunisie, ed. M. de Epalza and R. Petit (Madrid: Instituto hispano-árabe de Cultura, 1973), 114â27; and Henri Peri, âLâaccueil par des Tunisiens aux Morisques expluses dâEspagne: un temoignage morisque,â in Recueil dâetudes, 128â34.
Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 43.
For the background see Ahmed Abdesselam, Les historiens tunisiens des XVIIe, XVIIIe et XIXe siècles (Tunis: Klincksieck, 1973), 25â6; and MÃkel de Epalza, âSidi Bulgayz, protector de los Moriscos exiliados en Túnez, (s. XVII),â Sharq al-Andalus 16â17 (1999â2002): 141â72 and the literature on al-QaÅ¡Å¡ÄÅ¡ cited there.
Nevâîzâde Atâî, Hadâyikuâl-hakâik fî tekmiletiâÅ-Åakâik, ed. A. Ãzcan (Ä°stanbul: ÃaÄrı Yayınları, 1989), 652â54.
On this relationship see Epalza, âSidi Bulgayz,â 145â48. For general background on Tunisia under the Ottomans in this period see Jamil M. Abun-Nasr, A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 170â71.
On this issue see Abdeljelil Temimi, âEvolution dâattitude des autorites de la regence de Tunis face a lâacceuil des Morisques, a la lumiere dâun nouveau firman du sultan ottoman,â Revue dâhistoire maghrebine 69â70 (1993), 171â72.
On participation of the Moriscos in Tunis in piracy and slave trade in the first half of the seventeenth century see MÃkel de Epalza, âMoriscos y andalusÃes en Túnez durante el siglo XVII,â Al-Andalus 34, no. 2 (1969): 247â327; Luis F Bernabé Pons, âNotas sobre la cohesión de la comunidad morisca más allá su expulsión de España,â Al-Qaná¹ara 29, no. 2 (2008): 307â32; Sadok Boubaker, âActivités économiques des morisques et conjuncture dans la régence de Tunis au XVIIe siècle,â Cartas de La Goleta 2 (2009): 129â38.
Atâî, Hadâyikuâl-hakâik, 654.
Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 48â49; 166â68. See also his âNota sobre un nuevo âfalsoâ en árabe, de moriscos en el exilio, antes de la expulsion general (¿Túnez, 1603?): la pseudo-Tuḥfa de Turmeda (3a parte),â Sharq al-Andalus 18 (2003â7): 133â44. On Aḥmad al-ḤanafÄ«âs career see Epalza, âMoriscos en Túnez,â 293â97. On his polemical writings see Epalza, âArabismos en el manuscrito castellano del morisco tunecino Ahmad al-Hanafi,â in Homenaje a Ãlvaro Galmés de Fuentes (Oviedo, Madrid: Universidad de Oviedo, Gredos, 1987), 2: 515â28, and Gerard Wiegers, âEuropean converts to Islam in the Maghrib and the polemical writings of the Moriscos,â in Conversions islamiques, 213â18.
On the issue of authenticity of this section of the Tuḥfa see also Alvarez, âAnselm Turmeda,â 184â85, Szpiech, âThe Original is Unfaithful to the Translation,â 165; and Szpiech, Conversion and Narrative, 204â5.
Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 360.
Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 49.
The main source on al-ḤanafÄ«âs sojourn in the Ottoman Empire and his connections to the Ottoman intellectuals is the biographical work by an eighteenth-century Tunisian author, a Hanefite of Turkish origin named Husayn Khuǧa (d. 1754), who relied on a variety of sources in Arabic, Persian and Ottoman Turkish. Unfortunately, it is unclear who exactly his source is on al-ḤanafÄ«âs career. See Ḥusayn Khuǧa, Dhayl bashÄâir ahl al-Ä«mÄn bÄ« futūḥÄt Äl âUthmÄn, ed. al-TahÄ«r al-MamurÄ« (Tunis/Libya, 1395/1975), 170â71.
See Wiegers, âEuropean Converts,â 215â18, and Giorgio Levi Della Vida, âManoscritti Arabi di Origine Spagnola nella Biblioteca Vaticana,â Studi e Testi 219â220 (1962), 181â84.
UBL, ms Or. 432, 2 b.
Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 50.
Atâî, Hadâyikuâl-hakâik, 552.
On the history of Warnerâs collection see Schmidt, Catalogue of Turkish Manuscripts, 1: 43â44.
Schmidt, Catalogue of Turkish Manuscripts, 1: 44.
On this issue see also Jan Schmidt, âAn Ostrich Egg for Golius; the John Rylands Library Ms Persian 913 and the History of Early Modern Contacts between the Dutch Republic and the Islamic World,â in The Joys of Philology, ed. J. Schmidt (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2002), 2: 9â74.
See Maribel Fierro, âEl Tahá¸Ä«b de al-BarÄá¸iâÄ« en al-Andalus. A propósito de un manuscrito aljamiado de la Real Academia de la Historia,â Al-Qaná¹ara 21, no. 1 (2000): 227â36.
Luis F. Bernabé Pons, El evangelio de San Bernabé, un evangelio islámico español (Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, 1995), 67; 21â32.
Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 49; Aḥmad ibn QÄsim al-ḤajarÄ«, KitÄb nÄá¹£ir al-dÄ«n âalÄâl-qawm al-kÄfirÄ«n, ed. and trans. P. S. Van Koningsveld, Q. al-Samarrai, G. A. Wiegers (Madrid: CSIC, 1997), 216.
For an overview of the manuscript provenances and dates see Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 178.
According to Epalza, the second-oldest surviving manuscript of the Tuḥfaâs translation into Ottoman Turkish should be the copy located in the library of the Uppsala University that dates to 1059/1649 (Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 175). From the relevant catalogue entry, however, it appears that this manuscript does not actually contain the Turkish translation but only the text in Arabic. Other texts of the miscellany in which the Tuḥfa is found are also all in Arabic. See C. Tornberg, Codices Arabici, Persici et Turcici Bibliothecae Regiae Universitatis Upsaliensis (Uppsala: Universitas Upsaliensis, 1849), 265â66.
Süleymaniye Library [SK], ms Hamidiye 719, 142 a. The manuscript later became part of the endowment (vakf) of Sultan Abdülhamid I (1774â89).
See Gottfried Hagen, âKatib Ãelebi,â in Historians of the Ottoman Empire (accessible at http://ottomanhistorians.uchicago.edu/en/historian/katib-celebi [accessed on 25/10/2024]).
I have been able to consult four copies of the narrative, the oldest of which is Ms Reisülküttab 800, 153bâ159b, housed at Süleymaniye Library in Istanbul and dated to the month of Ramadan 1034/JuneâJuly 1625. Other manuscripts include a copy from the month of Ramadan 1035/MayâJune 1626 also located in Süleymaniye Library, Ali Nihat Tarlan 144, 57bâ60a; an eighteenth-century copy located in the Ãsterreichische Nationalbibliothek under the call number N. F. 380, 227bâ231a, and (most likely) a nineteenth-century copy located in Süleymaniye Library under the call number of Giresun Yazmaları 171/3, 46bâ51b.
I introduced and briefly analyzed this narrative in KrstiÄ, âIlluminated by the Light of Islam.â See also KrstiÄ, Contested Conversions to Islam: Narratives of Religious Change in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2011), 110â12.
Ali Nihat Tarlan 144, 57 b; Reisülküttab 800, 153 b.
See Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 222, and Gerhard Podskalsky, Griechische Theologie in der Zeit der Türkenschaft (1481â1821) (München: C. H. Beck Verlag, 1987), 194â95.
For Abdullah al-TarǧumÄnâs educational trajectory see Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 204â6, and Boase, âAutobiography,â 47â49.
Ali Nihat Tarlan 144, 58 a-b; Reisülküttab 800, 155 a.
Ali Nihat Tarlan 144, 58 b; Reisülküttab 800, 155 bâ156 a.
Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 486.
Ali Nihat Tarlan 144, 58 bâ59 a; Reisülküttab 800, 156 b.
Ali Nihat Tarlan 144, 59 a; Reisülküttab 800, 156 bâ157 a.
The sections of the Gospel of John (Chapters 14â16) where Jesus foretells the coming of Paraclete to his disciples were some of the earliest parts of the New Testament to be âtranslatedâ into Arabic. Ibn Ishaq (d. c. 767), for instance, refers to John 15:26: âBut when the Comforter (ÏαÏάκληÏοÏ) is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.â Muslim polemicists claimed that this word should be read as periclytos, which translates as âthe praised one,â or Aḥmad in Arabic, which is one of the names of Muḥammad. See Sidney H. Griffith, âThe Gospel in Arabic: An Inquiry into its Appearance in the First Abbasid Century,â Oriens Christianus 69 (1985), 137â43. On paraclete in Turmedaâs account see Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 212â14, 480â84.
Ali Nihat Tarlan 144, 59 a; Reisülküttab 800, 157 a.
Ali Nihat Tarlan 144, 59 a; Reisülküttab 800, 157 a.
I thank my colleague Ferenc Csirkés for identifying the provenance of these verses.
On this issue see KrstiÄ, Contested Conversions to Islam, 121â42.
Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 360â67.
Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 218â21.
Ali Nihat Tarlan 144, 59 bâ60 a; Reisülküttab 800, 159 aâ159 b.
Ali Nihat Tarlan 144, 60a; Reisülküttab 800, 159 b.
On Yusuf al-Tabib see Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 224â26. On Mustafa Efendi, Sultan Ahmed Iâs tutor, see Günhan Börekci, âFactions and Favorites at the Court of Sultan Ahmed I (r. 1603â1617) and His Immediate Predecessorsâ (PhD Thesis, The Ohio State University, 2010), 95â108.
See KrstiÄ, Contested Conversions to Islam, 12â16, 98â120. The question of whether or not âconfessionalizationâ necessarily had to involve the state has been much debated since the concept was first suggested in the context of early modern Habsburg history, in the late 1970s/ early 1980s. On this issue see Ute Lotz-Heumann, âThe Concept of âConfessionalizationââA Historiographical Paradigm in Dispute,â Memoria y Civilización 4 (2001): 93â114.
On this issue see TerzioÄlu, âHow to Conceptualize,â and Guy Burak, âFaith, law and empire in the Ottoman âage of confessionalizationâ (fifteenth â seventeenth centuries): the case of ârenewal of faithâ,â Mediterranean Historical Review 28, no.1 (2013): 1â23.
KrstiÄ, âIlluminated by the Light of Islam,â 58.
Marc Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); Derin TerzioÄlu, âWhere Ä°lm-i hal Meets Catechism: Islamic Manuals of Religious Instruction in the Ottoman Empire in the Age of Confessionalization,â Past & Present 220 (2013): 79â114.
Szpiech, Conversion and Narrative, 207. Szpiech has argued that al-TarǧumÄnâs account resembles the medieval Christian models of conversion narrative by Augustine and Petrus Alfonsi much more than other, earlier narratives of conversion to Islam; see Szpiech, Conversion and Narrative, 201, 208.
For a detailed analysis of this narrative and its relationship to other Muslim self-narratives of conversion see KrstiÄ, âIlluminated,â and KrstiÄ, Contested Conversions, 79â80, 98â120.
On this issue see Saliha Paker, âTranslation, the Pursuit of Inventiveness and Ottoman Poetics: A Systemic Approach,â in Culture Contacts and the Making of Cultures, ed. R. Sela-Sheffy and G. Toury (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2011), 459â74.
See, for instance, the narrative of âDon Juan of Persiaâ in Guy Le Strange(ed.), Don Juan of Persia: A Shiâah Catholic, 1560â1604 (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1926), 299. See also Peter Mazur and Abigail Shinn, âIntroduction: Conversion Narratives in the Early Modern World,â Journal of Early Modern History 17 (2013): 427â36, especially 429.
These are Nevâi Mehmed Efendi Maâalkaravi (d. 1598)âs NetÄâicüâl-FünÅ«n, Veysi Ãveys b. Mehmed AlaÅehri (d. 1628)âs Vakıâa-nÄme (or HÄb-nÄme) and DÄ«vÄn, Nefâi Ãmer b. Muhammed Erzurumi (d. 1635)âs DÄ«vÄn and KasÄâid, Riyazi Mehmed b. Mustafa Birgili (d. 1645)âs KasÄâid and SÄkÄ«-nÄme, Kara Ãelebi-zade Abd el-Aziz b. Hüsam ed-dîn (d. 1657)âs GülÅen-i NiyÄz, Hakanî Mehmed Bey (d. 1606)âs Hilyetüân-NebÄ«, Ruhi Osman Bagdadi (d. 1605)âs TerkÄ«b-i Bend, and Faâizi Kaf-zade Abd el-Hayy (d. 1621)âs LeylÄ ve MecnÅ«n. See Ali Nihat Tarlan 144, Süleymaniye Library.
See Reisülkuttab 800, Süleymaniye Library. The mecmÅ«âa contains another two works entitled MenÄkıb-ı Seyyidüâl-MürselÄ«n and TırÄz-ı zeyl-i sühan. The names of the authors are not given.
[Nurosmaniye 3292, 323b. I am very grateful to İsmail Emre Pamuk and Günhan Börekçi, who brought this manuscript to my attention].
[âÄ°ki Nefer Efrenc Yahudi Müselman Oldukda VirdiÄi Tezkiredir,â MünÅeat Mecmuası, T 1526, 250b, Ä°stanbul Ãniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kütüphanesi. I am very grateful to Ercan Akyol for this personal communication.]
[For instance, he authored a work on the profession of Muslim faith entitled ÅehÄdetnÄme (also sometimes known as FezÄil-i Kelime-i TevhÄ«d (On the Excellence of the Words Proclaiming Oneness of God), as well as a very popular work on the life of the Prophet, entitled Dürretüât-TÄc fÄ«-SÄ«reti SÄhibiâl-MiârÄc].
[See Aslı NiyazioÄlu, Dreams and Lives in Ottoman Istanbul: A Seventeenth-Century Biographerâs Perspective (London, New York: Routledge, 2017), 26â8. The circle also included the biographer Nevâizade Atai, who left us the key details about Yahya Efendiâs relationship with al-QaÅ¡Å¡ÄÅ¡.]
See note 81 below.
For a detailed discussion of this text and translation into English of its autobiographical part see Judith Pfeiffer, âConfessional Polarization in the 17th-Century Ottoman Empire and Yusuf Ä°bn Ebi âAbdüâd-Deyyanâs KeÅfüâl-esrÄr fÄ« ilzÄmiâl-YehÅ«d veâl-ahbÄr,â in Contacts and Controversies between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Pre-Modern Iran, ed. C. Adang and S. Schmidtke (Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2010), 15â56. See also KrstiÄ, Contested Conversions to Islam, 114â16.
Pfeiffer, âConfessional Polarization,â 25. For the edition of TaÅköprüzadeâs text with an English translation see Sabine Schmidtke and Camilla Adang, âAḥmad b. Muá¹£á¹afÄ á¹¬ashkubrÄ«zÄdeâs (d. 968/1561) Polemical Tract Against Judaism,â Al-Qaná¹ara 29, no.1 (2008): 79â113.
See Sofia National Library, ms Or. 2050/2. On this issue also see Pfeiffer, âConfessional Polarization,â 27â29.
Pfeiffer, âConfessional Polarization,â 43.
This âturn to pietyâ and suggestions on how Muslim community should be disciplined affected various Sufi authors as well. On this issue see TerzioÄlu, âWhere Ä°lm-i hal Meets Catechism.â
On the impact of the Kadizadeli movement on the Jewish community see Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam.
So far only the autograph copy housed in Süleymaniye Library, Esad Efendi 1187, has been known. Further copies I was able to identify include Süleymaniye Library, BaÄdatli Vehbi 2022, from 1175/ 1761â2 and another undated copy that is misidentified as âTerceme bazı Äyetiâz-ZebÅ«r veât-TevrÄt veâl-Ä°ncÄ«lâ in the same library under the call number of Esad Efendi 7. Necdet Yılmaz, the editor of a new edition of M. Esad CoÅanâs study and transliteration of RisÄle-i IslÄmiyye (RisÄle-i IslÄmiyyeâMatbaacı Ä°brahim-i Müteferrika ve Risâle-i Islâmiyye Adlı Eserinin Tenkitli Metni, ed. N. Yılmaz, 2nd ed. Ä°stanbul: Server Ä°letiÅim, 2010), identified two further copies of the manuscript and published sample facsimile pages from them in the appendix to the book (348â56): one is located in Türk Tasavvuf Müsikisi Vakfı Ã. TuÄrul Ä°nançer Kütuphanesi (YK-Ä°), no. 1, and yet another one is in Süleymaniye Library, in the collection of Esad Efendi, number 3442. I thank Baki Tezcan for bringing this new edition to my attention.
Baki Tezcan recently established that Müteferrika was using the translation of the Torah and the Psalms by Immanuel Tremellius and Franciscus Junius, and of the New Testament by Theodore Beza, which means that he probably availed himself of the 1648 Amsterdam edition of the Biblia Sacra. See Baki Tezcan, âÄ°brâhîm Müteferrika ve Risâle-i Ä°slâmiyye,â in Kitaplara Vakfedilen Bir Ãmre Tuhfe: Ä°smail E. Erünsalâa ArmaÄan, ed. H. Aynur, B. Aydın, M. Birol Ãlker (Ä°stanbul: Ãlke Yayınları, 2014), 1: 515â56.
At least three mecmÅ«as combining these texts survive. For instance, in one scrapbook from the eighteenth century (Süleymaniye Library, BaÄdatli Vehbi 2022) we find al-TarǧumÄnâs Tuḥfa in Arabic (copied in 1787/8), Müteferrikaâs RisÄle-i IslÄmiyye (copied in 1761/2) and Yusuf Ä°bn Ebi âAbdüâd-Deyyanâs account (copied in 1763/4). Another nineteenth-century scrapbook (Süleymaniye Library, Giresun Yazmaları 171) contains the Tuḥfa with the translation in Ottoman Turkish, Yusuf b. Ebi Abdüdeyyanâs account and Mehmed b. Abdullahâs account. Yet another one (Süleymaniye Library, Giresun Yazmaları 102) contains the Tuḥfa with the Ottoman translation and Yusuf Ä°bn Ebi âAbdüâd-Deyyanâs account, among other texts.
Epalza had counted eleven manuscripts, in both Ottoman Turkish and Arabic, housed in Turkey (see his Fray Anselm Turmeda, 173â74) but modern databases allow for a more comprehensive search that yields a higher number.
Johann Strauss suggests that the editor behind this London edition, who signs himself as âMurad Ä°stanli,â was possibly the third baron Stanley of Alderley, Henry Edward John Stanley (d. 1903), who converted to Islam and was famously pro-Ottoman. He was also familiar with both Arabic and Turkish. See Johann Strauss, âMüdafaaâya Mukabele et Mukabeleâye Müdafaa: une controverse islamo-chrétienne dans la presse dâIstanbul (1883),â in Querelles privées et contestations publiquesâLe role de la presse dans la formation de lâopinion publique au proche orient, ed. C. Herzog, R. Motika and M. Ursinus (Istambul: Isis, 2002), 68, n.5.
See Strauss, âMüdafaaâya Mukabele,â 67, n. 4. On this translation also see Epalza, Fray Anselm Turmeda, 52â53, where the translator is identified as âAbdallah Bey.â
Strauss, âMüdafaaâya Mukabele.â
Strauss, âMüdafaaâya Mukabele,â 67, n.9.
Note on transliteration: the text is transcribed according to the rules of modified Modern Turkish, which means that only long vowels are marked, as well as letters âayn (â) and hamza (â).
Sigla for the manuscripts used: A=Ali Nihat Tarlan 144, 57b-60a, Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul; R=Reisülküttab 800, 153b-159b, Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul; V= N. F. 380, 227b-231a, Ãsterreichischer National Bibliothek, Vienna; G=Giresun Yazmaları 171, 46b-51b, Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul. The basis of the critical edition are the two oldest manuscripts, R and A, dated to Ramadan 1034/ June-July 1625 and Ramadan 1035/May-June 1626, respectively, although A is privileged for its more complete text (see the facsimile). Important differences with other manuscripts are indicated in the footnotes.
The introductory sentence in R says: âAtınalu kapuçı HabÄ«buâllÄh evsÄfın TevrÄt ve IncÄ«l ve ZebÅ«râ(d)a görüp Ä«mÄna geldügidir.â V and G do not have an introduction.
R: ânakd-i rahÄbÄ«niâ
R: âtemeyyÄ«zleriâ
R: âkühnedeâ
R: âbatÄrıkâ
V, R: âacÄ«beâ and âgarÄ«beâ are transposed
V: does not have âkiâ here
V, G: âitmiÅdür kiâ
R: âesÄfikeâ
V: âve esÄkife-i intihÄ-disÄrâ is missing.
V: âve esabâiyeyi ileâ
The complete verse from Qurâan 2, 213; 24, 46 (cf. 10, 25; 6, 39) is âwa-[A]llÄhu yahdÄ« man yashÄâu ilÄ sirÄtin mustaqÄ«minâ (âFor God guides whom He will [to a straight path]â). I thank Prof. István Ormos for identifying the verse.
End of 153 b in R
End of 46 b in G
End of 227 b in V
Exodus 15:1: ââ¦á¼µÏÏον καὶ á¼Î½Î±Î²Î¬Ïην á¼ÏÏιÏεν Îµá¼°Ï Î¸Î¬Î»Î±ÏÏανâ, accessible at: http://biblehub.com/sepd/exodus/15.htm [accessed on 25/10/2024]. I thank Prof. Robert Dankoff for identifying this verse.
End of 154 a in R
V, R: âÄ«sÄlâ
V, G: âhefevÄt ve cerÄyim ile güzÄrı iden ömrümüzâ; R: âhefevÄt ve cerÄyim ile güzerÄn iden ömrümüzâ; end of 47 a in G
R: âlücce-i mahalik-i hefevÄt ve mehÄzÄ«denâ
V: âve garından ve vartanaâ
V; R: âriÅte-yi fehm ve kabuleâ
V: âzühde-yi gafletdenâ
R: âtahassusiniâ
R: âsafhÄtâ
End of 154 b in R
Genesis 49: 10: âοá½Îº á¼ÎºÎ»ÎµÎ¯Ïει á¼ÏÏÏν á¼Î¾ Î¹Î¿Ï Î´Î± καὶ ἡγοÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï á¼Îº Ïῶν μηÏῶν αá½Ïοῦ á¼ÏÏ á¼Î½ á¼Î»Î¸á¿ Ïá½° á¼Ïοκείμενα αá½Ïá¿· καὶ αá½Ïá½¸Ï ÏÏοÏ-δοκία á¼Î¸Î½á¿¶Î½,â accessible at: http://sept.biblos.com/genesis/49.htm [accessed on 25/10/2024].
R: âkiramineâ
R: âifÅÄ-iâ
V: âResÅ«lâ
End of 47 b in G
R: âesafikeâ
End of 228 a in V
R: âolıcakâ
End of 155 a in R
R: âzÄ«net-serÄlarıâ
End of 48 a in G
End of 155 b in R
Despite indicating that he is about to cite from the Old Testament, the citation is actually from Acts 3:22-23: ââ¦ÏÏοÏήÏην á½Î¼á¿Î½ á¼Î½Î±ÏÏήÏει ÎÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï á½ ÎÎµá½¸Ï á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ á¼Îº Ïῶν á¼Î´ÎµÎ»Ïῶν á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ á½¡Ï á¼Î¼Î· αá½Ïοῦ â¦(âá¼ÎºÎ¿ÏÏεÏθε καÏá½° ÏάνÏα á½ Ïα á¼Î½ λαλήÏá¿ ÏÏá½¸Ï á½Î¼á¾¶Ïâ of Acts 3:22 is missing)â¦á¼ÏÏαι δὲ ÏᾶÏα ÏÏ Ïá½´, á¼¥ÏÎ¹Ï á¼á½°Î½ μὴ á¼ÎºÎ¿ÏÏá¿ Ïοῦ ÏÏοÏήÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½Î¿Ï , á¼Î¾Î¿Î»ÎµÎ¸ÏÎµÏ Î¸Î®ÏεÏαι á¼Îº Ïοῦ λαοῦ.â New Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, accessible at: http://goc.biblos.com/acts/3.htm [accessed on 25/10/2024]. What the author has in mind when he says that the verse is from the Old Testament is the analogous passage from Deuteronomy 18:18-19.
V: âkarındaÅlarındanâ
V: âolmaÄ¡inâ
End of 228 b in V
End of 156 a in R
End of 48 b in G
Psalms 72: 6-10: â(6) á¼Î½Î±Ïελεῠá¼Î½ Ïαá¿Ï ἡμÎÏÎ±Î¹Ï Î±á½Ïοῦ δικαιοÏÏνη καὶ Ïλá¿Î¸Î¿Ï εἰÏÎ®Î½Î·Ï á¼ÏÏ Î¿á½ á¼Î½ÏαναιÏεθῠἡ Ïελήνη (7) καὶ καÏÎ±ÎºÏ ÏιεÏÏει á¼Ïὸ θαλάÏÏÎ·Ï á¼ÏÏ Î¸Î±Î»Î¬ÏÏÎ·Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á¼Ïὸ ÏοÏαμοῦ á¼ÏÏ ÏεÏάÏÏν Ïá¿Ï Î¿á¼°ÎºÎ¿Ï Î¼ÎÎ½Î·Ï (8) á¼Î½ÏÏιον αá½Ïοῦ ÏÏοÏεÏοῦνÏαι αἰθίοÏÎµÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ οἱ á¼ÏθÏοὶ αá½Ïοῦ Ïοῦν Î»ÎµÎ¯Î¾Î¿Ï Ïιν (9) βαÏιλεá¿Ï θαÏÏÎ¹Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ αἱ νá¿Ïοι δῶÏα ÏÏοÏοίÏÎ¿Ï Ïιν βαÏιλεá¿Ï á¼ÏάβÏν καὶ Ïαβα δῶÏα ÏÏοÏÎ¬Î¾Î¿Ï Ïιν (10) καὶ ÏÏοÏÎºÏ Î½Î®ÏÎ¿Ï Ïιν αá½Ïá¿· ÏάνÏÎµÏ Î¿á¼± βαÏιλεá¿Ï ÏάνÏα Ïá½° á¼Î¸Î½Î·,â accessible at http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=72&t=LXX [accessed on 25/10/2024].
End of 156 b in R
R: âgerdenleriniâ
Although the author implies that he is referring to Matthew 3:11, in line 13 he is actually citing John 1:15: âá½ á½ÏίÏÏ Î¼Î¿Ï á¼ÏÏÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï á¼Î¼ÏÏοÏθÎν Î¼Î¿Ï Î³Îγονεν, á½ Ïι ÏÏῶÏÏÏ Î¼Î¿Ï á¼¦Î½â (accessible at: http://biblos.com/john/1-15.htm [accessed on 25/10/2024]). However, in line 14 he switches to Luke 3:16: âοὠοá½Îº εἰμὶ á¼±ÎºÎ±Î½á½¸Ï Î»á¿¦Ïαι Ïὸν ἱμάνÏα Ïῶν á½ÏοδημάÏÏν αá½Ïοῦâ (accessible at: http://biblos.com/luke/3-16.htm [accessed on 25/10/2024].) but replaces Lukeâs âἱκανὸÏâ (fit) with âá¼Î¾Î¹Î¿Ïâ (worthy) from the parallel places in John 1:27 or Acts 13:25. I am grateful to Professor István Ormos for helping me resolve the confusion over the authorâs mixed citations.
End of 229 a in V.
End of 157 a in R.
R: idüp; V: âolunupâ
Qurâan 12:51
V, R: âküfrlerindeâ
R: âinkÄrâ
Here only A has âbaâd za (zilkade?)â
V: âsuret-nümÄâ
End of 49 b in G; end of 157 b in R
V: âzünÄr-i küfr güsisteâ
R: âsened-i ittihÄz;â end of 229 b in V
R: âzavÄhirâ
V: âzÄhir-i nusÅ«s ile mukerrem olupâ
End of 158 a in R
V: âidüpâ
V: âbeste-i dem görülmegeâ
V has added: âIslÄmâumuz rehn-i vakt olmaÄ¡la;â end of 50 a in G
End of 158 b in R
V and G: âpneymatikosâ
End of 50 b in G
The section from âciÄersuzâ to âçeküpâ is missing in V. G skips to âve hÄne-gedÄzâ¦â
âBir zamanâ is only in A.
End of 230 a in V
R: âtaârÄ«z-iâ
R: âtahmÄ«lineâ
V: âÄyÄ«n-i pederÄnâ
R: âegerâ
R: âsÅ«verâ
End of 159 a in R
V: âtezvirâdenâ
This is based on R; A gives a metrically incorrect first hemistich: âder ateÅ¡ mande-Ä« v-Ä«n hest hoÅ¡ yÄrÄ«yem deh.â Cf. V: âder ateÅ¡ mande-Ä« v-Ä«n hest nÄ-hveÅ¡â
V: âmüsülmÄn Å¡od müsellem kerd ÄteÅ¡â
R: âki bÄ«nend Ä«nâ
This is based on R; A has only âhitÄbâ
R: âAhmed hÄniâ
V, R: âtahrÄ«kineâ
V: âiÅtifÄm itdümâ
End of 230 b in V: âtemmetüâl-kitÄb bi âavn allÄh al-melik al-vehhÄb sene selÄse ve âiÅrÄ«n,â which most likely refers to 1123/ 1711-12). End of 51 a in G is not dated. End of 159 b in R: âHarrartuh biâl-ibrÄm fÄ« Åehri as-sıyÄm min ÅuhÅ«r sene erbaâ ve salÄsÄ«n ve elf min al-hicretüâl-nebeviyye âaleyhu efzÄl at-tahiyye v enaâl-fakÄ«r MahmÅ«d bin Hasan al-kÄdÄ« müâellifuh.â
Since A here has the word batak meaning âfalse,â this phrase could also mean âfalse philosophers.â
Equivalent of âhÄtır-ı rabbÄnÄ«â (âA thought inspired by Godâ).
Exodus 15:1. I thank Prof. Robert Dankoff for identifying this verse.
Genesis 49:10
This idea of the falcon as image of the prophet comes out of Rumiâs MathnawÄ«. On this issue see John Renard, All the Kingâs FalconsâRumi on Prophets and Revelation (New York, State University of New York Press, 1994). I thank Gottfried Hagen for this reference.
Reynold A. Nicholson (ed./ trans.), The Mathnawà of JaláluâddÃn Rúmà (London, Trustees of the âE. J. W. Gibb memorialâ, 1925-1940), vol. II, v. 2860. I thank Ferenc Csirkés for this reference.
Acts 3:22-23. What the author has in mind when he says that he is citing from the Torah is likely the analogous passage from Deuteronomy 18: 18-19: âI will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.â
(accessible at: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+18&version=KJV [accessed on 25/10/2024]).
Psalms 72: 6-10.
This quotation is actually a mix of John 1:15 and Luke 3:16, rather than of a verse from Matthew (3:11). I am grateful to Professor István Ormos for helping me resolve the confusion over the authorâs mixed citations.
Qurâan 12:51 (The Meaning of the Glorious Qurâân, Mohammad M. Pickthall, Hyderabad-Deccan, Government Central Press, 1938, accessible at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/012.htm [accessed on 25/10/2024]).
ǦÄmÄ«, YÅ«suf va ZalīḫÄ, in MaṯnavÄ«-yi Haft awrang (Tehran, KitÄbfurÅ«Å¡Ä«-yi SaâdÄ«, 1337 [1958]), 636. These are the first two lines of the part where Josephâs brothers are debating how to distance him from his father. I thank Ferenc Csirkés for identifying this verse and translating it into English.
HilÄlÄ« ChaÄ¡atÄyÄ«, Å Äh u DarvÄ«Å¡. Cf. Edward G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1959), 4: 234-5. I thank Ferenc Csirkés for identifying the provenance of this verse.
NiáºÄmÄ« GanǧavÄ«, Ḫusraw va Å Ä«rÄ«n, ed. BihrÅ«z SarvatiyÄn (Tehran, Muâassasa-yi IntiÅ¡ÄrÄt-i AmÄ«r KabÄ«r, 1386 [2007/8]), 497, line 32. This quotation is taken from part 97, which is the Prophetâs letter to Khusraw. I thank Ferenc Csirkés for identifying this verse and translating it into English.