Majd Al-Dīn Al-Fīrūzābādī (1329–1415) Islamic History and Civilization Studies and Texts

Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī (1329–1415) Islamic History and Civilization studies and texts

Editorial Board

Hinrich Biesterfeldt Sebastian Günther Wadad Kadi

volume 121

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ihc Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī (1329–1415)

A Polymath on the Eve of the Early Modern Period

Vivian Strotmann

leiden | boston Cover illustration: Manuscript signature: Ms. Or fol. 913, f. 1r. STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung.

Zugl.: Bochum, Univ., Diss., 2013.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Strotmann, Vivian. Majd al-Din al-Firuzabadi (1329-1415) : a polymath on the eve of the early modern period / by Vivian Strotmann. pages cm. – (Islamic history and civilization ; v. 121) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-30539-7 (hardback : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-90-04-30540-3 (e-book) 1. Firuzabadi, Muhammad ibn Ya'qub, 1329-1414 or 1415. 2. Muslim scholars–Biography. 3. Firuzabadi, Muhammad ibn Ya'qub, 1329-1414 or 1415. Qamus al-muhit 4. Lexicographers–Islamic Empire–Biography. I. Title.

BP80.F58S76 2016 297.2092–dc23 2015030750

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 0929-2403 isbn 978-90-04-30539-7 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-30540-3 (e-book)

Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents

Acknowledgements vii Table of Transliteration viii Abbreviations ix List of Illustrations x

1 Introduction 1

2 Reports on a Scholar’s Life—Approaching the Sources 4

3 A Life’s Journey 10 3.1 Childhood and Youth (729/1329–745/1344): Kārizīn and Shīrāz 10 3.2 Travel and Teaching (745/1344–750/1350): From Wāsiṭ to Baghdad 19 3.3 Coming of Age (750/1350–759/1357(8)): The Damascene Decade 30 3.4 Further Travels and The Qāmūs (760/1358(9)–794/1392): Based in Mecca 44 3.4.1 The Celebrated Qāmūs 66 3.4.2 Dating and Versions of the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ 72 3.4.3 Editorial Decisions 79 3.4.4 The Floods vs. the Crown of Language 82 3.5 En Route to Yemen (794/1392–796/1393(4)): Baghdad, Shīrāz, Hurmuz 88 3.6 Years of Allegiance (796/1393(4)–817/1415): Between Yemen and Mecca 100 3.6.1 Educational Power: Two madāris 124 3.6.2 Political Involvement: Declaring a khalīfa 129 3.6.3 Religious Dispute: Defending Ibn al-ʿArabī 143

4 A lughawī and More 166 4.1 Matters of Reputation 166 4.2 Oeuvre 171 4.2.1 Accepted Works 171 4.2.2 Disputed and Doubtful Ascriptions 238 4.3 Overview of Works 244

5 A Man on the Eve of the Early Modern Period 250

6 Summary 259 vi contents

Appendix 1. A Manuscript Source: al-Nuʿmānī’s Kitāb al-rawḍ al-ʿāṭir 261 Appendix 2. Photos Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī’s tarjama of al-Fīrūzābādī, fols. 217v–219v 262 Bibliography 267 Index 290 Acknowledgements

Many people have, in their own ways and by their own means, contributed greatly to the making of this thesis. Here’s to you! My greatest thanks go to my family, who always had faith in me and supported me in whatever I did. Without you I would not be where I am now. A forming influence came from the staff of the Seminar für Orientalistik und Islamwissenschaften of Ruhr-Universität Bochum, especially from my two supervisors. Prof. Dr. Stefan Reichmuth and Prof. em. Dr. Gerhard Endress laid the foundations for my fascination with the history of sciences, especially lexicography. They taught me throughout my university career and their advice has always guided me. I would also like to extend my thanks to the many people who have supported my work on a practical level: the Faculty of Philology, whose scholarship was a great help to me; the Research School of Ruhr-Universität Bochum, who provided me with valuable skills and the company of fellow scholars; the daad, Sabri Saleem of ycmes and Muḥammad Ali Gafer who together made our 2009 study excursion to Yemen a unique experience. Practical support was also kindly provided regarding technical computer matters by Philip Halbach of Ruhr-Universtät Bochum and Prof. van Raan of Leiden University. I would also like to express my warm thanks to Christoph Kraume for his help with Wüstenfeld’s Latin. An invaluable experience was given to me by the Forum Transregionale Studien of the Freie Universität Berlin in co-operation with the American University in Cairo, whose International Winter School 2010 provided me with valuable experiences and the acquaintance of exceptionally friendly fellow researchers. I am also grateful to Elizabeth Gow of the John Rylands Library in Manchester, Elizabeth Omidvaran of the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Prof. Muzaffar Alam of Chicago University, Dr. Helga Rebhan of Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich, Prof. Claude Gilliot of Université Aix- en-Provence, Prof. Thomas Bauer of Münster University, Prof. Stefan Heineman of Hamburg University, Prof. Beatrice Manz of Harvard University, as well as Dr. Christoph Rauch and his colleagues in the manuscript department of Staats- bibliothek zu Berlin for their provision of material and advice. The same is true for Anna Kienetz and Jutta Braatz of Witten city library, who ordered a great amount of material for me from libraries all over the country. I would never want to miss my friends at university, especially Yasemin Gökpinar and the seminar’s secretaries, Angelika Wabnitz and Marianne Rüters, as well as the librarian of our seminar, Petra Jülich, who warmly welcomed me into their midst. You made the university my second home. Table of Transliteration

Letter Transliteration

ʾ ء ā ا b ب t ت th ث j ج ḥ ح kh خ d د dh ذ r ر z ز s س sh ش ṣ ص ḍ ض ṭ ط ẓ ظ ʿ ع gh غ f ف q ق k ك l ل m م n ن h ﻩ ū / w و ā ى ī / y ي a / at ة Abbreviations

Brockelmann: gal g – Brockelmann, C., Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur: Zweite den Supplementbän- den angepasste Auflage, 2 vols., Leiden 1943 and 1949.

Brockelmann: gal s – Brockelmann, C., Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur: Erster Supplementband, Lei- den 1937. – Brockelmann, C., Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur: Zweiter Supplementband, Lei- den 1938. – Brockelmann, C., Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur: Dritter Supplementband, Lei- den 1942. ei2 – The Encyclopaedia of Islam: New Edition. Multiple editors, multiple publishers, Vol. i (1960) – Vol. xi (2002), Supplement (2004) and Index (2009).

Fischer: gap – Fischer, W., Grundriß der Arabischen Philologie, iii: Supplement, Wiesbaden 1992.

Sezgin: gas – Sezgin, F., Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifttums, 15 vols., Leiden 1967–1984 and Frankfurt a. M. 1995–2010. taq. terminus ante quem tpq. terminus post quem List of Illustrations

Tables

1 Further Teachers 98 2 Further Pupils 126

Graphs

1 Stations of al-Fīrūzābādī’s Life 165 2 Works according to Subject 245 3 Works according to Consensus 247

Photos

1 al-Fīrūzābādī’s Grave in Zabīd 63 2 al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl’s Tomb in Taʿizz 114 3 Ismāʿīl al-Jabartī’s Tomb in Zabīd 144 4 The al-ʿAshāʾir Mosque in Zabīd 162 5–9 Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī’s tarjama of al-Fīrūzābādī (manuscript signature: “Wetzstein 289, fols. 217v–219v”, property of STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung. Reproduced with permission from Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin) 262 chapter 1 Introduction

Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī’s name can be found in a wide range of writings connected to Arabic lexicography, especially through his epithet ‘Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs’ (‘author of the Qāmūs’). These frequent references, as well as a number of entries in Arabic tarājim (biographies)1 and European encyclopedias, convey an impression of clarity and familiarity regarding him as both a man and a scholar. While this impression is not entirely false, it is nonetheless mislead- ing in its absoluteness. Sources on al-Fīrūzābādī provide information on his name, the central stages of his travels, the names of his acquaintances, and the constituents of his oeuvre. However, one central issue has remained largely ignored, one that has far-reaching implications for the picture of al-Fīrūzābādī’s vita, works, position and impetus: the information provided by the sources is far from uniform. An extract of undisputed findings derived from these sources therefore only amounts to the following:

He was al-Fīrūzābādī, Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs, born near Shīrāz. He excelled in a number of sciences and his skills multiplied until his virtues were apparent and the number of people who learned from him grew. He entered many countries and learned from their scholars. He authored many writings and won the grace of many rulers. He won the office of qāḍī and died around his 90th year. source: own synopsis

As things stand, what is currently available to scholarship is a grid of dates and names. An examination of the sources reveals that the data and figures mentioned are not only fragmentary, but are also given with no further indication of their significance or potential. To elucidate these factors, an interpretation of established facts, as well as of new findings, must be undertaken with regard to their interdependence and their role in al-Fīrūzābādī’s life. The corpus of available texts contains numerous lapses and contradictions that have not yet been addressed in detail. Consequently, the range of in-depth examinations of al-Fīrūzābādī and his scholarship has remained comparatively limited. Some of his works have been published—some of them falsely ascribed to him—

1 See Eickelman, Tardjama 1 for details of this genre.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004305403_002 2 chapter 1 and his magnum opus, the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, has been extensively examined and commented on over the past 500 years. Debate of this work continues to the present day and its prominence overshadows all other works written by the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs. It is important, however, to bear in mind that the Qāmūs was only one—extensive, but still only one—among many other works written by al-Fīrūzābādī. These other works are often only touched upon in passing in the available sources. Biographies of the scholar list their titles, at times adding indications of their field of expertise or the issue of dedication but many of al- Fīrūzābādī’s writings remain unstudied and undated—preventing a conclusive grasp of his personal, intellectual and (religio-)political position and importance. Consequently, the current status quo of research on al-Fīrūzābādī is a century-long discourse on his Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ (The Encompassing Ocean), mainly regarding its treatment of al-Jawharī’s lexicon, the Tāj al-lugha wa-ṣiḥāḥ al- ʿarabiyya, alongside editions of some of his (supposed) works, besides an extensive but very heterogonous biographical tradition in Arabic and different Euro- pean languages, which has not been studied in depth at all. The overall picture of the man and scholar al-Fīrūzābādī is therefore very detailed in certain respects, but lacks preliminary research to support, extend and balance it. The following study makes its departure from this point. Based on a detailed analysis of the biographical sources, al-Fīrūzābādī’s life will be reconstructed. The numerous vagaries of the different reports will be identified, addressed and balanced to create a chronology of his travels and the different stages of his life. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s education and scholarly career will be traced from his childhood and youth in Kārizīn and Shīrāz, through his first major travels and his first pupils in Wāsiṭ and Baghdad, his coming of age as a scholar in Jerusalem and Damascus, to his prolonged stay in the balad al-ḥaramayn, and finally to his lasting allegiance and outspoken religious-political activity at the Rasūlid court during the final two decades of his life. Building on this chronology, the corpus of al-Fīrūzābādī’s works will be examined. This will include a discussion of contents, descriptions of unexam- ined manuscripts, the clarification of misapprehensions pertaining to separately listed works, a critical appraisal of ascription of works to the author, as well as the dating of al-Fīrūzābādī’s writings and the identification of underlying strata of his oeuvre. These findings will be used to address indications of al-Fīrūzābādī’s role as both a mirror to and a participant in developments on the eve of the Early Modern Period. The following examinations cannot, and will not, attempt to answer all questions raised. Given the lack of preliminary research on al-Fīrūzābādī and the introduction 3 magnitude of the works which need to be considered for an adequate treatment of the respective issues, each of these questions could well require a book of its own. Rather, the aim of the current thesis is to analyze the available biographical sources in order to offer a body of reliable—or in case of disputable facts, clearly argued—biographical and oeuvre-related reconstructions and to use this data to highlight these very questions, which have largely remained unnoticed and uncommented. It will thereby offer a point of departure for future research on al-Fīrūzābādī. chapter 2 Reports on a Scholar’s Life—Approaching the Sources

The renown enjoyed by the author of the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ (The Encompassing Ocean) is at odds with the fact that to date little comprehensive description of his life and works has been undertaken. As highlighted in chapter 1, this fact is masked by the vast corpus of works concerned with his lexicon. This discrepancy between the frequent—nominal and more extensive—recourses to The Encompassing Ocean and the comparatively little-heeded subject of its creator is noteworthy. This also carries considerable critical potential: investigators’ preoccupation with the Qāmūs has further marginalized al-Fīrūzābādī’s diverse oeuvre and the perspectives opened by biographical research, thereby preventing the potential of this subject from being exploited to the full. Although this preoccupation does not negate findings on the Qāmūs in themselves, it nonetheless leaves some alleys of inquiry, that may serve to qualify or complement existing conclusions, unexplored. To help widen the perspective, the following chapters will sketch Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī’s life. Biographical information on the scholar can be found in a number of sources, both medieval and modern. These include editions of his own works, monographs or articles commenting on these works (the overwhelming majority of which are concerned with the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ), works on lexicography (mainly addressing the Qāmūs, with occasional biographical remarks), (comparatively rare) entries in chronicles, autobiographical statements by the author (even rarer), and biographical descriptions. The present study is the first detailed examination of the preserved biographical sources, and consequently these texts are the focus of attention. Other sources are considered as well, as far as space and accessibility will allow.1

1 Aside from the sources utilized here, there are a number of texts that are said to contain reference to al-Fīrūzābādī. Some of them were not accessible. Among these are al-ʿAṭīfī, Rayy al-ṣādī fī tarjamat al-Fīrūzābādī; al-Sakhāwī, Wajīz al-kalām fi-l-dhayl ʿala duwal al-Islām; al-Idrīsī, Muʿjam al-maṭbūʿāt al-ʿarabīya wa-l-muʿarraba; al-Hurīnī, Sharḥ dībājat al-Qāmūs; Mohammed, Oomeri K., “Majdudeen al Fairuzabadi: An Analytical and Critical Study of His Lexicon ‘al Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ’ in the light of Classical Linguistics and Modern Lexicography” (unpublished PhD thesis, Faculty of Humanities & Languages, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi-110025).

The most important biographies on al-Fīrūzābādī can approximately be grouped chronologically:2

Contemporary al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī (755/1373–832/1429):3 Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 276–278. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (773/1372–852/1449):4 Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 159–163. Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī (779/1377–851/1448):5 Ṭabaqāt al- Shāfiʿiyya iii, 63–66. al-Khazrajī (d. 812/1410):6 al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya, multiple references.

9th / 15th century Ibn Taghrībirdī (likely 812/1409–1410 – 5 Dhū l-Ḥijja 874/5 June 1470):7 al-Dalīl al-shāfī ii, 713. al-Nujūm al-zāhira xiv, 132–134. al-Ahdal al-Yamanī (d. 855/1452): Tuḥfat al-zaman, 327–328.

9th–10th / 15–16th centuries al-Sakhāwī (Rabīʿ i 830/January 1427 – Shaʿbān 902/April 1497):8 al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 79–86. al-Suyūṭī (1 Rajab 849/3 October 1445–1419 Jumādā i 911/18 October 1505):9 Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 273–275. al-Dāwūdī (d. 945/1538–1539): Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 274–279. Abū Makhrama (b. 870/1465–947/1540):10 Kitāb tārīkh thaghr ʿAdan, several references.

2 Those authors whose date of birth or death are unknown will be given after those years of birth or death that chronologically precedes theirs. Modern sources are given according to date of publication, where available. Al-Khazrajī is excluded from this rule, as he probably knew al-Fīrūzābādī, as both lived at the Rasūlid court. He is therefore grouped with the contemporary sources. 3 On him see, for example, his extensive autobiography in his al-ʿIqd al-thamīn i, 330–362. 4 On him see Rosenthal, Ibn Ḥadjar al-ʿAsqalānī. 5 For details refer to Schacht, Ibn Ḳāḍī Shuhba. 6 On him see Bosworth, al-Khazradjī. 7 Refer to Popper, Abu ʿl-Maḥāsin for details. 8 On him see Petry, al-Sakhāwī. 9 On al-Suyūṭī see Geoffroy, al-Suyūṭī. 10 See entry 2 in Löfgren, Makhrama. 6 chapter 2

10th / 15th–16th centuries Ṭashköprüzādeh (14 Rabīʿ i 901/2 December 1495–968/1561):11 al-Shaqāʾiq al-nuʿmāniyya, 29–31. Miftāḥ al-saʿāda i, 103–106.

10th–11th /15th–16th centuries al-Miknāsī (960/1553–d. 1025/1616–1617):12 Durrat al-ḥijāl, 289–290. al-Nuʿmānī (b. 946/1539–1540, 947/1540–1541, or 948/1541–1542, d. 28 January 1592 or in the year 1539(40)–1590(1)):13 al-Kitāb al-rawḍ al-ʿāṭir (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung [Wetzstein 289, ff. 217v–219v]). al-Maqqarī al-Tilimsānī (c. 986/1577—Jumādā ii 1041/January 1632):14 Nafḥ al-ṭīb ii, 387–390.

11th–12th/ 17th–18th centuries Ḥājjī Khalīfa (1017/1609–1067/1657):15 Kashf al-ẓunūn, multiple references, especially ii, 1306–1310. Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī (1032/1623–1089/1679):16 Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 126–130.

12th–13th / 18th–19th century al-Zabīdī (1144–1145/1732 – 1205–1206/1791):17 Tāj al-ʿarūs i, 41–46. al-Zanūzī (1172/1758–1759 – 1218/1803–1804): Riyāḍ al-janna iv, 144–152. al-Shawkānī (c. 1173/1760–1255/1839):18 al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 280–284. Wüstenfeld (publ. 1882):19 Die Geschichtschreiber der Araber und ihre Werke, 202–203.

19th–20th century al-ʿAẓm (1290/1873—Jumādā ii 1353/15 October 1933):20 ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 301–306.

11 Refer to Flemming, Ṭashköprüzāde. 2. 12 See Brockelmann, gal sii, 678ff. 13 Refer to Güneş, Das Kitāb ar-rauḍ al-ʿāṭir, 2–3. See also appendix. 14 See on this scholar Lévi-Provençal/Pellat, al-Maḳḳarī. 15 Refer to Şaik Gökyay, Kātib Čelebi. 16 For information on this scholar refer to Rosenthal, Ibn al-ʿImād. 17 For the latest biography on Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī see Reichmuth: The World. 18 Refer to Jansen, al-Shawkānī for information. 19 31 July, 1808–8 February, 1899. Refer to Behn, Concise Biographical Compendium iii, 674. 20 Refer to Brockelmann, gal siii, 427–428. reports on a scholar’s life—approaching the sources 7

20th–21st century Huart (publ. 1903):21 History of Arabic Literature, 388. Redhouse (ed.) (publ. 1908):22 The Pearl-Strings iii, 212, n. 1557. al-Baghdādī (fl. 1339/1920): Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 180–181. Brockelmann (publ. 1927): al-Fīrūzābādī,119–120. al-Qummī (1293–1294/1877 – 1359/1940):23 al-Kunnā wa-l-alqāb iii, 37–39. Brockelmann (publ. 1949): gal gii, 181/231-?/344[sic] (flawed pagination) Ziriklī (publ. 1970, first edition begun 1927):24 al-Aʿlām viii, 19. Kaḥḥāla (foreword concluded 1372/1905): Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn xii, 118–119. Fleisch (publ. 1965):25 al-Fīrūzābādī, 926–927. s.n. (publ. 1994, 15th edition): Fīrūzābādī, al-, 794.

These reports on al-Fīrūzābādī largely follow the established patterns of tarājim as outlined by Eickelman.26 In some instances, they go beyond the boundaries of this genre, for example through reference to his daughter’s marriage and by describing al-Fīrūzābādī’s political office and standing. In others, they fall short, most notably through limited quotations of al-Fīrūzābādī’s poetry.

The first group of texts is the basis of knowledge about the scholar’s life. For all members of this group, dates of a personal encounter with al-Fīrūzābādī can be established. Al-Khazrajī is an exception to this rule; although he does not mention a personal encounter with al-Fīrūzābādī, it is likely that both scholars would have met. They both were in the Rasūlid sulṭān’s favour and members of his court, al-Fīrūzābādī as one of al-Ashraf’s quḍāt and al-Khazrajī as the sultan’s chronologist.27 These texts are the least repetitive and provide information based mostly on personal experiences, or on testimony by individuals whose names were suppressed in later transmissions. Later sources drew on these initial texts, sometimes on several preceding sources. The reports by al-Fāsī, Ibn Ḥajar, and al-Sakhāwī here seem to be the

21 16 February, 1854–30 December, 1926. See Behn, Concise Biographical Companion ii, 121. 22 30 December, 1811–4 January, 1892. See Behn, Concise Biographical Companion iii, 195. 23 According to index refer to Brockelmann, gal si, 629, but there is no entry. 24 Refer to Brockelmann: gal siii, 235 and 357. 25 See Behn, Concise Biographical Companion i, 537. 26 See Eickelman, Tardjama 1. A useful source for research in and identification of biographical works is provided by Auchterlonie, Arabic Biographical Dictionaries. 27 On him see Bosworth, al-Khazradjī. 8 chapter 2 most popular ones. Nonetheless, it would be incorrect to say that they simply compiled information from different sources into growing bodies of texts; first of all, the length of biographies varies, while, secondly, there is a notable increase of the level of detail in some biographies that cannot be accounted for in terms of their sources. This concerns information on important aspects, such as al-Fīrūzābādī’s patrons. Furthermore, there are some texts that contain information not provided by others due to their genre, such as al-Khazrajī’s information regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s political activities in Yemen. Additionally, there are groups of texts that share unique information, most notably mentions of Baʿlabakk, Hama and Aleppo by al-Sakhāwī and al-Shawkānī,28 or references to Bursa in only two texts.29 Thirdly, the choice of sources by subsequent biographers was selective. Where sufficient detail is provided, statements are diverse or even conflicting. Different authors interpreted the information they received differently or partially adopted information from different sources to form a new report. This leads to varying traditions, which is most clearly seen in the context of questions regarding the route and time of al-Fīrūzābādī’s journey to Yemen. For this question, al-Nuʿmānī’s entry on al-Fīrūzābādī (see appendix) is particularly important. Read independently, the sources paint varying images of al-Fīrūzābādī’s vita. Since none of these descriptions yields a detailed account of his entire life, it is necessary to collate and verify the different accounts in order to generate a comprehensive chronology. This need to disentangle conflicting reports touches upon the core concern of the present study and simultaneously reveals its limits: biographical literature cannot be taken as historically accurate source material at face value. As these sources are the only materials available, they constitute the foundation of all biographical study. Through this necessary reliance, there is little chance to validate certain claims made in the literature. In this study, therefore, statements made by only one source that complement the other reports are accepted whenever there is no information to contradict it. The accounts contained in these biographies are complemented by and checked against details found in other texts.

28 See al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 80, and al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 280. 29 Mentioned in al-Zanūzī: Riyāḍal-janna iv/iv,135 and in al-Zabīdī’s tarjama of al-Fīrūzābādī in the Tāj al-ʿarūs. reports on a scholar’s life—approaching the sources 9

This both creates an image of al-Fīrūzābādī as it has gone down in posterity and reveals neglected aspects. Particularly important are:

– The date of his encounter with Ibn Hishām, whose Mughnī l-labīb was one of the main sources for the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ. – al-Fīrūzābādī’s education, scholarly position and writing. – His travels to Damascus, which are dated differently in the different biographies, and the related debate over his possible encounter with Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya. – The differing levels of importance placed on Jerusalem and al-Shām as focal points in al-Fīrūzābādī’s life. – His contact with members of the Ḥanbalī madhhab. – al-Fīrūzābādī’s education and teaching of Sufi material, and his appreciation of Ibn al-ʿArabī. – Details regarding the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ that can be established based on a reconstructed biography. – The significance of India and al-Ṣaghānī for al-Fīrūzābādī – Challenges of transmission regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s move to Yemen – His position as head of his own two madāris – His participation in political and intellectual struggles in Yemen, including his support for the Rasūlids and for Ibn al-ʿArabī.

Al-Fīrūzābādī’s life and oeuvre will be presented and discussed both to establish a basis of knowledge and to highlight lacunae that could constitute the basis for future studies. chapter 3 A Life’s Journey

Information regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s vita is heterogeneous. This diversification, however, does not apply to all phases of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life equally. Uncer- tainty regarding the dating and chronology of his travels starts after al-Fīrūzā- bādī’s stay in ʿIrāq and then lessens after he settled in Zabīd. John Haywood therefore very accurately summarized the matter as such: “His subsequent travels, though consistently reported in their broad outline by the various biographers, are complicated and confused in detail.”1 These accounts will be examined to generate the first detailed reconstruction of al-Fīrūzābādī’s travels. Henri Fleisch differentiates three major phases in al-Fīrūzābādī’s life. He divides it into time in Jerusalem, Mecca and Yemen.2 However, these analytical units can be differentiated further, as indicated in Graph 1 below. This schema also incorporates information regarding important aspects of al-Fīrūzābādī’s sojourns, as far as these are available. An analysis of this activity establishes the development of politically influential contacts between 736/1335(6) and 745/1344, al-Fīrūzābādī’s coming of age as a scholar in the early 750s/1350s, the start of the proliferation of his works through copies being made around 770/13683 (in the case of the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ possibly earlier), and the acqui- sition of political influence, as well as educational establishments, during the last two decades of his life. This development evolved as shown below.

3.1 Childhood and Youth (729/1329–745/1344): Kārizīn and Shīrāz

Born in turbulent Īlkhānid4 territory in Rabīʿ ii or Jumādā ii 729/ February or April 13295 as the son of an adīb and ʿālim,6 Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb7 is said

1 Haywood, Arabic Lexicography, 83–84. 2 See Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī. 3 As specified by Tashköprüzāde, Miftāḥ al-saʿāda i, 103. 4 On this dynasty see Ettinghausen, Īlkhānids; Spuler: Mongolen in Iran; Nagel, Die islamische Welt bis 1500. See also Morgan, Mongols. 5 For example in Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr, vii the year of his birth is given as 726/ 1326. 6 As specified in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Bulgha, 7. 7 For more details on al-Fīrūzābādī’s full name see below.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004305403_004 a life’s journey 11 to have gained considerable scholarly achievements while growing up in the town of his birth. The majority of biographers, probably following the contemporary (but nonetheless erroneous) reports by al-Fīrūzābādī’s pupils, identify this town as Kāzarūn.8 This is contradicted by the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs, who states instead that he was born in Kārizīn: “wa-Kārizīn bi-Fāris […] wa-bihī wulidtu”.9 Mention of Kāzarūn instead of Kārizīn was probably caused by the fact that both cities lie near Shīrāz and have similar names.10 Kāzarūn, however, is situated “between the sea and Shīrāz” [bayn al-baḥr wa-Shīrāz], as Yaqūt specifies,11 i.e. west of Shīrāz, while Kārizīn lies in the proximity of the former capital of Fars, Iṣṭakhr,12 placing it roughly a day’s journey north of Shīrāz.13 This basic piece of information highlights the scope of uncertainties and questions hid- den between the lines of reports on al-Fīrūzābādī. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s excellent memory made him a ḥāfiẓ while he was still in the town of his birth, meaning before the year 736/1335(6). This memory enabled him to learn by heart one or two unspecified book(s) of lugha14 and formed the basis for his later scholarly career, as al-Najjār notes: “He was quick to learn by heart and this remained so throughout his life.”15 Although there is no information regarding the teachers under whose supervision this earliest education was conducted, it is likely that it was al-Fīrūzābādī’s father who taught him.16 The latter is only explicitly mentioned as his teacher after al-Fīrūzābādī’s relocation to the local centre of learning, Shīrāz, in 736/1335(6).17 This centre of

8 Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii and Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii. Within the European tradition there is a similar split that likely is dependent on biographers’ reliance on different sources. Thus, Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī and Brockelmann, gal sii, 234 write Kāzarūn, while Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 202 renders the correct form of the word, probably taken from Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya iii, 63. 9 ‘Kārizīn is in the Persian lands … and there I was born’. See “karaza” in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ ii, 213 (edition al-Sayyid). 10 Discussed in Ḥasan, Muʾallafāt rāʾida, 38. 11 Yaqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān iv, 225. 12 Yaqut, Muʿjam al-buldān iv, 224. 13 Cf. Streck/Miles, Iṣṭakhr. For descriptions of Kārizīn and Kāzarūn cf. also Abū l-Fidāʾ, Taqwīm al-buldān, 376 and 381, respectively. 14 The former is stated by al-Shawkānī, al-Badral-ṭāliʿ ii, 280, the latter by al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 79. 15 al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 2. 16 This view is also taken in Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 202. 17 This can be surmised from the fact that he left his hometown in his eighth year, as stated for instance by al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāli ii, 280. Calculation of Islamic dates follows Spuler, Vergleichungstabellen. As many hijrī dates lack indication of months, years of the Common Era are given approximately. 12 chapter 3 poetical and religious education came under the rule of different dynasties during al-Fīrūzābādī’s lifetime. As far as the young scholar is concerned, however, the sources do not give any indication that al-Fīrūzābādī would have in any way been affected by these historical developments when he first came to the city. A general tendency to silence on any involvement in the struggles of his time is already apparent in Shīrāz. Thus, there is no hint in the sources of the fact that, even during the few years which the young man spent in the city, it was governed by no less than three rulers: Masʿūd, son of Muḥammad Shāh Inja, gave the city up to Pīr Ḥusayn in 740/1339, who in turn was evicted by Malik Ashraf, his nephew in 742/1341.18 These upheavals, however, do not seem to have impeded al-Fīrūzābādī’s education. In Shīrāz, al-Fīrūzābādī studied lugha and adab19 with his father. Further- more, by this time al-Fīrūzābādī also posessed manuscripts; he studied and possessed a copy of al-Sarakhsī’s Muḥīṭ.20 Soon after, he began to supplement his education in other scholarly disciplines, as

he was not contend with what was conveyed to him by his father and hurried to learn from others than him among the best-known ʿulamāʾ in Shīrāz, as ʿAbd Allāh b. Maḥmūd b. al-Najm (684/1285(6)–773/1371(2))21 and al-Shams b. ʿAbd Allāh Maḥmūd b. Yūsuf al-Anṣārī al-Zarandī al- Madanī [d. 750/1349–1350]. kishlī fawwāz, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ li-l-Fīrūzābādī, 16

Al-Madanī may have been al-Fīrūzābādī’s first contact with Sufi material.22 While it remains unclear what subject matter was conveyed to him by Ibn al- Najm, al-Fīrūzābādī studied al-Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ and ‘al-Tirmidhī’s work’ with al-Madanī, although the sources do not specify whether this name refers to the Mystic or to the muḥaddith.23 It is likely that the latter is meant, since al- Fīrūzābādī’s education in Shīrāz is frequently connected to the study of the six Canonical Books. Furthermore, al-Fīrūzābādī also studied with Muḥam- mad b. Ismāʾīl b. Ibrāḥīm b. Sālim “Ibn al-Khabbāz” (669/1270(1) – 756/1355) in

18 For information in the city see Lambton, Shīrāz. 19 On these disciplines see Gabrieli, Adab, and Hadj-Salah, Lugha. 20 See al-Fīrūzābādī’s autobiographical statement from the Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya as rendered in al-Laknawī al-Hindī, al-Fawāʾid al-bahiyya, 311. On the Ḥanafī jurist see Calder, Sarakhsī. 21 On him see al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 296. 22 On this scholar see, for example, Brockelmann, gal gii, 208/267. 23 On this scholar see Marquet, al-Tirmidhī and Juynboll, al-Tirmidhī respectively. a life’s journey 13

Shīrāz,24 who introduced him to Ibn ʿArafa’s work,25 to those of ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Muqaddasī, and to parts of the Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. With the Shāfiʿī faqīh Muḥam- mad b. Ismāʿīl b. Ḥamawī (645/1247–738/1338)26 he studied the Sunan al-kubrā of al-Bayhaqī,27 as well as al-Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ and al-Tirmidhī’s work—in this case it definitely refers to works by the muḥaddith. On a more general level, they are also said to have tutored al-Fīrūzābādī in lugha, adab, and fiqh. These teachers and their instruction made a strong impression on the young man: lessons in Shīrāz are al-Fīrūzābādī’s only known encounter with al-Mu- qaddasī’s writing. Despite the fact that lessons on these subjects were per- formed at the beginning of his career, al-Fīrūzābādī wrote a sharḥ on al-Muqad- dasī’s ʿUmdat al-aḥkām (see chapter 4.2.1.5) and introduced Ibn ʿUdīs28 to al-Muqaddasī’s work at an unknown point in time. Despite the fact that al- Muqaddasī’s work was among the first texts he studied, it also received his attention towards the end of his life, making al-Fīrūzābādī part of a longstanding tradition of commentary on this work.29 For the first 16 years of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life the sources therefore paint the well-known image of a promising and resourceful young man with a healthy thirst for knowledge. The twofold focus on both lugha and religious sciences that became dominant in al-Fīrūzābādī’s textual corpus (see chapter 4.3) is only hinted at. Rather, early familiarity with the standard works on religious matters through multiple teachers is emphasized. However, and less obviously, one of the few opportunities to glimpse the person behind the scholar’s image comes into play at this early stage, as al- Fīrūzābādī’s place of birth is suppresssed in reports on the scholar. The result is a number of uncertainties regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s descent. Throughout the corpus of biographical material there are a number of orthographical nisba

24 As specified in al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 11. See al-Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda i, 86 n. 3 and others. 25 See Idris, ʿIbn ʿArafa; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Dhayl al-durar, 114. 26 This is Ibn al-Bārizī Sharaf al-Dīn Abū l-Qāsim Hibat Allāh b. Najm al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥīm b. Qāḍī l-Quḍāt Shams al-Dīn Ibrāhīm b. Hibat Allāh b. Muslim al-Ḥamawī. He was the first of al-Fīrūzābādī’s politically involved acquaintances, as he was qāḍī of Hama. See Brockelmann, gal gii, 86/105 and al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 507. According to al-Subkī’s tarjama in his Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā x, 387–391, al-Ḥamawī died in 732/1331–1332. See Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn i, 118 and 922. 27 On the small and the great Sunan see Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1007, and Sezgin, gas i, 396f. 28 Mentioned in al-Biqāʿī, ʿUnwān al-zamān iv, 98. 29 See al-Arnāʾūṭ, Sīrat al-ʿallāma, 138. 14 chapter 3 variants, with inconsistency even within individual sources. These variations concern matters of typography and compounding, diphthongization, and alter- nating choices of dāl or zāy.30 Beyond orthographical matters, onomastic vari- ance extends through almost the entire chain. Only al-Fīrūzābādī’s laqab31 and ism are (almost) unanimously stated as Majd32 al-Dīn and Muḥammad respectively.33 However, even with regard to his kunya, there is a certain amount of deviation: where it is given, it is stated as ‘Abū l-Ṭāhir’ or ‘Abū Ṭāhir’,34 elaborated by al-Sakhāwī to “Abū Ṭāhir wa-Abū ʿAbd Allāh”.35 As there are no reports of a male heir alongside al-Fīrūzābādī’s daughter, this additional name has to be interpreted as honourific.36 Following these constituents, the scholar’s nasab37 shows that the asmāʾ of al-Fīrūzābādī’s father (Yaʿqūb) and grandfather (Muḥammad) were acceptable to all biographers. Beyond his grandfather, differences regarding temporally further removed relations increase drastically. Quite the opposite to “avoid[ing] confusion”38 is achieved. Although he mentions his place of birth in the Qāmūs,39 there is evidence that al-Fīrūzābādī tried (and failed) to place himself in the lineage of two prestigious figures, namely Isḥāq al-Fīrūzābādī (d. 476/1083–4) and Abū Bakr al- Ṣiddīq.40 Their nasab won prevalence in transmission, although the matter of

30 For the different orthographical variants refer to Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn; al-Kattānī, Fihrist al-fahāris; al-Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr; al-Qummī, al-Kunā wa-l-alqāb, al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr. 31 See Bosworth, laḳab. 32 Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs i, 1 has “Muḥyī” instead of “Majd”. 33 The frequency of this combination of laqab and nisba is not surprising. C.f. Endreß, Der Islam, 179. 34 Rippin, Tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās, 40 has “Abū ʾl-Qāhir”. 35 Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 79. From which source he derived this information remains unclear. The fact that this choice of kunya remained a unicum is remarkable, since he is among the most frequently cited authorities in biographies of al-Fīrūzābādī. 36 For possible reasons refer to Wensinck, kunya, 396. 37 For the role of this onomastic element see Rosenthal, nasab. 38 Ed., Ism, 179. 39 Cf. entry “al-faraza” in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ ii, 184. Under the relevant entry, the city is given as “Fayrūzābāz”—a spelling that could arguably also be applied to his nisba, but has not won prevalence in tradition. 40 For these men see Chaumont, al-Shīrāzī, and Watt, Abū Bakr. Al-Fīrūzābādī was certainly not the only one to make such claims (see, for example, ed., al-Ṣiddīḳī). Al-Shāfiʿī is also mentioned in Ibn ʿAlī, Ghāyat al-amānī i, 79–80. From him al-Fīrūzābādī acquired his nisba, as Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Dhayl al-durar, 238 and al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 273, state. a life’s journey 15 the scholar’s name was not undisputed. Some tarājim include the relevant elements in their naming chain, thus implicitly endorsing al-Fīrūzābādī’s choice of relatives, among them al-Dāwūdī and scholars as influential as Murtaḍā al- Zabīdī.41 A more skeptical attitude is assumed by similarly renowned chroni- clers such as Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, who reports that al-Fīrūzābādī

traced his descent to the shaykh Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, author of the Tanbīh […] our shaykhs deny this by consenting that Abū Isḥāq had no children. Then Majd al-Dīn was elevated on his way and claimed—after having been qāḍī of Yemen for a long time—that he stemmed from Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq. And he added—I saw it in his own hand—[…] in part of his books [the name] Muḥammad al-Ṣiddīqī. ibn ḥajar al-ʿasqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 159

The above words are telling in a number of respects: the wording implies that al-Fīrūzābādī felt free to claim al-Shīrāzī’s name from an early stage, but that he required a certain reputation and position of power before he felt prepared to align himself directly with al-Ṣiddīqī.42 However, they also prove that not even this standing lent sufficient conclusiveness to his claim. In this context, al-ʿAsqalānī’s emphasis on being an eye-witness is noteworthy, as it precludes ascription of the claim by third parties. These vagaries in al-Fīrūzābādī’s nasab are significant since knowledge of al-Fīrūzābādī’s historical blood ties has fallen into oblivion.43 Somewhat ironically, al-Fīrūzābādī showed a pronounced interest in sound genealogy. Among his works in the field of ʿilm al-rijāl,44 there is the Tuḥfat al-abīh fī-man nusiba ilā ghayr abīh that is concerned exclusively with such matters:

Title: Tuḥfat al-abīh fī-man nusiba ilā ghayr abīh (The present to the considerate regarding those who trace themselves to others than their father(s))

41 See al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 274 and al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿarūs i, 41. 42 See on him ed. al-Ṣiddīḳī. 43 A number of sources, among them Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 202 and al-Ṭahṭā- wī’s and ʿŪd’s edition of al-Fīrūzābādī, Fī ṣuḥbat al-ḥabīb, 7, trace his father’s birth to Fīrūzābād but do not give their sources. Notably, the city is not mentioned in the Qāmūs. 44 On this discipline see Scarcia Amoretti, ʿIlm al-ridjāl. Despite the theoretical distinctions mentioned by Scarcia Amoretti, the two disciplines of tarājim and ʿilm al-rijāl are listed together in the present work, due to their shared biographical focus. 16 chapter 3

Title variants: No title variants

Work attested in: Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/334 ([sic.!] flawed pagination, should be ?/234]) and by Ghā- nim, the editor of al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 16 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/334 ([sic.!, flawed pagination] reference given “Alger 246, 10”); Brockelmann, gal sii, 235 (reference given: “Kairo2 iii, 115, v, 125”); Mss in Alexan- dria (Maktabat Jāmi’at al-Iskandariyya, no. 355/Gaʿfar Walī); Cairo (Dār al-Kutub al- Miṣriyya, no. 38/adab shīn) and in the Maktabat al-Jazāʾir (46/adab) are given by Ghānim.45

Status: Published (edition used here al-Fīrūzābādī, Tuḥfat al-abīh fī-man nusiba ilā ghayr abīh, in ʿAbd al-Salām Hārūn (ed.), Nawādir al-makhṭūṭāt, i, Bayrut, 1411/11991, 108–122. [reprint of the edition Cairo 1951, 97–110])

Contents: This work treats people who trace their descent to one person or more (as strictly speaking al-Fīrūzābādī himself did) and also includes persons who were raised as adopted children.

Remarks: His incentive for the work, al-Fīrūzābādī states, was the frequency of faulty genealogical assumptions in ḥadīth,46 placing it near the boundary of ʿilm al-rijāl. To remedy these misconceptions al-Fīrūzābādī collected 61 brief entries under individual ḥurūf. These chapters are arranged according to the Arabic alphabet, with the individual entries following the same order, sorted according to the ism of the individual person. For each person named, the precise vocalization of their names is given and their genealogy is stated, at times with explicit recourse to specific authorities. Occasionally, further information is provided, such as dates of death, age at the time of demise, grammatical affiliation, or most prominent profession. Most persons are said to have been ṣaḥāba, and many are designated as ḥuffāẓ, alongside occasional poets.

45 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 16. 46 See Hārūn, Nawādir al-makhṭūṭat, 111. a life’s journey 17

Date: Unknown.

On a personal level, this attempt to acquire other persons’ lineages provides a rare opportunity to glimpse the person behind the scholar’s image: on the whole, anecdotes relating to al-Fīrūzābādī’s personality are transmitted in almost uniform wording throughout a number of texts. Except mentions of him selling books to support his spendthrift lifestyle,47 they all serve to illustrate his exceptional mental capacity and quick responses48 within educated discourse. Furthermore, his physical fitness and high standing with notables of his time are demonstrated by stating that he enjoyed full possession of his senses even at old age and by stressing that he was received honourably wherever he went, although the sources largely remain silent on the details of these warm wel- comes. Only in connection to Tīmūr and al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl do they specify the magnitude of the gifts which al-Fīrūzābādī received; he is said to have been given several thousand darāhim by Tīmūr and by the Rasūlid sulṭān. Apart from these pieces of information, there is very little tangible evidence of close interaction with the rulers whom al-Fīrūzābādī met, or of involvement in the political or scholarly conflicts of his time. In this light, al-Fīrūzābādī’s use of al- Ṣiddīqī’s and al-Shīrāzī’s genealogical lineage becomes a demonstrative gesture and part of the image al-Fīrūzābādī wished to project. As Schimmel notes:

[…] by calling a child by the name of a saint or a hero […] parents hope to transfer some of the noble qualities […] to the child, and thus to make him participate in the patron’s greatness. To change one’s name means indeed to change one’s identity […] Names can tell much about the likes and dislikes of people […] about religious and political predilections […]. schimmel, Islamic Names, ix

The resulting nisab, ‘al-Shīrāzī’ and ‘al-Fīrūzābādī’, have misled biographers into assuming that he came from one of these cities. Al-Fīrūzābādī was born neither in Shīrāz49 nor in Fīrūzābād.50 On the contrary, through their origin in

47 As described, for example, in al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl, 290. On the implications of this charge see Arabi, The Interdiction. 48 For the importance of such skilled discussion cf. Rosenthal, The Technique, 61. 49 As claimed, for instance, by Ibn Taghrībirdī in his al-Dalīl al-shāfī ii, 713 and al-Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda ii, 129, n. 3. 50 As stated, for example, by al-Tarmānīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh al-islāmī iv, 288, who also (erro- 18 chapter 3 the lexicographer’s chosen ancestry the two names did in fact not function as geographical denominators, but instead reveal a curious situation: Kārizīn— mentioned in one of al-Fīrūzābādī’s few autobiographical statements—does not feature in his onomastic chain.51 Consequently, al-Fīrūzābādī is bereft (or rid himself) of geographical ties and is defined solely by his personal and scholarly associations. This does not only fittingly mirror his travelling life, it may also have been a conscious choice: apart from the gain in prestige which may be had from supplanting a possibly low profile pedigree with two prestigious names, al-Fīrūzābādī’s decision also holds implications for his religious and political stance. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s alignment with al-Shīrāzī firmly entrenches him in the Shā- fiʿī tradition, and this perception is mirrored by a number of biographers who state that he was a Shāfiʿī.52 Now and again, however, the Ḥanafī school makes an appearance in the sources. This fact is mentioned in passing, but there is evidence to suggest that the occasional mention of the nisba al-Ḥanafī for al- Fīrūzābādī may have been caused by a book on Ḥanafī ṭabaqāt. This issue also became relevant during al-Fīrūzābādī’s time in Yemen (see chapter 3.6.3). Regarding his claim to al-Ṣiddīqī’s name, two aspects emerge as especially relevant. First, this lineage provided al-Fīrūzābādī with a direct link to Muḥam- mad’s family. On its own, an attempt to thus augment one’s standing is not exceptional. However, it complements al-Fīrūzābādī’s pronounced concern with matters of prophecy that may be read as reflexive of the rising Propheten- frömmigkeit on the eve of the Early Modern Period. The second, politically relevant, factor in this respect is timing. In light of biographical sequence, Ibn Ḥajar’s statement needs to be critically re-evaluated. He says that al-Fīrūzābādī claimed al-Ṣiddīqī’s name after he had been “elevated on his way […] after having been qāḍī of Yemen for a long time”.53 This period of time, however, cannot have been too long. Biographical reconstruction reveals that al-Fīrūzābādī encountered Ibn Ḥajar at the turn of the century. Based on the chronological

neously) reports that it from this fact that al-Fīrūzābādī received his nisba; by Hamza, al-Ḥaraka al-fikriyya fī Miṣr, 239; by Redhouse, The Pearl-Strings iii, 212 n. 1557. 51 An exception to this rule is found in the 11th/17th-century Qāmūs ms. described in Ahl- wardt, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse vi, 256 entry 6973,4 (Mq. 520), whose copyist named the author “al-Kārazūnī [sic] al-Shīrāzī al-Fīrūzābādī al-lughawī al-Shāfiʿī thumma al-Makkī”. This copyist also apparently perceived Mecca as a more relevant place of residence than Zabīd, as is evident from his inclusion of the former city in al-Fīrūzābādī’s name and the omission of the latter. 52 Al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19. 53 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 159. a life’s journey 19 premises suggested in the present work this means a time-span of approximately half a decade. Ibn Ḥajar’s and al-Fīrūzābādī’s paths separated after this encounter. It may therefore be assumed that al-Fīrūzābādī must have been in the habit of employing the nisba ‘al-Ṣiddīqī’ at this time. The time at which al-Fīrūzābādī moved closer genealogically to Muḥammad is thus especially relevant, as he may have decided to do so when he used the Baṣāʾir and the second Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ to ascribe the title of khalīfa to his patron al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl (see chapter 3.6.2.2). Questions regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s name also draw attention to the way in which biographies served the construction of an image and the reputation of the scholar rather than being a purely de facto portrait (on this point see chapter 4.1). Furthermore, they show that al-Fīrūzābādī was aware and capable of using mechanisms of prestige to his advantage, when he assumed an active role in the religious and political conflicts of the final two decades of his life. When exactly he chose to discard his nominal connection to Kārizīn, however, is unclear. For the time being, he was on his way from Shīrāz to another centre of learning, Baghdad.

3.2 Travel and Teaching (745/1344–750/1350): From Wāsiṭ to Baghdad

In 745/1344,54 after he had concluded his studies of al-Tirmidhī’s writings55 with al-Zarandī, al-Fīrūzābādī left Shīrāz for Wāsiṭ. Judging from the tārīkh56 he authored, al-Fīrūzābādī may have visited Iṣfahān en route.57

Title: Nuzhat al-adhhān fī tārīkh Iṣbahān (Delight of the Minds regarding the history of Iṣbahān)

54 Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 79. 55 Ibid. 56 The term has different meanings. For details of tārīkh in the sense of historiography, refer to Humphreys, Taʾrīkh. a. 57 On this city see Sourdel-Thomine, Iṣfahān, and Quiring-Zoche, Iṣfahān im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert. 20 chapter 3

– Nazh al-adhhān fī tārīkh Iṣbahān (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanba- lī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – Tārīkh Iṣbahān (al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh) – Oblectamentum ingeniorum de historia Içpahânae (Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 306 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 277 – Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 95 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh iv, 288 – Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203 – al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19 mss attested in: Ahlwardt: Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse ix, 301, no. 9810.

Status: Unpublished

Contents: Historical treatment of the city Iṣfahān.

Remarks: The work is said to have consisted of one volume.58 Although no explicit mention of a stay in Iṣfahān can be found within the biographical corpus, mention of this work suggests the possibility that al-Fīrūzābādī visited the city.

Date: Unknown

58 Cf. for example al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82. a life’s journey 21

Like many other cities in Tīmūrid times, Iṣfahān suffered from often- changing rulers. Coming under Čubānid59 rule after the Ilhkānids, it passed into the hands of the Indjūnids60 in 742/1341–1342 and then to the Muẓaffarids in 758/1358. If indeed al-Fīrūzābādī visited the city in 745/1344, he could well have noticed tensions, although the city was gradually recovering from the consequences of previous the Mongol conquest. The sources do not give any hints as to al-Fīrūzābādī’s perception or reaction to these unstable political conditions. The fact that al-Fīrūzābādī wrote a work on the virtues of Iṣfahān is interesting in the context of one of the scholar’s more ambivalent facets. There is a certain ambivalence among biographers regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s affiliation to a madhhab. As mentioned earlier, while the majority count al-Fīrūzābādī as a Shāfiʿī, others say he was a Ḥanafī. And while he distances himself from the Ḥanafī stance on wine-drinking, on the other hand he wrote a ṭabaqāt61-work on Ḥanafī scholars (see item no. 46). The matter therefore remains somewhat ambivalent. It is noteworthy, therefore, that with Iṣfahān, al-Fīrūzābādī chose to write a work on a city that had experienced fierce disputes between Shāfiʿīs and Ḥanafīs.62 Detailed examination of the Nuzhat al-adhhān fī tārīkh Iṣbahān could therefore help settle the question of his attitudes. When al-Fīrūzābādī visited Wāsiṭ, the city was under Jalāʾirī rule63 and enjoyed strategic importance due to its mint.64 The teachers whom al-Fīrūzā- bādī met are mentioned in the sources, but the texts remain silent on any further details regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s stay in the city. Heribert Busse sees the Nuzhat al-adhhān fī tārīkh Iṣbahān as a “Nachklang”65 of the Persian tradition of city histories which, through use of Pahlawi literature, could convey an impression of continuity with Islamic times to demonstrate perceived close bonds between Islam and Iran.66 Regrettably, Busse does not take the opportunity to comment more closely on the work and the unpublished manuscript still awaits examination.

59 On these Mongol amīrs see Savory, Čūbānids. 60 For information on this dynasty see to Boyle, Indjū. 61 On this biographical genre see Gilliot, Ṭabaqāt. 62 According to Kamaly, “Isfahan vi. Medieval Period”, 647–648. Iṣfahān had been devasted by the Mongol invasion, but seemed to enjoy stability under the late Īlkhānids. 63 On the dynasty see Smith, Djalāyir, Djalāyirid. 64 For more details regarding this city refer to Sakly, Wāsiṭ and Darley-Doran, Wāsiṭ—4. The Mint. 65 ‘resonance’; Busse, Arabische Historiographie und Geographie, 267. 66 Busse, Arabische Historiographie und Geographie, 275ff. 22 chapter 3

The timing of this move to Wāsiṭ and Baghdad in 745/1344, as well as al- Fīrūzābādī’s first visit to Mecca when he was approaching his twentieth year,67 fall into the established pattern of ṭalab al-ʿilm.68 Besides the gain in reputation,69 another motivation for travelling was certainly the economical factor. His books were both a means and an outcome of his frequent relocations: he was known to be a keen buyer of books, but was later also reproached for selling them to support himself.70 Thereby, they provided part of the financial means which the scholar needed to sustain himself. On the other hand, part of al- Fīrūzābādī’s writings were also dedicated to—and therefore probably written for—some of his various patrons. After his arrival in Wāsiṭ al-Fīrūzābādī continued his studies, focusing on the qirāʾāt and possibly poetry with Shihāb Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Dīwānī,71 although the foundations of his little-transmitted activities in this field may also have been laid earlier. The sojourn in Wāsiṭ must have been brief, as al-Fīrūzābādī is said to have entered Baghdad in the same year.72 This would also suggest that his first named pupils, al-Ṣafadī73 (696–697/1297 – 764(5)/1363, whom he met repeatedly),74 Ibn ʿAqīl (ʿUqayl)75 (694/1294–769/1367),76 and al-Isnawī (704/1305– 772/1370–1371),77 who are reported to have studied with him in ʿIrāq,78 joined

67 A point in time for which such travels were typical, as specified by Wüstenfeld, Die Academien der Araber, 5. 68 On this concept see Ed., ʿIlm. 69 On the connection of perceived sophistication and mobility see Petry, Travel patterns, 55. 70 See, for example, al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl, 290. 71 See al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 79. 72 Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 79 and Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, 926. 73 See Brockelmann, gal gii, 31ff./39ff. and Rosenthal, al-Ṣafadī. An elaborate biography is provided by his childhood friend and later teacher of al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā x, 5–31. 74 Their paths crossed again after al-Ṣafadī had been granted the office of wakīl bayt al-māl. See Lāshīn, al-Ṣafadī, 39. See also Rosenthal, al-Ṣafadī, and Rowson, al-Ṣafadī (1297–23 July 1363). 75 As for example in Halm, Die Ausbreitung, 242. 76 For ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh Bahāʾ al-Dīn al-Hāshimī b. ʿAqīl, grammar- ian and Shāfiʿī faqīh, see Schacht, Ibn ʿAḳīl; Brockelmann, gal gii, 88/108; idem: gal sii, 104. Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn i, 467, states that he was born in 698/1298–1299. See also Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203. 77 See for example Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 183; Brockelmann, gal gii, 90f./110f. 78 Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn xi, 118. Al-Najjār places their encounter in Cairo. See al- Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 4. a life’s journey 23 him not in Wāsiṭ, but at his next place of residence, Baghdad. He there remained for at least two years, during which al-Fīrūzābādī was granted the position of repetitor by the qāḍī of Baghdad and head of the Niẓāmiyya,79 al-Sharaf ῾Abd Allāh b. Baktāsh, his first patron. The young man thus had an important supporter in the ranks of the disintegrating Īlkhānid empire,80 suggesting that al-Fīrūzābādī was beginning to make a name for himself, despite the various political changes. His arrival Baghdad in the year 745/1344 meant that he came to a town that, very recently (in 740/1339), had come under a new ruler, Hasan Buzurgh, the founder of the Jalāʾirid dynasty;81 Aḥmad b. Uways, another ruler of this same dynasty, was to grant the scholar hospitality in Baghdad later in his life. Ibn Baktāsh’s position as al-Fīrūzābādī’s first patron again brings into focus how, despite the great number of the scholar’s politically relevant patrons, he was generally detached from political conflicts. The only exceptions to this rule are the circumstances which accompanied his departure to Yemen and his only known active political involvements, those in the Rasūlid realm (see chapter 3.6.2). Otherwise, al-Fīrūzābādī’s travels as they have come down to us are characterized by political non-involvement and freedom of movement. Apart from the mentioned close involvement with the Rasūlid dynasty, he seems to have stayed entirely detached from the struggles between his patrons. Seeking protection and livelihood at courts was an established path for scholars of his time.82 However, the long period of time during which al-Fīrūzābādī remained free of lasting, formal alliances to one or the other of his patrons is extraordinary. There are three possible readings of this striking lack of detail where his political contacts are concerned. First, some sources charge him with selling his books to support his spendthrift lifestyle. Given al-Fīrūzābādī’s very dynamic life, one may wonder whether he was indeed prone to squandering, or whether he was unable to find a lasting position, forcing him to move on and to sell his books to do so. Secondly, there is the possibility that information on political activity was suppressed by biased editing, as was partially the case with his Sufi ties (see chapter 4.1). Thirdly, the lack of reports concerning involvement in political or scholarly conflicts before his time in Yemen may be a sign of an exceptionally cautious personality. Clearly, he knew how to

79 Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 80. 80 On these rulers see Ettinghausen, Īlkhānids; Spuler, Mongolen in Iran; Nagel, Die islamische Welt bis 1500; and Morgan, Mongols. 81 On this city see Duri, Baghdād. 82 As outlined by Browne, A Literary History of Persia, 160–161. 24 chapter 3 maneuvre the pitfalls of the political stage when he was in Yemen, and he may have had this skill from an early age. However, there is no material evidence one way or the other. It is therefore assumed here that he was received favourably, but did not enter into any close allegiances. This general non-involvement gives additional significance to the degree to which al-Fīrūzābādī involved himself in conflicts in Yemen and speaks of the sincerity with which he believed in Ibn al-ʿArabī’s merits (see chapter 3.6.3). It also needs to be considered on a personal level, as one of al-Fīrūzābādī’s motivations for coming to Yemen. This ability to move undisturbed is certainly grounded in the respect enjoyed by a famous scholar. All things considered, al-Fīrūzābādī progressed in his scholarly career while in Baghdad, both by studying and by teaching. In connection with his scholarly development, it has to be noted that Ibn al-ʿImād places al-Fīrūzābādī’s breakthrough as an independent scholar as early as this point, while others sit- uate al-Fīrūzābādī’s passage from taʿallum to taʿlīm (from learning to teaching) in Damascus or Jerusalem.83 Although Ibn al-ʿImād’s view is not universally accepted, the works to which al-Fīrūzābādī was now introduced had a lasting impact on his writings as well as on his general outlook. He studied with Tāj al-Dīn Muḥammad b. al-Sabbāk (d. 766/1364–1365, identical with Abū ʿAbd Allāh Shams al-Dīn al-Bayānī)84 and al-Sirāj ʿUmar b. ʿAlī al-Qazwīnī (683/1284– 1285 – 745/1344).85 Under the latter’s supervision al-Fīrūzābādī concerned himself again with Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ, and with al-Bayānī lessons also included the Saḥīḥ Muslim. The most important of the influences at this time seems to have been al-Ṣaghānī’s Mashāriq al-asrār, which he read with Ibn al-Sabbāk and al-Qazwīnī, and on which al-Fīrūzābādī wrote a commentary. He studied the Mashāriq al-asrār twice in Baghdad, in 745/1344(5) – 747/1346(7) and again in 794/1391–1392. This first encounter with the Mashāriq al-asrār therefore provides a terminus post quem for al-Fīrūzābādī’s sharḥ. Of this unrecovered work, the following is known:

83 See Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 126. For the second perspective see Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 159 and al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 273. For the third see al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 80, Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 280, and al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 275. 84 See al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 102–103. 85 For al-Qazwīnī see Sezgin, gas ii, 463; Suyūṭī, Dhayl ṭabaqāt, 358, al-Fāsī, Dhayl al-taqyīd ii, 248. a life’s journey 25

Title: Shawāriq al-asrār al-ʿāliya fī sharḥ Mashāriq al-anwār al-nabawiyya (The rising Places of the Secrets regarding a commentary on the Mashāriq al-anwār al-nabawiyya)

Title variants: – Shawāriq al-asrār al-ʿāliya fī sharḥ Mashāriq al-anwār al-nabawiyya (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al- mufassirīn; Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al- dhahab; al-Kattānī, Fihrist; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ) – Shawāriq al-asrār fī sharḥ Mashāriq al-anwār (Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-ghumr; Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya) – Maṭāliʿ al-anwār fī sharḥ Mashāriq al-anwār (al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman) – al-Shawāriq al-ʿāliya fī sharḥ Mashāriq al-anwār al-nabawiyya (al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ)

Work attested in: – al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman, 328 – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 276 – Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 94 – Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 162 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 127f. – Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya, 66 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282. mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered 26 chapter 3

Contents: Commentary on al-Ṣaghānī’s Mashāriq al-anwār al-nabawiyya,86 no specifics transmitted.

Remarks: This work is said to have comprised four volumes.87 As the work has not yet been recovered, in-depth study of Ibn al-Sabbāk’s and al- Qazwīnī’s reception and utilization of the Mashāriq al-anwār al-nabawiyya may yield insight into the manner in which al-Fīrūzābādī was exposed to al-Ṣaghānī’s work. Addi- tionally, the fact that his reception of the work through al-Fīrūzābādī was geographi- cally limited to Baghdad presents an inquiry into local traditions as a promising subject of future study.

Date: Since al-Fīrūzābādī only studied al-Ṣaghānī in Baghdad, this work was written tpq. 745/1344–1345.

These studies of al-Ṣaghānī’s writing was an important factor in al-Fīrūzābādī’s life, as they may have been the beginnings of his contact to al-Ṣaghānī’s works. Al-Ṣaghānī became an important influence on and role model for al-Fīrūzābā- dī, both personally and in scholarly terms (see on this also chapter 3.4.4). Apart from tutoring his first students, another decisive development occurred while al-Fīrūzābādī was in Baghdad: by 747/1346–1347, the young man was married and had considered undertaking his first ḥajj. These plans caused conflict with his wife’s relatives, in which al-Fīrūzābādī sought the solicitation of al-Tarmanīnī:

I was determined in the year 747 to undertake the ḥajj. As I was [newly] wed, my wife’s relatives prohibited the journey, except if I would agree to divorce her within the period of six months, so I consented [lit. answered] against my will. Then, when I returned after a number of years, I wrote to the qāḍī [….i.e. Majd al-Dīn Abū Ibrāhīm al-Tamīmī al-Shīrāzī al-Bālī88]:

86 For biographical details see Baalbaki, al-Ṣaghānī. 87 See, for example, Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128. 88 See al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā ix, 400–403. a life’s journey 27

Is there no one who heard of my writing • to the Muslims’ qāḍī l-quḍāt • For the circumstance that my people, they forced me: • Revoke your sentence of divorce granted to those who detest [me]89 al-subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā ix, 403f.

This report by Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī, al-Fīrūzābādī’s later teacher, is remarkable for its preservation of al-Fīrūzābādī’s own verse. Furthermore, this journey possibly gave al-Fīrūzābādī his acquaintance with a scholar whose work he utilized later for the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ: Ibn Hishām (708/1310–761/1360), author of the Mughnī l-labīb ʿan kutub al-aʿārīb.90 Al-Fīrūzābādī’s encounter with Ibn Hishām is frequently mentioned. The details, however, are disputed. This fact is critical since al-Fīrūzābādī does not seem to have been an expert in grammar, but nonetheless required well-founded expertise in this field in order to write his lexicon.91 It is noteworthy, therefore, that the field of naḥw (syntax) is among those disciplines that have moved to the periphery of al-Fīrūzābādī’s scholarly image. Only rarely, is there an acknowledgement of al-Fīrūzābādī’s linguistic activity by the addition of al-naḥwī.92 Likewise, reference to his education in these matters is sparse. Contact with matters of grammar and rhetoric is indicated for al-Fīrūzābādī’s time in Shīrāz,93 but the topic is not addressed at any later point in the reports on al-Fīrūzābādī’s vita. Wüstenfeld considers him a follower of the Baṣrī school94 and Cilardo provides evidence to the effect that al-Fīrūzābādī assumed a Baṣrī stance with regard to the term kalāla.95 The definition of the term as given in the Qāmūs suggests that al-Fīrūzābādī’s understanding is more inclusive than that of most scholars and also broader than that of his

89 This verse is grammatically suspect. It would seem that al-Fīrūzābādī refers to a judgment made previously in favour of his wife’s relatives. 90 As stated by Lane, Madd al-Qāmūs Book i Part i, xvi. On this scholar see Fleisch, Ibn Hishām and Brockelmann, gal gii, 23ff./27–31 and idem, gal sii, 16–20. 91 For evidence of works that used the Qāmūs terms of grammar refer to Ḥimsī, Fihrist al-makhṭūṭāt, 2–3, 100–101. 92 To be found in Ibn Taghrībirdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira xiv, 132. 93 Cf. al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 2. 94 Goldziher, Beiträge, 38. 95 See Cilardo, The Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, 15. 28 chapter 3 supposed ancestor Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq.96 However, ascribing al-Fīrūzābādī to the Baṣrī school97 is problematic insofar as the boundaries between the schools of Baṣra and Kūfa were no longer sharply drawn in his time. As outlined by Kees Versteegh, the dichotomy between Baṣra and Kūfa dates to much earlier times.98 Al-Fīrūzābādī seems to have known the attitudes of both schools, and evidence of this is preserved in a work by an unidentified student of the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs. In his treatise on Kūfī and Baṣrī views, the author states that his teacher concerned himself with these questions in the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ,99 although in-depth study of al-Fīrūzābādī’s grammatical scholarship has yet to be conducted.100 Arguably, al-Fīrūzābādī’s interest in the Kitābal-ʿayn (see item 25) could be seen as indicative of his interest in grammatical matters. After all, al-Khalīl b. Aḥmad’s101 work is widely regarded as one of the mose fundamental in the grammatical discipline.102 Only one of al-Fīrūzābādī’s numerous works is devoted to matters of naḥw103 proper:

Title: Maqṣūd dhawī l-albāb fī ʿilm al-iʿrāb (The goal of the intelligent regarding the science of iʿrāb [inflection])

Title variants: – Maqṣūd dhawī l-albāb fī ʿilm al-iʿrāb (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al- fikr; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl; al- Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt) – Maqṣūd li-dhawī l-albāb, min ʿilm al-iʿrāb (al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ)

96 As defined by Dutton, The Origins of Islamic Law, 106–119. 97 As, for example, with Goldziher, Beiträge, 38. 98 Fleisch implicitly acknowledges this fact—and the mentioned blurred boundaries between both grammatical schools—by listing al-Fīrūzābādī among their heirs. See Fleisch, Traité i, 49. See on the periodization of the discipline Versteegh, Arabische Sprachwis- senschaft (Grammatik). 99 This is Iʾtilāf al-nuṣra fī khtilāf nuḥāt al-Kūfa wa-l-Baṣra, dated app. 800/1397–1398 by Sezgin, gas ix, 24. It has been edited in Furat, Ein bisher unbekanntes Werk. 100 For a detailed study of some important scholars’ grammatical work see Suleiman, A Study in taʿlīl. 101 For details on the philologist refer to Sellheim, al-Khalīl b. Aḥmad. On disputes surrounding authorship, see Schoeler, Wer ist der Verfasser des Kitāb al-ʿAin? 102 On this aspect of the Kitāb al-ʿayn see, for example, Talmon, Arabic Grammar. 103 Refer to Troupeau, Naḥw, for more information on this field of learning. a life’s journey 29

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl, 290 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 283 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: Work on the subject of iʿrāb, no specifics transmitted.

Remarks: The work is said to have consisted of one volume.104

Date: Unknown

His need for grammatical expertise stands vis-à-vis al-Fīrūzābādī’s comparatively small interest in the field. In this respect, the large quantity of lexicographical monographs compared to just one grammatical treatise speaks for itself. This dichotomy gives additional weight to the importance of al- Fīrūzābādī’s encounter with Ibn Hishām. Kaḥḥāla states that they met in ʿIrāq, while others, among them Wüstenfeld, place al-Fīrūzābādī’s encounter with Ibn Hishām in Jerusalem or, as do al-Sakhāwī and al-Dāwūdī, in Cairo.105 Based on the information that both men met, al-Najjār concludes that al-Fīrūzābādī must have been in Cairo before the year 765/1363. On the other hand, tarājim of al-Fīrūzābādī call the Mamlūk sovereign106 sāḥib al-rūm. This honourary title

104 Cf. for example Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128. 105 See Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjamal-muʾallifīn xi, 118; Wüstenfeld, DieGeschichtschreiber, 203; al-Sakhā- wī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 80 and al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 275, respectively. 106 On this dynasty see Holt, Mamlūks. 30 chapter 3 and the date of 768/1366–1367 provided by al-Fīrūzābādī himself (see below) suggest otherwise, as this point in time is certainly too late for meeting Ibn Hishām, who died in 761/1359–1360107 and who spent almost his entire life in Cairo. A biographical examination, however, brings to light two further possibilities for their encounter; first, that al-Fīrūzābādī was in Cairo in 755/1354, when Ibn Hishām was still alive; and secondly, that as Ibn Hishām is known to have made two journeys to Mecca, one of which is dated 749/1348,108 a time at which al-Fīrūzābādī is placed in Mecca by the above report. These two possible dates, 749/1348 and 755/1354, are therefore important for the creation of the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ (see on this work and its creation chapter 3.4). The reported quarrel with his wife’s family reveals two additional stations of al-Fīrūzābādī’s travels, namely an early pilgrimage (748/1374–750/1350) and an early second stay in Baghdad (750/1350). It also helps settle the dispute around the date of his arrival at Damascus.

3.3 Coming of Age (750/1350–759/1357(8)): The Damascene Decade

With al-Fīrūzābādī’s departure from Baghdad,109 reports begin to deviate with regard to contents as well as chronology. While activity-related differences may be allowed for as leading to a more complex picture, deviation in terms of dating presents a challenge. Read literally, al-Fīrūzābādī is said to have spent sinīn110 (“years”, implying at least three and in this case actually three) in both Baghdad and Mecca. This formulation means that he left Baghdad around 748/1347–1348 and subsequently spent three years on the ḥajj. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s presence in the city up to the year 747/1346–1347 is ascertained by his encounter with Ṣafī al- Dīn al-Ḥillī (677/1278–c. 749/1348), whose poetical abilities he doubted.111 Al- Fīrūzābādī’s sojourn in the balad al-ḥaramayn may therefore be dated as sometime between 748/1347–1348 and late 750 or early 751/1350. He therefore visited the holy city shortly after the beginning of the sharīf ʿAjlān’s reign (747/ 1346–776/1375), under the overarching authority of the Mamlūks, who had

107 Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203 has 762/1360–1361. 108 See Fleisch, Ibn Hishām. 109 In the case of Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī’s transmission (see photos 5–9) deviation sets in even earlier, namely after al-Fīrūzābādī left Shīrāz. 110 See for example al-Sakhāwī, al-Dawʾ al-lāmiʿ, 80. 111 See Heinrichs, Ṣafī al-Dīn, 802. a life’s journey 31 gained considerable influence after the fall of Baghdad in 656/1258.112 Again, the sources do not preserve any indicaton of the possible reactions by al- Fīrūzābādī to this new development in Mecca.113 This journey to the holy cities was followed by al-Fīrūzābādī’s return to Baghdad, as the lexicographer himself reports in the above quotation. From here, he seems to have continued directly to Damascus. The proposed dates, and thus the reading of sinīn as three years, are congruent with the multiple reports on al-Fīrūzābādī’s arrival in al-Shām.114 This event is dated differently, ranging from after 750/1350–1351 to 755/1354 and 756/1355.115 Seen in the context of the larger framework of al-Fīrūzābādī’s other journeys, these dates are all applicable. They do not, however, signal his first arrival in Damascus. Rather, they mark al-Fīrūzābādī’s repeated return to the city. In this respect, his initial visit to Damascus in late 750/1350 or early 751/1350 is set apart, as it was swiftly followed by a visit to Jerusalem. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s first visit to Damascus can therefore not have been long and it seems likely that he encountered his numerous Damascene teachers not at that time, but at a later point during the 750s/late 1340s-late 1350s. With his arrival in Damascus, another important phase in al-Fīrūzābādī’s life began. The city was the first long-term constant in al-Fīrūzābādī’s travels, although it vies for this position with Jerusalem within the sources. The decade between 750/1350–1351 and 760/1358–1359 is frequently perceived as being centred on Jerusalem.116 Fleisch thus finds three major phases in al-Fīrūzābādī’s life, namely Jerusalem, Mecca and Yemen.117 Likewise, Wüstenfeld says: “Hier brachte er mit Unterrichten und schriftstellerischen Arbeiten 10 Jahre zu”.118 This view is supported by similar formulations in a number of tarājim.119 This perspective would turn al-Fīrūzābādī’s stays in Damascus and further locations

112 On the political developments in the immediate aftermath see Heidemann, Das Aleppiner Kalifat. 113 On the sharīfs and these developments in Mecca see Wensinck/Bosworth, Makka. iii, 149. 114 Here, this term should be read as signifying Damascus rather than Syria, despite its polysemy described in Bosworth, al-Shām. Further destinations in al-shām are attested for al-Fīrūzābādī, but they postdate his arrival in Damascus. 115 One or the other of these dates is mentioned in different sources. They are mentioned together in Tashköprüzāde, Miftāḥ al-saʿāda i, 104, and Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya iii, 63. 116 On the city of Jerusalem see Grabar, al-Ḳuds. 117 See Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, 926. 118 ‘Here, he spent 10 years teaching and writing’. Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203. 119 See, for example, al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 80. 32 chapter 3 into detours from Jerusalem. In light of the above data, however, it seems that al-Shām was equally, if not more, important than Jerusalem in terms of al- Fīrūzābādī’s intellectual development. He may have stayed in Jerusalem for any number of years between 750/1350 and 755/1354. For Syria, a slightly greater amount of time is reported. Furthermore, while he visited Jerusalem once, he returned to Damascus repeatedly, and in terms of al-Fīrūzābādī’s education more detail is available for Damascus, suggesting a greater importance. The ambiguity in the perception of al-Shām and al-Quds in the middle of al- Fīrūzābādī’s life is mirrored in the mentioned placing of his scholarly coming- of-age to both locations. Through his progressive education and positions at schools, al-Fīrūzābādī reached the status of a mature scholar in his twenties. Most importantly, the author himself calls Damascus the centre of Islam in one of his poems (see below). It is unknown whether this statement may have been motivated politically, but in any case it would appear that al-Fīrūzābādī was conscious of the role Damascus had as a centre of learning, and it is clear from his words that he held it in high esteem (see the poem below). In Damascus, al-Fīrūzābādī is said to have attended the lessons of over a hundred teachers.120 In trying to determine the exact time of their encounters with al-Fīrūzābādī, a major difficulty comes to light: a reconstruction of his journeys shows that al-Fīrūzābādī repeatedly visited individual locations at different points in time. Reliable reconstruction of his scholarly development calls for the exact assignment of his acquaintances to each of these sojourns, their presence in turn validating his presence, and the dating of his scholarly development. In some cases, information on his teachers and pupils, however, is not detailed enough to assign them to any particular visit. Grouping them approximately with reference to the entirety of al-Fīrūzābādī’s stays in one specific location, on the other hand, would render imprecise results. This is especially true of cities that he visited repeatedly over the course of his entire life. Those members of al-Fīrūzābādī’s network who cannot be securely assigned to one of his journeys will be given separately (see table 1: Further Teachers) to preclude imprecise results until such time when sufficient data is available. With regard to Damascus, however, an exception to this rule is acceptable. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s presence in the city was prolonged and he returned to it later only once, briefly (in 763/1361–1362). The degree of imprecision is therefore minimized if it is kept in mind that the available data regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s

120 On scholars and learning in Damascus see Chamberlain, Knowledge and Social Practice. a life’s journey 33 education refers to an entire decade at this point. For al-Shām, the following teachers are attested:

1. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān/ʿAbd al-Muʾmin al-Mardāwī121 2. Ibn Jahbal (Nāṣir al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl b. Yaḥyā b. Ismāʿīl al-Dimash- qī).122 Al-Fīrūzābādī read the Saḥīḥ Muslim to him in three days.123 3. Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Muẓaffar al-Nābulusī, who taught al-Fīrūzābādī regarding al-Tirmidhī’s writing and the Muʿjam Ibn Jamīʿ. 4. Yaḥyā b. ʿAlī Ibn al-Ḥaddād al-Ḥanafī,124 who is said to have instructed al-Fīrūzābādī in Yaḥyā b. Sharaf al-Nawawī’s Arbaʿīn al-Nawawī. 5. Ibn Qayyim al-Ḍiyāʾiyya, who is said to have instructed al-Fīrūzābādī in works by al-Bukhārī and al-Tirmidhī. His identity is doubtful (see below).

Among these lessons, those by Ibn Jahbal regarding the Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim are highlighted by a poem. These verses are among the few by al-Fīrūzābādī that have come down to us. The fact that he composed a poem to tell of this occasion when few other poems are preserved may be a sign of al-Fīrūzābādī’s particular pride in mastering the work. It is also possible that he took pride in the swiftness of his learning. The statements preserved in the introduction of the Jalīs al-anīs fī asmāʾ al-khandarīs suggest that he was not at all too modest when it came to speaking of his own skills (see below). Ibn al-ʿImād preserves the poem as follows:

I read, for the praise of God, the collection of Muslim • In the centre of Dimashq of Syria • A centre for Islām • Before Nāṣir al-Dīn al-imām Ibn Jahbal •

121 See, for example, Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs i, 46 (here mentioned without location). 122 Died Ramaḍān 760/November–December 1358 in Cairo. See al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 102–103. 123 See, for example, Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 130. 124 May be identical with the scholar mentioned in Brockelmann, gal gii, 189/241 (d. 808/ 1397 in Zabīd). 34 chapter 3

In the presence of famous learned ḥuffāẓ • And the reading was concluded with success granted by god and his grace • In exactly three days ibn al-ʿimād al-ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 130

Damascus at that time was an important point of departure for pilgrims and home to a great number of scholars. Under its governor Tankiz, who had been arrested only ten years before al-Fīrūzābādī’s arrival, Damascus had become a place with a climate favourable to cultural and scholarly life. Despite the frequent changes in the position of the city’s nāʾib (deputy of the sulṭān)125 that came with the quick succession of Baḥrī rulers in Cairo,126 it is therefore not surprising that the scholar should have called it “a centre of Islām”. In terms of the works studied, the emphasis is clearly on well-known, standard texts, such as the works by al-Bukhārī and al-Tirmidhī. Nonetheless, reports on al-Fīrūzābādī’s studies at the time are interesting. First, there is evidence of Ḥanafī contacts, in the persons of al-Nābulusī and Ibn al-Ḥaddād. Secondly, the fact that al-Fīrūzābādī was in Damascus by 751/1350–1351 at the latest is important for one particular point of debate among scholars regarding his Sufi ties and education: the most contested point regarding the date of al-Fīrūzābādī’s contact with taṣawwuf 127 is the identity of one of his early teachers. This question also has immediate implications for al-Fīrūzābādī’s familiarity with, and possible dissemination of, Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings: a number of biographical sources mention a teacher by the name of “Ibn al-Qayyim”, who is said to have taught al-Fīrūzābādī in Damascus. This name is occasionally elaborated to “Ibn Qayyim al-Ḍiyāʾiyya”,128 or to “Ibn Qayyim al-Ḍiyāʾiyya ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm” (d. 761/1360).129 On the other hand, the scholar in question is likewise occasionally identified as Ibn Taymiyya’s pupil,130 with whose Ṭibb al-nabawī al-Fīrūzābādī was familiar, as a passage from the Kitāb al- jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal reveals.131 The question presented by these different fragmentary

125 On this office see Ayalon, Nāʾib. 126 See Elisséeff, Dimashḳ, 285. The Baḥrī Mamlūk reign spans the years 648/1250–784/1382, the Burjī Mamlūks from then until 923/1517. 127 On the mystical strata of Islam see Hunwick et al., Taṣawwuf. 128 See, e.g., al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd, i, 278. 129 See Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs i, 46. 130 See, for example, al-Qannawjī, Mawsūʿat muṣṭalaḥāt, 890. 131 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 225. a life’s journey 35 identifications is whether al-Fīrūzābādī could have encountered Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, and thus whether this scholar had the opportunity to personally influence al-Fīrūzābādī’s education. Answering this question hinges on the date of al-Fīrūzābādī’s arrival in Damascus. Al-Najjār discounts the possibility that the epithet should apply to Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 750/1350),132 since “al-Majd would not enter Damascus until the year 755”.133 The above factors suggest that this idea is incorrect; since al-Fīrūzābādī seems to have come to Damascus at the turn of the decade he certainly could have encountered Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya. The possibility of such a meeting is relevant in connection to those voices who dispute al-Fīrūzābādī’s appreciation of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings (see chapters 3.6.3 and 4.1). Nonetheless, there is evidence to suggest that their encounter was unlikely. There is reference to the Banū Ḍiyāʾ in al-Fīrūzābādī’s network, to which the mentioned Ibn Qayyim al-Ḍiyāʾiyya may have belonged.134 Furthermore, al-Shawkānī tells of lessons that al-Fīrūzābādī took with “Ibn al-Qayyim” and specifies that the former accorded with the latter.135 Unless al-Fīrūzābādī had a change of heart—and there is reason to believe that he did not (see below)—it is unlikely that the person in question is identical with Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya. Additionally, the time available for their meeting (which does not necessarily entail teaching), is quite short, which makes an influence even more unlikely. As things stand, al-Fīrūzābādī’s exposure to (debate of) Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teaching seems to have occurred at a later point in time. The teacher first mentioned in this respect was al-Yāfiʿī, whom al-Fīrūzābādī met in Mecca in 760/1358–1359. In sum, the available information speaks against an influence by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and thus against a consequent rejection of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings at this point in al-Fīrūzābādī’s life. The subject matter conveyed by the abovementioned teacher, Ibn Jahbal, seems rather inconspicuous. For our knowledge of al-Fīrūzābādī, however, he is not. His biography by al-Fāsī136 renders rare detail of al-Fīrūzābādī’s education: In his tarjama of Ibn Jahbal, al-Fāsī says:

132 On him see, among numerous, others Laoust, Ibn Ḳayyim al-Djawziyya; Holtzman, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah. 133 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 3 n. 2. This would preclude a meeting of both scholars as Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya died in 751/1350–1351. 134 See al-Fāsī, Dhayl al-taqyīd ii, 278. 135 Al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 280. 136 See al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 102–103. 36 chapter 3

He [al-Fīrūzābādī …] mentioned him [Ibn Jahbal] in his isnād for the Saḥīḥ Muslim, and reported that he read it to the mentioned Ibn Jah- bal in Damascus and to Abū ʿAbd Allāh Shams al-Dīn al-Bayānī—that is Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm al-Sabbāk—and he [al-Fīrūzābādī] mentioned that they [Ibn Jahbal and al-Bayānī] both transmitted it [the Saḥīḥ Mus- lim] from Aḥmad b. Hibat Allāh b. ʿAsākir137 and the qāḍī Tāj al-Dīn Ṣāliḥ b. Hāmid al-Jaʿbarī and the muḥaddithūn Najm al-Dīn Ismāʿīl b. Ibrāhīm b. al-Khabbāz and Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Nafīs al-Mawṣilī according to an ijāza of Ibn ʿAsākir from al-Muʿīd al-Ṭūsī. And the samāʿa was from the word of Ibn Nafīs138 and al-Jaʿbārī as from al-Ṣadr al-Bakrī, and according to the samāʿa of Ibn Nafīs and Ibn al-Khabbāz from Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Dāʾim and Ibrāhīm b. Madar al-fāsī al-makkī al-mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 102f.

As a sideline, it is interesting to note that al-Fāsī effectively evaded biographical data on Ibn Jahbal, clearly showing whom of the scholars mentioned he deemed to be superior. More importantly, he provides an overview of the circles from which al-Fīrūzābādī received the Saḥīḥ Muslim. In doing so, al-Fāsī provides an example of contemporary pathways of knowledge. He thereby also shows how closely-knit the scholarly elite was, despite the generally unstable political conditions. Al-Fāsī’s report connects al-Fīrūzābādī to important people in his religious formation, an aspect of the scholar that has been marginalized in posterity’s perception by his achievements in the field of lugha. The biography of Ibn Jahbal thereby attests to the fact that in Damascus al-Fīrūzābādī made important progress in his education in religious matters, securing for himself knowledge handed down by recognized experts in the field. Obviously, the quantity of names falls short of the claimed 100 teachers and it is debatable whether this statement should not rather be seen as a hyperbole intended to stress the degree by which al-Fīrūzābādī’s education advanced while he was in Damas- cus. It was here that al-Fīrūzābādī himself came of age as a scholar and his reputation began to grow: “he excelled in the learned arts and was exceptional in lugha and excelled in it, surpassing his competitors”.139 This suggests that

137 On this eminent family see Elisseeff, Ibn ʿAsākir, as well as Brockelmann, gal gi, 331/403f. and idem, gal si, 566. 138 For details regarding this scholar refer to Meyerhof/Schacht, Ibn al-Nafīs. 139 Al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿarūs i, 42. Al-Zabīdī goes on to praise al-Fīrūzābādī’s achievements in the fields of ḥadīth and tafsīr that were similarly strong in his oeuvre. This passage was probably inspired by Ibn Ḥajar’s or al-Suyūṭī’s similar statements. a life’s journey 37 by the time of his stay in the pilgrimage ‘hub’ of Damascus, al-Fīrūzābādī must have written several books in this field. Al-Zabīdī’s statement therefore does not only attest to a solidifying scholarly standing. It also draws attention to the issue of al-Fīrūzābādī’s reputation, which is a complex and telling matter in itself (see chapter 4.1). As mentioned, one of the elements of the image that has been transmitted is the assumption that the years between 750/1350 and 759/1357–1358 were centred on Jerusalem. In fact, however, the city was only one of several locations visited by al-Fīrūzābādī over the course of this decade. For this time span, the following chronology can be reconstructed: coming from Damascus, al-Fīrūzābādī passed through Baʿlabakk, Hama and Aleppo (in 750/1350) on his way to Jerusalem. These cities are mentioned only by al-Sakhāwī and al- Shawkānī140 and account for the frequently found statement that al-Fīrūzābādī dakhala al-Shām, i.e. that he entered either Damascus or the Syrian realm. In fact, it is surprising to see the scholar travel through Aleppo, as the city had been subject to the Black Death only one year before.141 It was probably on this journey that one of his most prolific teachers, Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī (683/1284–756/1355)142 kept him company,143 and it was probably not al-Subkī who travelled with al-Fīrūzābādī, but the other way around. It was not uncom- mon for pupils to follow their travelling teachers, a phenomenon that can also be observed with some of al-Fīrūzābādī’s pupils who travelled with him or travelled to meet him when the scholar was in Yemen. This journey therefore shows him following a well-established custom in education. It is unclear which subjects al-Fīrūzābādī was instructed in. It may be assumed, however, that al-Fīrūzābādī learned from Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī’s son, Tāj al-Dīn (727, -28 or -29/1326, -27, or -28 – 771–772/1369–1370),144 at least after the former had died. From an exchange of letters between Tāj al-Dīn and Ibn Jamāʿa we know that the former was in Cairo in 763/1361–1362.145 If indeed al-Fīrūzābādī studied with Tāj al-Dīn in Damascus, as is commonly stated, they must therefore have met during the years 755/1354 to 759/1357(8).

140 See al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 80 and Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 280. They are also included in al-Qannawjī, al-Tāj al-mukallal, 467. 141 See Sauvaget, Ḥalab, 88. 142 Schacht/Bosworth, al-Subkī. A very elaborate biography of him is provided by his son in al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā x, 139–339. See also al-Ḥusaynī al-Dimashqī, Dhayl Tadhkirat, 39–41 and al-Suyūṭī, Dhayl ṭabaqāṭ, 352–353. 143 As mentioned by Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, 926. 144 On him see Schacht/Bosworth, al-Subkī and Brockelmann, gal gii, 89f./108ff. 145 Al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā x, 8. 38 chapter 3

Following this brief journey through al-Shām al-Fīrūzābādī reached Jeru- salem after 750/1349–1350. Here, he refined his education with Ṣalāh al-Dīn Khalīl b. al-Kaykaldī al-ʿAlāʾī (b. 694/1294), an expert in the field of ḥadīth and fiqh, who taught him part of the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.146 Their encounter in Jerusalem (where al-Kaykaldī taught at the Ṣāliḥiyya) must have fallen in the year 750/1349–1350 or 755/1353–1354, as al-Kaykaldī died in 761/1359–1360147 and al-Fīrūzābādī left the city after the above-mentioned dates. A further acquaintance at this time was al-Fīrūzābādī’s teacher Taqī al-Dīn al-Qalqashandī,148 who is said to have instructed al-Fīrūzābādī in the Saḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. In Jerusalem, al-Fīrūzābādī also taught others, the first time when he held a teaching position at an educational institution. He made a living for himself as a teacher with assignments at multiple madāris,149 and thereby created a secure financial basis. Furthermore, these assignments certainly prepared him for his position as head of his own madāris later in life. In a number of respects, al-Fīrūzābādī’s life in and relationship to Jerusalem was typical of the time, as being employed as a teacher and repeatedly travelling to Damascus or Cairo was common among scholars in Mamlūk Jerusalem.150 Coming from Jerusalem, al-Fīrūzābādī passed through al-Shāfiʿī’s birth- place151 of Ghazza, and al-Ramla,152 where he consulted teachers in matters of ḥadīth.153 These two cities were points of transition on his way to Cairo. Just like Damascus, Cairo was an important metropolis as well as a melting pot of religious strata and a frequent destination for scholars of the time. Nagel renders Ibn Khaldūn’s (732/1332–784/1382)154 enthusiatic description of the city:

146 On Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-ʿAlāʾī see for example al-Suyūṭī, Dhaylṭabaqāt, 360–361; al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 525. 147 See Brockelmann, gal gii, 64f./76f. and his tarjama in al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā x, 35–38. 148 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Dhayl al-durar, 188, gives the dates of his birth and death as 745/1344–1345 and 809/1406–1407, on him see also Bosworth, al-Ḳalḳashandī, and van Berkel, al-Qalqashandī. 149 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 4. 150 See Grabar, al-Ḳuds, 332. 151 See Sourdel, Ghazza. The city is described as such in the Qāmūs. It is therefore possible that it was this characteristic that drew al-Fīrūzābādī to the town. 152 On this city see Honigmann, al-Ramla. 153 These destinations are only included in al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 80 and in Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī, al-Kitāb al-rawḍ al-ʿāṭir, f. 218r. 154 On him see Talbi, Ibn Khaldūn. a life’s journey 39

Ich sah die Hauptstadt des Diesseits, den Garten der Welt, den Ort, an dem alle Völker der Welt zusammenströmen, die Wegstation, an der sich wie Ameisengewimmel die Menschheit vorbeischiebt, die Audienzhalle des Islams, den Thron der Herrschaft! Der Glanz von Palästen und Säu- lengalerien strahlt von überall her, die Sufi-Konvente und Medressen schimmern von allen Seiten, hell wie Mond und Sterne leuchten die Gelehrten. […] Immer wieder hatte man uns von dieser Stadt erzählt, von der Blüte ihrer Kultur, vom weltstädtischen Treiben. Ganz unter- schiedlich beschrieben sie unsere Lehrer und Freunde, … seien sie Mek- kapilger oder Kaufleute gewesen.155 nagel, Tīmūr der Eroberer, 275ff.

Here, al-Fīrūzābādī read the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī in the Jāmiʿ al-Azhar before his teacher Ibn Nubāta (686/1287(8) – 768/1366(7))156 in Ramaḍān 755/September 1354.157 The Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī seems to have taken a special position in al- Fīrūzābādī’s eyes, as it is the ḥadīth collection that is most frequently named as the object of his attention among the canonical books, and he later utilized it for his writings on Ibn al-ʿArabī, a choice that was certainly not made lightly. From Ibn Nubāta, al-Fīrūzābādī is also said to have memorized a number of subjects, among them quatrains by al-Tirmidhī, a sizeable selection from the Ghaylāniyyāt158 and poems of three lines from al-Ṣaghānī’s ʿUbāb, as well as part of the Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, among other things.

155 ‘I saw the capital of this world, the garden of the world, the place to which the peoples of this world flock, the stopover, which is passed by by mankind bustling like ants, the audience hall of Islam, the throne of supremacy! The gleam of palaces and pillar galleries emanates from everywhere, the Sufi convents and madāris shimmer on all sides, bright like the moon and stars glow the learned […] Again and again we have been told of this city, of the bloom of its culture, of its metropolitan bustle. Our teachers and friends [each] described it entirely differently … be they pilgrms from Makka or merchants.’ 156 Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Fāriqī al-Miṣrī; see Rikabi, Ibn Nubāta; Brockelmann, gal gii, 10ff./11f.; idem, gal sii, 4; Sezgin, gas ii, 588 and 594; al-Fāsī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 250; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 164; Bauer, Jamāl al-Dīn Ibn Nubātah. 157 Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ ix, 80. 158 Probably Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbdallāḥ b. Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbdawayh al-Baghdādī al-Shāfiʿī al-Bazzāz’s (d. 354) Kitāb al-fawāʾid al-mashhūr bi-l-Ghaylāniyyāt. These are aḥādīth transmitted by Abū Ṭālib b. Ghaylān which he transmitted from al-Shāfiʿī. See, for example, http://tuhfa-ahlhadeeth.blogspot.de/2012/08/blog-post_1299.html (24 January, 2014). 40 chapter 3

At this time, al-Fīrūzābādī probably came into contact with one of only two teachers named for the Musnad Ibn Ḥanbal: Abū l-Ḥarām Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Qalānisī, who died in 764/1362–1363. A meeting during al- Fīrūzābādī’s next visit to Cairo in that year cannot be ascertained. Therefore, besides copying of al-Fīrūzābādī’s works and his progress as a both a pupil and a teacher, the Damascene decade also brought him into contact with the Ḥan- balī madhhab. As mentioned, al-Fīrūzābādī probably encountered his Ḥanbalī teacher al- Qalānisī159 during his visit to Cairo in 755/1354. One further Ḥanbalī teacher is mentioned; ʿAlī b. Aḥmad al-ʿArdī is ascribed to either Cairo or Damas- cus, which means that the men met either in 755/1354, or sometime between 763/1361–1362 and 770/1368. This teacher is said to have instructed al-Fīrūzābādī regarding the Muʿjam Ibn Jamīʿ and parts of the Musnad Ibn Ḥanbal. Given the reputation of the Musnad as one of the standard works of one of the four great schools, teaching it is not surprising. Nonetheless, it draws attention to a further aspect of al-Fīrūzābādī the scholar: his interest in the Ḥanbalī ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī (d. 561/1066).160 This interest was pronounced enough to result in the only monographic biography within al-Fīrūzābādī’s corpus of works:

Title: Rawḍat al-nāẓir fī tarjamat al-shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir (Garden of the observer concerning the biography of the shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir)

Title variants: – Rawḍat al-nāẓir fī darajat al-shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – Rawḍat al-nāẓir fī tarjamat sīdī al-shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar) – Rawḍat al-nāẓir fī tarjamat al-shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303–304 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181

159 On him see, for example, al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 259. 160 On him see, for example. s.n., Abd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī, 16 and Braune, Abd al-Ḳādir al- Djīlānī. For a monographic treatment refer to Demeerseman, Nouveau regard. a life’s journey 41

– Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 93 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī: al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: Biography of ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī.161

Remarks: Al-Fīrūzābādī is said to have reported on him “exceedingly well”.162 The work is the most concrete hint at a possible familiarity with Ḥanbalī teachings on al-Fīrūzābādī’s part.

Date: Unknown.

The motivation for this strong interest in the Ḥanbalī scholar remains unclear, as the work has not yet been recovered. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s strong preoccupation with sound transmissions, which is manifest in his biographical focus on ṣaḥāba (see also chapter 4.3), may be seen as reminiscent of Ibn Ḥanbal’s endeavors in ḥadīth.163 How close al-Fīrūzābādī’s ties to the Ḥanbalī school actually were may be clarified by the recovery of the Rawḍat al-nāẓir fī tarjamat al-shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir. With regard to this pronounced interest in al-Jīlānī, two further readings present themselves: al-Fīrūzābādī’s first prolific Sufi teacher, al-Yāfiʿī, founder of the Yāfiʿī branch of the Qādiriyya, also wrote a tarjama on ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī.164 It is possible, therefore, that this biography may be an instance of al-Fīrūzābādī’s emulation of his teacher. This would mean that al-Yāfiʿī had a direct influence on al-Fīrūzābādī. It is also likely that al-Fīrūzābādī later

161 As stated, for example, in al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 23. Al-Sakhāwī, al-Iʿlān, 559 also addresses the matter. 162 Al-Sakhāwī, al-Jawāhir wa-l-durar, 744. 163 See for these Schöller, Exegetisches Denken, 164–165. 164 See Geoffroy, al-Yāfiʿī, 236. 42 chapter 3 came into closer contact with Qādirī teachings, when he was in Zabīd. His most prolific Sufi contact there, al-Jabartī, also followed the Qādiriyya, which may also have prompted closer study of its founder in the form of the Rawḍat al-nāẓir after 760/1358–1359. Secondly, al-Fīrūzābādī’s strong sympathies for Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings suggest another possible motivation: future research on the tarjama should consider the possibility that al-Fīrūzābādī’s interest in ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī may have to be seen in conjunction with the fact that Ibn al-ʿArabī recognized al- Jīlānī as the greatest saint of his time.165 In this light, al-Fīrūzābādī’s interest in al-Jīlānī could have been dependent on his interest in Ibn al-ʿArabī rather than being primarily caused by a interest in Ḥanbalī matters.

Aside from the Musnad, al-Qalānisī is also said to have taught al-Fīrūzābādī triplets from one of al-Ṣaghānī’s dictionaries, as well as poems of seven and eight lines by Muʾnisa Khātūn bt. Malik al-ʿĀdil (an Ayyūbid princess),166 among other things.167 Al-Fīrūzābādī’s sojourn in Cairo therefore shows two characteristics: first, a marked concern with poetry, a discipline hardly mentioned at other points of his education. It is also noteworthy in this respect that—in Ibn Nubāta—al-Fīrūzābādī had one of the most prolific poets of his time as a teacher. Secondly, both Ibn Nubāta and al-Qalānisī taught al- Fīrūzābādī to read the ʿUbāb al-zākhir wa-l-lubāb al-fākhir. This work does not emerge as prominently at any other point in al-Fīrūzābādī’s scholarly development. In conjunction with the aforementioned meeting with Ibn Hishām, these studies of the ʿUbāb are a second important factor that prepared al-Fīrūzābādī for the Qāmūsal-muḥīṭ. After all, the precursor to al-Fīrūzābādī’s Encompassing Ocean, the al-Lāmiʿ al-muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb, was written with the intention of including the best of al-Ṣaghānī’s work, the ʿUbāb, and Ibn Sīda’s lexicon, the Muḥkam.168 It is noteworthy, therefore, that he was familiar with one of his major sources at this point. Al-Ṣaghānī emerges as the scholar whose writing seems to have had the most lasting influence on both al-Fīrūzābādī’s works and life (see chapter 3.4.4). While the sources hint at such an influence at different points of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life, there are, interestingly, no details regarding the point in time and the circumstances under which al-Fīrūzābādī studied the Muḥkam.

165 See Knysh, Islamic Mysticism, 186. 166 Muʾnisa Khātūn bt. al-Malik al-ʿĀdil (al-Malik al-ʿĀdil d. 615/1218), who was known for transmitting aḥādīth. She was called Sitt al-Shām. Al-Zabīdī collected her transmissions. See Reichmuth, The World, 138, n. 213. 167 See Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs i, 47 n. 105. 168 For literature on these scholars refer to chapter 3.4.2. a life’s journey 43

In many sources, this stay in Cairo is the last detailed hint at al-Fīrūzābādī’s location before al-Fīrūzābādī embarked to Yemen. Following his presence in the city, reports are vague and contradictary concerning the time at which al-Fīrūzābādī went to Yemen and the route he took. Dating this move is a complex matter that will be addressed in due course (see chapter 3.5). There are only a limited number of sources that address this matter, and their statements are contradictory, depending on the traditions in which they stand. An examination of these sources and the conclusions that can be drawn from their divergent chronologies have far-reaching implications for the reconstruction of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life, as these questions touch upon the time at which the scholar entered Yemen and consequently on the possibility that he could have met powerful patrons such as Aḥmad b. Uways and even Tīmūr Lank. Suffice it to say here that a number of further journeys and years elapsed before al- Fīrūzābādī entered the Rasūlid realm. His stay in Cairo must have been comparatively brief. Either by 755/1354 or in 756/1354–1355,169 al-Fīrūzābādī had returned to Damascus where his presence is attested for the subsequent years 757/1356,170 758/1356–1357171 and 759/1357– 1358. During the last172 of these years, al-Fīrūzābādī again encountered one of his earliest pupils: Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Ṣafadī.173 Al-Ṣafadī’s contact with al-Fīrūzā- bādī is of special interest for two reasons. First, he was also engaged in studies of al-Jawharī’s works,174 with which al-Fīrūzābādī was possibly already struggling at that time. While the full title of the Qāmūs, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ wa-l-qabas al-wasīṭ al-jāmiʿ li-mā dhahaba min lughat al-ʿarab shamāṭīṭ, demonstrates al- Fīrūzābādī’s focus on al-Ṣaghānī’s and Ibn Sīda’s works, the lexicon is most frequently associated with al-Fīrūzābādī’s critique of al-Jawharī. Over the centuries, a considerable number of texts have addressed this issue, to defend or to condemn either of the two scholars. In scholarship, this question has received much more attention than al-Fīrūzābādī’s use of his two major points of reference, the ʿUbāb and the Muḥkam. While it is beyond the scope of the current

169 Tashköprüzāde, Miftāḥ al-saʿāda i, 104. 170 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 162. 171 This date can be inferred from Ibn Taghrībirdī’s below description of the majlis. 172 Their encounter in Damascus in the year 759/1357–1358 is recorded by Ibn Ḥajar, Dhayl al-Durar, 240 and al-Zanūzī, Riyāḍ al-janna iv/iv, 152. 173 See, for example, Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya iii, 63, and Tashkö- prüzāde, Miftāḥ al-saʿāda i, 104. For further detail on his oeuvre see Little, Al-Ṣafadī as Biographer; van Ess, Ṣafadī-Splitter and idem, Ṣafadī-Splitter. Teil ii. 174 On al-Jawharī see, for example, Kopf, al-Djawharī, as well as al-Suyūṭī, al-Muzhir i, 97ff., Blachère, Al-Ğawharī et sa place. 44 chapter 3 study to undertake such an analysis (which would easily fill a book of its own), it is argued here that al-Fīrūzābādī’s concentration on al-Jawharī may well have been due to an attempt to emulate al-Ṣaghānī, rather than any aversion to al- Jawharī or his work (see below 3.4.4). In any case, with al-Ṣafadī, al-Fīrūzābādī now met a scholar who also concerned himself with al-Jawharī’s Tāj al-lugha wa-ṣiḥāḥ al-ʿarabiyya, and this encounter may well have added to his own studies of al-Jawharī’s lexicon. On the other hand, al-Ṣafadī is one of the few pupils known to have transmitted a large part of al-Fīrūzābādī’s verse. More specifically, some of these verses175 can be found in al-Fīrūzābādī’s introduction to the Qāmūs, making this meeting relevant for dating the Encompassing Ocean and its precursor: it is possible that part of the textual material of the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ had already been composed by this point. Following the year 759/1357–1358, a new phase in al-Fīrūzābādī’s life—his orientation towards Mecca—began.

3.4 Further Travels and The Qāmūs (760/1358(9) – 794/1392): Based in Mecca

With the turn of the decade, a new phase in al-Fīrūzābādī’s life began. The 34 years of al-Fīrūzābādī’s prolonged orientation towards Mecca brought first contact with Sufism, recognition in scholarly circles, and the creation of al- Fīrūzābādī’s most famous work, the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ. During this time, Mecca served as al-Fīrūzābādī’s geographical constant between numerous further travels. He returned there time and again, a fact that may have triggered the varying statements regarding the duration of his stays in Mecca throughout the biographical corpus. By 760/1358–1359,176 al-Fīrūzābādī was in Mecca, studying under the supervision of al-Yāfiʿī (689/1290–768/1366–1367).177 They probably met during this year, as the historian and Sufi died seven or eight178 years later. The same rea- soning applies to Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar b. ʿUthmān, who introduced al-Fīrūzābādī to the Sunan of Abū Dāwūd:179 according to Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī, this dignitary

175 Reproduced in al-Zanūzī, Riyāḍ al-janna iv/iv, 152. 176 Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 85. 177 Their encounter is mentioned for example by al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 280. On him see Brockelmann, gal gii, 176ff./226ff., and Geoffroy, al-Yāfiʿī. 178 Al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā x, 33, has the former, while the latter date can be found in Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 181. 179 See Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1004–1005. a life’s journey 45 died in 765/1363–1364,180 making the year 760/1358–1359 the only possible time for their encounter. In 763/1361, his first departure from Mecca took al-Fīrūzābādī back to Dam- ascus, as Ibn Taghrībirdī’s description of a majlis shows:

The shaykh Taqī al-Dīn al-Muqrī181—may God bless him—recounted to me, saying: The shaykh al-imām Majd al-Dīn b. Yaʿqūb al-Shīrāzī al- Fīrūzābādī told me in Makka in Dhū l-Ḥijja 790 that he entered a garden in Damascus where there were gathered the most learned imām Jamāl al- Dīn Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Sharīshī al-Shāfiʿī [sic?!]182 and the entirety of the aʿyān of Damascus for a banquet on the 23rd day of Shaʿbān of the year 763. [23 October, 1361 …] and with him, he [Ibn Sharīshī, V.S.] had more than 40 writings of lugha (lexicography), among them the Siḥāḥ of al-Jawharī, of which everyone present at the gathering […] took one. Then al-Badr b. Sharīshī was tested regarding the question of the shawāhid in them. And he recited everything that was in these books and talked about linguistic matters, not deviating in anything and spoke about them in elaborate and useful terms. The persons present decided that he knew all shawāhid of lugha by heart and they wrote him ijāzas regarding this. And among the group that wrote him these [ijāzas] was Majd al-Dīn. ibn taghrībirdī, al-Nujūm al-ẓāhira, xiv, 133f.

Among the other guests in this majlis were Ibn Kathīr (701/1301(2) – 773/1371(2)), al-Mawṣilī (699/1299–1300 – 774/1372–1373), al-Fīrūzābādī’s former pupil al- Ṣafadī, Abū l-ʿIzz al-Ḥanafī (731/1330(1) – 792/1389(90)), and Ibn Ṣārim. These men may therefore be counted among al-Fīrūzābādī’s acquaintances although they do not have a high profile in his biographies.183

180 Al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā x, 34–35. 181 This is Ismāʿīl b. Abī Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Muqrī al-Shawārī (755[765]/1354 [1363–1364]-837/1433–1434), whom al-Fīrūzābādī encountered again as a competitor later in life. Cf. al-Akwaʿ, Ḥijar al-ʿilm i, 38–41, and Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāṭ al-Shāfiʿiyya iii, 85–86. 182 Kamāl al-Dīn al-Sharīshī died in 619/1222 (see Ben Abdesselem, al-Sharīshī). Ibn Kathīr’s account of the majlis (as given in Lāshīn, al-Ṣafadī, 39–40) therefore seems to be more detailed as well as more reliable: he states that the host was Kamāl al-Dīn al-Sharīshī’s son, Badr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. al-Sharīshī (694/1294–1295 – 769/1367–1368). See Lāshīn, al-Ṣafadī, 39–40, who also gives references to further reading on the scholars in question. For Ibn Kathīr, see Laoust, Ibn Kathīr, who gives slightly different dates; see also al-Suyūṭī, Dhayl ṭabaqāt, 361–362. 183 Another marginal contact was Burhān al-Dīn Ibrāhīm al-ʿAzīzī, who is said to have been 46 chapter 3

This report is significant for three reasons. First, it establishes al-Fīrūzābādī’s presence in Mecca in the year 790/1388 and similarly in Damascus in 763/1361– 1362. Secondly, it is the only written testimony that actually addresses al-Fīrūzā- bādī’s contact with al-Jawharī’s lexicon. Finally, it shows al-Fīrūzābādī’s reputation in his mid-thirties—Ibn Kathīr counts him among the aʿyān and among the aʾimmat al-lughawiyyīn.184 Given that a number of his works remain undat- able on the basis of the available source, it is an interesting question on what this reputation was actually based (see chapter 4.1). Furthermore, these questions of al-Fīrūzābādī’s reputation and the report of him studying al-Jawharī’s lexicon touch upon the issue of dating the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ. After this date, 763/1361–1362, he was certainly familiar with the Ṣiḥāḥ fī tāj al-lugha. Following this visit to Damascus in 763/1361–1362, al-Fīrūzābādī again reached Miṣr, probably used as a synonym for Cairo.185 This destination is not dated in contemporary reports. His Mamlūk patron, al-Ashraf Nāṣir al- Dīn Shaʿbān is named ṣāḥib Miṣr in the sources, suggesting that the tpq. for al-Fīrūzābādī’s arrival in Egypt was 764/1363. In that year, the Baḥrī Mamlūk assumed sovereignty. And al-Fīrūzābadī encountered him when he already helt this title. It is known that al-Fīrūzābādī instructed the ruler and dedicated a work to him. Judging from the fact that al-Fīrūzābādī wrote at least two, and possibly three, works on the matter, one might suspect that it was a subject matter that particularly interested him: alcoholic beverages. To al-Ashraf Nāṣir al-Dīn Shaʿbān, al-Fīrūzābādī dedicated his treatise on old wine.186

Title: al-Jalīs al-anīs fī asmāʾ al-khandarīs (The trustworthy companion to the names of old wine)

present at a samāʿa and a qirāʿa with al-Fīrūzābādī. The time, place and details of their activities there remain unclear. For this contact see al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭaba- qāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 204. 184 Cf. Lāshīn, al-Ṣafadī, 40. 185 Cf. Jomier/Rogers, al-Ḳāhira and Wensinck, Miṣr. c. 186 Cf. Fulton, Fīrūzābādī’s “Wine List”, 578. a life’s journey 47

– Jalīs al-ayis fī asmāʾ al-khandarīs (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – al-Jalīs fī asmāʾ al-khandarīs (al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr) – Asmāʾ al-khandarīs (al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 [sic.!, flawed pagination] – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh iv, 817 – al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 [sic.!, flawed pagination] (reference given: “Alex. Adab 32, Kairo 1iv, 233, 2ii, ii, iii, 75”); Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/235 [sic.!, flawed pagination] (reference given “Kairo2, ii, iii, 75”); Fulton, Fīrūzābādī’s “Wine List”, 579 (Or. 9200, British Museum); www.yazmalar.gov.tr (01 Hk 149/1—Milli Kütüphane-Ankara, collection: Adana İl Halk Kütüphanesi, ff. 1a–68b), al-Jazāʾirī mentions a ms in the Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya (no. nūn ʿayn 1871),187 see also Nemoy, Transactions, 167 (l515)

Status: Extant, partially published (edition used here Fulton, Fīrūzābādī’s “Wine List”, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 12,1 (1947), 579–585.)

Contents: Collection of the names of old wine.

187 See al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Ṣilāt wa-l-bushr, lām. 48 chapter 3

Remarks: It is said to have consisted of one volume.188 As outlined by Fulton in his partial edition, it was dedicated to al-Fīrūzābādī’s Mamlūk patron, Ashraf Nāṣir al-Dīn Shaʿbān and “composed […] in loyal support of the Islamic ordinance of ‘prohibition’ no less than as a contribution to Arabic philology”.189 In the introduction preceding the 357 words gathered in alphabetical order according to the first radical of the lexeme, al-Fīrūzābādī takes position regarding the consumption of intoxicating substances, in opposition to the Ḥanafī stance and affirms “his personal orthodoxy”.190 It should also be noted that, according to Fulton, the work was entitled al-Jalīs al-anīs fī taḥrīm al-khandarīs (The Cheery Companion to the Prohibition of Old Wine).191 The prohibition discussion, however, seems to be limited to the “dazzling if rather tiresome display of verbal jugglery in the time honoured way of Oriental prefaces”,192 since the remainder of the work as provided by Fulton is a list of words without further text.

Date: As this work is dedicated to the Baḥrī Mamlūk Ashraf Nāṣir al-Dīn Shaʿbān (r. 764/1363– 778/1376), its tpq. is 764/1362–1363.

The work lists 357 lexemes in all. According to the manuscript consulted by Fulton, al-Fīrūzābādī claimed to have known 300 lexemes on the matter by heart, and did not fail to take the opportunity to point out that even Ibn al- Muʿtazz “the celebrated writer of drinking songs knew of ninety”.193 The degree to which Fulton follows the manuscript verbatim or uses paraphrase here is unclear. In any case, this statement speaks of solid lexicographical competence paired with well-developed self-confidence on al-Fīrūzābādī’s part. From al-Fīrūzābādī’s own words, it is clear that he was in Siryaqaws194 near Cairo in the year 768/1366–1367, where he worked on the second of his two commentaries of al-Zamakhsharī’s195 Kashshāf.

188 See, for example, al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82. 189 Fulton, Fīrūzābādī’s “Wine List”, 582. As Gruber, Verdienst und Rang, 10 remarks, there is semantic overlap with the field of manāqib. 190 Fulton, Fīrūzābādī’s “Wine List”, 582. 191 Fulton, Fīrūzābādī’s “Wine List”, 579. 192 Ibid. 193 Ibid. 194 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 1001. On this location see Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān iii, 88. 195 See Brockelmann, gal gi, 290–293/344–350; idem: gal si, 507–513 and 829, Sezgin, gas i, 627 and Gilliot, L’exégèse, 152. a life’s journey 49

Titles: Quṭbat al-kashshāf fī sharḥ khuṭbat al-Kashshāf and Nughbat al-rashshāf min khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (The fine arrow tip of the scout concerning a commentary on the Khuṭbat al-Kashshāf and The gulp of the sipping drinker concerning a commentary on the Khuṭbat al- Kashshāf)

Title variants a): – Quṭbat al-khashshāf fī ḥal khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – Quṭbat al-khashshāf fī sharḥ khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ)

Title variants b): – Nughbat al-rashshāf min khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām) – Buhgyat al-rashshāf min khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – Sharḥ quṭbat al-khashshāf fī sharḥ khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn) – Sharḥ quṭbat al-Khashshāf (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – Sharḥ quṭbat al-ḥassāf fī sharḥ khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ)

Title variants, unspecific: – Sharḥ khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl; al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt)

Works attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 and 306 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 276 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 127 – al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl, 290 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 81 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19 50 chapter 3 mss a) attested in: None listed mss b) attested in: Brockelmann, gal sii, 235;196 Catalogue of the Tarīm library (digital copy in my possession)

Status a): Unrecovered

Status b): Published (edition used here al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf min khuṭbat al-Kashshāf, ʿUmar ʿAlawī (?) b. Shihāb (ed.), s.l. s.d.)

Contents: Two commentaries on al-Zamakhsharī’s Kashshāf. The Quṭbat al-khashshāf is unrecovered and no specifics regarding its contents have been transmitted except that the latter was an extension of it. The Nughbat al-rashshāf is a sentence by sentence commentary on the introduction of the Kashshāf.

Remarks: In the sources, a measure of uncertainty comes to light regarding the identity of the two works. At times, biographers perceived both titles as referring to one and the same work. However, al-Fīrūzābādī’s own words suggest that these two commentaries on al-Zamakhsharī are an instance of comment upon himself: as Ibn Shihāb states, the Quṭbat al-khashshāf was written first and later amended by the more extensive and detailed Nughbat al-rashshāf.197 The risāla198 Nughbat al-rashshāf is a sentence by sentence commentary upon al- Zamakhsharī’s introduction to his Kashshāf with some small deviations between the textual corpus of the Kashshāf and al-Fīrūzābādī’s own work. The overall modus ope- randi is linguistic definition of individual words (Ibn Sīda and al-Ṣaghānī feature frequently).

196 There are no references to mss of the first of the two works. The second is vocalized as “Naghbat” by Brockelmann, gal sii, 235. 197 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 14 n. 2. 198 Al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19. a life’s journey 51

Although al-Fīrūzābādī comments only on a fragment of the work, he selected the most demonstrative section, of whose significance he was certainly aware.199 Al-Fīrūzābādī states that the work was triggered by questions regarding the difference between “anzala” and “nazzala”.200 Obviously, this statement relates to the very first sentence of al-Zamakhasharī’s khuṭba. This sentence is especially critical, as it was often seen as the embodiment of the Muʿtazilī doctrine of the created Qurʾān.201 By al-Fīrūzābādī’s time, the Muʿtazila and the controversy surrounding it was past its heyday,202 and his interest speaks for the influence still exerted by al-Zamakhsharī’s works. This influence can also be detected in al-Fīrūzābādī’s frequent use of al-Zamak- hsharī as a source, which stands vis-à-vis his critical examination of al-Zamakhsharī in the Nughbat al-rashshāf.203 From a prosopographical perspective, the Nughbat al-rashshāf is also interesting for its mention of one of al-Fīrūzābādī’s teachers—Sirāj al-Dīn Abū Ḥafṣ al-Jabaljīlī204— whose name is not mentioned in biographies on the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs.

Date: Al-Fīrūzābādī states that the second work was concluded in 768/1366–1367,205 which makes the Nughbat al-rashshāf a product of al-Fīrūzābādī’s time in Egypt.

This second visit to Egypt is not dated in biographies. It will therefore be worthwhile to consider a statement by the editor of the Nughbat al-rashshāf and its implications for al-Fīrūzābādī’s vita: Ibn Shihāb reads al-Fīrūzābādī’s reference to “al-ṣultān al-Ashraf” as referring to al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl al-Rasūlī and therefore assigns the work to al-Fīrūzābādī’s Yemenī period.206 This estimate may have been triggered by the fact that an educational facility by the name of Siryaqaws actually is attested outside the city of Zabīd.207 However, there are no indications of a journey to, or acquaintances in Yemen in the 760s/late

199 On the significance of introductory sections see Qutbuddin, Khuṭba, with remarks on al-Fīrūzābādī on page 183. 200 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 99. 201 I thank Prof. Cornelia Schöck of Ruhr-Universität Bochum for her comments on this matter. 202 On this matter see, for example, Crone, Medieval Islamic Political Thought, 65. 203 On this matter see Ibn Shihāb’s copious foreword to the Nughbat al-rashshāf, especially page 36. 204 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 103. 205 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 27. 206 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 100–101. 207 See Ḥaḍramī, Zabīd, 223–224. 52 chapter 3

1350s-late 1360s. Furthermore, the prosopographical and biographical details point toward Egypt rather than Yemen: al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl did not succeed to the Rasūlid throne until 780/1378.208 There would consequently have been no reason for al-Fīrūzābādī to address him with a title of sovereignty such as sulṭān. Nonetheless, it should not go unsaid here that there is indeed one strand of biographical tradition that advocates al-Fīrūzābādī’s arrival in Yemen around this time; the details of these differences in reports are discussed in chapter 3.5. For the present study, al-Fīrūzābādī’s sharḥ on al-Zamakhsharī yields several points of interest:

1. In matters of politics and power, it may testify to sustained interest in the Muʿtazila on the part of the Mamlūk rulers, despite its decline. By not only writing, but even rewriting his work for the Mamlūk sulṭān, al-Fīrūzābādī participated in this debate. 2. Given the status of the Kashshāf as a prominent work of tafsīr, the Nughbat al-rashshāf attests to al-Fīrūzābādī’s interest in this field of expertise during his 40s. 3. The argument for geographical placement of the Nughbat al-rashshāf and thus for dating al-Fīrūzābādī’s presence in Cairo does not only establish a further destination in his travels, but also influences the dating of his visit to the balad al-Rūm (see below).

The existence of this work shows that al-Fīrūzābādī sought the grace of the Mamlūk ruler and that he did so by the well-established means of dedicating works to the sovereign. In this respect, he followed a common custom of his time. The chosen topic of the two works mentioned above is somewhat surprising, as the debate surrounding the Muʿtazila209 is widely regarded to have been past its most intense phases. Beyond the fact that al-Fīrūzābādī visited the ruler and wrote a book for him (which cannot be analyzed in detail here), the sources remain silent on al-Fīrūzābādī’s relations with the Baḥrī Mamlūk house and on the extent of his involvement in political or religious debates. When al-Fīrūzābādī visited Egypt, the Mamlūk Sultanate had already progressed from ascent (648/1250 – 659–1260) to power and its consolidation (659/1260–693/1293) through a period of internal divisions (693/1293–710/1310) to the third reign of Muḥammad b. Qalāwūn (710/1310–742/1341) into a “period

208 See Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Dhayl al-durar, 98. 209 On the most important cornerstones of the history of the Muʿtazila see El Omari, Muʿtazi- lah. For a more detailed treatment refer to Gimaret, Muʿtazila. a life’s journey 53 of increasing socio-economic distress and internal political instability which paved the way for the rise of the Circassian dynasty.”210 Bernard Lewis states that Qalāwūn’s descendants were largely incompetent,211 allowing Barqūq to displace the last Baḥrī Mamlūk some 20 years after al-Fīrūzābādī’s visit to Cairo, namely in 784/1382. Other scholars pass a more favourable judgement on al-Ashraf Shaʿbān, but apart from the question of the ruler’s competence, his reign was also destabilized by other factors, such as the bubonic plague in Egypt 748/1347–749/1348. Whether these developments had any influence on al-Fīrūzābādī remains unclear. Regarding his scholarly development, this sojourn in Cairo is the latest possible occasion for al-Fīrūzābādī’s studies with Ibn Jamāʿa (694/1294–767/1366).212 An encounter between both men is mentioned occasionally, but the time and place remain unclear. Although al-Fīrūzābādī may already have met this teacher in 755/1373–1374, this is unlikely given the brevity of this previous stay in Cairo. Ibn Jamāʿa instructed him in Kaʿb b. Zuhayr’s Qaṣīdat al-burda and other verse, and so was one of the main influences on al-Fīrūzābādī in the field of poetry.213 Besides the fact that al-Fīrūzābādī wrote two works indirectly relating to that qaṣīḍa, very little is known of his prose. It may reasonably be assumed that the lessons by Ibn Jamāʿa contributed significantly to al-Fīrūzābādī’s interest in the Qaṣīdat al-burda and that his concern with the subject may therefore have been an outcome of this encounter. This is supported by the fact that Ibn Jamāʿa is the only teacher mentioned for the subject and his influence was lasting: many years later—around the turn of the century—al-Fīrūzābādī passed Ibn Jamāʿa’s reading of the Qaṣīdat al- burda on to his pupil al-Fāsī.214 On the Qaṣīdat al-burda, al-Fīrūzābādī wrote two works:

Titles: Zād[at] al-maʿād fī wazn Bānat Suʿād and Sharḥ zād[at] al-maʿād fī wazn Bānat Suʿād (Increase of the return concerning the metre of Bānat Suʿād and Commentary to the Increase of the return concerning the metre of Bānat Suʿād)

210 For the periodisation of the Mamlūk Sultanate and the present quote see Northrup, The Baḥrī Mamlūk Sultanate. 1250–1390, 251. 211 Cf. Lewis, Egypt and Syria, 218. 212 See Salibi, Ibn Djamāʿ; Brockelmann, gal gii, 72/86; al-Ḥusaynī al-Dimashqī, Dhayl Tadh- kirat, 41–43; al-Suyūṭī, Dhayl ṭabaqāt, 363–364.; al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā x, 79–81. 213 On this discipline see Hiskett, Shiʿr. 214 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 17. 54 chapter 3

Title variants a): No title variants

Title variants b): No variants, description (its sharḥ)

Work a) attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 304 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1330 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 83

Work b) attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 304 – Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1330 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 83 mss a) and b) attested in: None listed

Status a) and b): Unrecovered

Contents: Commentaries on the qaṣīda by Kaʿb b. Zuhayr that opens with the words “Bānat Suʿād”.215

Remarks: These two complementary works are said by most reports to have been comprised in a single volume, although individual sources say that they were separate.

215 See also al-Qummī, al-Kunnā wa-l-alqāb iii, 38; for details on the poet Basset, Kaʿb b. Zuhayr. On the work in question see Inayatullah, Bānat Suʿād see also Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1329–1330. a life’s journey 55

Date: Unknown. If the tentative date of al-Fīrūzābādī’s instruction regarding the Qaṣīdat al-burda through Ibn Jamāʿa is accepted, familiarity with the subject can be assumed after the year 764/1362–1363, which can consequently be proposed as a tpq. for the work.

Despite their different subjects, the four works—both commentaries on the Kashshāf and the two works on the Qaṣīdat al-burda—have one common trait: they are the only cases besides the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ in which al-Fīrūzābādī re-wrote his own work. While his motivation for the second edition of the Encompassing Ocean likely were political (see chapter 3.6.2.2), the case seems to be different with his commentary on the Kashshāf and the Zād al-maʿād fī wazn Bānat Suʿād. They seem to have been motivated by scholarly reasons, since the author explicitely states his dissatisfaction with his first work on al-Zamakhsharī’s tafsīr.216 Al-Fīrūzābādī may also have felt a need to explain his first commentary on Bānat Suʿād. The middle of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life thus emerges as a time at which he thought it necessary to reconsider, refine and explain his own works. In 770/1368, al-Fīrūzābādī returned to Mecca, as found in al-Sakhāwī and, apparently following him, Brockelmann.217 He stayed here for five years218 before embarking on another journey. This point in al-Fīrūzābādī’s life marks a new stage in his career as a scholar, since his works were being copied.219 In the following 25 years, al-Fīrūzābādī’s presence in Mecca is stated for 782/1380,220 786/1384,221 790/1388222 and 794/1392.223 It is also known that he continued to teach other pupils, among them al-ʿAlawī (745/1344–1345 – 825/1421–1422), who studied with al-Fīrūzābādī in 786/1384.224 Regarding the overall development of al-Fīrūzābādī’s oeuvre, one of his pupils in the year 790/1388 is of special relevance: the Egyptian historian al-Maqrīzī (765–766/1364 – 845–846/1442),225 in a first person statement, says that he received the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ from his

216 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 27. 217 See al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 85 and Brockelmann, gal gii, 181/232 respectively. 218 Al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, mīm. 219 As specified by Ṭashköprüzādeh, Miftāḥ al-saʿāda i, 103. 220 Al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, ʿayn. 221 Abū Makhrama, Kitāb tārīkh thaghr ʿAdan, 94–95. 222 Ibn Taghrībirdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira xiv, 133–134. 223 Cf. for example al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 5 and Brockelmann, gal gii, 182/232. 224 On Abū Rabīʿ Sulaymān b. Ibrāhīm b. ʿUmar b. ʿAlī al-ʿAlawī, see Abū Makhrama: Kitāb tārīkh thaghr ʿAdan, 94–95 and Ḥaḍramī, Zabīd, 214–215. 225 See al-Biqāʿī, ʿUnwān al-zamān i, 109–110 and Rosenthal, “al-Maḳrīzī”. 56 chapter 3 teacher.226 Al-Fīrūzābādī is said to have concluded the work in his house in Mecca;227 if al-Maqrīzī met al-Fīrūzābādī in Mecca and received the Qāmūs from him, the year 790/1388 is a likely date for al-Fīrūzābādī’s conclusion of his most famous work. In between these visits to Mecca, al-Fīrūzābādī undertook a number of other journeys. He is said to have encountered “Shāh Shujāʿ, Ṣāḥib Tabrīz”228 (with al-Zabīdī and al-Shawkānī, the same reference reads “Shāh Manṣūr b. Shāh Shujāʿ”229), a formulation that originates from a genealogical misapprehension: the Muẓaffarī Shāh Shujaʿ (r. 759/1358–765/1364 and 767/1366) had a son named Zayn al-ʿAbidīn (r. 786/1384–789/1387). The Muẓaffarī whose ism was Manṣūr (r. 793/1391–795/1393) was Sharaf al-Dīn Muẓaffar’s (d. 754/1353) son. This makes Manṣūr a nephew of al-Muẓaffar. A person by the name given in al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ and the Tājal-ʿarūs therefore did not exist.230 Since the Muẓaffarī was sovereign of Tabrīz for only a few months,231 al-Fīrūzābādī would have been in the city in the year 776/1374. Whether he returned to Mecca directly is unknown. His presence in Mecca and al-Madīna is attested for the year 782/1382,232 and this journey to Mecca was the incentive for al-Fīrūzābādī’s monograph on al-Madīna, as the author himself states:233

Title: al-Maghānim al-muṭāba fī maʿālim Ṭāba (The well-scented profits concerning the particularities of Ṭāba)

226 See, for example, al-Maqrīzī in al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 85–86. 227 Cf. Wüstenfeld, DieGeschichtschreiber, 203. On the house see lemma “ṣ-f-w” in al-Fīrūzābā- dī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ iv, 400 (edition al-Sayyid). This house is also mentioned by al-Fāsī. See al-Maqqarī al-Tilimsānī, al-Zahral-riyāḍ iii, 46 (accessed via http://ktp.isam.org.tr/?url =dokuman/findrecords.php, 10 January, 2014). 228 It is reported thus by, for example, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 162. 229 See al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 281, and al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿarūs i, 42. Bājūr has “Shāh Manṣūr ʿamm Shāh Shujāʿ”. See al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 17. 230 For the genealogical data cf. Lane-Poole, The Mohammadan Dynasties, 227, and Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 264–265. 231 Cf. Blair, Tabrīz. For further detail on the dynasty see Jackson, Muẓaffarids. 232 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, ʿayn. On the city in general see Winder et al., al-Madīna, and on some dates concerning the contest of different persons to rule it see Mortel, The Ḥusaynid Amirate of Madīna during the Mamlūk Period, 98–119. 233 Al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, ʿayn. a life’s journey 57

Title variants: No title variants

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 95 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 mss attested in: www.yazmalar.gov.tr234 (34 Fe 1529 – İstanbul Millet Kütüphanesi, collection: Feyzul- lah Efendi Kolleksiyonu, 274 pages), al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, pp. qāf following,

Status: Partically published (edition used here al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim al-muṭāba fī maʿālim Ṭāba, ed. Ḥamad al-Jāsir, al-Riyaḍ 1389/1969)

Contents: Alphabetical encyclopaedia on matters related to al-Madīna in six parts.

Remarks: This work is part of a longstanding tradition of historiographical writing on al-Madīna and may have influenced al-Sakhāwī’s writing.235 It was designed to provide a comprehensive description of al-Madīna in six broad divisions: “(1) fī faḍl al-ziyāra wa- ādābihā wa-mā yataʿallaqu bi-dhālika, (2) fī tārīkh balad al-muqaddas wa-dhikr man sakanahu,236 (3) fī asmāʾ al-Madīna,237 (4) fī faḍāʾil al-maʾthūra, (5) fī dhikr amākin al- Madīna, (6) fī dhikr mimman adrakahum fi-l-Madīna”.238 In it, al-Fīrūzābādī adopted

234 Due to technical malfunctions, the manuscripts provided here could not be accessed. 235 Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography, 481. 236 As also mentioned by the author in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, 237. 237 Al-Fīrūzābādī, under the heading “taybatu”, names some of its synonyms. See al-Fīrūzābā- dī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ i, 124 (edition al-Sayyid). 238 “(1) regarding the benefits of visiting [the city] and its fine customs and of what is connected to this, (2) on the history of the holy land and the rememberance of those who lived there, (3) regarding the names of al-Madīna, (4) on the virtues of that which has been transmittted, (5) regarding the locations in al-Madīna, (6) regarding rememberance of those who have come to (old age?) in Madīna.” Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, ʿayn. 58 chapter 3 an encyclopedic approach, dividing his work into abwāb that are again subdivided into abwāb. These subdivisions are each dedicated to one letter of the alphabet, arranged in alphabetical order according to the initial consonant of the words listed. In total, the published fifth bāb of al-Maghānim contains 2375 entries of a geographical nature. In this part of the work, there is a high frequency of quotes from poems, but none by al-Fīrūzābādī. This part of al-Maghānim also contains references to authors whose writings were received and utilized by al-Fīrūzābādī, among them al-Ṣaghānī, al-Bukhārī and al-Zamakhsharī.239

Date: The dates of commencement or completion of this work are uncertain, just as is its chronological position within the conglomerate of faḍāʾil. This work may have been written around the same time as al-Fīrūzābādī’s Tahyīj al-gharām ilā l-balad al-ḥarām; this is suggested by al-Fīrūzābādī’s repeated mention of his kitāb Makka (see also below, item no. 52). Furthermore, al-Fīrūzābādī includes the geographical aspect in his definition of the lexeme khubzatu.240 Therefore, at the time of writing al-Maghānim, he must have been aware of the existence of the town. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s own testimony places the initial incentive for this work in the year 782/1380–1381, when he visited al-Madīna.

From textual overlap, it is obvious that al-Fīrūzābādī also wrote his book on Mecca around the time at which he worked on his treatise on Madīna:

Title: Tahyīj al-gharām ilā l-balad al-ḥarām (The stirring of passionate longing for the Holy Land)

Title variants: – Tahyīj al-gharām ilā l-balad al-ḥarām (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – Muhīj al-gharām ilā l-balad al-ḥarām (Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ, Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography) – Risāla fī asmāʾ Makka (Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn)

239 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, 32, 170, and 182 respectively. 240 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, 128. a life’s journey 59

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 93, 95 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography, 481 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 mss attested in: al-Jāsir mentions a manuscript of this work “in one of the libraries of Baghdād”.241

Status: Extant, unpublished

Contents: Risāla242 on the history of Mecca.243

Remarks: Although the work in itself was inaccessible, it can be surmised from al-Fīrūzābādī’s statements that it constituted a complement to al-Maghānim al-muṭāba. He refers to this work repeatedly and announces that he will treat a number of individual entries in the “kitāb Makka”;244 thus, the entries khummu, al-rajī, al-ṣafrāwāt, dhāt al-ghār and kashr do not occur in al-Maghānim, and instead are found in the former book.245

Date: In light of the above textual link it may be assumed that the Muhīj was not yet completed when al-Fīrūzābādī wrote al-Maghānim, but that it was at least in a conceptually advanced stage, possibly being written simultaneously.

Given the distances he had to cover to reach his next established place of residence and the time required to do so, al-Fīrūzābādī may well have moved fairly soon from the balad al-ḥaramayn to al-Hind. Besides the fact that he travelled to the realm of the Tughluqid sovereigns,246 not much is known of

241 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, nūn. 242 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, 219 n. 1. 243 Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography, 481. 244 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, nūn. 245 Cf. al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, 133, 153, 219, 300, and 357. 246 On the Turghluqids see Kulke/Rothermund, Geschichte Indiens. 60 chapter 3 this episode; Delhi is specified as a place of residence, and Ibn Ḥajar reports that his teacher visited the village of Bhattrinda247 in matters of the muʿammar Bābā Ratan.248 India nonetheless holds a special position in the reconstruction of al-Fīrūzā- bādī’s travels. It is the least documented journey and no specific dates for this part of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life have come down to us. It is seen by some transmitters as al-Fīrūzābādī’s last destination before his departure to Yemen, but there is also reason to believe differently (see below, chapter 3.5). Moreover, there is reason to doubt those sources (such as al-Kirmānī’s report) that suggest that al-Fīrūzābādī entered al-Hind after 796/1393–1394. Regarding the first point, al- Maqrīzī’s reports are particularly important: he states that al-Fīrūzābādī came to Yemen from India, yet there are no sources that could clarify the basis for his conclusion. It is possible that he followed reports such as Ibn Ḥajar’s and omitted those stages that intervened between this sojourn in India and the next important point in al-Fīrūzābādī’s life, namely his entry to Yemen. This could produce statements such as his “the coming of our shaykh, Majd al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, from India”.249 Regarding mention of India after 796/1393–1394, it should be noted that there were indeed diplomatic contacts between India and Yemen in 798/1396, as al- Khazrajī reports. Statements about al-Fīrūzābādī’s travel to India after the year 790/1388 may therefore have been caused by the assumption that he encountered a certain person mentioned by the Rasūlid court historian in India, rather than in al-Yemen. Regarding this specific encounter, there is little information. The visitor in question is identified by al-Khazrajī as “Kùjer Shah”,250 a man Wüstenfeld strongly assumes to have been an adventurer from India.251 Judging from genealogical constellations, ‘Kùjer Shāh’ would have been a son of Fīrūz Shāh Ẓafar b. Fīrūz Shāh iii, who ruled from 791/1389.252 There is also occasional reference to contact between al-Fīrūzābādī and Sikandar Shāh, who ruled only in 796/1394,253 a fact that again may have led biographers like al-Kirmānī to assume that al-Fīrūzābādī visited India after 790/1388. In the year 796/1393– 1394, al-Fīrūzābādī reportedly did not leave Yemen. The fact that he therefore certainly did not meet Sikandar Shāh during his reign does not preclude the

247 ‘Bhattinda’ is a more common spelling, but incorrect. See Bazmee Ansari, Bhattinda. 248 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 161–162 and idem, Dhayl al-durar, 239. 249 Al-Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda ii, 268. 250 Cf. al-Khazrajī, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 255. 251 See Wüstenfeld, The Pearl Strings iii, 217. 252 See Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 301. 253 Ibid. a life’s journey 61 possibility that he encountered him when al-Fīrūzābādī was in India in the 780s/late 1370s-late 1380s; the same applies to the mentioned son of Fīrūz Shāh Ẓafar b. Fīrūz Shāh iii. This journey to India shows al-Fīrūzābādī’s particular interest in Bābā Ratan al-Batrandī, a famous saint, who had supposedly been born in Bhattrinda and lived long enough to meet Muḥammad.254 To assess this claim, al-Fīrūzābādī travelled to Bhattinda, north of Dehli.255 Ibn Ḥajar mentions this journey and al-Fīrūzābādī’s intention to enquire into Bābā Ratan al-Batrandī with a verbatim quote from his teacher.256 Al- Fīrūzābādī’s interest in Bābā Ratan ties in with two tendencies of his time. First, it mirrors the ongoing debates on taṣawwuf, as Bābā Ratan was cited to jus- tify some Sufi practices.257 Secondly, his interest in the Indian saint involved al-Fīrūzābādī in another widespread discussion of his time: not least for their importance in ḥadīth, muʿammarūn258 were the subject of debate. Bābā Ratan’s status not only as a muʿammar, but specifically as one of the ṣaḥāba, was widely contested, as al-Zabīdī’s overview of opinions shows.259 Similar disagreement can be found regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s conclusions: Goldziher, Juynboll and Shafīʿ state that al-Fīrūzābādī accepted Ratan’s status.260 The same is the case with Abū l-Fażl.261 From the Qāmūsal-muḥīṭ we know that al-Fīrūzābādī clearly rejected the ascribed position of Bābā Ratan among the ṣaḥāba, as he says: wa- Ratanun, muḥarrakan: Ibnu Kirbāli Ibni Ratanin al-Batrandī, laysa bi-ṣaḥābiy- yin, wa-innamā huwa kadhdhābun …262 Whether he concerned himself more closely with the matter could possibly be established by examining the Aḥādīth al-ḍaʿīfa (see chapter 3.6 and item no. 13). His interest in Bābā Ratan is the only widely transmitted detail of al-Fīrūzā- bādī’s time in India. Nonetheless, there is reason to assume that al-Fīrūzābādī’s

254 On him see Horovitz, Bābā Ratan; al-Shafīʿ, Ratan; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Kitāb al-Iṣāba i, 532–578. 255 For information on the city see Burton-Page, Dihlī. 256 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾal-ghumr vii, 161–162. 257 See Horovitz, Bābā Ratan, 112. 258 People who are said to have lived for an exceptionally long time. See Juynboll, Muʿammar, 258. 259 Refer to lemma “r-t-n”, in al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿarūs ix, 212. 260 Juynboll, Muʿammar; Shafīʿ, Ratan; Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien. Zweiter Teil, 172–173. 261 See Horowitz, Bābā Ratan, 112. 262 ‘He is not one of the ṣaḥāba and truly a liar.’ Lemma “r-t-n” in al-Fīrūzābādī, Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ iv, 256 (edition al-Sayyid). 62 chapter 3

Indian connection—or its perception by those who buried him—was stronger than the limited information on this phase suggests: on the one hand, such greater importance is suggested by al-Fīrūzābādī’s strong interest in al-Ṣaghānī. With him, al-Fīrūzābādī chose to take personal and scholarly impetus from a person whose Mashāriq al-anwār al-nabawiyya was “the earliest contribution of India to ḥadīth literature”.263 Whether his high regard for al-Ṣaghānī was a reason for al-Fīrūzābādī’s travel to India is not reported. This may nonetheless have been the case, since al-Fīrūzābādī clearly admired al-Ṣaghānī. From among the multitude of scholars whose works al-Fīrūzābādī studied, al-Ṣaghā- nī emerges as the single most pervasive and forming influence. He studied his Mashāriq al-anwār twice in Baghdad, namely in 745/1344(5) – 747/1346(7), and again in 794/1391–1392. As Hellmut Ritter notes, another of al-Ṣaghānī’s books, the Takmila, was held in high esteem by al-Fīrūzābādī. Ritter states:

The other lexicographical work is […] a complement to Jawharī’s Siḥāḥ. This book had an admirer, namely the author of the Qāmūs, Fīrūzābādī […]. He copied the work with his own hand, made many supplements to it and held this copy in great honour like a treasure. Once, one of the princes wanted to have the copy,but Fīrūzābādī simulated a waqf, in order to save it from the grasp of the prince. It never occured to him to part with it. ritter, Autographs, 86

From al-Fīrūzābādī’s reference to al-Yāfiʿī on the last page of the second volume of his copy of the Takmila,264 it is obvious that the manuscript must have been in his possession at least until 760/1358. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s particular interest in al- Ṣaghānī’s writings is evident in his repeated study of his works and in the direct impetus for his magnum opus, the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ. Besides the Qāmūs, Ṣaghānī may also have inspired al-Fīrūzābādī’s writings on the names of the lion and the asmāʾ al-ghāda. His biography of al-Ṣaghānī in the Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya shows that al-Fīrūzābādī knew of al-Ṣaghānī’s work on the subject. This phase of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life additionally warrants future in-depth inves- tigation as he is buried in a grave of typically Indian design.265

263 Baalbaki, al-Ṣaghānī, 821. 264 As reproduced in Ritter, Autographs, plate xxi. 265 I thank Prof. Muzaffar Alam for his remarks on this matter. a life’s journey 63

photo 1 al-Fīrūzābādī’s grave in Zabīd266

Al-Shafīʿ states that this journey to India took place in the years 785/1383– 790/1388.267 In the context of other dates, however, it is clear that this stay cannot have been uninterrupted; al-Fīrūzābādī returned to Mecca at least once (in 786/1384–1385).268 It is at this point of his vita that repeated travelling between India and Mecca occurred—this point is important with regard to the divergent reports of al-Fīrūzābādī’s routes to Yemen (on these issues of transmission see chapter 3.5). On his way to India, al-Fīrūzābādī may have stopped at Marw,269 as he wrote a tārīkh of the city (cf. item no. 52). Furthermore, considering the reference to al-Taftazānī (722/1322–793/1390) as one of his teachers,270 al-Fīrūzābādī may

266 Photos 1–4 were taken during a 2009 study excursion of members of Ruhr-Universität Bochum to Yemen and are reproduced with kind permission of all members of the group. 267 Al-Shafīʿ, Ratan. 268 See Abū Makhrama, Kitāb tārīkh thaghr ʿAdan, 94–95. 269 From the two possible destinations bearing this name, Marw al-Rūdh and Marw al- Shāhijān, it is likely that the latter is meant here, as this is the city which is “simply Marw”; cf. Bosworth, Marw al-Rūdh and idem, Marw al-Shāhidjān. 270 In al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 295. On him see, for example, Madelung, al-Taftazānī; Brockelmann, gal gii, 215–216/278–280 and idem, gal sii, 301–304. 64 chapter 3 also have passed through Sarakhs, situated between Marw and Nishapur.271 Here, al-Taftazānī taught in 782/1380 and 785/1383–786/1384, with intervening stays in Sarmakand.272 By 790/1388,273 al-Fīrūzābādī had returned to Mecca from India and continued on his way to the balad al-rūm, where he visited another prominent figure of his time, Bāyazīd Yildirim (r. 791/1389–805/1403), the Ottoman sulṭān.274 This journey to Bāyazīd is not dated in tarājim, and concerning this point in al-Fīrūzābādī’s biography Brockelmann states that “Nach ŠN [i.e. Ṭashköprüzā- deh: al-Shaqāʾiq al-nuʿmāniyya] und as-Suyūṭī [i.e. al-Suyūṭī: Bughyat al-wuʿāt] hätte er Bāyazīd i (782–805/1390–1402) besucht, aber sein Aufenthalt in Rūm muss in die j. 765/70 fallen”,275 but does not elaborate his point further. Fleisch, who follows the same source, remains silent on the matter. The text in question from Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī’s Kitāb al-rawḍ al-ʿāṭir has remained unpublished;276 it is included in the appendix. The title of sāḥib al-rūm, however, suggests a meeting after the Ottoman ruler’s ascension to power, setting the tpq. for this encounter in the year 791/ 1388–1389. Moreover, the above discussed evidence, which places al-Fīrūzābādī in Siryaqaws in 768/1366–1367, speaks against Brockelmann’s argument. This journey to Bāyazīd is set apart by the fact that the Ottoman ruler is the only patron besides al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl al-Rasūlī and Tīmūr whose encounter with al-Fīrūzābādī is described and whom the scholar is said to have served.277 To him al-Fīrūzābādī dedicated an unidentified book whose dedication has been preserved and which may serve to identify the work as soon as the remainder of al-Fīrūzābādī’s writings have been recovered.278 His visit to the Ottoman realm occurred at a turning point in the history of that Empire, as Bāyazīd was among the sovereigns whose rule contributed significantly to the rise of the Empire. Serbia had been conquered shortly

271 On the city see Bosworth, Sarakhs. 272 See Sezgin, gas i, 427. For these specific dates see Madelung, al-Taftazānī. 273 Ibn Taghrībirdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira xiv, 133–134. 274 See on him Inalcik, Bāyazīd (Bayezid) i. 275 “Following ŠN and al-Suyūṭī, he would have visited Bāyazīd i, but his stay in Rūm has to fall into the years 765/70”. Brockelmann, gal gii, 182/232 n. 1. 276 The partial edition Güneş, Das Kitāb ar-rauḍ al-ʿāṭir does not include al-Fīrūzābādī’s tarjama. 277 As mentioned, for example, by Ṭashköprüzādeh, al-Shaqāʾiq al-nuʿmāniyya, 29, and Sarkīs, Muʿjam al-maṭbuʿāt, 1469. 278 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 6 and idem, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 18. The title of the work in question is not specified. a life’s journey 65 before al-Fīrūzābādī’s arrival at the Ottoman court, in 792/1389, and this was only one of Bāyazīd’s many victories in the scholar’s lifetime.279 Bāyazīd was therefore a powerful sovereign and al-Fīrūzābādī effectively placed himself amidst the operational centre of a rising power. Nonetheless, that power was threatened by Tīmūr’s renewed campaigning at the time; by his departure from Bursa, al-Fīrūzābādī showed sensitivity to the coming danger because, by 802/1399, Bāyazīd’s position became more precarious. When the Circassian Barqūq died in 801/1399280 the Ottoman sulṭān almost found himself sharing borders with Tīmūr. From that point on, the Ottoman position vis-à-vis Tīmūr deteriorated.281 However, by the time Bāyazīd had been taken prisoner and Tīmūr raided his residence in Bursa282 in 804–805/1402, al-Fīrūzābādī was safely travelling between Ṭāʾif and Mecca. The latest date for al-Fīrūzābādī’s departure from Bursa283 is the year 794/ 1391–1392. Possibly, both journeys, to and from Bursa, were made by means of the rakb al-shāmī that served as a regular connection between the holy cities and Syria, as well as Anatolia.284 In 794/1391–1392, al-Fīrūzābādī was in Mecca again,285 where he met Aḥmad b. Uways (r. 794/1392–813/1410), and accepted his invitation to join the caravan to Baghdad,286 following a visit to Ṭāʾif287 and thence a return to Mecca for the obligations of the ḥajj. After he had reached Baghdad via the rakb al-ʿirāqī,288 al-Fīrūzābādī again studied the Mashāriq al-asrār of al-Ṣaghānī. This stay in Baghdad was nonetheless short. Again, the decision to leave the Jalāʾirid ruler showed the scholar’s awareness of political danger; this decision was wise. In 796/1393–1394, Tīmūr reached Baghdad, forcing al-Fīrūzābādī’s patron to flee.289 Given Tīmūr’s inclination to take skilled artisans and scholars into his entourage (mostly invol-

279 See Reichmuth/Sievert, Osmanisches Reich, 565–566 for details. 280 See Wiet, Barḳūḳ. 281 On these developments see also Kreiser, Der Osmanische Staat, esp. p. 21. 282 Al-Fīrūzābādī spent his time in Bursa, although the Ottoman capital had been moved to Edirne in 763/1361; cf. Faroqhi, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, 16. 283 Mentioned in al-Zanūzī, Riyāḍ al-janna, iv/iv, 135 and in al-Zabīdī’s tarjama of al-Fīrūzābā- dī in the Tāj al-ʿarūs. 284 See ʿAnkawi, The Pilgrimage, 148. For further details on pilgrimage routes see al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Shifāʾ al-gharām, 106–109. 285 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 6 has 792/1389–1390. 286 Al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, mīm. 287 Ibid. 288 Al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 18. 289 A very graphic description of Aḥmad b. Uways narrowly escaping alive at Kerbela is given in Nagel, Tīmūr der Eroberer, 234. 66 chapter 3 untarily on their part), al-Fīrūzābādī was lucky to reach Shīrāz in the following year. The year after, i.e. 796/1393–1394, he departed from Hurmuz to ʿAdan.290 Before this move to Yemen, two things had taken place that are of special importance for al-Fīrūzābādī, both as a scholar and as an actor on the political stage. The first of these two developments was his contact with Sufism. Al- Zarandī al-Madanī may have been al-Fīrūzābādī’s first Sufi teacher. The mentioned possibility of an encounter with Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya in 750/1350 likewise touches upon this point. His possible meeting with al-Taftazānī in the 780s/late 1370s-late 1380s should also be mentioned here. In any case, it is clear that al-Fīrūzābādī took a serious interest in matters of taṣawwuf by 760/1358– 1359, at the latest. These studies allowed him to form ties with prominent Sufis in Yemen and involved him in one of the most important religious-political conflicts of his time. The second development was that he had written his most famous work, the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, before he became a member of the Rasūlid court.

3.4.1 The Celebrated Qāmūs Baalbaki fittingly summarizes al-Fīrūzābādī’s reputation and the importance of the Encompassing Ocean by saying: “He is best known, however, for his muğannas lexicon, al-Qāmūs […] So popular was this lexicon that the word qāmūs came to denote “lexicon” in general.”291 The Qāmūs has never gone out of print,292 it is still used today for scholarly purposes293 and no treatment of Arabic lexicography can go without at least briefly mentioning the Qāmūs.294 The use of the lexicon and the numerous editions shows the continued, though

290 On these two cities see Lockhart, Hurmuz, and Löfgren, ʿAdan respectively. Given the relocation of Hurmuz to an island in the year 700/1300, this would in fact have been a twofold voyage. 291 Baalbaki, The Arabic Lexicographical Tradition, 392. 292 For an overview of a number of its editions, as well as editions of some of al-Fīrūzābādī’s other works, refer to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, al-Turāth al-islāmī ii, 746–748. 293 Lewicka for example takes recourse to the Qāmūs in discussing cheese (Lewicka, Food and Foodways, 240), Malti-Douglas establishes the meaning of bukhl through comparison of the “three most important native dictionaries” [the Lisān, the Tāj al-ʿarūs and the Qāmūs] (Malti-Douglas, Structures of Avarice, 138), and Ouyang treats an omission of metaphorical meaning in the lemma al-naqada (Ouyang, Literary Criticism, 203–204.) 294 See, for example, Seidensticker, Lexicography. Classical Arabic; Shivtiel, Root Dictionary, 17; Versteegh, Linguistic Tradition, 33; Carter, lexicography, medieval, 468; Hassanein, Lexicography. a life’s journey 67 not uncontested, popularity of the work;295 there are even Qāmūs apps for smartphones. Overviews of the literature on the Qāmūs are provided by a number of scholars;296 Baalbaki also points out the major works.297 Regarding developments in Early Modern times, one aspect remains under- researched: the influence of the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ on European Arabic lexicography.298 The Qāmūs was an important source, both directly and indirectly, for Arabic lexicography in Europe as, for example, it was directly employed by Golius and Freytag for their Latin/Arabic dictionaries. Interestingly, the competition between Ṣiḥāḥ and Qāmūs also found its way into Early Modern European lexicons of the Arabic language. Thus, Giggei relied mainly on al- Fīrūzābādīs work, while Golius preferred the Ṣiḥāḥ.299 Both Golius’s and Frey- tag’s Lexicon Arabico-Latinum (published 1653 and 1830–1837 respectively) cir- culated widely. In the process, individual points of criticism were raised against them,300 of which some concern the Qāmūs and its utilization. Von Kremer, for example lists one “schlagendes Beispiel” (‘striking example’) for the negative effect of the Qāmūs on later works.301 Be that as it may, Freytag’s and Golius’s lexicons provided important additions to the libraries of European universities.302 As one central source for the first comprehensive lexicons of the Arabic

295 Nicholson, A Literary History, 456 speaks of the Qāmūs as one of the “standard text-books for the Schools and Universities of Islam”. Wild, Arabische Lexikographie, 143, corrobo- rates the wide circulation of both the Siḥāḥ and the Qāmūs. 296 One of the standard reads in this respect is Goldziher, Beiträge. A very useful compilation of bibliographical information regarding both the Ṣiḥāḥ and the Qāmūs by themselves, as well as their disputed kinship, is provided by al-Maghāwarī Ibrāhīm, Kashshāf tawhīmāt. For information on some of the manifold commentaries, translations and glosses the Qāmūs has seen over the centuries see Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233; idem: gal sii, 234–235; Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn i, 132; Storey, Persian Literature, iii/i, 96–97; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, al-Bulgha fī uṣūl al-lugha, 142–155. A number of further interesting texts dealing with the Qāmūs are available at http://ktp.isam.org.tr/?url=dokuman/findrecords .php (10 January, 2014). 297 Baalbaki, The Arabic Lexicographical Tradition, 396, n. 636. 298 The matter is briefly addressed by, for example, ʿAbd Allāh, Muʿjam al-maʿājim, 212. 299 See Toomer, Eastern Wisedome, 49. On Golius see also Hamilton, Antwerp’s Golden Age, which includes many reproductions, among them elements from the Lexicon Arabo- Latinum. 300 Lacunae in Golius’s lexicon are listed and amended in Habicht’s introduction to his Tausend und Eine Nacht, Erster Band, 2–40. 301 See von Kremer, Beiträge zur Arabischen Lexikographie ii, 4. 302 See on these developments especially Ullmann: Wörterbuch der klassischen arabischen Sprache ii/iv, 2459–2494. 68 chapter 3 language in Europe, the Qāmūs gained an advantage by the fact that it was one of the first Arabic lexicons to be printed (in 1856).303 There is one further factor that is easily overlooked in retrospect: at the time, the Encompassing Ocean was possibly the most copious lexicon available and familiar to European students and scholars of the Arabic language; its even more copious commentary, al-Zabīdī’s Tāj al-ʿarūs,304 was yet to be employed for scholarly purposes, something that was first done by Lane:

In the mean time I had the good fortune to acquire a large folio-volume, consisting of nearly the whole of the first tenth portion, of a copy of the great work to which I have alluded before as comprising in about one sev- enth part of its contents the whole of the celebrated Ḳámoos. This work, entitled “Táj el-ʿAroos” […], a compilation from the best and most copious Arabic lexicons, in the form of a running commentary on the Ḳámoos, with necessary critical and other illustrations, original and selected from various authors of high repute, fully justified my expectations. I found, from the portion before me, that it would in itself alone suffice to supply the means of composing an Arabic lexicon far more accurate and per- spicuous, and incomparably more copious, than any hitherto published in Europe. lane, Madd al-Qāmūs Book i Part i, vi

Edward William Lane’s (1801–1876)305 life was divided between episodes in England306 and Egypt.307 Over the course of his career, he wrote a number of famous works. Among them was the Description of Egypt (unpublished during Lane’s lifetime),308 the MannersandCustomsoftheModernEgyptians (1836),309

303 As stated by Sezgin, gas viii, 2–3. Van Quli’s translation of the Ṣiḥāḥ, printed in Istanbul 1729, preceded it. 304 On al-Zabīdī see, e.g., Ibn al-ʿAlāʾī, Taʿrīf al-qudamāʾ, 598–599; Brockelmann, Muḥammad Murtaḍā; Reichmuth, Islamic Scholarship; idem, Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī und die Afrikaner; idem, Notes; idem, The interplay; idem, Freundschaft und Liebe; Bernards, Muḥammad Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī. 305 For biographical data on Lane see Lane-Poole, Lane, Edward William; Arberry, British Orientalists; Ahmed, A Study of his Life. 306 See chiefly Thompson, Edward William Lane. 307 See Thompson, Lane as Egyptologist; idem, A reassessment; idem, Eastern Bridegroom; idem, Edward William Lane in Egypt. 308 For information on this work see Thompson, Edward William Lane’s Description. 309 On this work see Thompson, Of the Osma’nlees; Thomson, Les Égyptiens; Harlow, Cairo Curiosities. a life’s journey 69 the Selections from the Ḳur-án (1843),310 as well as the Thousand and One Nights (1838–1840).311 Among his shorter writings were “Ueber die Lexicographie der arabischen Sprache” (1849) and “Ueber die Aussprache der arabischen Vocale und die Betonung der arabischen Wörter (1850)”. These articles, and an almost forgotten book on The Genesis of the Earth and of Man,312 were composed at a time when Lane was already working on his grand lexicographical project, the Madd al-Qāmūs or An Arabic-English Lexicon. This work was planned to comprise two books, each consisting of several volumes. The first of these two books—begun by Lane and completed by his great- nephew Stanley Lane-Poole after Lane’s death313—is the published work known today. Work on the second book, which was intended to contain rare expressions, were not carried through systematically, although some remnants remain, chiefly in the appendix of volume eight of book one. Just like its namesake, the Madd al-Qāmūs is well known. It may therefore easily escape attention that the relationship between both works is far from clear. While the title Madd al-Qāmūs suggests that its main point of reference would be al-Fīrūzābādī’s lexicon, an early draft of the title page reveals a different focus:

An Arabic and English Thesaurus chiefly derived from the Lisán el-ʿArab and the Táj el-ʿAroos, two works believed to be the most comprehensive and correct of all the Arabic Lexicons hitherto composed, one sixth part of the latter of which comprises the entire text of the Ḳámoos Cited after Or. ms. 14300, 1, f. 1 as reproduced in stocks, Lane and his Arabic- English ‘Thesaurus’, 27

310 See also Burke, A Critique of his Life and Work; Arberry, Oriental Essays. 311 See Gerard, The Art of Story-Telling; Caracciolo, The Arabian Nights; Littmann, Alf Layla wa-Layla. For disputes regarding the work see Lane-Poole, The Arabian Nights; Schacker- Mill, Otherness and Otherworldliness; Stevens, The Orientalists. 312 On this work see, e.g., Roper, Texts from Nineteenth Century Egypt. 313 Posterity has judged Lane-Poole’s accomplishments very differently. The Wörterbuch der klassischen Arabischen Sprache begins from the letter kāf and “schließt so wenigstens in äußerlicher Weise an E.W. Lanes unvollendet gebliebenes Arabic-English Lexicon an” (“at least in outward appearance continues E.W. Lane’s unfinished Arabic-English Lexicon”), as stated by the editors Kraemer/Spitaler/Gätje, Wörterbuch der Klassischen Arabischen Sprache i, vii. 70 chapter 3

This originally intended title of the work suggests that the Madd al-Qāmūs in fact relied much more heavily on Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī’s Tāj al-ʿarūs min jawāhir al-Qāmūs than on the Qāmūs itself. This impression is corroborated by Lane’s comment on his use of sources at the beginning of book one. Here, he states that he accessed the textual material of many lexica, including the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, through the Tāj al-ʿarūs. Although Lane rebuked al-Zabīdī for not indicating his sources properly,314 his opinion of the Tāj was considerably higher than that for the Qāmūs:

It [the Tāj] is a compilation of the best and most copious of the preceding Arabic lexicons and other lexicological works,315 in the form of an inter- woven commentary on the Ḳámoos; exhibiting fully and clearly, from the original sources, innumerable explanations which are so abridged in the latter works to be unintelligible to the most learned men of the East; with copious illustrations of the meanings &c., corrections of mistakes in the Ḳámoos and other lexicons, and examples in prose and verse; and a very large collection of additional words and significations, mentioned under the roots to which they belong. Of the works from which it is compiled, though I believe that it was mainly derived in the first instance from the Lisán el-Arab, more than a hundred are enumerated by the seyyid Mur- tada in his preface. lane, Madd al-Qāmūs Book i Part i, xviii

Consequently, it seems quite clear that the Madd al-Qāmūs relied more heavily on the Tāj al-ʿarūs than on al-Fīrūzābādī’s work, to which it is nominally connected. The obvious question therefore is how and to what extent Lane actually used the Qāmūs for his book. Yet this question cannot be easily answered. His nephew states that, at some point, Lane no longer relied closely on written sources that had come down to him, but rather composed lemmata based on his own command of the Arabic language.

My original intention was to compile the missing articles from Mr. Lane’s ms. copy of the Táj-el-Aroos, with the addition of such notes as he had himself prepared during the progress of the work. This intention, however,

314 Lane, Madd al-Qāmūs Book i Part i, xx. 315 Note that his phrasing here is almost identical with the later subtitle of the Madd al- Qāmūs, which is another indication of the important role which the Tāj played for Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon. a life’s journey 71

was modified when the publication of the Táj-el-Aroos at Boolak deprived Mr. Lane’s ms. copy of its peculiar importance. […] The translation from the Táj-el-Aroos has therefore been abandoned […]. lane, Madd al-Qāmūs Book i Part v, unpaginated postscript by stanley lane-poole

The publication to which Stanley Lane-Poole refers is noteworthy insofar as the edition of the Tāj al-ʿarūs was prepared by none other than Lane’s main assistant, Ibrāhīm al-Dasūqī, and published in 1869–1871. Although Lane-Poole, in the above quote, speaks only of his own intentions, it has to be borne in mind that Lane was still alive and working on his Lexicon when the edition was published. It therefore stands to reason that the edition of the Tāj had an impact on his work and that he possibly shared his nephew’s assessment. Close textual ties to his main source can therefore currently be securely assumed only for those entries composed before the years mentioned. But it is difficult to determine which entries were actually prepared prior to 1871. It requries detailed examination of the text. Lane did not strictly follow alphabetical principles in his preparation of lemmata due to the differences in arrangement between his own lexicon and that by Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī. Consequently, it has justly been said that the Tāj al-ʿarūs was “der gewaltige Torso des Laneschen Arabic-English Lexicon”,316 but the exact nature of its relationship with its namesake remains obscure.

One of the great advantages of the Madd al-Qāmūs is the ease with which readers can access lexicographical information. Similarly, it is often said that the popularity of the Qāmūs is due to the convenience with which it can be used. Some of al-Fīrūzābādī’s editorial decisions (see chapter 3.4.3) certainly allowed him to present the subject matter in a more compact form than ever before. In this respect, it was certainly more convenient to take the work along for reference than it would have been with other lexicons. On the other hand, the strongly condensed nature of the lexemes makes the book rather difficult to read, and the way in which al-Fīrūzābādī composed the work certainly does not make it an easy-to-read reference. The text itself will now be examined more closely.

316 “the huge torso of Lane’s lexicon”; Wild, Arabische Lexikographie, 143. Direct influence of the Qāmūs as a source for a definition rendered by Lane, on the other hand, is documented with reference to the term ḥālūm in Lewicka, Food and Foodways, 240. Such overlaps between both works are also noted by Fleisch, Traité i, 461. 72 chapter 3

3.4.2 Dating and Versions of the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ The Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ is widely assigned to al-Fīrūzābādī’s time in Yemen, and suggests the work was the monumental, final pinnacle of a long scholarly career and the result of a lifetime of acquiring, studying, and processing material. Yet the present study concludes that the project of the Encompassing Ocean was begun in al-Fīrūzābādī’s thirties and completed six years before he came to the Rasūlid realm. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s work on the Qāmūs in fact began with its precursor:

Title: al-Lāmiʿ al-muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb (The Noteworthy Lightning that is the Union of the Muḥkam and the ʿUbāb)

Title variants: – al-Lāmiʿ al-muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb (al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn; al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr; al-Qannawjī, Maw- sūʿa; al-Qummī, al-Kunnā wa-l-alqāb) – al-Lāmiʿ al-muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb (Brockelmann, gal gii; Fleisch; al-Fīrūzābādī; Ṭashköprüzādeh, al-Shaqāʾiq al-nuʿ- māniyya) – al-Lāmiʿ al-muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb wa-ziyādāt imtilāʾ bi-hā al-wiṭāb (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ) – Alāmiʿ al-muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb wa-ziyādāt imtilāʾi- hā al-wiṭāb (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – al-Lāmiʿ wa-l-muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb (Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr) – Alāmiʿ al-muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – al-Muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb wa-ziyādāt imtilāʾ bi-hā al-wiṭāb (al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ) – al- Lāmiʿ al-ʿilm ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb (al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt) – Liber de lexicologia radians (Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber) a life’s journey 73

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 [sic.!, flawed pagination] – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 277 – Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, 926 – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 160 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Qannawjī, Mawsūʿa, 890 – al-Qummī, al-Kunnā wa-l-alqāb iii, 38 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāli ii, 282 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – Ṭashköprüzādeh, al-Shaqāʾiq al-nuʿmāniyya, 30 – Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered, remnant quotations see below.

Contents: This work was a combination of Ibn Sīda’s Muḥkam and al-Ṣaghānī’s ʿUbāb, and it was the precursor of the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ. Besides the quotation in the Qāmūs lemma al-fākiha, to which Lane has drawn attention,317 a similar quotation in the Durar al-mubaththatha reveals that entries on al-baraḥūn and al-maqtā must also have been included before al-Fīrūzābādī aborted the project.318

Remarks: Al-Sakhāwī saw an autograph of this work.319

317 See Lane, Madd al-Qāmūs, Book i Part i, xviii. 318 Cf. lemma “f-k-h”, in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ iv, 329 (edition al-Sayyid) and al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Durar al-mubaththatha, 80, 166. 319 See al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82. 74 chapter 3

Date: Although al-Fīrūzābādī repeatedly mentions this work in the Qāmūs,320 he does not specify where or when he wrote it. Since the Lāmiʿ formed the basis for the Qāmūs, it must have been written before the latter, placing its taq. in 759/1357–1358.

This lexicon was meant to offer the best of Ibn Sīda’s Muḥkam321 and al- Ṣaghānī’s ʿUbāb al-zākhir wa-l-lubāb al-fākhir.322 Biographers frequently cite al-Fīrūzābādī’s report that the Lāmiʿ had a much more comprehensive layout than the Qāmūs;323 the planned scope of the Lāmiʿ and the point in time at which al-Fīrūzābādī decided to alter his plans are described differently. The work is said to have been planned either in 10, 60 or 100 volumes, of which— the sources agree—five volumes were completed. Since al-Fīrūzābādī realized that the detailedness of his entries would make it impossible to effectively use the work, he decided to summarize the Lāmiʿ. He states that he made this decision after one of his pupils had approached him, but this may be a topos. Apart from the mentioned reports, scattered pieces of information have survived, which are the only remanants of the Lāmiʿ; for example, the author refers to his treatment of the lexeme al-fākiha, as Lane has pointed out.324 Additionally, the Durar al-mubaththatha reveals that entries on al-baraḥūn and al-maqtā must also have been included in the Lāmiʿ.325 Al-Fīrūzābādī’s description of the Lāmiʿ includes the fact that he deleted the shawāhid and all other textual material which he considered dispensible to create the Qāmūs.

Title: al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ wa-l-qabas al-wasīṭ al-jāmiʿ li-mā dhahaba min lughat al-ʿarab sha- māṭīṭ (The Encompassing Ocean and the igniting of conveyance of the entire mixture that comes from the Arabic language)

320 See al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ i, 3 (Būlāq edition) and idem: lemma “f-k-h”, in al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ iv, 329 (edition al-Sayyid). 321 On Ibn Sīda see, for example, Talbi, Ibn Sīda; Blachère, Un pionier de la culture arabe; Cabanelas, El-Mujassas de Ibn Sīdade Murcia; Giladi, Infants, Parents and Wet Nurses; Haywood, Ibn Sīda (d. 458/1066); Ṭalbī, Al-Muhaṣṣas [sic.] d’Ibn Sīda. 322 On the lexicographer see Baalbaki, “al-Ṣaghānī”. 323 See al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ i, 3 (Būlāq edition). 324 See Lane, Madd al-Qāmūs Book i Part i, xviii. 325 Cf. also al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Durar al-mubaththatha, 80, 166. a life’s journey 75

Title variants: – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr; al-Qummī, al-Kunnā wa-l- alqāb; al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh; Ṭashköprüzādeh, al-Shaqāʾiq al-nuʿmāniyya; al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ wa-l-qābūs al-wasīṭ al-jāmiʿ li-mā dhahaba min lughat al-ʿarab shamāṭīṭ (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ; Ṭashköprüzādeh, Miftāḥ al-saʿāda) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ al-qābūs al-wasīṭ al-jāmiʿ li-mā dhahaba min lughat al-ʿarab sha- māṭīṭ (al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn; al-Qannawjī: Mawsūʿa) – Qāmūs (Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī; al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ bi-mā dhahaba min lughat al-ʿarab shamāṭīṭ (al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ al-qābūs al-wasīṭ fī mukhtaṣar al-Lāmiʿ (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ wa-l-qabas al-wasīṭ al-jāmiʿ li-mā dhahaba min lughat al-ʿarab shamāṭīṭ (Brockelmann, gal gii) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ wa-l-qābūs al-wasīṭ (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ fi-l-lugha (Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ al-qābūs al-wasīṭ al-jāmiʿ li-mā dhahaba min kalām al-ʿarab sha- māṭīṭ (Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn) – al-Qāmūs fi-l-lugha (al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt)

Work attested in: Redundant mss attested in: Although the almost proverbial saying that there are manuscripts of the Qāmūs in every library326 might be slightly overstated, it is true that the overwhelming majority of manuscripts preserved of al-Fīrūzābādī’s works are copies of the lexicon.

326 See, for example, Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233, and Wild, Das Kitāb al-ʿain, 91. 76 chapter 3

Status: Published, numerous editions.327 (editions used here al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, no editor, Būlāq: Maṭbaʿat al- Mīriyya, 4 vols., 1301–1302/1883–1884 and al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūsal-muḥīṭ, ed. Muḥam- mad al-Sayyid, 4 vols., s.l.: al-Tawfīqiyya, s.d.)

Contents: For treatment of this work refer to the respective chapters.

Date: The first edition of the Qāmūs was probably begun around the year 759/1357–1358. It was half finished by the year 768/1366–1367 and concluded around 790/1388. The time at which al-Fīrūzābādī began the second version is unknown. It is likely that this version was concluded after the year 803/1400–1401.

This work was concluded in al-Fīrūzābādī’s house in Mecca, as the author himself states.328 The reason given for the composition of this first version of the Qāmūs was dissatisfaction with the works of lexicography that were at al-Fīrūzābādī’s disposal. Another version of the Encompassing Ocean was then written at the Rasūlid court, possibly in the interest of cultural and political hegemony (see below chapter 3.6.2.2). Dating the Qāmūs therefore results in two sets of data: as stated above, the first of these two editions was concluded in al-Fīrūzābādī’s house in Mecca, and it may have been finished in 790/1388 (see chapter 3.4). Work on this first edition of the Qāmūs may have had begun by 759/1357–1358; before this date, al-Fīrūzābādī had had the opportunity to familiarize himself with Ibn Hishām’s work at first hand, with al-Ṣaghānī’s writing, and with the Ṣiḥāḥ by al-Jawharī, as shown above. In the year 759/1357–1358, al-Ṣafadī copied verses from his teacher that are part of the introduction to the Encompassing Ocean. The verses cited may of course have been used independently from the lexicon, but they are the most concrete hint currently available and therefore offer a point of departure. Regarding the progress of work between these two dates, al-Zabīdī renders an interesting detail. In the lemma wajada,329 he states that the first of the two

327 See Brockelmann, gal sii, 234–235. 328 See lemma “ṣ-f-w” in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ iv, 400 (edition al-Sayyid). The fact that this information is contained in one of the lemmata of the Qāmūs suggests that the respective lemma was either modified after the work had been completed, or that this specific information was inserted in the second version of the Qāmūs. 329 See lemma “w-j-d”, in al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿarūs ix, 262–263. a life’s journey 77 volumes of the Qāmūs was concluded by al-Fīrūzābādī in 768/1366–1367. In this year al-Fīrūzābādī was in Siryaqaws, in Egypt. Al-Fīrūzābādī consequently seems to have worked on his lexicon over a period of approximately three decades, two thirds of which he invested into the second half of the first version of the Qāmūs. This difference between the time he took to conclude the first volume of the first version of the Qāmūs and the second volume may have had a number of reasons. First of all, the years between 768/1366–1367 and 790/1388 saw him travelling between Egypt, Tabrīz, the holy sites, and India. This last place of residence before the year 790/1388 also suggests that he did not only rely on material he had collected previously, as he took care to include his personal observations regarding Bābā Ratan al-Hindī, as mentioned above. Second, al-Fīrūzābādī could draw on the material gathered for the Lāmiʿ to speed up his work on the Qāmūs. As his entry on Bābā Ratan exemplifies, it is by no means certain that al-Fīrūzābādī adhered strictly to the material collected in the Lāmiʿ, although this impression is widespread. The first version of the Ocean seems to be lost. Besides numerous printed editions, a vast corpus of manuscripts from different centuries and places has been preserved.330 According to Kraemer, the manuscript Köprülü 1559 may be the oldest extant copy.331 However, a comprehensive overview of the numerous copies of the lexicon is currently not available. Textual history could be approached more systematically through a collation and examination of all the copies of the lexicon. One question in this respect is that of transmission.

330 Besides online resources such as www.yazmalar.gov.tr (lists over 70 mss from different libraries all over Turkey), al-Mostafa.com and the digital catalog of the King Saud Univer- sity, manuscripts of the Qāmūs are indicated in printed catalogues. Besides Brockelmann’s overview and the manuscripts of the Staatsbibiothek zu Berlin listed in Ahlwardt, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse, Ghānim mentions more than 20 mss in Cairo and two in Gotha besides numerous others (see al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 24). Further references include Arberry, A Second Supplementary Handlist, 25 (shelf mark Or. 1324 [12], no. 155a) and 39 (shelf mark Or. 1447 [10], no. 238[a]); Aro, Die Arabischen, Persischen und Türkischen Handschriften, 36 (no. 22); Browne, A Hand-List, 138–139. (shelf marks Dd. 2.53, Gg. 5.14, Qq 38, Nn. 3.71, Nn. 3.72 and Nn. 3.73 [nos 749–756]); Nemoy, Transactions, 33 (shelf no. s-4, no. 156); Hamarneh, Index of Manuscripts on Medicine, 11; and Schubert/Würsch, Die Handschriften, 29–30, m ii 3 (gives numerous further references), to name but a few examples. One of the oldest copies of the work lies in the Chester Beatty Library. I thank Elisabeth Omidvaran of Chester Beatty Library for kindly providing me with information regarding the Qāmūs manuscripts kept at the Chester Beatty Library (shelf marks Ar 3229, Ar 3740, Ar 4221, Ar 5048, Ar 5283, Ar 5351 and Ar 5439). 331 Cf. Kraemer, Studien, 203 n. 1. The catalogue of Yale University, however, lists a manuscript dated 1544. 78 chapter 3

Comparatively few texts state asānīd, although there are numerous people who claim to have studied the Qāmūs. More comprehensives lines of transmission are contained, for example, in al-Kattānī, Fihrist; al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn; and Bahrānī, Luʾluʿāt al-Baḥrayn. Among these examples, the information in the Tāj al-ʿarūs is remarkable for its extensiveness. Al-Suyūṭī’s reported line of teachers for the Qāmūs, on the other hand, is exceptional as it consists mostly of women.332 In addition to these points of reference, research into the textual history of the Qāmūs should consider its proliferation by those pupils who read the first version of the work. Al-Ṣafadī emerges as a promising candidate in this respect, as he was the first among al-Fīrūzābādī’s pupils to use textual material contained within the Qāmūs. As far as the second version of the Qāmūs is concerned, the matter is not as clear. Among al-Fīrūzābādī’s later pupils some may have received the first version while the second was not concluded. This might, for example, have been the case with Ibn Ḥajar. Therefore, finding manuscripts copied by his last known pupils, Ibn Fahd and al-Marrākushī, presents the most reliable option for the future examination of possible textual migrations between the first and second versions of the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ. Given the quantity of preserved manuscripts, it is likely that hybrid forms may have survived. Some diversity is already obvious through the comparison of a small corpus. For example, the Qāmūs manuscripts preserved in the archives of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin seem to have been copied from one or several models that differ from that used for the 1301 Būlāq edition: The manuscripts Glaser 33, Landberg 83, ms or. fol. 215, Ms or. fol. 913, Ms or quart 520 and Wetzstein i 148333 all commence the sixth verse of al-Fīrūzābādī’s laudatory poem in honour of al-Ashraf with “min” rather than “ʿan”. It is to be expected that future in-depth study of the textual history of the Qāmūs will bring to light more pronounced differences that may in time emerge as separate strands of transmission—possibly also of elements of the lost first Qāmūs. Al- Kawkabānī mentions 12 lemmata that may be used to tell the first from the second version of the Qāmūs.334 A detailed study of this question is desirable, not least so because possible changes might shed additional light on al-Fīrūzābādī’s motivation for re-writing his lexicon for the Rasūlid sulṭān. The time which al- Fīrūzābādī required to compile the first Qāmūs suggests that the alterations made later to create the second version for al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl must have been

332 See al-Kattānī, Fihrist al-fahāris ii, 908–909. 333 Property of the Staatsbibiothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung. See also Ahlwardt, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse vi, 254–258. 334 See al-Kawkabānī, Fulk al-Qāmūs, 49ff. a life’s journey 79 limited, and the fact that al-Fīrūzābādī found the time to write 20 other works after coming under Rasūlid protection (see chapter 3.6) also speaks for such limited changes. Regarding the date of its completion, no specifics have been preserved, although Redhouse assumes that al-Khazrajī’s failure to mention the work implies

that the Qámús was completed, and its preface written out ready for its presentation, when the death of the Sulṭān Melik ʾEshref took place in a.h. 803 (a.d. 1400), and Khazrejiyy’s history was brought to a close without the presentation having actually occurred. redhouse, The Pearl Strings iii, 219f.

Al-Ḥabashī, on the other hand, states that the Qāmūs was finished under al-Nāṣir,335 a view that was also advocated by al-Zabīdī. When he composed his lexicon, al-Fīrūzābādī made clear decisions regarding the way in which he used and presented material.

3.4.3 Editorial Decisions The overall layout of the Qāmūs in itself was not innovative. A number of descriptions of it are available, to which the reader is here referred.336 The most frequently discussed aspect of the Qāmūs is its copiousness, and the number of lexemes treated could be achieved through brief lemmata. In this, however, al-Fīrūzābādī’s was not a pioneer:

Ibn ʿAbbād employs the anagrammatical method of al-Khalīl, with exactly the same phonetic alphabet [in his al-Muḥīṭ fi-l-lugha]. […] The accusation of lack of examples is justified, but the author’s aim was apparently to give an exhaustive vocabulary in a small space. Thus the work is a fore-runner of al-Fīrūzābādī’s “Qāmūs”, to which, however, it is inferior, because of its inconvenient arrangement.337 haywood, Arabic Lexicography, 64

335 Cf. al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383. 336 See for instance Ḥājjī Kahlīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1306–1309; ʿAbd al-Ghanī Ḥasan, Muʾal- lafāt rāʾida, 33–78; ʿAbd al-Jalīl, Madāris al-muʿjamiyya, 330–342; al-ʿAṭṭār, al-Maʿājim, 93– 95. Among the more extensive descriptions are Naṣṣār, al-Muʿjam al-ʿarabī and Kishlī Fawwāz, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ li-l-Fīrūzābādī. 337 The arangement chosen by al-Fīrūzābādī obviously seemed worth improving in some readers’ eyes. There are a number of rearranged editions of the Qāmūs, among them al-Zāwī, Tartīb. 80 chapter 3

That Ibn ʿAbbād may have been a role model for al-Fīrūzābādī is also suggested by the latter’s choice of title, as Ibn ʿAbbād “seems to have started the habit of using metaphorical terms about the sea in dictionary titles”.338 This choice may have been motivated by the conviction that the Arabic language was as unfathomable as a vast ocean.339 This semantic connection between speech and the sea is made in individual lexemes, such as ṭamṭama. Its semantic spectrum includes ‘swimming in a wide sea’ alongside ‘speaking with poor pronunciation’. A connection between being lost at sea and being lost for proper expression—and the reverse—is therefore given. Regarding the way in which this brevity is achieved, Versteegh identifies the following approaches to the definition of a term:

1. antonymy 2. synonymy 3. definition by sentence or phrase 4. by inference from collocated contexts 5. ‘non-definitions’ a. by stating that the term is maʿrūf b. by giving a different numerus340

Al-Fīrūzābādī is said to have saved much space through the use of abbreviations. According to Haywood, however, the only true innovation in this respect was the use of the letter jīm, for jamʿ, plural. Before al-Fīrūzābādī, only al- Jawharī had already used abbreviations.341 Nonetheless, there is one especially noteworthy trait to the Encompassing Ocean, which is the comparatively uniform sequencing of information within the individual lemmata. This scheme of organisation includes frequent naming of the stem before derivates, naming of plural after singular, naming of feminine after masculine, and geographical and prosopographical information is often given towards the end of an entry.342 This tendency towards structured presentation may have been one of the reasons why the Qāmūs eventually spread. Its structured approach certainly facilitates use of the work. Arguably, two other of al-Fīrūzābādī’s editorial deci-

338 Haywood, Arabic Lexicography, 64. 339 As described by Haywood, Arabic Lexicography, 2443. 340 Versteegh, Arabic Lexicography, 2245–2246, divides the two criteria which are here subsumed under 5. a) and b), giving maʿrūf as a separate mode of definition. 341 See Haywood, Arabic Contributions, 36. 342 See al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ i, 3–4. a life’s journey 81 sions may have contributed not only to conciseness, but also to ease of use. The first of these was his decision not to use many poetical passages to demonstrate and validate the use of a word.343 In the foreword to the Qāmūs, al-Fīrūzābādī specifies that he decided to do so in order to shorten the work.344 From transmitted biographies and the foregoing biographical reconstruction, it is likely that he knew many of the verses in question, not least because he studied poetry with one of the most famous poets of his time while working on the Qāmūs. The omission of poetical material was therefore certainly not caused by a lack of expertise.345 It is more likely that it was motivated by the same reason as another crucial characteristic of his editorship: al-Fīrūzābādī reduced explicit mention of the sacrosanct connotations of lexemes to a minimum, as shown by Kopf. He states that religious contexts are not always given in lexicons and that for the word kursī, the sense of ʿilm is also stated in dictionaries. Regarding treatment of this semantic facet, he remarks:

In the Qāmūs, for example, this curious meaning [ʿilm] simply appears side by side with the common one, “chair”, without any reference to its source or origin. The Tāj al-ʿarūs, however, informs us that it goes back to the Qurʾānic passage (Sūra 22.55) […]. kopf, Religious Influences, 54

In light of the reverent tone with which al-Fīrūzābādī commences his muqaddima to the Qāmūs,346 the lack of Qurʾānic passages does not indicate igno- rance of the established perception of the Arabic language. Rather, his editorial decisions regarding the treatment of poetry and the Qurʾān in his work reveals his imagined readers and thereby the tool by which the Qāmūs achieved its brevity. In his lemmata, al-Fīrūzābādī deleted as much of the customary explaining text as possible, leaving only the bare information of linguistic

343 For information on al-Fīrūzābādī’s treatment of shawāhid see, for example, Baalbaki, The Arabic Lexicographical Tradition, 394–395. 344 At times, the matter of poetry overlaps with the issue of prosopographical reference, as for example in the case of al-Fīrūzābādī’s reference to Ibn Kalada. This reference establishes a connection between the Lisān al-ʿarab and the Qāmūs; see Hārūn, Taḥqīqāt wa-tanbīhāt, 367. 345 The widespread perception that the lexicon was free of poetical material is by no means correct, as there are elements from aḥādīth, from the Qurʾān and by famous poets or scholars such as al-Shāfiʿī, or al-Farazdaq. 346 On this matter see Reichmuth, Prophetisches Erbe (manuscript presentation, copy in my posession). 82 chapter 3 equivalence, opposition or similarity—as stated in the muqaddima, he wrote the work “as having thrown off all appendage”.347 In relation to al-Fīrūzābādī’s situation as a bilingual scholar, this pronounced brevity marks as significant his care to indicate Persian loanwords at a time when the balance between Arabic and Persian was shifting. Furthermore, this decision to delete the main part of explanatory context indicates that al-Fīrūzā- bādī had a quite elitist agenda of his own. Hyperbolically speaking, one has to know what should be read in the Qāmūs, in order to read it.348 This leads to the paradoxical situation that al-Fīrūzābādī’s deletion of poetical passages and the majority of the explaining text in entries of his lexicon effectively reaffirms their cultural value and traditionally high standing through their absence. It also throws a somewhat paradoxical light on his attitude towards al-Jawharī. This critique of al-Jawharī is often mentioned as one of the most distinctive characteristics of the Qāmūs. The question of motivation for this intense scrutiny of another’s lexicon is often seen as rather egotistical. However, it is also possible to see it from a sociolinguistic perspective. It should also be borne in mind that al-Fīrūzābādī seems to have been strongly influenced by al-Ṣaghānī, who was also a lexicographer and was critical of al-Jawharī. Two further perspectives on al-Fīrūzābādī’s examination of al-Jawharī’s text are therefore possible.

3.4.4 The Floods vs. the Crown of Language Over the centuries, a considerable number of texts have accumulated that contain refutation and apologetics on both sides of the dispute. Frequently, these works address mistakes349 made by one or the other of the lexicographers, lacunae detected in one or other of both works and, especially, unjustified charges made by al-Fīrūzābādī against al-Jawharī. It is unnecessary to add another chapter on the treatment of al-Jawharī in the Qāmūs to this corpus, not least as centuries of scholarship have failed to reach a consensus on the matter. Instead, one should consider not the mode and outcome of critique in the Qāmūs, but instead turn towards the question of motivation. The present examination offers the possibility that al-Fīrūzābādī’s treatment of al-Jawharī’s

347 See al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ i, 3 (Būlāq edition). 348 For some remarks on these reductions of text see Baalbaki, The Arabic Lexicographical Tradition, 394–395. The degree to which the textual material was condensed can most clearly be seen in editions of the Tāj al-ʿarūs. Here, al-Fīrūzābādī’s text is frequently set off against al-Zabīdī’s (re-)additions by means of parenthesis. 349 See, for example, Taymūr, Taṣḥīḥ al-Qāmūs. a life’s journey 83 work was symptomatic of a different sociolinguistic stance rather than the question of ego, which it often appears to be. Additionally, al-Fīrūzābādī’s decision to concentrate on al-Jawharī may well have been caused by his emulation of al-Ṣaghānī, rather than by a dislike of al- Jawharī.350 As noted above, al-Ṣaghānī was one of the scholars whose works had the strongest and most lasting influence on al-Fīrūzābādī. In connection with the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, two facts emerge as critical. First, al-Ṣaghānī criticized al- Jawharī strongly in several of his own lexicons and, notably, such a critique was included in the Takmila, of which al-Fīrūzābādī made an autograph copy.351 It may therefore be argued that this critique may have been a key inspiration for the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs—al-Fīrūzābādī’s personal autograph copy of the Tak- mila mentions al-Ṣaghānī and al-Jawharī in the same breath.352 This written testimony is tangible proof that al-Fīrūzābādī was aware of al-Ṣaghānī’s consideration of al-Jawharī before the year 760/1358–1359. This motivation by al-Ṣaghānī is even more probable in light of the reconstructed evolution of the Encompassing Ocean. The available biographical data suggests that the Qāmūs was begun around 759/1357–1358, i.e. after al-Fīrūzā- bādī had first studied the ʿUbāb in 755/1354353 but before reception of the Ṣiḥāḥ is attested in 763/1361–1362. It is therefore possible that al-Fīrūzābādī’s critical intention was initially directed towards al-Jawharī through his particular interest in al-Ṣaghānī rather than in the author of the Tāj al-lugha himself. In this respect, topic sequencing in the muqaddima is also remarkable. Here, al- Fīrūzābādī says that he filled the Qāmūs with the best of the Muḥkam and the ʿUbāb. His reference to al-Jawharī is separated from this statement in sequence. On the one hand, this puts into question whether a critique of al-Jawharī was already included in the Lāmiʿ, as is commonly reported. While a connection to al-Jawharī is expressed clearly for the Qāmūs, no such claim is voiced with regard to its precursor. On the other hand, this sequencing of statements suggests that marking al-Jawharī’s mistakes was a step that came after his composition of the main textual body. This applies at least as far as the red highlights of his mistakes are concerned. Adding coloured highlights after the completion of the main textual body was a common practice in manuscript compo-

350 As also suggested in al-Sakhāwī, al-Dawʾ al-lāmiʿ, vii, 83. 351 See Baalbaki, al-Ṣaghānī, 820–821, for the scholar’s critique of al-Jawharī. 352 See Ritter, Autographs. 353 It is unclear when al-Fīrūzābādī made his autograph copy of the Takmila, but from the inclusion of al-Yāfiʿī’s verse on one of its folios, it may be argued that he owned it before 760/1358–1359 (when both men met in Mecca). It is therefore possible that al-Fīrūzābādī had also made his copy of the Takmila in the 750s/1350s. 84 chapter 3 sition. So far, al-Fīrūzābādī’s statement is nothing out of the ordinary. It is also true that the main body of the text contains a number of statements specifically targeting deficiencies of the Siḥāḥ. The important point here, however, is the fact that al-Fīrūzābādī’s main initial objective was not one of critique, but one of compiling the best of two works. In this light, the focus of attention shifts away from his negative impression of the Siḥāḥ and is redirected towards appreciation of the Muḥkam and the ʿUbāb. To further validate this possibility, future research should undertake a detailed comparison of al-Ṣaghānī’s critique of al-Jawharī and al-Fīrūzābādī’s remarks on the matter. This could establish whether al-Jawharī became the subject of critique for his own sake or because al-Fīrūzābādī considered al-Ṣaghānī’s remarks on him to be the best part of the ʿUbāb. On the other hand, it is true that al-Fīrūzābādī did criticize al-Jawharī. He admitted that al-Jawharī “was appropriate in this [presenting the language] except that he omitted half the language or more through creeping negligence”.354 But he did not have a deeply rooted aversion against him personally. Al-Fīrūzābādī counted al-Jawharī among the leading linguists,355 and relied on his authority repeatedly in his own works. This includes even the Qāmūs itself.356 True, al-Fīrūzābādī charged al-Jawharī with omitting half the language.357 This sentence has often been seen as the most central element of al-Fīrūzābādī’s polemics. From this point many treatises on both sides of the conflict take their departure. They are often concerned with the question of whether al-Fīrūzābādī’s charges are justified on the basis of the Ṣiḥāḥ. Depend- ing on their affiliation, authors here concentrate on finding fault with one or the other of both scholars, often regarding omitted vocabulary. To measure these charges, different counts of lemmata and lexemes have been undertaken in the past. These allegations of negligence simultaneously reveal a wide-spread concept regarding the relationship between the Qāmūs and the Ṣiḥāḥ: the conviction that the Qāmūs tried to surpass the Ṣiḥāḥ quantitatively.358

354 See al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ i, 3 (Būlāq edition). 355 By including him in the Bulgha. 356 See for example in lemma “t-r-f”, in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ iii, 137 (edition al-Sayyid), where al-Jawharī is cited as the sole authority of a semantic facet. 357 See al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ i, 3 (Būlāq edition). 358 Statements on the scope of the Qāmūs vary, most probably, because the authors who undertook the extensive task of counting through the work do not always indicate clearly which criteria they took as the basis of their count. Among these quantitative analyses, Versteegh states that the Qāmūs had 60,000 entries; Versteegh, Linguistic Tradition, 33. a life’s journey 85

There is reason to assume that rather the qualitative dimension was the key factor in al-Fīrūzābādī’s eyes. He states that he had searched far and wide but simply could not find a work that was comprehensive enough to meet his expectations. Which parts did al-Fīrūzābādī miss? The answer seems to lie in the standards to which al-Jawharī aspired. He named his work Tāj al-lugha wa- ṣiḥāḥ al-ʿarabiyya, declaring his intention to include only the highest standard forms of language. This is an exclusivist and prescriptive approach. It focuses only on those linguistic elements that are marked out as the sociolinguistically most prestigous. By contrast, al-Fīrūzābādī named his work al-Qāmūs, assuming a comprehensive and therefore inclusivist attitude. Regarding the implementation of this intention, the most frequently noted aspect is the fact that the Qāmūs contains lexemes from a range of fields, as has been noted from various angles.359 These registers also include technical vocabulary360 and loanwords. It may be argued that the inclusion of numerous specialized registers from a variety of academic fields gives the Qāmūs an encyclopedic aspect. This makes it somewhat akin to the overarching scope laid out for the original project that became the Baṣāʾir dhawī l-tamyīz (see chapter 3.6.2.1). Regarding loan words there is an interesting example. The only illustration in the Qāmūs is identified and analysed by Murray: A History of Board Games. The findings connected to this image are significant for two reasons. First, Parlett states that: “The triple mill with diagonals […] is first [my italics, V.S.]illustrated in an early fifteenth-century Arabic text”.361 This postulates an innovation

359 Individual aspects of this encyclopaedic body of information have been singled out by treatises on individual categories of words. They have also been implicitly acknowledged by some specialized editions of the Encompassing Ocean and by authors who put the Qāmūs to their use: al-Zāwī al-Ṭarābulusī draws attention to the plentiful vocabulary on proper names, geographical information, plants and remedies mentioned in the Qāmūs by excluding them from his own edition (see al-Zāwī al-Ṭarābulusī, Mukhtār al-Qāmūs). Another focus has been on geographical elements and astronomical denominations. Kračkovskij takes note of the Qāmūs mainly in conjunction with the Tāj al-ʿarūs (See Kračkovskij, Tārīkh al-adab ii, 516–517 and 775). The geographical aspect of the Qāmūs was recognized earlier and utilized by Burton, who used the Qāmūs as his source for ety- mological statements regarding the name of “The Somal” (See Burton, First Footsteps, 95.). 360 Regarding the technical register of astronomy, two observations have been made: Allen notes that al-Fīrūzābādī’s entry on al-Saʿd al-suʿūd (Fortuna Fortunarum) β 3.1 lacks an explanation (Allen, Star Names, 51–52. Interestingly, Hinkley calls the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs “Al-Fīrūzābādi of Khorasan”). Backich shows that a mistake made by al-Fīrūzābādī led to a transfer of a name of one star to another (Bakich, 1,001 Celestial Wonders, 445). 361 Parlett, The Oxford History of Board Games, 119. Parlett’s temporal specification suggests that he refers to the second version of the Qāmūs. 86 chapter 3 in al-Fīrūzābādī’s work. Under the relevant entry al-Fīrūzābādī describes the game as one of alignment played on a field divided by 24 lines, matching the illustration.362 Murray further explains that the term qirq is not to be derived from an Arabic root.363 Consequently, al-Fīrūzābādī included loan words of the muʿarrab as well as the dakhīl category in his lexicon of the Arabic language. The former category is represented by al-Fīrūzābādī’s care to highlight words of Persian origin. Devoting space to such additions is at odds with al-Fīrūzābādī’s strict economy and is thereby marked as significant. It is also one of the few possibilities to examine his relation to his mother tongue. Both al-Fīrūzābādī’s writings in Persian and his poetry in Arabic and Persian have been transmitted only very rarely.Examining mentions of Arabicized Persian words in the Qāmūs could therefore offer an insight into his use and presentation of his mother tongue at a time of shifting balance between Arabic and Persian.364 To these observations one should add that many of the subjects treated monographically by al-Fīrūzābādī were also included in the Qāmūs. Al-Fīrūzā- bādī’s works on various groups of synonyms as well as morphological and graphological phenomena may therefore be seen as potential preparations for the Qāmūs or as sources he consulted when he compiled his lexicon. As noted above, in editing the Qāmūs, al-Fīrūzābādī presupposed knowledge of excluded texts and thereby of the cultural heritage connected to and encoded in them. Through this presupposition towards his readership, al- Fīrūzābādī in fact displayed an elitist view that was different, but possibly not less exclusivist, than that of his favourite subject of critique, al-Jawharī.365 Seen from this angle, the methodologically innovative Qāmūs appears rather con- servative.366 This editorial and the motivated omission of text simultaneously turned the Qāmūs into a very special kind of lexicon. Lane saw al-Fīrūzābādī’s “celebrated Ḳámoos”367 as

362 See lemma “q-r-q” in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ iii, 315 (edition al-Sayyid). 363 Murray, Board Games other than Chess, 37. 364 On the growing importance of the Persian language see for example Fragner, Die “Perso- phonie”, esp. 77–82, see also Versteegh, The Arabic Language, 71. 365 It is somewhat ironic that al-Fīrūzābādī’s pronounced intention to distance himself from al-Jawharī bound both works to each other and made posterity frequently name them in the same breath; see, for example, Laoust, Les Gouverneurs, 195. 366 This may have been what Rypka, Iranische Literaturgeschichte, 305–306, meant. Al-Kattānī calls al-Fīrūzābādī “mujaddid ʿilm al-lugha” (cf. al-Kattānī, Fihrist al-fahāris ii, 907), but does not elaborate on the point. 367 Lane, Madd al-Qāmūs Book i, Part i, vi. a life’s journey 87

[…] little more than what may be termed an enormous vocabulary; a collection of words and significations from preceding lexicons and similar works (for otherwise, according to the principles of Arabic lexicology as universally taught, they would be of no authority,) mainly from the Mohkam and the ʿObab; with very few critical observations, many of which are false, and scarcely any examples from the poets. lane, Madd al-Qāmūs Book i Part i, xvii

Lane’s statements highlight one important point regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s use of sources in compiling the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ. Although he does not seem to have realized it, Lane acted upon it through the methodology he employed for the Madd al-Qāmūs: like al-Zabīdī before him, Lane made these sources visible again in the brackets he employed to indicate them. The brevity of definitions, coupled with the great number of sources (as revealed in the Madd al-Qāmūs), effectively turned the Qāmūs from “an enormous vocabulary”368 into an index of the preceding lexicographical tradition. Needless to say, it was an index without page references. If the reader knew what had been deleted, they also certainly knew where to find the textual elements in question. This indexical nature—manifested in a strong liking for lists—finds its complement in a number of al-Fīrūzābādī’s works, although it seems strongest in the Encompassing Ocean. That al-Fīrūzābādī had a strong affinity for detailed examinations of words and their meanings becomes obvious in all of the works which he can be said to have written by this time. Close examination and careful pondering of words was an important element of the Shawāriq al-asrār al-ʿāliya fī sharḥ Mashāriq al-anwār al-nabawiyya (written tpq. 745/1344–1345), Quṭbat al-khashshāf fī sharḥ khuṭbat al-Kashshāf and the Nughbat al-rashshāf min khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (the Nughbat was concluded in 768/1366–1367), as well as of the Zād[at] al-maʿād fī wazn Bānat Suʿād and its commentary (written tpq. 764/1362–1363). The Jalīs al-anīs fī asmāʾ al- khandarīs (written tpq. is 764/1362–1363), just like the Qāmūs and the Lāmiʿ, on the other hand, falls into the field of lexicography. It would therefore seem that up to this point of his life, al-Fīrūzābādī took a strong interest in lexicography and that the Qāmūs was the largest—although not the last—of his works resulting from this focus. This changed with the scholar’s move to Yemen, where his attention was increasingly taken by matters of religion.

368 Ibid. 88 chapter 3

3.5 En Route to Yemen (794/1392–796/1393(4)): Baghdad, Shīrāz, Hurmuz

After a visit to Mecca in 794/1391–1392, al-Fīrūzābādī accepted an invitation from Aḥmad b. Uways (r. 794/1392–813/1410) and travelled to Baghdad. From here, he went to Shīrāz the following year, and in 796/1393–1394 set sail from Hurmuz for ʿAdan. During this transitional phase, one of the most notorious encounters in al-Fīrūzābādī’s life is said to have taken place: his meeting with Tīmūr Lang,369 after the gürgen370 had conquered the city of the scholar’s youth in 795/1392–1393.371 This meeting presents one of the rare instances in which contemporary political upheaval actually seem to have directly influenced al-Fīrūzābādī’s travels. It is debatable whether al-Fīrūzābādī actually ‘visited’ (“besuchte”) Tīmūr, as formulated by Brockelmann.372 The available data suggests quite the opposite: in 794/1391–1392, Tīmūr began his five-year campaign, and in the following year took Baghdad from Aḥmad al-Jalāʾir,373 the same ruler who had granted hospitality to al-Fīrūzābādī shortly before. It stands to reason that the scholar, as well as his patron, was aware of Tīmūr’s victory over the Muẓaffarids and his advance on Baghdad. Thus, al-Fīrūzābādī’s departure from Aḥmad al-Jalāʾir’s realm may have been prompted by his desire to seek safety from the coming fight. In this light, his encounter with Tīmūr appears unlikely to have been an intentional visit. Despite a reportedly hospitable welcome on Tīmūr’s part, there is a notable increase in the frequency of relocations after the onset of Tīmūr’s new campaign. After 794/1391–1392, al- Fīrūzābādī moved at least annually, a pattern broken only with his arrival at the Rasūlid court in 797/1394–1395 and 798/1395–1396. A corresponding innuendo can also be detected in Fleisch’s statement that “his native land, ravaged by the Mongol invasion, could no longer keep him”.374

369 His name can be found in different orthographies, such as for instance “Temür” in Morgan, Medieval Persia, 91, Amitai/Biran, Mongols, Turks, and Others; and Saunders, The History of the Mongol Conquests. The present thesis follows the spelling employed by Manz, Tīmūr Lang, and Lech, Das Mongolische Weltreich. 370 This title (son in law of Ğingiz Khān) can be found in a number of spellings. The current thesis follows Gronke, Die mongolische Epoche. 371 See, for example, Tashköprüzāde, al-Shaqāʾiq al-nuʿmāniyya, 375. Wüstenfeld places this encounter in the year 791/1388–1389. See Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203. 372 Brockelmann, gal gii, 182/232. 373 For details on Tīmūr and his conquests see Forbes Manz, The Rise and Rule. 374 Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, 926. In Brockelmann’s German entry “al-Fīrūzābādī” in the Ency- clopaedia of Islam, this is spelled out quite clearly. See Brockelmann, al-Fīrūzābādī, 119. a life’s journey 89

It therefore appears that Tīmūr received al-Fīrūzābādī honourably and with an abundance of gifts, but that the latter swiftly (and purposefully) travelled to Hurmuz. In this same year, 796/1393–1394,375 al-Fīrūzābādī moved twice more, from Hurmuz to ʿAdan376 and thence to Zabīd. Whether one accepts this encounter of the two men depends on how the available sources are read. The same consequently applies to a chronological reconstruction of al-Fīrūzābādī’s middle age. In light of the differences in transmissions and the myths surrounding encounters between Tīmūr and famous scholars,377 the different strands of transmission warrant examination. Verbatim or covert reliance on one or another source has influenced reports on al-Fīrūzābādī’s move to Yemen. This issue touches upon the chronological position of a number of reported parts of al-Fīrūzābādī’s biography and upon his encounter with two rulers of his time. The first major rift in transmission concerns the point in time at which al-Fīrūzābādī came to Yemen. In this respect, some reports are segregated from the remainder of biographies in stating that al-Fīrūzābādī entered Yemen in the 760s/ late 1350s-late 1360s. This includes the reports by Ibn al-Zanūzī378 and Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī.379 The editor of the Nughbat al-rashshāf reaches the same conclusion. Upon what grounds this conclusion was drawn remains unclear. It is likely, however, that in the case of Ibn Shihāb this statement is connected to the aforementioned ambivalence of the village of Siryaqaws and the similarity of the first names of the Mamlūk and Rasūlid rulers. This strand of transmission is not followed here. The arguments given above in connection to Siryaqaws and details given below make a later transition to Yemen more likely. The second major divide in traditions on al-Fīrūzābādī’s travels touches upon his route to Yemen around the turn of the century. Here, different routes can be discerned. The following sources provide a sufficiently dense chronology of events to advocate a specific route to Yemen:

1. Ibn Ḥajar al-Asqalānī (773/1372–852/1449), Inbāʾ al-ghumr Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber (publ. 1882) al-Hind → Makka → al-Yaman

375 See e. g. Brockelmann, gal gii, 182/232. 376 ʿAdan is mentioned by al-Kirmānī in al-Sakhāwī al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 81, and by al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383, as well as al-Khazrajī, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 235. 377 I thank Prof. Manz for her remarks on the matter. 378 Cf. al-Zanūzī, Riyāḍ al-janna iv/iv, 148. 379 See Appendix for the folios of this text. 90 chapter 3

thumma dakhala l-Qāhira thumma jāla l-balad al-shamāliyya wa-l-sharqiyya wa-dakhala l-Hind wa-ʿāda minhā ʿalā ṭarīq al-Yaman qāṣidan Mak- ka wa-dakhala Zabīd ibn ḥajar al-asqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 160

Er bereiste dann die nördlichen und östlichen Länder und besuchte Klein-Asien und Indien […] ums j. 790 traf er in Shīrāz mit Tîmur zusam- men […] darauf wandte er sich nochmals nach Indien […] als er im j. 791 von da nach Mekka zurückkam war dort der Cadhi Gamâl ed-dîn Muhammed el-Reimí soeben gestorben und el-Malik el-aschraf Ismâʾîil [… ernannte ihn …] im j. 795 zum Obercadhi von Jemen mit dem Wohn- sitze in Zabīd380 wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203

2. al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī (775/1373–1374 – 832/1428–1429), Dhayl al-taqyīd ? → Hurmuz → al-Yaman

wa-qadama ilā l-Yaman fi-l-baḥr min ṣawb Hurmuz al-fāsī al-makkī al-mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd, i, 277

3. Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī (779/1396–851/1447–1448), Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiy- ya Makka → al-Hind → al-Yaman

wa-jāla fi-l-balad al-shamāliyya wa-l-sharqiyya wa-dakhala l-rūm thumma l-Hind wa-lahu mujāwara fi-l-ḥaramayn […] qadama l-Yaman baʿd al-tisʿīn min al-Hind. ibn qāḍī shuhba al-dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shafiʿiyya iii, 23f.

4. al-Kirmānī in al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ Shīrāz → Makka → al-Yaman

warada Baghdād sanata nayyif wa-tisʿīn […] thumma sāfara balad Fāris thumma rajaʿa ilā Makka baʿda an ijtamaʿa bi-Tīmūr Lank fi-Shīrāz […]

380 “He then travelled through the northern and eastern lands and visited Asia Minor and India […] around the year 790, he met Tīmūr in Shīrāz […] following that he turned to India once more […] when he returned to Yemen, the qāḍī Jamāl al-Dīn al-Raymī had just died there and al-Malik al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl [appointed him …] supreme qāḍī of Yemen in the year 795 with residence in Zabīd”. a life’s journey 91

thumma tawajjahu ilā Makka min tarīq al-baḥr thumma dakhala balad al-Yaman al-sakhāwī, al-Dawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 83

5. al-Sakhāwī (803/1400–902/1496–1497), al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ al-Rūm → al-Hind → al-Yaman

wa-jāla fi-l-bilād al-shamāliyya wa-l-mashriqiyya wa-dakhala l-Rūm wa-l- Hind […] thumma dakhala Zabīd al-sakhāwī, al-Dawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 80f.

6. al-Ṣuyūṭī (849/1445–911/1505), Bughyat al-wuʿāt Shīrāz → al-Hind → al-Yaman

thumma dakhala l-Qāhira wa-jāla bilād wa-dakhala l-rūm wa-l-hind [wa- ḥasala min] Tumurlank [sic] thumma dakhala l-Hind, thumma Zabīd al-suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 273

7. Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī (d. 1000/1592), Kitāb al-Rawḍ al-ʿāṭir Brockelmann (publ. 1949), gal gii Fleisch (publ. 1965), al-Fīrūzābādī: Shīrāz → Hurmuz → al-Yaman

thumma sāfara ilā Shīrāz thumma ilā balad al-Yaman fi-l-baḥr min ṣawb Hurmuz al-nuʿmānī, al-Kitāb al-rawḍ al-ʿāṭir, f. 218v

[…] und besuchte dann [nach 794/1392] Tīmūr in Šīrāz. Über Hormuz kam er im Rabīʿ 796/Jan. 1392(3) nach Yaman […]381 brockelmann, gal gii, 182/232

Tīmūr Lang, after taking Shīrāz (795/1393), greeted him with the greatest respect. But his native land, ravaged by the Mongol invasion, could no longer keep him: from Hormuz he set sail for southern Arabia. fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, 926

381 “[…] and then he visited Tīmūr in Shīrāz. Via Hormuz he came to Yemen in Rabīʿ 769/Jan. 1392(3)”. 92 chapter 3

With regard to these different traditions, two factors are important. First of all, the oldest sources on al-Fīrūzābādī do not provide many specifics after his presence in Cairo in 755/1354. Rather, the intervening destinations as stated are far from each other, but chonologically obscure “subsequent travels”.382 Secondly, within the individual strands, the texts of Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, al-Sakhāwī, and Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī (i.e. al-Fāsī’s report, see below), emerge as the most influential sources: from Brockelmann’s anno- tation regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s stay in al-Rūm, it is obvious that he consulted further sources, and the same holds true for Fleisch, as his bibliography attests. Pertaining to the question of al-Fīrūzābādī’s route to Yemen, these four reports had the strongest influence. This becomes clearest in their influence on the European language biographies of Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī. Among the sources written in European languages, there is one that seems to have had little impact in terms of the reported sequence of travels, but that may have contributed details to later reports. These details include the statement that al-Fīrūzābādī married al-Ashraf’s daughter and the assumption of 10 years in Jerusalem occupied with writing. The rationale by which Huart arrives at these conclusions cannot be reconstructed, as he does not give his sources. Nonetheless, this report is included here for the sake of comprehensive information. Huart writes:

Abûʾl-Ṭâhir Majd al-dîn al-Fîrûz-Âbâdî (1329–1415) came from a family belonging to a family belonging to Fîrûz-Âbâd in Fârsistan. He was born in Kârizîn, a small town near Shîrâz. He studied the traditions and philology at Wâsiṭ, Baghdâd and Damascus. In 1349 he accompanied his master, Taqî al-dîn ʿAlî al-Subkî, to Jerusalem, remained there ten years, occupied with literary undertakings, and then departed for Cairo, and payd visits to Asia Minor and India. He was invited to Baghdâd by the Sulṭān Aḥmad ibn Uwais. In 1393 he met Tamerlane at Shîrâz, and was well received and richly rewarded by the conqueror. He then departed once more to India. As he was making his way back to Mecca, the Sulṭān of Yemen, Ismâʿîl ibn ʿAbbâs, gave him his daughter in marriage, and, in 1393, appointed him Grand Qâḍî of Yemen, with a residence at Zabîd. There he died, having expressed a desire, which the Sulṭān would not permit him to gratify, to end his days at Makka. huart, History of Arabic Literature, 388

382 Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, 926. a life’s journey 93

Aside from the seven sources given above, reports on the scholar’s life avoid the issue of timing and of the way by which al-Fīrūzābādī came to Yemen, by quoting different traditions based on these same sources. Regarding these seven sources, two things stand out: first, it is noteworthy that Wüstenfeld arrives at conclusions that differ from his sole stated source, Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī. Without entering too deeply into futile (since unverifiable) specu- lation as to his rationale, the following should be noted: textual overlap strongly suggests that Wüstenfeld also consulted al-Sakhāwī’s text and al-Kirmānī’s account contained in it. Secondly, it is obvious that Brockelmann and Fleisch followed Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī’s account (appendix)—and thus al-Fāsī—only in certain points. In sum, the differences between the individual accounts touch upon the following points in al-Fīrūzābādī’s vita:

1. dating al-Fīrūzābādī’s presence in India 2. direct his journey from Makka to Yemen, by land or by sea 3. dating al-Fīrūzābādī’s second journey to Shīrāz

The different pieces of information, the concurrent interdependencies between different stages of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life, and the resulting implications for chronology are as follows:

1. Dating al-Fīrūzābādī’s sojourn in India. Four texts give India either as the last or penultimate destination before al-Fīrūzābādī arrived in Yemen. None of the contemporaneous sources except al-Kirmānī provide dates for this trip. How- ever, his report is problematic, since he frequently diverges from the remainder of tarājim regarding routes and dates. The matter is complicated further by the fact that al-Kirmānī’s report is transmitted in different forms—its text as given by al-Sakhāwī differs from al-Zanūzī’s version.383 As al-Kirmānī’s account was accessed by a number of biographers, it is critical that his identity remains unclear.384 References to his father’s repeated encounter with his pupil al-

383 See al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 83–84 and al-Zanūzī, Riyāḍ al-janna iv/iv, 149–150. 384 Aside from his nisba, no means of identification are available. Based on the approximate information provided by al-Kirmānī, his father, al-Fīrūzābādī’s companion, could possibly have been Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Yūsuf b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Saʿīd al-Kirmānī; see Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 172. It would have been even more critical if this Kirmānī was identical with the famous Yamanī Sufī by this nisba. As there are no means to determine his identity with any reasonable certainty, however, this matter has to remain open at present. 94 chapter 3

Fīrūzābādī suggest that he was the son of one of al-Fīrūzābādī’s acquaintances. More specifically, he seems to have been the son of one of al-Fīrūzābādī’s Baghdādī teachers.385 If al-Sakhāwī’s reproduction of al-Kirmānī’s account is followed, his father died around the year 790/1388. At least after this point in time, it is unclear on what authority al-Kirmānī bases his report—and it is after this point that al-Fīrūzābādī’s transition to Yemen took place. With regard to India, the same vagary comes to bear. Al-Kirmānī places it in the 790s/late 1380s-mid 1390s. Wüstenfeld seems to have followed him in this respect. Ibn Ḥajar and al-Maqrīzī both advocate this route,386 but this may have been caused by their perception of the Indian Episode, as described above. In effect, this would entail a visit to India around the year 795/1392–1393, and there are facts that speak against this assumption (see below). Besides al-Kirmānī’s information, the only concrete temporal hint is given by Shafīʿ. He situates al-Fīrūzābādī’s journey to India in the years 785/1383– 1384 to 790/1388.387 From the remaining biographical data, it is clear that this stay was not continuous. Rather, al-Fīrūzābādī alternated between Mecca and India. This accounts for the joint mention of both destinations by al-ʿAsqalānī, Wüstenfeld and Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba—with the former two possibly referring to al-Fīrūzābādī’s journey to India before or after 786/1384–1385 and the latter referring to the trip between 786/1393–1394 and 790/1388 (see Graph 1, below). However, this constellation lies a decade before the time suggested by al- Kirmānī. There is evidence for al-Fīrūzābādī’s whereabouts for every year between 790/1388 and 806/1403–1404 that leaves only little—if any—time for detours to India. For this reason, the present thesis follows Shafīʿ’s dating of al-Fīrūzābādī’s visit to the Tughluqid realm. The repeatedly mentioned travelling between Mecca and India also touches upon the second issue raised by the sources.

2. Direct transition from Mecca to Yemen, by land or by sea. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s arrival in Yemen via the sea route is advocated by al-Kirmānī. The earliest sources report that the first place of al-Fīrūzābādī’s presence in Yemen was the sea port ʿAdan, suggesting a direct transition from another port town. Al-Fīrūzābādī could have reached ʿAdan by sea from Mecca. This, however, would rule out al-Fīrūzābādī’s encounter with Bāyazīd between 791/1388–1389 and 794/1391–1392, which should be accepted for reasons explained above (see

385 See al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 83. 386 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 160 and al-Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda ii, 268–269, respectively. 387 Cf. Shafīʿ, Ratan, 458. a life’s journey 95 chapter 3.4). That al-Fīrūzābādī’s arrival in ʿAdan predated his encounter with the sulṭān in Taʿizz388 contradicts his arrival on land from Mecca as, if this had been the case, al-Fīrūzābādī would have first set foot into “the August court”, i.e. Taʿizz.389 Al-ʿAsqalānī and Wüstenfeld also state a direct route from Mecca to Yemen, but remain silent on the specifics. With Wüstenfeld, this requires that al- Fīrūzābādī received the office of qāḍī before he had set foot on Yemenisoil. This assumption is contradicted by a number of other sources that specify Zabīd for this important development in al-Fīrūzābādī’s career. Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that Mecca was indeed al-Fīrūzābādī’s last destination before he went to Yemen. This is critical since the route would—in all but one case (see below)— preclude an encounter between al-Fīrūzābādī and Tīmūr Lang. This ruler is first mentioned as one of al-Fīrūzābādī’s patrons by al-Kirmānī. Tīmūr is not mentioned by Ibn Ḥajar or Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, but both simultaneously do not address the matter of al-Fīrūzābādī’s patrons, except for reference to al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl. The widespread acceptance of an encounter between al-Fīrūzābādī and Tīmūr is therefore indicative of the influence exerted by al-Kirmānī’s report. Their reported meeting (and the frequently mentioned donation of a considerable amount of money) touches upon the third and final issue raised by the divergent traditions

3. Dating al-Fīrūzābādī’s second journey to Shīrāz. The most curious report in this respect is that by al-Zanūzī, which nonetheless clearly highlights the relevance of this stay. Al-Zanūzī states that al-Fīrūzābādī was in Bursa when Tīmūr arrived and that both men subsequently travelled to Shīrāz together.390 Histori- cal data clearly poses problems for al-Zanūzī’s account: Tīmūr came to Anatolia in 804–805/1402, at which time al-Fīrūzābādī had already withdrawn to Yemen. Al-Zanūzī’s account therefore appears as a contraction of two events391 (al- Fīrūzābādī visiting Bāyazīd and Tīmūr taking Bursa), which makes Bursa an unlikely location for their encounter.

388 Cf. al-Khazrajī, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 235. The locations of Taʿizz and ʿAdan are also mentioned by al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383. Possibly, this ‘August court’ may have been identical with a retreat in a nearby village—according to Smith, “Taʿizz”, 118, this retreat lay in the village of Thaʿbāt. 389 For this synonymy cf. al-Khazrajī, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 238. 390 Al-Zanūzī, Riyāḍ al-janna iv/iv, 145. 391 A similar phenomenon may also be read in the ms tarjama contained in Glaser 33, fol. 1v. (catalogued in Ahlwardt, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse vi, 156, no. 6973/6). 96 chapter 3

With the exception of al-Zanūzī, all sources that address the matter agree that al-Fīrūzābādī met Tīmūr in Shīrāz. Regarding this issue Brockelmann says: “Mit Tīmūr kann er aber erst 795/1393 nach der Eroberung von Šīrāz durch die Mongolen […] zusammengekommen sein”.392 This is not the only possible option. Tīmūr had attacked the city once before, in 789/1387,393 and it is conceivable that al-Fīrūzābādī could have stopped briefly in Shīrāz on his way from India to Mecca in the 780s/late 1370s-late 1380s (see below, Graph 1). This possibility, however, would leave only an extremely tight—if any— timeframe for al-Fīrūzābādī’s stay in Shīrāz. By contrast, a visit to the city in 795/1393 seems much more realistic. Furthermore, a late encounter between Tīmūr and al-Fīrūzābādī is also more likely in light of the concurrent constellations of travel: both Brockelmann and Fleisch, based on Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī, state that al-Fīrūzābādī visited Shīrāz, and went from there to Hurmuz in order to set sail for Yemen. Besides the facts that speak for an arrival by sea there is one critical element that makes this route the most likely one: Hurmuz is mentioned by al-Fāsī. His account is the only one that provides specifics for al-Fīrūzābādī’s later life and therefore is the most authoritative source on this phase of his life. It seems that Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī, and therefore Brockelmann and Fleisch, follow in his tradition at least as far as the immediate arrrival in Yemen is concerned. For these reasons and for the facts given above, the present thesis follows this strand of transmission of al-Fīrūzābādī’s controversial route to Yemen.

In sum, the conglomerate of sources presents the following challenges in chronology:

1. A late visit to India, i.e. during the 790s/ late 1380s-mid 1390s, which contradicts reports that place al-Fīrūzābādī in Mecca or Yemen at the time. 2. A direct journey from Mecca to Yemen, which is discounted by the fact that al-Fīrūzābādī’s first destination in the Rasūlid realm was ʿAdan. 3. A possible early meeting between al-Fīrūzābādī and Tīmūr in Shīrāz during the year 789/1387, when Tīmūr had conquered the city. Acceptance of this date would in part vindicate al-Suyūṭī’s report, who mentions a visit to India after al-Fīrūzābādī’s second visit to Shīrāz. As stated above, however, there was very little time, making this unlikely.

392 “He can only have come together with Tīmūr in 795/1393, after the conquest of Shīrāz by the Mongols”; Brockelmann, gal gii, 182/232 n. 1. This assessment is echoed by Browne, A Literary History of Persia iii, 358. 393 Browne, A Literary History of Persia iii, 188. a life’s journey 97

Dating al-Fīrūzābādī’s second journey to Shīrāz thus emerges as one of the core elements on which reconstruction of his travels depends. As stated above, the only source which yields detailed information on his later life is the report by al-Fāsī. This tarjama is therefore the most authoritive source on the time in question, and the present thesis follows this text, as did Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī394 and, later, Brockelmann and Fleisch. For the reasons given above, it is assumed here that al-Fīrūzābādī travelled to Shīrāz and thence to Hurmuz, and afterwards went to Yemen. With this decision, al-Fīrūzābādī’s vita changed greatly. Over the course of his life, he had developed from a promising student to a teacher. A great number of teachers are given in the sources, and sometimes the subjects they taught are specified. Nonetheless, tracing al-Fīrūzābādī’s education in detail is difficult. In certain cases, the available data is not sufficiently detailed to show where al-Fīrūzābādī met these men. Likewise, in the case of cities he visited repeatedly, it is impossible to say during which of his sojourns there he studied with a certain teacher. The most prominent case in point is Mecca, where al-Fīrūzābādī could potentially have met certain scholars in 748–1347/750– 1350, 760/1358–1359, 770/1368–755/1374, 786/1384–1385, 790/1388, 794/139–32, 799/1396–1397, 802–1399/803/1401, 804/1401–1402, 806/1403–1404, or potentially between 806/1403 and 816/1413–1414. These teachers, who cannot precisely be assigned to a location or a journey, are given below. Over time, al-Fīrūzābādī became a teacher himself. This reputation as a teacher before his journey to Yemen was mostly that of a skilled lughawī, and justly so. The works which al-Fīrūzābādī may have written before the year 794/1391–1392 showed his strong interest in language. These decades were also characterized by a notable detachment from political conflict and from allegiance to any of his ruling protectors. While the scholar reportedly received money from Tīmūr, and later from the Rasūlid sulṭān al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl, he nonetheless was wary and independent enough to move on when the political conditions started to deteriorate.

394 Folios included in the appendix of Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī’s Kitāb al-Rawḍ al-ʿatīr (Staats- bibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung, shelf mark: We 289, ff. 217v. – 219v. See also Ahlwardt, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse ix, 357f., no. 9886). Images included with kind permission of Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. I thank Kristina Mün- chow for her kind advice in this matter. 98 chapter 3 table 1 Further teachers

Teachers assigned to Cairo al-ʿArḍī (?), ʿAlī b. Aḥmad (their encounter is mentioned for example by Ghānim, al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 8 n. 1, but the date of this encounter remains unclear) al-ʿAṭṭār, Muẓaffar al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā (died 761/1359(60)) See on him al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 245f. This muḥaddith is said to have transmitted the last part of the Ghaylāniyyāt to al-Fīrūzābādī. Ibn al-Tūnisī, Naṣr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Abī l-Qāsim Qāḍī of miṣr (their encounter is mentioned for example by Ghānim, al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 8 n. 1, but the date of this encounter remains unclear) al-Jazāʾirī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan (their encounter is mentioned for example by Ghānim, al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 8 n. 1, but the date of this encounter remains unclear) al-Qalānisī, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Abū l-Ḥarām (d. 764/1362(3)), see on him al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 259. Said to have taught al-Fīrūzābādī triplets from one of al-Ṣaghānī’s dictionaries, as well as poems of seven and eight lines by Muʾnisa Khātun bt. Malik al-ʿĀdil among other matters (See Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs, 47, n. 105)

Teachers assigned to al-Shām al-Ḥamawī, Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl (their encounter is mentioned for example by Ghānim, al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 9 n. 3, but the date of this encounter remains unclear) Ibn Ḥaddad al-Ḥanafī, Yaḥyā b. ʿAlī (their encounter is mentioned for example by Ghānim, al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 9 n. 3, but the date of this encounter remains unclear) a life’s journey 99

Teachers assigned to Makka al-Ḥaḍramī, Muḥammad b. Sālim (d. 762/1360(1)) See on him al-Fāsī al-Makki al-Mālikī: Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 126f. No details regarding their relationship have been preserved. Judging from his nisba, this teacher may have been one al-Fīrūzābādī’s contacts in Yemen. al-Ḥarāzī, Taqī al-Dīn Was a qāḍī (their encounter is mentioned for example by Ghānim, al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 9 n. 2, and by Ibn Shihāb, al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 17, but the date of this encounter remains unclear) al-Makkī al-Mālikī, (Bakr) al-Khalīl b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Imām of Makka (d. 760/1358(9)), See on him for example Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs i, 48 n. 112 and al-Ḥusaynī al-Dimashqī, Dhayl Tadhkirat, 47f. No works specified. al-Qasṭalānī, Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. al-Zayn (their encounter is mentioned for example by Ghānim, al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 9 n. 2, but the date of this encounter remains unclear)

Teachers without specified location

Abū Ḥafṣ, al-Zayn Father of a certain al-Bārizī, may be the man described in al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd ii, 248 or 251. In Damascus, al-Ṣafadī had a contact of similar name. If these people are identical, al-Fīrūzābādī likely encountered them there. He is said to have familiarized al-Fīrūzābādī with a part of the Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. 100 chapter 3

In the middle of the year 795/1393, Tīmūr again made his presence felt; an embassy from the Ottoman sultan urged the Egyptian government to take military precautions, whilst the Sultan of Baghdād, Aḥmad b. Uways, expelled from his domain by the Mongol hordes took refuge in the Mamluk kingdom. wiet, Barkuk, 1050

On the one hand, this shows the degree to which the rulers of the different great dynasties were interconnected and how they assisted each other when confronted with the common threat of Tīmūr. On the other hand, an alliance between Mamlūks and Ottomans which was formed in 803/1401 ended soon after, when Bāyazīd occupied Malaṭya after Barqūq’s death. This alliance could not be renewed, allowing Tīmūr to fight Mamlūks and Ottomans each in turn, rather than having to contend against their combined forces. These major conflicts and their consequences (among them the defeat and death of Bāyazīd) took place when al-Fīrūzābādī had already moved out of harm’s way. With al-Fīrūzābādī’s journey to Yemen, both his scholarly focus and his attitude towards involvement in political as well as religious conflict changed.

3.6 Years of Allegiance (796/1393(4) – 817/1415): Between Yemen and Mecca

As proposed above, it is possible that al-Fīrūzābādī decided to go to Yemen due to Tīmūr Lang’s renewed campaign and the concurrent upheavals. This would have been a wise decision, because Yemen was one of the few places not invaded by Tīmūr’s armies. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s particular interest in Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings, however, suggests that he may have had other reasons to spend the last two decades of his life at the Rasūlid court. The years between 796/1393–1394 and 817/1415 were not entirely spent in Yemen, but in fact divided between Yemen and the balad al-ḥaramayn. This phase of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life saw him rise to political office and establish his own madāris in Zabīd, Mecca and Minā. It is also the only time in al-Fīrūzābādī’s life during which he abandoned his detachment from the conflicts of his time. Through his mutually advantageous, though ambiguous, relationship with the Rasūlid house he had considerable influence in shaping contemporary Yemen and in the disputes that continued after his death. Besides a twofold geographical focus, al-Fīrūzābādī’s time under the protection of the Rasūlid rulers also brought a notable increase in productivity. Seven a life’s journey 101 of his works were dedicated either to his son-in-law, the sulṭān al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl, or to the latter’s son and successor al-Nāṣir. Besides al-Fīrūzābādī’s unconventional work on the Qurʿān, the Baṣāʾir dhawī l-tamyīz, and a second edition of the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ (for both see below), these works included:

Title: al-Faḍl al-wāfī fi-l-ʿadl al-Ashrafī (The complete virtue of the Ashrafi nobility)

Title variants: Consistent (some sources have al-Faḍl al-wafī fi-l-ʿadl al-Ashrafī. See for example al- Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: Ibn al-Qāḍī specifies that it was an ishāra for al-Ashraf Ismāʾīl, the Rasūlid ruler.395 What kind of guidance it provides is unknown.

Remarks: This is the only work in al-Fīrūzābādī’s oeuvre that may tentatively be assigned to the field of adab in the sense of behavioural codex.

Date: The above prosopographical connection places it within al-Fīrūzābādī’s times in Ye- men.

395 Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs i, 54, n. 137. 102 chapter 3 ∵

Title: al-Aḥādīth al-ḍaʿīfa (The weak aḥādīth)

Title variants: No title variants

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 180 – Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn i, 14 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 mss attested in: www.yazmalar.gov.tr (05 Ba 1511/11—Amasya Beyazit İl Halk Kütüphanesi, ff. 250v– 254r), no images available

Status: Extant, unpublished

Contents: Work on the weak aḥādīth. Version of the khātima of the Sifr al-saʿāda.

Remarks: This work in two or four volumes396 treats the weak aḥādīth. With this focus, it differs from the majority of al-Fīrūzābādī’s other works in this field, which are centred on sounder traditions. Given that the Risāla fī bayān mā lam yathbut fīhi ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth min al-abwāb, which has been catalogued as an independent work,397 is in fact a version of the Sifr al-saʿāda, possible overlaps of the Aḥādīth al-ḍaʿīfa with the khātima of the Sifr al-saʿāda should be examined in the future.

396 See, for instance, al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302, and Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn i, 14. 397 See Brockelmann, gal sii, 235, for references to this work. a life’s journey 103

This overlap also implies a link between the Aḥādīth al-ḍaʿīfa and the Sifr al-saʿāda. Whether the Aḥādīth al-daʿīfa where a later extract or a draft for the conclusion of Sifr al-saʿāda remains unclear. Given the controversial estimates of Bābā Ratan al-Batrandī in ḥadīth matters, this work might shed additional light on his attitude towards the Indian scholar. This work could not be consulted.

Date: This work was written for al-Nāṣir398 and therefore falls into the Yemeni period of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life. ∵

Title: Tashīl ṭarīq al-wuṣūl ilā l-aḥādīth al-zāʾida ʿalā Jāmiʿ al-uṣūl (Alleviation of a way of reaching the aḥādīth appended to the Jāmiʿ al-uṣūl)

Title variants: – Tashīl ṭarīq al-wuṣūl ilā l-aḥādīth al-zāʾida ʿalā Jāmiʿ al-uṣūl (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; al-Kattānī, Fihrist; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ) – Tashīl al-wuṣūl ilā l-aḥādīth al-zāʾida ʿalā Jāmiʿ al-uṣūl (Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr; Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya; al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl; al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt) – Tashīl ṭarīq al-fuṣūl fi-l-aḥādīth al-zāʾida ʿalā Jāmiʿ al-uṣūl (al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 161 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya iii, 66 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl, 290 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274

398 al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82. 104 chapter 3 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: Elaboration on Majd al-Dīn Abū l-Saʿādāt al-Mubārak Ibn Athīr’s (544/1149–606/ 1210?)399 reference work on ḥadīth, the Jāmiʿ al-uṣūl. No details regarding textual relations between both works have been preserved.

Remarks: This work is said to have comprised four volumes.400 Whether this work was influenced by the writings of al-Fīrūzābādī’s teacher Ṣalāh al-Dīn Khalīl b. al-Kaykaldī al-ʿAlāʾī, who wrote a work with a similar title, remains to be investigated.

Date: This work was written either for al-Ashraf or for al-Nāṣir,401 placing it within the Yemeni phase of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life. ∵

Title: Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn fī-mā yuqāl bi-l-sīn wa-l-shīn (The decorator’s embellishement of that which is said with sīn and shīn)

Title variants: – Takhbīr al-muwashshīn fī-mā yuqāl bi-l-sīn wa-l-shīn (al-Baghdādī: Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302–303 – Baalbaki, The Arabic Lexicographical Tradition, multiple references

399 See Rosenthal, Ibn al-Athīr (1). Brockelmann, gal gi, 357/438f. and idem, gal si, 607–609 dates his birth 555/1160 and his death 630/1233. 400 See for example al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn, 181. 401 The former is stated by Tashköprüzāde, Miftāḥ al-saʿāda i, 105, the latter by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 161. a life’s journey 105

– al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 [sic.!, flawed pagination] – Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, 926 – Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn i, 305 – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 162 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 162 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 273 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19 mss attested in: – Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 [sic.!, flawed pagination] (reference given: “Br. Mus.

526,3, Alger 246,4”) – Brockelmann, gal sii, 235 (reference given: “Leipz. 426 […] Alger 1909”) – www.yazmalar.gov.tr (19 Hk 4551/1—Çorum Hasan Paşa İl Halk Kütüphanesi, ff. 2b– 8a) – in al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 27–32, al-Jazāʾirī mentions a ms in the Ẓāhi- riyya in Damascus (no. 9225).402 Several manuscripts are also given by Ghānim.403

Status: Extant, published404 (edition used here al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn fi-l-taʿbīr bi-l-sīn wa-l-shīn, ed. Aḥmad ʿAbd Allāh Bājur, Cairo 1999.)

Contents: This work lists a “Vocabulaire des mots ar. s’écrivant indifferemment avec un s ou ch”.405

402 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Ṣilāt wa-l-bushr, lām. 403 Cf. al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 15–16. 404 Besides the edition utilized here, Fischer, gap iii. Supplement, 267 mentions a 1983 Dam- ascene edition of the work. 405 Brockelmann, gal sii, 235. This formulation has been translated verbatim into English by Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī. 106 chapter 3

Remarks: The decisive factor for inclusion was an identical rasm with the exception of substi- tution of sīn by shīn. Variation in vocalization, on the other hand, was no criterion for exclusion. Presentation is arranged according to the first radical and follows the Arabic alphabet, with the root sīn preceding the shīn variant throughout. Two fuṣūl are designated as “khālin”/“khāliyāt”.406 Under the heading “thāʾ” we find the statement khālin, wa-laysa fī kalām al-ʿarab thāʾun baʿda shīnin muʿjamatin.407 Whether this remark was inserted by the editor or whether it originates from the manuscripts—which would amount to the recognition of illicit consonant clusters—is unclear. There is, furthermore, no faṣl for the letter lām. On the authority of al-Fīrūzābādī’s pupil Burhān al-Dīn al-Ḥalabī, it is frequently said that this work constituted an amendment to Ibn Fāris al-Qazwīnī’s writings.408 This opinion, however, is not voiced unequivocally.409 At times, a critique of Ibn Fāris is assigned to a separate work, an estimate that is supported by the fact that no signs of recourse to Ibn Fāris can be detected in the Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn. With regard to his motives, al-Fīrūzābādī states that his attention was drawn to the subject during his studies of ḥadīth.410 They made him wonder about the comparability of al-tasmīt and al-tashmīt.411 A conclusion regarding this initial question can neither be found in the Taḥbīr itself,412 nor in the corresponding entries of the Qāmūs, although the original impulse may account for the great number of Qurʾānic and ḥadīth references indicated by Bājūr in the critical apparatus.

Date: Judging from al-Fīrūzābādī’s extended reference to al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl in his preface, this works was written during al-Fīrūzābādī’s Yemeni period. ∵

406 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 68 and 96 respectively. 407 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 50. Reference to the letter lām is missing in the edition and the faṣl shīn should strictly speaking not exist according to the overall organisation of presentation. 408 For biographical details cf. Fleisch, Ibn Fāris; Brockelmann, gal gi, 130/135–136 and idem, gal si, 197–198. 409 Cf. al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿarūs i, 44 n. 1. 410 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 34–35. 411 Likely, the ḥadīth in question was among those indicated in Juynboll, Encyclopaedia of Canonical Ḥadīth, 28, 211, 240–241, 406 and 690. 412 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 82. a life’s journey 107

Title: Tuḥfat al-qamāʿīl fī-man yusammā min malāʾika wa-l-nās (bi-)Ismāʿīl (Present to the Lords on those among angels and men who are named Ismāʿīl)

Title variants: – Tuḥfat al-qamāʿīl fī-man yusammā min al-malāʾika wa-l-nās Ismāʿīl (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ) – Tuḥfat al-qamāʿīl fī-man tusammā min al-malāʾika Ismāʿīl (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar) – Tuḥfat al-qamāʿīl fī-man yusammā min al-malāʾika Ismāʿīl (al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr) – Tuḥfat al-qamāʿīl fi man summī min al-malāʾika wa-l-nās bi-Ismāʿīl (Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn) – Tuḥfat al-qamāʿīl fī-man tusammā min al-nās wa-l-malāʾika Ismāʿīl (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – Man tusammā bi-Ismāʿīl (al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 93 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: Work on men and angels413 bearing the name Ismāʿīl. A quotation from it is preserved in the Baṣāʾir.414

413 On the matter of angels see, for example, Chittick, Iblīs and the Jinn. 414 Cf. al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir vi, 39. 108 chapter 3

Remarks: It was probably inspired by the nomenclature of Ashraf Ismāʿīl, to whom it was dedicated. The work itself, which served as a namesake for one of al-Zabīdī’s writings,415 is lost. These remnants include the statement that Ismāʿīl was a non-Arabic (ʿajamī) name and that he was the first among the sons of Adam to bear it. Beyond that no details regarding the work are available.

Date: This work was written for al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl416 and therefore falls into al-Fīrūzābādī’s Yemenī phase. Judging from the inclusion of the cited information in the Baṣāʿir, the Tuḥfatal-qamāʿīl must have been composed prior to or simultaneously with the Baṣāʾir. As al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl did not live to see the conclusion of the latter work, it may assumed that Tuḥfat al-qamāʿīl was concluded after 803/1400–1401.

Al-Fīrūzābādī’s intention to please his liege-lord is evident even in some of the titles of these unrecovered works, which are the product of a turbulent phase in his life. With al-Fāsī’s (755/1373–832/1429)417 account, the only detailed report of al- Fīrūzābādī’s later life, the following chronology of this phase can be established. The majority of sources explicitly state that al-Fīrūzābādī arrived in Zabīd in 796/1393–1394,418 although his settling in the city falls in the year 798/1395–1396. Before this, he had spent time in Taʿizz, given away his daughter in marriage to the sulṭān, and had received the post of supreme qāḍī of Yemen in Dhū l-Ḥijja 797/September 1395 after Ibn ʿUjayl had died.419 Apart from the office of qāḍī al-quḍāt, al-Fīrūzābādī is also said to have secured the position of Shāfiʿī qāḍī over Zabīd. It is questionable, however, how firm his grip on this political post actually was (see below).

415 See Reichmuth, The World, 139. 416 See al-Akwaʿ, Ḥijar al-ʿilm i, 39 among others. 417 See on him Brockelmann, gal gii, 172–173/221–222; al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn i, jīm-wāw, his extensive autobiography in his al-ʿIqd al-thamīn i, 331–473; idem, al-Shifāʾ al-gharām, yāʾ-lām; idem, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 5–20; idem, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 60–69; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿarifīn ii, 187; Ibn Fahd al-Hāshimī al-Makkī, Laḥẓ al-alḥāẓ, 291–298; al-Suyūṭī, Dhayl ṭabaqāt al-ḥuffāẓ, 377–378. 418 See, for example, Ibn ʿAlī, Ghāyat al-amānī ii, 550. On the other hand al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 382, does not concur and states this year in connection with al-Fīrūzābādī’s arrival in Yemen. 419 See, for example, al-Khazrajī, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 248. a life’s journey 109

In light of these dates, he seems to have merely passed through Zabīd on his way to Taʿizz, where he spent 14 months,420 sometime between 796/1393 and 798/1396. Due to the honours he received and the close bonds he formed with al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl (r. 780/1378–1379 – 803/1400),421 this sojourn in the Rasūlid summer residence was a crucial stage in the development and diversification of al-Fīrūzābādī’s career. In Taʿizz, al-Fīrūzābādī acquired the powers and loyalties that shaped his remaining years. Through the intensity of his bonds with the ruling house, his relocation to Yemen marked the beginning of a new phase of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life and a decisive improvement in his career. By 798/1395–1396422 the newly appointed qāḍī was in Zabīd. From here he went to Mecca the following year.423 This sojourn in is the latest possible date for the completion of al-Fīrūzābādī’s work on saints buried near that town. Since al-Fāsī was familiar with the work, it must have been available by the early 800s/1400s.

Title: Ishārat al-shujūn ilā ziyārat al-Ḥajūn (Indication of the roads to the visit of Mount Ḥajūn)

Title variants: – Ishārat al-ḥajūn ilā ziyārat al-Ḥajūn (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – Ishārāt al-shujūn ilā ziyārat al-Ḥajūn (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – Athārat al-ḥajūn ilā ziyārat al-Ḥajūn (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ)

420 See Brockelmann, gal gii, 182/232. 421 See al-Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda ii, 112–123. 422 Al-Khazrajī, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 259. 423 Al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, mīm. 110 chapter 3 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal sii, 236 (reference given: “Kairo2 v, 7”), in his edition of the Qāmūs al-Sayyid mentions a ms (p. 6). Al-Jazāʾirī mentions a ms in the Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya (no. 3952)424

Status: Extant. According to al-Jāsir,425 it was published in Mecca in 1332h. As this edition could not be consulted, the following outline of the work is based on the ms available from www.al-Mostafa.com.426 This ms is property of the King Saud University and catalogued under shelf mark 1210, catalogue number: 219r908-m.

Contents: It concerns ṣaḥāba who where buried in the surroundings of Mecca, especially on Mount Ḥajūn, and the merits associated with visiting their graves. On this work see also al-Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 91f.

Remarks: Al-Sakhāwī—who obviously studied the work—repeats its author’s statement that the Ithārat al-hajūn was written in a single night.427 Its contents have been criticized for lack of precision by al-Fāsī.428 The ms of King Saud University (shelf mark 1210, catalogue number: 219r908m) presents the work as follows: Its copyist is given as ʿAlī b. Abī Bakr al-Ṣāʾiʿ, the date of copying is given as 1287/1870–1871. Its page dimensions are given as 14×21cm. Each page holds 12–14 lines, with a decline in legibility after page 50. Preceding the text itself are a number of pages that have been inserted by the library, containing formal information on the work, its status (unpublished), title and summary of its contents. The work seems to have been rebound, as some of the words on the inner margins have been partially obscured. The work itself begins on page 1 and contains a title and author, as well as a reading note. The frame surrounding the text and outlining the margins is retained throughout the work. This title page is followed by the beginning of the work proper on page 2. On this page, as well as throughout the text, there are remnants of red and, rarely, of blue ink that may come from unfinished illumination. While this

424 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Ṣilāt wa-l-bushr, kāf. 425 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, nūn. 426 Access procedures of this website do not yield urls. The mss are therefore indicated here by reference to their file numbers where required. 427 See for example al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82. He also mentions it in his al-Iʿlān. 428 His remarks are given in a number of biographies; see, for example, al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 9. a life’s journey 111 red ink is found in the floral black-and-white headpiece on page 2, it has been used to trace originally black words and separating dots on other pages (most prominently the introductory words “wa-minhum” that precede each entry, followed by the person’s name in big and bold letters). The fully vocalized and dotted text commences with the basmala, followed by elaborate praise for Muḥammad and a declaration of faith that runs to the second line of page 4. This is followed by a bold and much bigger heading (“amma baʿdu lammā kānat”) that opens a short introduction (p. 4, l. 4–p. 5, l. 7), in which the overall structure of the work is stated as treating the ṣaḥāba buried on Mount Ḥajūn (p. 5, l. 8–p. 69, l. 6) and the insights that can be gained from aḥādīth regarding the issue of grave visitation (p. 69, l. 7–p. 86, l. 1), concluded by a khātima (p. 86, l. 2–p. 103, and colophon and concluding remarks on pp. 102f.). In the first, biographical, faṣl al-Fīrūzābādī lists 39 men and—under a separate heading (p. 63)—five women in alphabetical sequence according to their ism. The individual entries vary in detail. Issues of naming, progeny, transmissions and dates of death are addressed in al-Fīrūzābādī’s short biographical entries. In the second faṣl, al-Fīrūzābādī opens by stating that an ijmāʿ regarding ziyārat al-qubūr exists and goes on to prove the point with a number of aḥādīth that reach back to Muḥammad. Among the authorities he cites are some whose works he is known to have studied, such as al-Nawawī or al-Bukhārī. They also include one scholar whose reception by al-Fīrūzābādī remains to be investigated: Ibn ʿAbbās (see chapter 4.2.2.1). He concludes this faṣl by stating that—based on the aḥādīth he presented—it is obvious that visiting the graves of Mount Ḥajūn is especially benign, as is dying in Mecca—something he apparently intended to do, as biographies on al-Fīrūzābādī suggest. The advantages of grave visitation are again solicited by transmissions. The khātima of this work contains a discussion subdivided into the topics of “taḥqīq al-maʿānī al-barzakh wa-maʿānī al-ziyāra” (p. 86, l. 3–p. 92, l. 13), and “ammā maʿānī ziyārat ahl al-barzarakh [sic]” (p. 92, l. 14–p. 98, l. 3).

Date: Since al-Fāsī was familiar with the work, it must have been available by the early 800s/1400s.

From Mecca, al-Fīrūzābādī returned to Zabīd in 800/1397–1398.429 Here,430 he presented al-Ashraf with his treatise on ijtihād in the following year, 801/1398– 1399:

429 See al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 86. Al-ʿAsqalānī’s statement is autobiographical by virtue of his first person reference; see Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 162. 430 Al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, mīm. 112 chapter 3

Title: al-Isʿād bi-l-iṣʿād ilā darajat al-ijtihād (The providing of happiness through the elevation to the degree of ijtihād)

Title variants: – al-Isʿād bi-l-iṣʿād ilā darajat al-ijtihād (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn; al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ) – al-Isʿād bil-iṣʿād ʿalā darağat al-iğtihād (Brockelmann, gal sii) – al-Isʿād bi-l-iṣʿād ilā darajat al-jihād (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ) – al-Isʿād ilā rutbat al-ijtihād (al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr; Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī; Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya; al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt; al-Suyūṭī, Radd ʿalā man akhlada)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 180 – Brockelmann, gal sii, 236 – Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 161 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya iii, 66 – Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn xii 118 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – al-Suyūṭī, Radd ʿalā man akhlada, 117 mss attested in: Al-Sayyid and al-Jazāʾirī mention a ms in the Ẓāhiriyya in Damascus (no. 414).431

Status: Extant, unpublished

431 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ i, 6 (edition al-Sayyid), and al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Ṣilāt wa-l- bushr, kāf. a life’s journey 113

Contents: This work is concerned with furthering ijtihād. Al-Suyūṭī counts al-Fīrūzābādī among those who rejected taqlīd.432

Remarks: This work consisted of three volumes433 or four asfār.434 Future examination of al-Fīrūzābādī’s stance towards the matter of taqlīd is a desider- atum especially in light of al-Fīrūzābādī’s contacts with a number of madhāhib and due to the fact that a number of his acqaintances (most prominently al-Subkī and al- Isnawī435) were involved in disputes over the matter. Moreover, the subject holds implications for the issue of madhhab affiliation,436 in which al-Fīrūzābādī was perceived ambiguously.

Date: It is not known when al-Fīrūzābādī started writing this book, but he presented it to al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl on 15 Shaʿbān 801/23 April 1399.437

A public reading of Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ on al-Ashraf’s orders in the year 802/1399– 1400 shows that al-Fīrūzābādī was present in the city during this year.438 From al-Fāsī we also know that al-Fīrūzābādī was in Mecca from 802/1399–803/1401, then went to Medina in 803/1400–1401,439 and returned to Mecca again in 804/1401–1402,440 before al-Ashraf’s death. He then returned to Zabīd to see the sulṭān, but arrived only after al-Ashraf’s demise.

On the 28th of that month [Ṣafar 802/October 1399] a violent suffering seized the Sulṭān, more violent than the former attack, and he continued for some days to wander about from place to place, but could find no relief […] He then proceeded to Taʿizz [….] resided in the palace on the

432 Al-Suyūṭī, Radd ʿalā man akhlada, 117. 433 See, for example, Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn i, 85, and Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shad- harāt al-dhahab vii, 128. 434 See Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 161. 435 See on the debate also Hallaq, Was the Gate of Ijtihad closed? 436 As defined, for example, by Weiss, The Madhhab. On al-Shāfiʿī and his legal stances see Nagel, Das islamische Recht, 229; Burton, An Introduction to the Ḥadīth, 122; Motzki, Die Entstehung, among others. 437 See al-Khazrajī, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 266. 438 Cf. al-Khazrajī, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 274. 439 Al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, mīm. 440 See al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 18. 114 chapter 3

photo 2 al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl’s grave in Taʾizz

market-place […] ten days unwell, and then was taken to the mercy of his forgiving Lord God in the night before Saturday the 18th of the said month (6th November, 1400) […] And he was buried, may God, who be extolled, have mercy on him, in his own college, the ʿEshreffiya, which he had built in the ward of ʿUdeyna. al-khazrajī, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 285f.

After his father had died, al-Nāṣir (d. 827/1424) succeeded to the throne and, under his rule, the scholar had to accommodate a number of changes. Most significant among them was the end of the madāris441 which al-Fīrūzābādī had previously owned. But this did not prevent him from travelling to the balad al-ḥaramayn, now apparently solely in matters of faith. He alternated between Mecca and Ṭāʿif in 805/1402–1403 and 806/1403–1404, depending on the duties of the pilgrimage. During the latter year, he also went to al-Madīna.442 Besides these activities, visits to the cities of al-Salāma and al-Khubza, as well as the ʿArafa plain may be tentatively added on the basis of al-Fīrūzābādī’s writings, as he wrote a work connected to this location. When he might have come to these cities is difficult to assess as, in principle, every single one of his

441 This is mentioned in al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 19. 442 Al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, mīm. a life’s journey 115 numerous visits would have presented an opportunity. For the years between 806/1403–1404 and 816/1413–1414, few specifics have been preserved. Al-Fāsī states that al-Fīrūzābādī wandered for nine month after he had left Mecca in 806/1403–1404, then returned to Zabīd for some time. This point in time is the latest viable date for the composition of his work on the virtues of the sūrat Yā-Sīn. This work was reportedly composed on request of one of the most influential Sufis in Yemen, al-Jabartī, who died in 807/1404–1405:

Title: Faṣl fī sūrat Yā-Sīn (A chapter on the sūrat Yā-Sīn)

Title variants: No title variants

Work attested in: – Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Dhayl al-durar, 141 – al-Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda ii, 245 – al-Bājur mentions it in his introduction to al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 33 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: Work on the sūrat Yā-Sīn.443

Remarks: Al-Maqrīzī mentions a Faṣl fī ṣūra yā-sīn, of which he reports that al-Fīrūzābādī collected it for Ismāʿīl al-Jabartī (724/1323–1324 – 807/1404–1405).444 The work could therefore shed further light on al-Fīrūzābādī’s relations with al-Jabartī and on his Sufi stances. In the respective paragraph of the Baṣāʾir, al-Fīrūzābādī indicates faḍāʾil that

443 On the 36th sūra of the Qurʾān see Paret, Der Koran, 410–414. 444 Al-Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda ii, 245. Ghānim states that it was collected for Ismāʿīl b. Ibrāhīm al-Hāshimī al-ʿAqīlī (cf. al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 18). 116 chapter 3 concur with the common perceptions as outlined by Khoury445—further study of al- Fīrūzābādī’s connection to al-Jabartī will therefore have to wait until the Faṣl fī ṣūrat Yā-Sīn has been recovered.

Date: Given al-Jabartī’s request as al-Fīrūzābādī’s motivation for the work, the Faṣl fī sūrat Yā-Sīn may have been composed al-Fīrūzābādī’s arrival in Yemen in 796/1393–1394 and al-Jabartī’s death in 807/1404(5).

After this stay in Zabīd, al-Fīrūzābādī continued to Taʿizz. Here, he was granted supervision of the al-Muʿīdiyya and the al-Mujāhidiyya colleges for an unspecified period of time.446 Just as with the duration of his presence at these institutions, the sources do not render any details regarding the subjects which al-Fīrūzābādī taught at these schools. Before his final return to Zabīd, al-Fīrūzā- bādī may also have visited Mecca and Madīna again.447 This is difficult to assess as the versions of al-Fāsī’s report quoted by Bājūr and al-Jāsir differ from each other. If al-Kirmānī’s unique and undated reference to the Dahlak archipelago is accepted,448 this phase would also have offered abundant time for a visit to the islands—possibly on one of al-Fīrūzābādī’s journeys to or from Mecca or Madīna. Similarly, no more specific date can be determined for al-Fīrūzābādī’s sojourn in Minā.449 On this city he also wrote a faḍāʾil-work:

Title: al-Waṣl wa-l-munā fī faḍāʾil Minā (The union and the fulfilled wishes regarding the virtues of Minā)

Title variants: – al-Waṣl wa-l-munā fi faḍl Minā (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; al-Sakhā- wī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ)

445 See Khoury, Der Koran x, 560. 446 Al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbir al-muwashshīn, 18–19. 447 Al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, mīm. 448 Al-Kirmānī in al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 83 and in al-Zanūzī, Riyāḍ al-janna, iv/iv, 149. On Dahlak see Longrigg, “Dahlak”. Reference to islands off the coast of the Gulf might on the other hand be caused by the fact that the city of Hurmuz lay on an island called Jārūn. Whether there is such a connection between reference to the Dahlak archipelago and the fact that Hurmuz was moved from the mainland to an island in 700/1300, however, has to remain open. 449 On the city beteen Mecca and ʿArafa see Buhl, Minā. a life’s journey 117

– al-Wuṣūl wa-l-munā fi faḍl Minā (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – al-Wuṣl wa-l-munā fi faḍl Minā (Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn) – De praestantiis urbis Ṭâȉf (Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 306 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 95 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: This work treats the city of Minā.

Remarks: With this city, al-Fīrūzābādī was certainly familiar. Here, he owned a house and taught al-Fāsī. This pupil is said to have used the work for the 11th part of his own al-ʿIqd al-thamīn, but no explicit reference to al-Fīrūzābādī’s work can be detected in the relevant portion of al-Fāsī’s text.450 In al-Fāsī’s Shifāʾ al-gharām, however, fragmented information on this work has been preserved: from his text, we know that the work must have included information on the names of the Kaʿba and that among these names al-Fīrūzābādī listed “al-duwwār”.451 Furthermore, the Faḍāʾil Minā must have contained a treatment of Mount Thawr.452

450 For this claim see al-Sakhāwī, al-Iʿlān, 650, n. 2. For the chapter in question refer to al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn i, 67–68. 451 Al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Shifāʾ al-gharām i, 127. 452 Al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Shifāʾ al-gharām i, 282. 118 chapter 3

Date: Unknown. Al-Fāsī calls al-Fīrūzābādī qāḍī al-quḍāt, which suggests that he copied the relevant portions of the work after al-Fīrūzābādī had assumed the post in 797/1394– 1395.

Al-Fāsī’s wording implies that his encounter with al-Fīrūzābādī in Minā post- dates al-Fīrūzābādī’s ascension to the office of qāḍī al-quḍāt, i.e. tpq. 797/1394– 1395.453 From al-Fāsī (755/1373–832/1429) it is clear that al-Fīrūzābādī owned a house in Minā, in addition to the premises he held in Mecca and al-Madīna. Al- Fāsī simultaneously renders a report of al-Fīrūzābādī’s activities as a teacher:454

I heard from him in his house in Minā a part of Ibn ʿArafa, and a hundred select pieces of al-Bukhārī according to al-ʿAlāʾī’s selection. And I read to him from among the cornerstones of education the sīra nabawiyya of ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Muqaddasī, transmitted by Ibn al-Khabbāz455 from Ibn ʿAbd al-Dāyim, [who tranmitted it] from him [i.e. the author]. And [I also studied with al-Fīrūzābādī] the Arbaʿīn al-nawawiyya as transmitted by Ibn Majla from al-Nawawī and the Burda as transmitted by Ibn Jamāʿa from the compiler of the work. al-fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 17

Additionally, al-Fāsī’s reports suggest that al-Fīrūzābādī may have written his book on honey during their encounter: he reports that it was written in a single night. This can be read as suggesting that he may have been witness to its creation. If this is accepted, the work was probably written around the turn of the century.

453 Al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 19. 454 From al-Fāsī’s chronicle of Mecca it is obvious that al-Fāsī was also familiar with al- Fīrūzābādī’s Qāmūs, al-Waṣl wa-l-munā fī faḍāʾil Minā, the Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, the Manḥ al-bārī and the Tarqīq al-ʿasal. Although he may have read these works at a later date, it is possible that he was introduced to the text under the supervision of their author, which would give these texts tpq. 797/1394–1395, since al-Fāsī refers to al-Fīrūzābādī as qāḍī al-quḍāt. 455 This man cannot be identical with al-Fīrūzābādī’s teacher of the same nickname. Al-Fāsī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 98 gives a biography of this transmitter of al-Muqaddasī’s work, in which Ibn al-Khabbās’s studies with Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Dāʾim are specified. The scholar in question, Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl b. Ibrāhīm b. Sālim b. Barakāt al-Anṣārī al-Dimashqī, died in 667/1268–1269 This suggests that the above chain of transmission is not complete. a life’s journey 119

Titles: Tarqīq al-asal fī taṣfīq al-ʿasal (The sharpening of the tips of the tongues concerning the shaking of the honey[- combs])

Title variants: – Tathbīt al-asal fī tafḍīl al-ʿasal (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – Tarfīq al-asal fi taṣfīq al-ʿasal (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – Tarqīq al-asal fi taṣfīq al-ʿasal (al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ) – Tarqīq al-asal fi taḍʿīf al-ʿasal (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82f. – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal sii, 236 (reference given: “Mešh. xvi, 9, 28”)

Status: Published

Contents: Encyclopaedic work on honey.

Remarks: Al-Fāsī states that al-Fīrūzābādī wrote the two karārīs of this book in a single night.456 Mention of this twofold division has led some biographers to believe that two works on the subject existed. Thus, al-ʿAẓm and al-Baghdādī457 name the above title along with a second one of Tathbīt al-asal fī tafḍīl al-ʿasal. That this is erroneous can be surmised

456 See al-Fāsī in al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 85. 457 Cf. al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 and al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181. 120 chapter 3 from al-Fīrūzābādī’s remark that he wrote “kitāban” (a book, implying one book) on the subject.458 Al-Fīrūzābādī’s treatment of the subject falls into five fuṣūl. In these, he first treats Qurʾānic passages on honey, then presents and comments on aḥādīth on the subject.459 Subsequently, he provides and examines synonyms on honey,460 before focusing on statements by ḥukamāʾ and aṭibbāʾ, and finally turns towards the presence of honey in poetry and related realms. The Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal is remarkable for its inclusion of medical topics that do not surface as clearly in al-Fīrūzābādī’s other works, with the exception of the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ.461 References given in the work concern scholars in whom al-Fīrūzābādī took particular interest. Among them are Ibn Sīda (also “Abū l-Ḥasan”), al-Ṣaghānī (also “Ṣāḥib al-ʿUbāb”) and al-Jawharī.462 The former two are sometimes cited and there are also instances in which al-Fīrūzābādī takes recourse to both scholars in discussion of al- Jawharī.463 Additionally,occasional recourse to al-Zamakhsharī—on whose Khashshāf al-Fīrūzābādī wrote two commentaries—can be found. The overall modus of the work is an overview of opinions on various subjects. Within this range of views, there is no pronounced preference for any one specific authority, although it is noteworthy that al-Fīrūzābādī also included contemporaneous sources such as al-Dhahabī’s Mīzān.464 The author in one case adds personal observations. For example, he relates Aristotle’s high regard for honey in medical matters.465

458 Cf. lemma “ʿ-s-l” in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ iv, 18 (edition al-Sayyid). 459 Highlighted by the editor; see al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 31. 460 This linguistic aspect of the work is acknowledged by Brockelmann’s statement that it treated “über die Namen des Honigs”, “on the names of honey”; see Brockelmann, gal sii, 236. 461 Commented upon by, for example, Fāris Afandī, al-Jāsūs ʿalā l-Qāmūs. 462 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 150, 161, 163, 167–168, 173, 181–182, 199, 255 on Ibn Sīda. For al-Ṣaghānī see pages 129, 181–182, 200, 205, 257. References to al-Jawharī can be found for example on pp. 67, 76. 463 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 184. 464 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 122. 465 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 87. Apart from Aristotle, he also cites Hip- pocrates (p. 93) and Galen (p. 216). On this field of expertise see Ullmann, Die Medizin im Islam and Klein-Franke, Vorlesungen. It is uncertain where al-Fīrūzābādī’s knowledge of these matters originated. There was a tradition of medical schools in his Īlkhānid home- land; see Endreß, Die Wissenschaftliche Literatur [part 1], 448. Medical terminology is among the aspects adressed in Fāris Afandī, al-Jāsūs. a life’s journey 121

Date: It is reported repeatedly that the occasion of writing this treatise was al-Fīrūzābādī being asked whether honey was the bees’ vomit or excrement.466 When and where—if at all—exactly this enquiry was addressed to the scholar is uncertain. It may be argued, however, that such a treatise may have been induced in locations that relate more closely to the production of honey. This would offer the surroundings of Ṭāʾif467 or Yemen as possible locations for its composition. In light of al-Fīrūzābādī’s mention of an encounter on his way to Ṭāʾif,468 the work must post-date his first journey to the Ḥijāz. There is evidence to suggest that he concluded the work in Mecca.469

This same claim of composition in a single night is also given by al-Fāsī for al-Fīrūzābādī’s work on the opening sūra of the Qurʾān, similarly suggesting a composition during their encounter:

Title: Taysīr fātiḥat al-īhāb bi-tafsīr fātiḥat al-kitāb (The alleviation of the opening of gifting for the exegesis of the Opening of the Book)

Title variants: – Taysīr fātiḥat al-īyāb fī tafsīr fātiḥat al-kitāb (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ) – Taysīr fāʾiḥat al-īhāb fī tafsīr fātiḥat al-kitāb (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar) – Tabsīr fātiḥat al-albāb fī tafsīr fātiḥat al-kitāb (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – Taisīr fāʾiḥat al-ihāb bitafsīr Fātiḥat al-kitāb (Brockelmann, gal sii) – Taysīr fāʾiḥat al-īyāb fī tafsīr fātiḥat al-kitāb (al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn) – Taysīr fātiḥat al-īhāb fī tafsīr fātiḥat al-kitāb (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – Sharḥ al-fātiḥa (al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt)

466 Cf. for example Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs, 54 n. 135. 467 For the economic significance of this product see Lecker, al-Ṭāʾif. Similar importance, however, was ascribed to bees in religious matters. 468 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 87. 469 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 42. 122 chapter 3

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Brockelmann, gal sii, 235 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 127 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 81 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 281 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 276 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 mss attested in: Brockelmann: gal sii, 235 (reference given: “Kairo2 i, 42”). Ghānim mentions a manuscript in the Dār al-Kutub wa-l-Wathāʾiq al-Miṣriyya in Cairo (no. (6) tafsīr shīn ʿarabī).470

Status: Extant, unpublished

Contents: Work concerning the opening sūra of the Qurʾān.

Remarks: This book is unequivocally said to have been made up of one single, large volume.471 Of its composition, only one source mentions that it was written in a single night— this statement is passed down from al-Fāsī, who reports the same fact of the Tarqīq al-asal.472 As is apparent from its name, this work is an exegesis of the first sūra of the Qurʾān. The Cairo ms of the work mentioned by Brockelmann473 awaits examination. The choice of subject is not exceptional, given the prominent role of the fātiḥa in life and scholarship.474 As it plays an important role for prayer, future examinations may consider possible overlaps between this work and al-Fīrūzābādī’s treatise on prayer on behalf of Muḥammad.

470 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 18. 471 See Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 127. 472 See al-Fāsī in al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 85. 473 Brockelmann, gal sii, 235. 474 See, for example, Dammen McAuliffe, Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, ii, 191. See also Khoury, Der Koran i, 128–158. a life’s journey 123

Date: Al-Fāsī’s report regarding the history of the work can be read as suggesting that he may have been witness to its creation. If this is accepted, the work was probably written around the turn of the century.

Despite their detail, al-Fīrūzābādī is not mentioned in the available biographies on al-Fāsī and the only explicit connection of al-Fāsī to Minā is made for the year 813/1410–1411. However, given the lack of explicit reference to al- Fīrūzābādī and the fact that al-Fāsī spent much of his time in and around Mecca, there is insufficient evidence for assigning this year to al-Fāsī’s studies with al-Fīrūzābādī.475 Al-Fāsī himself provides a starting point for future biographical inquiry into his travels: He states that his encounter with al- Fīrūzābādī in Minā followed a stay in Mecca. During this time, al-Fāsī studied al-Muqaddasī’s Sīra and other works with al-Fīrūzābādī.476 Dating this first encounter may therefore prove instrumental in determining more precisely when both scholars met again in Minā. Furthermore, as the book on honey is mentioned in the second Qāmūs, establishing these dates may also contribute to a more precise image of its composition. As things stand, al-Fāsī’s encounter with al-Fīrūzābādī around the turn of the century suggests that the respective lemma may have been inserted into the Yemeni Qāmūs after the turn of the century. In any case, al-Fīrūzābādī must have been in Zabīd again at least one year before his death. Taqī al-Dīn b. Fahd (born 787/1385–1386) tells of al-Marrāku- shī’s journey to Zabīd in 816/1413–1414, as he wanted to study with al-Fīrūzābā- dī.477 It would seem that Ibn Fahd accompanied him.478 Al-Marrākushī (and Ibn Fahd) therefore may have been among al-Fīrūzābādī’s later students. Fur- thermore, the subject matter he heard from the scholar also is remarkable: He reports lessons not only in ḥadīth and shiʿr, but also in Sufi matters. This report shows that al-Fīrūzābādī’s retained interest in taṣawwuf, particularly in Ibn al- ʿArabī, was strong enough to enable him to teach others. In fact, during his time in Yemen, al-Fīrūzābādī established madāris of his own.

475 See al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 12. 476 Al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 277. 477 Ibn Fahd in al-Kattānī, Fihrist al-fahāris ii, 907–908. 478 In his biography of al-Marrākushī, Ibn Fahd also tells of his journey to al-Yaman in the year 816/1413–1414, see al-Ḥusaynī al-Dimashqī in his Tadhkirat al-ḥuffāẓ, 272–282. 124 chapter 3

3.6.1 Educational Power: Two madāris During the previous stages of his life, al-Fīrūzābādī had built a reputation on his scholarship and teaching. At times, these lessons had been embedded in an institutional setting, such as the Niẓāmiyya in Baghdad, or the schools at which he is said to have earned a living in Jerusalem. During the final major phase of his life’s journey, al-Fīrūzābādī established his own schools. The existence of these institutions attests to the considerable funds al-Fīrūzābādī must have had accumulated by the last third of his life. It is likely that these means were provided by his position as qāḍī, and possibly by further direct support from al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl. Additionally, a portion of al-Fīrūzābādī’s means certainly resulted from the generous gifts he had received from his various patrons over the course of his career. Besides the amount he received from al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl upon his arrival and, later, when he finished books (see above), these presents also include 5000 darāhim from Tīmūr Lang.479 On the authority of the Rasūlid sulṭān al-Nāṣir, al-Fīrūzābādī’s claim is reported that he bought books worth 5000 mithqāl.480 This account is transmitted by his opponent al-Khayyāṭ.481 In any case, the scholar was affluent enough to own gardens in Taʿizz482 and Minā483 and to establish madāris with three teachers each in both Mecca and al-Madīna.484 Regarding the establishment of these schools, different estimates exist. Wüstenfeld comments:

zu Mekka und Medina, wohin er oft als Pilger kam, hatte er einige Häuser bauen und zu Schulen einrichten lassen, in denen die von ihm angestell- ten Lehrer unterrichteten, während er in fernen Ländern umherreiste.485 wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203

479 The amount of money provided by al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl varies between sources. The amount al-Fīrūzābādi received from Tīmūr is given almost univocally. 480 Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 81. 481 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 8. 482 See, for example, al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 18. 483 This garden also had a well called al-Shaʿbāniyya, as al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Shifāʾ al-gharām i, 345, states. 484 The school in Mecca is mentioned by a number of biographers, while the specific number of three teachers is given by al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 18, and Brock- elmann, gal gii, 182/232. For the Medinan school see, for example, al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 275. 485 “In Makka and Madīna, where he often came as a pilgrim, he had had a number of houses built and had them turned into schools in which the teachers who were employed by him taught while he travelled around in far-away lands”. a life’s journey 125

This would potentially place al-Fīrūzābādī’s role as head of his madāris at a much earlier point in time, probably in the 770s/late 1360s-late 1370s. Brockel- mann, on the other hand, argues “Dass er in Mekka und Indien [sic!?] schon während seiner Wanderjahre Schulen gegründet haben sollte, ist viel weniger wahrscheinlich, als dass er in Mekka als Oberqāḍī von al-Yaman eine beschei- dene Madrasa eingerichtet”.486 This conclusion is supported by the positon of the madāris within the narrative structure of tarājim. Furthermore, both al-Dāwūdī and al-Sakhāwī state that he inaugurated the school in Mecca specifically to tutor al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl.487 There also seems to have been a marked increase in pupils after al-Fīrūzābādī settled in Yemen, and it stands to reason that they studied either in al-Fīrūzābādī’s facilities near Zabīd (see below), or followed him to the balad al-ḥaramayn. An example of such a joint journey is Shihāb al-Dīn Abū l-Faḍl Aḥmad b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī al-Kinānī al-Shāfiʿī (773/1372–852/1449).488 He was in Yemen in 799/1396–1397 and Mecca the following year,489 just as al-Fīrūzābādī was. During the latter sojourn, al-Fīrūzābādī also met one of his former pupils, al-Maqrīzī, again.490 While it is unknown whether they once more exchanged knowledge, al-ʿAsqalānī heard the Qāmūs from its author, as well as matters of ḥadīth.491 Certainly, Ibn Ḥajar was now also introduced to the Maghānim al-muṭāba, but his studies notably do not seem to have extended to al-Bukhārī’s work. Al-Fīrūzābādī does not feature in a number of sanad of transmitters for al-Bukhārī’s books, in which Ibn Ḥajar is mentioned.492 This denial of instruction may have been caused by his opposition to Ibn al-ʿArabī, which was not shared by his teacher. Their commentaries on the Ṣaḥīḥ have

486 “That he should have founded schools in Makka and India [sic?!] already during his wan- dering years is much less likely than that he should have established a modest madrasa in Makka as supreme qāḍī of Yemen”. Brockelmann, gal gii, 182/232 n. 1. Brockelmann’s reference to India seems to be a misprint for al-Madīna, of which he speaks a few lines earlier. 487 See, for example, al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 275. 488 On him see also al-Ḥusaynī al-Dimashqī, Tadhkirat al-ḥuffāẓ, 326–343; al-Qannawjī, Maw- sūʿat muṣṭalaḥāt, 1065–1066; al-Suyūṭī, Dhayl ṭabaqāt al-ḥuffāẓ, 380ff.; and Ibn al-ʿAlāʾī, Taʿrīf al-qudamāʾ, 311. 489 See Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 214ff. 490 Al-Maqrīzī in al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 86. On him see al-Biqāʿī, ʿUnwān al-zamān i, 109–110. 491 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr, vii, 162. The fact that Ibn Ḥajar was instructed by al-Fīrūzābādī is also mentioned by al-Fāsī in his biography of the former. See al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 356. 492 See, for example, Ḥaḍramī, Zabīd, 275. 126 chapter 3 given rise to extended controversy regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s Manḥ al-bārī, which has to be seen mainly in light of al-Fīrūzābādī’s defense of Ibn al-ʿArabī (see chapter 3.6.3). Apart from Ibn Ḥajar and al-Maqrīzī, there were a number of other pupils who reportedly studied with al-Fīrūzābādī during this phase of his life. The point in time at which these contacts occurred, however, cannot be ascertained in details—they are therefore presented cumulatively below. table 2 Further Pupils

Pupils from Jibla al-Burayhī, Ṣafī al-Dīn ʿAbd Allāh b. Abū Bakr mentioned only in al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 295. said to have studied ḥadīth with al-Fīrūzābādī al-Ḍarāsī (?), Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Abī l-Qāsim mentioned only in al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 128. said to have received an ijāza in matters of ḥadīth from al-Fīrūzābādī (was also taught by Ibn al-Khayyāṭ) al-Jarīrī, Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿUmar mentioned only in al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 126. said to have learned matters of fiqh from al-Fīrūzābādī (was also taught by Ibn al-Khayyāṭ)

Pupils from Jund al-Bajalī, Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ḥusayn mentioned only in al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 161 was a qāḍī matters of instruction not specified

Pupils from Taʿizz al-ʿAwādī, Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿUmar was a qāḍī mentioned only in al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 199. al-Fīrūzābādī is here called al-Ṣiddīqī al-Burayhī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b. Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. ʿUmar mentioned only in al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 205. al-Fīrūzābādī is said to have given him ijāzas in matters of tafsīr, ḥadīth and lugha a life’s journey 127

Pupils from Taʿizz al-Damatī, Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ṣāliḥ mentioned only in al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 197. Heared and read unspecified matter and ḥadīth from al-Fīrūzābādī (here called al-Ṣiddīqī) al-Ḥamīrī/Ḥumayrī (?) al-Damatī, ʿAfīf al-Dīn Ṣāliḥ b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿUmrān mentioned only in al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 196. Heard and read unspecified matter, ḥadīth and tafsīr from al-Fīrūzābādī (here called al-Ṣiddīqī)

Pupils of unknown proximity al-ʿAlawī, Sulaymān b. Ibrāhīm b. ʿUmar mentioned only in al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 207. no matters specified al-ʿArshānī, Abd al-Rahman b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad mentioned only in al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 219. read ḥadīth with al-Fīrūzābādī (“al-Shīrāzī”) Banū l-qāḍī Aḥmad b. Ḍiyāʾ mentioned only in al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd, i, 278 al-Ḥalabī, Sibṭ b. al-ʿAjamī, Burhān al-Dīn Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad b. Khalīl (d. 841 according to Brockelmann, gal gii, p. 80 and Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 208.) Their place of encounter is vital, as it may serve to date two of al-Fīrūzābādī’s works. This pupil, who received both the Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn and al-Fīrūzābādī’s genealogical treatise, is responsible for the claim that in the former, al-Fīrūzābādī commented on Ibn Fāris. (See al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 277 and al-Kirmānī’s report contained in al-Sakhāwī, on which al-Dāwūdī bases himself). Finding time and place of their encounter could therefore narrow down the taq. for both of these works. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ṣamad al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 278. “Ibn al-Baṣṣāl” Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Aḥmad b. Khalīl b. Nāṣir b. ʿAlī (773/1372(2)– 847/1443(4)) mentioned only in al-Biqāʿī, ʿUnwān al-zamān iv, 13. Concerned with al-Tirmidhī’s works 128 chapter 3 table 2 Further Pupils (cont.)

Pupils of unknown proximity

“Ibn ʿUdīs” qāḍī al-qudāt Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-Ghaffār (779/1377(8)–840/1436(7)) mentioned only in al-Biqāʿī, ʿUnwān al-zamān iv, 98 concerned with the ʿUmdat al-aḥkam and the Alfiyya of Ibn Mālik, among other things Ibn Qāymāz al-Aṣgharī (?), Dāwūd b. ʿAlī b. Abī Bakr mentioned only in al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 217. no subject matter specified Ibn Zubayda mentioned only in al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 278 al-Marāghī al-Miṣrī, Abū l-Fatḥ Sharaf al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥusayn b. ʿUmar b. Muḥammad b. Yūnis b. Abū l-Fakhr b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb b. Muḥammad (775/1373(4)–864/1459(60)) Their encounter is mentioned in al-Biqāʿī, ʿUnwān al-zamān iv, 160–175 and in al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 278. al-Tibāʿī, Ahamd b. Muḥammad b. Ali was a qāḍī mentioned only in al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 215. Reported to have studied ḥadīth with al-Fīrūzābādī al-Ẓāhira, Jamāl al-Dīn b. 751/1350(1) See on him al-Ḥusaynī al-Dimashqī, Dhayl tadhkirat, 253–260.

Although al-Fīrūzābādī merely passed through ʿAdan and Taʿizz, he had a number of pupils who came from here. It is unclear, however, where and when exactly they studied with him. Around 801/1398–1399, al-Fīrūzābādī established a school outside Zabīd,493 and it stands to reason that this school may have been situated close to the Bāb al-nakhl in the southwest of the city,494 where al-Fīrūzābādī owned a house.495 Both the school and al-Fīrūzābādī’s house

493 See, for example, al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 81, and Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shad- harāt al-dhahab vii, 127. 494 See Niebuhr, Reisebeschreibung, Erster Band, 328. In his time, the gate was in ruins, but it has been resurrected. 495 Al-Khazrajī, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 274. a life’s journey 129 served educational purposes as, for example, al-Marrākushī (787/1385–1386 – 824/1421)496 studied ḥadīth in his teacher’s home in 816/1413.497 This facility was the only one that remained under al-Fīrūzābādī’s supervision after his madāris in Mecca and Minā had closed their doors.498 He also continued to teach at other facilities in Yemen at al-Nāṣir’s request. Despite these educational activities, al-Fīrūzābādī’s main foci of interest during this period of his life seem to have lain elsewhere. Notably, little of his time seems to have been taken up by his duties as a qāḍī. It is uncertain how much time al-Fīrūzābādī effectively spent in Zabīd; in this respect, the years 796/1393–1394, 798/1395–1396, 800– 801/1397–1399, 804/1401–1402 and 816/1413–1414, can be surmised from al-Fāsī’s statements as preserved in the sources indicated above. For the years between 807/1414–1415 and 815/1412–1413 there are no specifics and it is unclear where al-Fīrūzābādī spent them. He was supported in his office of qāḍī by Ibn Fahhād (d. after 807/1404– 1405).499 In sum, however, al-Fīrūzābādī’s main concern seems to have been the fostering of his patrons’ power, and thus his own, which he used to influence religious-political developments in Yemen.

3.6.2 Political Involvement: Declaring a khalīfa With the Rasūlid rulers, al-Fīrūzābādī for the first and only time entered into an allegiance that was strong enough to have an impact on his personal life and to notably affect his writing. This decision, as well as the mobile lifestyle of al-Fīrūzābādī’s previous years, is in tune with common practice of the time. The title of qāḍī, borne by a number of his teachers, shows the importance of patronage for the security and livelihood of the scholarly elite. This tendency to align with particular rulers finds its complement in the fact that sufficient reputation gave scholars the choice of a travelling life as an alternative to forming bonds of allegiance. As Browne notes:

496 See Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Dhayl al-durar, 282, and al-Ḥusaynī al-Dimashqī in his Tadhki- rat al-ḥuffāẓ, 272–282. According to al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 183f., he died 823/ 1420. 497 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 13. 498 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 19. 499 Al-Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda ii, 208 and 209–210, n. 1. The estimated date of his death is given in connection to his biography in al-Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda ii, 208–209. This contact is not specified within any biography of the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs. Instead it is found in the entry on Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Ibrāhīm b. Aḥmad al-Qūṣī al-Yamanī Ibn Fahhād just mentioned. 130 chapter 3

[…] it would seem that the existence of numerous small courts, rivals to one another, and each striving to outshine the others, was singularly favourable to the encouragement of poets and other men of letters, who, if disappointed or slighted in one city, could generally find in another a more favourable reception. browne, A Literary History of Persia iii, 160f.

In effect, this means that scholars of renown had the opportunity to choose their protectors. Given the turbulent conditions of the Tīmūrid period, choosing allies also meant choosing battles. These particular battles must have been of personal importance to al-Fīrūzābādī, as he maintained his close bonds despite conflicts with his protector and the fact that his loyalties involved al- Fīrūzābādī in serious political and religious struggles. Overall, the sources convey the impression that al-Fīrūzābādī enjoyed favourable treatment by all of his patrons, although in most cases there is too little information to gauge the accuracy of this image. Regarding his relationship with the Rasūlids, however, there is evidence of personal conflict. These conflicts concerned the marriage of al-Fīrūzābādī’s daughter, as well as his travelling between the Holy Sites and Yemen. The fact that al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl married al-Fīrūzābādī’s daughter is mentioned frequently in Arabic language sources. In European language sources the reverse, i.e. al-Fīrūzābādī’s marriage to al-Ashraf’s daughter is stated more often.500 This establishes a partial segregation of both traditions, although reciprocal reception is evident in some cases.501 The fact that al-Ashraf was the bridegroom is important, as the swift end of the marriage may have been one of al-Fīrūzābādī’s incentives for his travels to Mecca. The swiftness of their marriage after al-Fīrūzābādī’s arrival suggests that the bride must have accompanied her father or must have been called to Yemen by her father from an unknown location previous to his own arrival in the Rasūlid realm. If reports of an invitation by al-Ashraf are taken into consideration, collecting his daughter may also have been one of al-Fīrūzābādī’s reasons for travelling to Yemen via Shīrāz instead of choosing the safer route via Mecca. The quick marriage also smacks of political calculation. Forming family ties with the ruler certainly did not hinder the speedy rise to political office that al-

500 As, for instance, also in Chelhod, Introduction, 73. An exception to this phenomenon is Haywood, Arabic Lexicography, 84. Dissemination of this claim through recourse to fellow European scholars’ writings, on the other hand, is explicated in the case of Browne, A Literary History of Persia iii, 357–358. 501 For instance, al-Ḥibshī’s recourse to Brockelmann. a life’s journey 131

Fīrūzābādī experienced after his coming to Yemen. Aside from the fact of their marriage, this connection remains widely uncommented by biographers. There is one exception that states that al-Ashraf’s marriage did not last. Al-ʿAsqalānī comments: “He married his daughter, who was squandering in beauty as it is said, then he divorced her and later brought her state into disarray”.502 This report suggests that al-Fīrūzābādī’s relations with his son-in-law may not have been as friendly as the sources generally suggest. Although the implications of this incident remain unstated, al-Fīrūzābādī’s wish to leave for Mecca came shortly afterwards. This second issue of conflict between al-Fīrūzābādī and his Rasūlid protectors most clearly reveals that the scholar was exposed to the conflicting draw of two locations and intentions. Many biographers state that with growing age, the scholar felt an increasing urge to go to Mecca. His repeated visits to the city, even after his schools in the balad al-ḥaramayn had been closed, fits this interest. According to a number of biographers, this focus on Mecca was grounded in al-Fīrūzābādī’s emulation of al-Ṣaghānī.503 Given the importance of al-Ṣaghānī for al-Fīrūzābādī as outlined above, this is not unlikely. But it brought him into conflict with the ruler, and caused al-Fīrūzābādī’s close bonds to al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl to turn against him. A number of sources preserve an exchange of letters that is said to have occurred between al-Fīrūzābādī and either al-Ashraf or his son al-Nāṣir (r. 803/1400–827/1423). In this document, al-Fīrūzābādī urged his liege-lord to grant him leave to go to Mecca.504 Some biographers state that this exchange resulted in al-Fīrūzābādī’s consignment to Zabīd until his death.505 This is contradicted by al-Fāsī (755/1373–832/1429), as outlined above. Nonetheless, the transmitted perception that al-Fīrūzābādī had to remain in Yemen may be indicative of the intensity of this debate. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that the issue remained acute for quite some time, as al-Nāṣir’s decision to close al-Fīrūzābādī’s schools exemplifies. With the conflicts which the newly enthroned ruler was facing, this decision appears as al-Nāṣir’s attempt to bind the scholar closer to himself in order to stabilize his own position. Despite these tensions, allegiance to the Rasūlid rulers clearly had its advantages. They provided al-Fīrūzābādī with considerable financial incentives from the beginning:

502 Al-ʿAsqalānī, Dhayl al-durar, 239. 503 Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 81. 504 See, for example, Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs i, 45. 505 As found for example in al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383; al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302; and al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 279. 132 chapter 3

And on the 24th of Ramaḍán (25th June, 1394) there arrived at court the jurist […] Mejduʾd-Dín Muḥammed, son of Yaʿqúb of Shíráz (in Persia), coming from the fortified frontier station (of ʿAden) by supreme command. When he reached the august [sic] court, the sulṭān showed honour and kindness to him, setting him in a station worthy of his condition. He sent to him immediately four thousand newly coined dirhem pieces of silver as a gift of hospitable welcome, having already despatched to him at ʿAden an outlay of four thousand dirhems for provisions and outfit there in order to his coming to him. al-khazrajī, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 235

This material support was combined with political office, livelihood, and favour. The profit al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl gained from inviting and supporting al-Fīrūzā- bādī was clear: the Rasūlid rulers gained a highly reputed and eloquent defender of Sufism. There is reason to believe that the decision to extend and to accept the invitation to Yemen was taken in the interest of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings on both sides of the bargain (see chapter 3.6.3). The scholar in turn supported his patrons’ grasp on their realm. This support took the form of writings dedicated to them. It was also extended through al- Fīrūzābādī’s hold on the position of chief Shāfiʿī qāḍī. Furthermore, al-Fīrūzā- bādī went so far as to proclaim Rasūlid pretence to leadership of all Muslims. This claim to the title of khalīfa seems to have been raised by al-Fīrūzābādī, rather than by the sulṭāns themselves. There are, for instance, no concrete hints in this direction on Rasūlid coins.506 This had been done before by al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl’s predecessor, the first sovereign Rasūlī, and it is telling that ʿUmar’s pretence to the position of ʿamīr al-muʾminīn came in the year 1258, thus coin- ciding with the fall of Baghdad.507 Whether al-Fīrūzābādī was aware of this former claim is unclear, but it would seem that al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl at least shared his dynasty’s claim to descent from Qaḥṭān.508 However, al-Fīrūzābādī’s statements that declared al-Ashraf the khalīfa, which sought to take advantage of a symbolic vacuum, do not seem to have been shared by al-Ashraf. Although

506 Which are treated in Nützel, Münzen der Rasuliden. I thank Prof. Stefan Heidemann for his forthcoming advice and provision of material on this point. Notably, in Ibn Iyās’s comment on the matter can be read both as “he praised [the Rasūlids] very much”, or as “he magnified them”. See Ibn Iyās al-Ḥanafī, Badāʾiʿ al-ẓuhūr ii, 17. 507 See s.n., “Rasūlid Dynasty”, 950. On the event itself see, for example, al-Faruque, The Mongol Conquest of Baghdād. 508 A very good graph of the Rasūlid genealogy, including this claim, can be found in Smith, The Ayyūbids and Early Rasūlids, 83–84. See on Qaḥṭān also Fischer/Irvine, Ḳaḥṭān. a life’s journey 133 there were different pretenders to the title,509 none of the vying dynasties had succeeded in securing for itself the status and power of the former caliphate. Therefore, after the fall of Baghdad in 656/1258, there was still an important power vacuum:

Der Mongolensturm wurde seit seinem Beginn in 617/1219 von den muslimischen Zeitgenossen als beispiellose Katastrope angesehen, die später in der Ausrottung des ʿAbbasidischen Kalifats in Bagdad ihren Höhep- unkt fand. Obwohl die Eroberung Bagdads im Jahre 656/1258 für die Mongolen vielleicht nur eine wichtige Etappe auf dem Weg zum Mit- telmeer darstellte, galt der Sturz des Kalifats für die arabisch-persische Bevölkerung als symbolisches Epochendatum ihrer Geschichte. Die Stadt Bagdad war seit ihrer Gründung durch den zweiten ʿAbbasidenkalifen al- Manṣûr im Jahre 762 Hauptstadt der Abbasidischen Herrschaft und das kulturelle sowie wirtschaftliche Zentrum der islamschen Welt. Das Kali- fat war bereits seit der Mitte des 11. Jahrhunderts im Niedergang begrif- fen und hatte einiges an politischer Souveränität und Macht einbüßen müssen, jedoch symbolisierte das Amt als Imamat nach wie vor die legit- ime islamische Herrschaft.510 gilli-elewy, Bagdad nach dem Sturz des Kalifats, 2f.

Al-Fīrūzābādī fixed his ascription of the term khalīfa in writing, both in the second version of the Qāmūs and the Baṣāʾir. In the former, he included a praising poem to this effect; in the Baṣāʾir, he called his son-in-law khalīfat Allāh.511

509 For some other pretenders see Holt, Khalīfa. 510 “Since its beginning in 617/1219, the Mongol Storm was seen by the Muslim contemporaries as an unequalled catastrophe, which later culminated in the extinction of the ʿAbbasid caliphate in Baghdad. Although the conquest of Baghdad in the year 656/1258 was possibly merely an important step on their way to the mediterranean, the fall of the caliphate was as epochal date in their history for the Arabic-Persian population. Since its foundation in the year 672 by the second Abbasid caliph al-Manṣūr, the city of Baghdad had been the capital of Abbasid rule and the cultural, as well as economic, centre of the Islamic world. The caliphate had been declining since the middle of the 11th century, and had lost some sovereignity and power. Nonetheless, the office as an Imamate still symbolized legitimate Islamic rule”. 511 From al-Fīrūzābādī’s preface to the Qāmūs it is clear that al-Fīrūzābādī’s ascription of honours extended also to al-Ashraf’s successor, al-Nāṣir. 134 chapter 3

3.6.2.1 An Abortive Opus: The Baṣāʾir This work has been published repeatedly and is al-Fīrūzābādī’s most famous work in the field of tafsīr.

Title: Baṣāʾir dhawī l-tamyīz fī laṭāʾif al-kitāb al-ʿazīz (The keen insights of those with discernment in the subtleties of the holy book512)

Title variants: – Baṣāʾir dhawī l-tamyīz fī laṭāʾif kitāb al-ʿazīz (al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn; Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn; Ibn al-ʿImād al- Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya; Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al- tārīkh; al-Zanūzī, Riyāḍ al-janna; al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām) – Baṣāʾir dhawī l-tamyīz fī laṭāʾif kitāb allāh al-ʿazīz (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – Laṭāʾif dhawī l-tamyīz fī laṭāʾif kitāb al-ʿazīz (al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ)

512 Translation taken from Gilliot, Exegesis of the Qurʾān: Classical and Medieval, 121. a life’s journey 135 lection: Antalia Akseki Yeğen Mehmet Paşa İlçe Halk Kütüphanesi, 429 pages and 34 Fe 29 – İstanbul Millet Kütüphanesi, collection: Feyzullah Efendi Kolleksiyonu, 307 pages and 42 Kon 3938—Konya Bölge Yazma Eserler Kütüphanesi, collection: Konya İl Halk Kütüphanesi); al-Jazāʾirī mentions a ms in the Kitābkhāne Walī al-Dīn (no. 66) and two mss in the Taymūriyya (nos 229 and 259).513 Ghānim mentions two manuscripts in Cairo (Dār al-Kutub wa-l-Wathāʾiq al-Miṣriyya, nos 229 and 259).514 For a description of the ms in the possession of the Köprülü Library see Şeşen, Catalogue i, 113f., no. 212. The same cataloge also lists a summary of al-Baṣāʾir dating from the 11th century a.h.515

Status: Published (edition used here al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir dhawī l-tamyīz fī laṭāʾif al-kitāb al-ʿazīz, Mu- ḥammad ʿAlī al-Najjār (ed.), 6 vols., Cairo 21986 [1406].)

Contents: This is al-Fīrūzābādī’s most famous work in the field of tafsīr and the only whole-scale treatment of the Qurʾān currently available and safely ascribable to al-Fīrūzābādī.

Date: Because of its dedication to al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl, the work falls into al-Fīrūzābādī’s Yemenī period.

Since the Tanwīr al-miqbās is not one of al-Fīrūzābādī’s works (see chapter 4.2.2.), the Baṣāʾir is the only whole-scale treatment of the Qurʾān currently available and safely ascribable to al-Fīrūzābādī. It is, therefore, even more remarkable that the work does not adhere to the established rules of composition of tafsīr works. The Baṣāʾir dhawī l-tamyīz are divided into fuṣūl, which in turn are divided into abwāb. Each faṣl presents a different focus on the subject of the Qurʾān rather than a tafsīr of the established patterns. Al-Fīrūzābādī commences with a faṣl which is reminiscent of an introduction to tafsīr: He comments upon the conditions of instruction and study, on the canon of ʿulūm, then proceeds to subjects essential in tafsīr, specifically the virtues and unique nature of the Qurʾān, the nature of language, technical terminology required for exegesis, the names of the Qurʾān, its structure, referentiality and the issue of al-nāsikh wa-l-mansūkh.

513 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Ṣilāt wa-l-bushr, kāf. 514 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 14. 515 Şeşen, Catalogue i, 116, n. 216. 136 chapter 3

Following this theoretical foundation, he provides a baṣīra (insight) for each sūra of the Qurʾān in the first bāb of his book. Although the Qurʾānic sequence is observed, as is customary, al-Fīrūzābādī does not call the suwar by their names, but cites their initial words. In his methodological outline, al-Fīrūzābādī displays a high degree of organisation and uniformity—for each sūra, he presents, in fixed sequence:

1. a short interpretation, 2. abrogating and abrogated elements, 3. difficult passages, 4. faḍāʾil of the respective sūra.

Furthermore, regarding each sūra, he mentions (in varied sequence) its place of revelation, its segmentation according to Kūfī, Baṣrī, Ḥijāzī and Shāmī reckon- ing, the number of words and its established name, as well as synonyms where applicable. These elements of contents are to be found in other exegetical works such as the Tanwīr and therefore constitute genre-typical elements. The overall mode of presentation, however, is atypical, as the Qurʾānic text itself is not provided. This decision to omit the textual body reminds one of the methodology described above for the Qāmūs: to understand the entries of the Baṣāʾir, one has to be thoroughly familiar with the Qurʾānic text. Al-Fīrūzābādī does not provide it and therefore seems to presupppose that this is unnecessary. This compositional decision has consequences for the overall nature of the first bāb of the Baṣāʾir: the elements mentioned and provided for each sūra refer to this sūra specifically. The exegetical remarks, however, are not as tightly bound to the text of the respective suwar. The information given by al-Fīrūzābādī relates to individual passages of the sūra in question. He also renders definitions of words as they are found in different dictionaries. In their brevity, these explanations are similar to those of the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ. Besides these brief cross- references, al-Fīrūzābādī mentions citations of the same word in other places of the Qurʾān. The entries of the first bāb of the Baṣāʾir therefore acquire the characteristics of a Qurʾānic concordance. More detailed discussion of lexems is structurally separated from this first part of the work and delegated to its second main division. The following abwāb provide thematic concordance to lexemes contained in the Qurʾān. Each bāb is dedicated to a letter of the Arabic alphabet (with the letters wāw and hāʾ in inverse order, as in the Persian alphabet). Here, lexemes are given according to their initial root consonant. At the beginning of each bāb, the author gives a list of the lexemes to follow, without any clear a life’s journey 137 order. Before commenting on the lexemes, al-Fīrūzābādī treats the name of the letter itself from a lexicographical and grammatical perspective, stating for example variants in vocalization, derivates and difference in function under recourse to Qurʾānic passages, and at times using poetry as well as ḥadīth. Similar information is then presented for one lexeme at a time, followed by comments upon the Qurʾānic passages in which it appears. The last part of the work is a bāb dedicated to the prophets mentioned in the Qurʾān. Muḥammad is treated first, the other prophets follow in chronological order. With these constituents and its distinctive mode of presentation, the work can justifiably be termed a “commentary-plus-concordance-plus-dictionary”,516 rather than a work of tafsīr proper. In effect, commenting on the suwar of the Qurʾān as is customary in tafsīr literature is not the central concern of the work. Rather, it provides the most essential information on the individual parts of the Qurʾān, on central terminology—both in terms of recurrence and definition, and on the prophets. In the treatment of these foci, cross-references to the textual products of other disciplines—among them shiʿr, ḥadīth and lexicography—are important, as they are used for description and definitions. The Baṣāʾir are therefore more of a companion to the Qurʾān than a traditional tafsīr. This layout as a propaedeutical work is probably due to the genesis of the Baṣāʾir. Originally, the text now preserved as the Baṣāʾir dhawī l-tamyīz was part of a much greater project seemingly initiated by the Rasūlid sulṭān, al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl.517 The fact that al-Fīrūzābādī cancelled the more comprehensive plan and reshaped his text into the Baṣāʾir as we know it today after al-Ashraf had died518 sets the beginning of this work before 803/1400–1401 and its completion after this date. Whether the Baṣāʾir underwent alterations after its author decided to aban- don the larger project is unknown. Likewise, the complete scope of the original plan has not come down to us. In his preface, the author states that he embarked on a project in 60 parts, namely:519

516 As done by Rippin, Tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās, 42. As Rippin explains, this hybrid character also rules out comparison of the Baṣāʾir with the Tanwīr al-miqbās in questions of authorship. See Rippin, Tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās, 47. 517 For this project refer to al-Fīrūzābādī’s muqaddima and to Anawati, Textes. Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn i, 246 speaks of two volumes. 518 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 27. 519 See for this list al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 35–40. 138 chapter 3

– 1st division: on the niceties of exegesis of the great Qurʾān ( fī laṭāʾif tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm)520 – 2nd division: on the study of the prophetical ḥadīth and his disciples (al- ḥadīth al-nabawī wa-tawābʿihi) – 3rd division: on the disciplines of gnosis and deeper truths (ʿulūm al-maʿārif wa-l-ḥaqāʾiq) – 4th division: on the discipline of fiqh – 5th division: on the uṣūl al-fiqh – 6th division: on the study of dialectics/polemic theology (al-jadal)521 – 7th division: on the ʿilm al-lugha – 8th division: on grammar (naḥw) – 9th division: on the study of inflection (ṣarf ) – 10th division: on syntax /periodization (al-maʿānī)522 – 11th division: on the study of exposition (al-bayān) – 12th division: on the study of rhetorical speech (al-badīʿ) – 13th division: on the study of prosody (ʿarūḍ) – 14th division: on the study of rhymes (al-qawāfī) – 15th division: on the study of natural sciences (ṭabīʿiyyāt)523 – 16th division: on the study of medicine (ṭibb) – 17th division: on the study of physiognomy ( firāsa) – 18th division: on veterinary medicine and the treatments of ailments in falcons (al-bayzara wa-l-bayṭara) – 19th division: on the study dream interpretation/oneiromancy (taʿbīr al- ruʾya) – 20th division: on the holding of speeches and disputations and that which directs their progress (al-muḥāḍarāt wa-l-muḥāwarāt wa-mā yajrī majrā- hā) – 21st division: on astrology (aḥkām al-nujūm) – 22nd division: on the study of magic (ʿilm al-siḥr) – 23rd division: on talismans (ṭilasmāt) – 24th division: on natural magic (al-sīmiyya) – 25th division: on alchemy/chemistry (al-kīmiyyā)

520 Which is the part available today. 521 For this polysemy refer to Zenker, Bibliotheca Orientalis, xxiii and xlii. 522 For this polysemy refer to Zenker, Bibliotheca Orientalis, xixff. 523 Zenker (basing himself on Ḥājjī Khalīfa) employs the term as headline for “Sciences physiques” (see Zenker, Bibliotheca Orientalis, xxiii) and subsumes disciplines under these headings which are listed separately by al-Fīrūzābādī). On physics see Endress, Die wissenschaftliche Literatur, 51. a life’s journey 139

– 26th division: on agriculture (al-falāḥa) – 27th division: on chronology/history (al-tārīkh) – 28th division: on the confessions and the sects and the various schools (al-milal wa-l-niḥal wa-l-madhāhib al-mukhtalifa) – 29th division: on geometry (handasa) – 30th division: on architecture (ʿuqūd al-abniya) – 31st division: on the science of telling right from wrong in matters of canonical law (ʿilm al-munāẓara)524 – 32nd division: on the science of the burning mirrors525 (ʿilm al-marāyā al-muḥriqa) – 33rd division: on the science of finding gravitational centres (marākiz al- athqāl) – 34th division: on the science of clocks and chronometers (ʿilm al-binkānāt [sic—ʿilm al-binkāmāt?526]) – 35th division: on the science of constructing machines of war (ʿilm al-ālāt al-ḥarbiyya) – 36th division: on the science of heavenly machinery (ʿilm al-ālāt al-rūḥāniy- ya) – 37th division: on the science of (astronomical) tables of calculation (ʿilm al-zījāt wa-l-taqāwīm) – 38th division: on the science of the time zones (al-mawāqīt) – 39th division: on the science of the manner of observations (kayfiyyat al- arṣād) – 40th division: on the science of the surface of the earth (saṭḥ al-kura) – 41st division: on the science of arithmetic (ʿilm al-ʿadad) – 42nd division: on the science of algebra ( jabr wa-l-muqābala) – 43rd division: on the science of the Rule of Three (ḥisāb al-khaṭāʾin) – 44th division: on the science of music (mūsīqā) – 45th division: on the science of the throne and the inclination calculation (ʿilm ḥisāb al-takht wa-l-mayl) – 46th division: on the science of calculation of the testamentary will (ʿilm ḥisāb al-dawr wa-l-waṣāyā) – 47th division: on the science of the darāhim and the dīnār (darāhim wa-l- dīnār)

524 A part of handasa or jadal according to al-Najjār; cf. al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 38. For the definition used here see Zenker, Bibliotheca Orientalis, xlii. 525 See Zenker, Bibliotheca Orientalis, xxvii. 526 Correct spelling according to Zenker, Bibliotheca Orientalis, xxviii. 140 chapter 3

– 48th division: on the science of politics (siyāsa) – 49th division: on the science of domestic management/economy (tadbīr al-manzil) – 50th division: on the science of the open calculation (ḥisāb al-maftūḥ) – 51st division: on the science of times and places (azmina wa-l-amkina) – 52nd division: on the science of logic (manṭiq) […] – 53rd division: on the science of herbs/drugs and plants and their uses (ḥas- hāʾish wa-l-nabatāt wa-l-manāfiʿihā) – 54th division: on the science of particles and their properties (ḥurūf wa- khawāṣṣihā) – 55th division: on the science of the rules of writing (qawānīn al-kitāba) – 56th division: on the science –

Here, the enumeration ends. The ultimate form of the project therefore remains unclear. If the author intended to give each topic equal weight, the overall scope would have amounted to 270 volumes of the size of the individual volumes of the Baṣāʾir as we know it today. The project falls into several broad divisions, with individual disciplines inserted between these main blocks as associatively linking elements. This underlying structure appears as follows:

1. religion and law (divisions 1–5) 2. jadal (division 6) 3. language-related disciplines (divisions 7–14) 4. medical disciplines and physics (divisions 15–18) 5. occult sciences (divisions 19–25) 6. sciences of societal development/characterized by passage of time (division 26–28) 7. natural sciences (division 29–44) 8. religiously relevant application of mathematics (divisions 45–46) 9. politically relevant disciplines (47–50)

Divisions 51 through 56 show no recognizable order. For the preceding disciplines, motivation of order, as well as the proposed segementation can only be tentatively assumed, as none of the chapters are extant. It is therefore also uncertain how far al-Fīrūzābādī subsumed certain subjects under the headings of disciplines, or whether he omitted treatment of individual fields of study. From nominal reference, the list of sciences contains disciplines of the trivium and quadrivium, but does not group them in strict order. Also, some sciences are not named at all, among them the fields of adab or qawānīn al-qirāʾa which are treated, for example, by contemporaries such as al-Akfā- a life’s journey 141 nī.527 Al-Fīrūzābādī’s layout of the project seems somewhat individualistic, with religious sciences at the beginning, followed by linguistic sciences whose scale far outweighs the religious ones in terms of quantity. From the Baṣāʾir, it is clear that al-Fīrūzābādī’s approach to tafsīr did not follow established patterns. It is also remarkable that the aspects of maʿārif and ḥaqīqa directly follow matters of ḥadīth and simultaneously precede matters of fiqh in this list. This sequencing of constituents for the project seems to give mystical aspects priority over fiqh and puts ḥadīth in a propaedeutical position to ḥaqīqa. This is congruent both with al-Fīrūzābādī’s numerous writings on ḥadīth, his pronounced interest in prophecy, and with the pro-Sufi stance taken both by al-Fīrūzābādī himself and the Rasūlid rulers.528 In this respect, the outline of the project stakes a claim even in the absence of the respective textual material. Furthermore, the overall scope of the project suggests that al-Fīrūzābādī meant to compile a companion to a number of major sciences of his time regarding different aspects of societal life and knowledge. This speaks of polymathic ambitions and suggests that the author claimed considerable definitive authority. Given the projected scope of the work, al-Fīrūzābādī’s political offices, his renown as a scholar, his position as the head of madāris, and the support he enjoyed from the ruler, it stands to reason that the completed project would have gained considerable scientific hegemony and cultural momentum. This would have been to the advantage of the Rasūlid rulers, who were at odds with a part of their scholarly elite. The original project may therefore have been an attempt by the Rasūlids to put their foot down in the conflicting scholarly fields of their realm and thus to take position facing the intellectual forces that were threatening to destabilize it. As most of the work was not written, this issue has to remain open at present. The proposed reading nonetheless seems likely, especially in light of the fact that al-Fīrūzābādī used the preface of the Baṣāʾir to declare the overarching sovereignty of the Rasūlids in political and religious matters. In the foreword of the Baṣāʾir, he dedicates the work to the “mumahhid al-dunyā wa-l-dīn, khalīfat allāh fi-l-ʿālamayn, Abū l-ʿAbbās Ismāʿīl b. al-ʿAbbās b. ʿAlī b. Dāwūd b. Yūsuf b. ʿUmar b. ʿAlī b. Rasūl”.529 A similar claim was also made in the preface to the second edition of the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ.

527 See Witkam, De Egyptischen Arts, 397 for a convenient overview of al-Akfānī’s sequencing of disciplines. Also, al-Fīrūzābādī does not include ḥikma or falsafa as individual disciplines. 528 Al-Fīrūzābādī’s strong interest in Muḥammad and his inclination towards Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings may indeed have been connected, as Muḥammad held a central role in Ibn al-ʿArabī’s perception, as explained by Anawati/Gardet, Mystique Musulmane, 58–59. 529 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 34. 142 chapter 3

3.6.2.2 The Second Muqaddimat al-Qāmūs It would seem that the draft of the Baṣāʾir and the renewed edition of the Qāmūs were written around the same time: al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl died, after the first part of the project outlined above had been concluded.530 Similarly, he did not live to see the second Qāmūs finished. Since al-Fīrūzābādī had the bulk of this second work already in hand, the time he took to prepare the second edition of the Qāmūs should have been considerably shorter than the time he invested in its first version. It therefore stands to reason that both the project of which only the Baṣāʾir remained and the second Qāmūs were begun around the same time. It is also possible that the Qāmūs was begun later; future enquiry into the textual history of the work will have to show how great the difference between both works actually was to evaluate the amount of work that al-Fīrūzābādī invested to modify his lexicon. Given these probabilities, it is possible that al-Fīrūzābādī may have decided to concentrate on the Qāmūs instead of finishing the Baṣāʾir: as he spent all his life writing books, he must have had a good grasp of the time needed to accomplish the task as he planned it. It is therefore also probable that he was aware that—being in his 80s—he was running out of time to see the Baṣāʾir completed. It is clear that al-Fīrūzābādī did his best to compose a highly intricate and linguistically complex introduction to his lexicon.531 Besides displaying al- Fīrūzābādī’s abilities of composing highly stylized texts, the muqaddima contains some interesting points. These include the fact that the Lāmiʿ was a blend- ing of the Muḥkam and the ʿUbāb, and that al-Fīrūzābādī’s attention was drawn to al-Jawharī during his work on the Lāmiʿ and thus may not have been the initial motivation for the work (cf. chapter 3.4.4). Furthermore, the muqaddima shows al-Fīrūzābādī’s systematic approach to presenting the contents of the lemmata. Apart from these matters of lexicography and composition, the second muqaddima also clearly attempts to declare al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl as khalīfa, mirroring the claim formulated in the Baṣāʾir. Likewise, the Qāmūs also had potential in matters of cultural definitory power. Where the project of the Baṣāʾir was designed to gather and describe a range of sciences, the Qāmūs encompassed different registers from the perspective of a science as important as lugha. Their potential for becoming standard reference works—with the concurrent potential for definitory power—and the declaration of al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl khalīfa

530 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir i, 27. 531 A commentary centred on the more peculiar vocabulary employed by al-Fīrūzābādī is listed by al-Ḥimṣī, Fihrist makhṭūṭāt, 565. a life’s journey 143 gives both works similar cultural-political significance and possibly political motivation. The muqaddima therefore does not only show al-Fīrūzābādī’s linguistic skills. It also is a politically relevant document that shows how the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs used his lexicon to consolidate his own standing by strengthening that of his protector. These attempts to enhance the rulers’ reputation are especially significant because al-Fīrūzābādī’s relationship with the Rasūlids stands in the context of their struggle against part of their own retainers. This power struggle concerned the dissemination or banishment of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teaching in Yemen. While a number of scholars and notables at the Rasūlid court wanted to see these teachings banned, the rulers themselves were known for their Sufi sympathies and al-Fīrūzābādī became their spearhead in the defense of Ibn al-ʿArabī.

3.6.3 Religious Dispute: Defending Ibn al-ʿArabī The exact time of al-Fīrūzābādī’s first contact with mystical circles is not entirely clear. Nonetheless, the sources contain pieces of information that indicate a prolonged and sustained interest. Al-Zarandī al-Madanī may have been al- Fīrūzābādī’s first Sufi teacher. The mentioned possibility of an encounter with Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya in 750/1350 likewise touches upon this point. Also, his possible meeting with al-Taftazānī in the 780s/late 1370s-late 1380s should be mentioned here. In any case, it is clear that al-Fīrūzābādī had taken a serious interest in matters of taṣawwuf by 760/1358–1359 at the latest as, in this year, he studied with the renowned Sufi al-Yāfiʿī in Mecca. As mentioned before, it is possible that this teacher’s writings may have prompted al-Fīrūzābādī to compose the Rawḍat al-nāẓir fī tarjamat ʿAbd al-Qādir. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s high regard for al-Yāfiʿī as a teacher may also be surmised from the fact that he adorned his prized autograph copy of the Takmila with his verse.532 Through his Yemeni teacher al-Jabartī (c. 720/1320–1321 – 806/1403–1404),533 al-Fīrūzābādī’s contact with Sufi issues, and with Ibn al-ʿArabī’s doctrines in particular, gains a new quality. With al-Fīrūzābādī’s arrival in Yemen and his contact to al-Jabartī, involvement in the respective networks—and thus involvement beyond personal interest—becomes tangible; it was for him that al-Fīrūzābādī collected material on the 36th sūra of the Qurʾān (on the Faṣl fī sūrat Yā-Sīn see chapter 3.6).534 The scale and state of preservation of al- Jabartī’s tomb is remarkable and speaks of his reputation in Zabīd.

532 See the folios reproduced in Ritter, Autographs. 533 See Ḥaḍramī, Zabīd 197. The date of birth is given in Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Dhayl al-Durar, 141. 534 See Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Dhayl al-Durar, 141. 144 chapter 3

photo 3 Ismāʿīl al-Jabartī’s tomb in Zabīd

A report by al-Sakhāwī may be taken as a sign of the close relations between al- Fīrūzābādī and al-Jabartī. Although he makes this statement in the context of polemics against al-Jabartī, al-Sakhāwī reports that the most prominent Sufi shaykh of Zabīd frequently took recourse to the sūrat Yā-Sīn.535 Despite its polemic intention, this statement may be read as a testimony of the importance of this particular sūra for al-Jabartī. In this light, the decision to let al-Fīrūzābādī compile a work on the sūra seems to be a sign of trust. Knysh explains that al- Jabartī did not permit all of his students to speak of all matters publicly, as he mistrusted their ability to understand the intricacies of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s works. In contrast, the decision to charge al-Fīrūzābādī with a work on his personal behalf suggests that the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs was among the scholars who enjoyed the shaykh’s confidence. Therefore, he seems to have established himself well in the Sufi circles of Zabīd. This position was probably supported by his contacts with al-Ṣāliḥ Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Abū al-Qāsim al-Mizjājī,536

535 As given in Knysh, Ibn ʿArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition, 242. 536 Mentioned in Ḥaḍramī, Zabīd, 165–166. a life’s journey 145 a member of the important Sufi family of the same nisba. They are said to have discussed much in regards to ḥadīth and taṣawwuf. With a member of the Mizjājī family, al-Fīrūzābādī certainly had an important contact. The overall picture therefore is one of possible first contacts with Sufism in early youth and early adulthood. This gradually evolved through further studies until al-Fīrūzābādī became a well-established teacher in turn. Ibn Fahd reports that al-Marrākushī received the khirqat al-taṣawwuf from al-Fīrūzābādī.537 This presupposes that al-Fīrūzābādī was indeed in a position to grant it, meaning that he must have had acquired the necessary expertise and reputation by that time, i.e. 816/1413–1414. In the technical sense the term suggests not only a close bond between al-Fīrūzābādī and his pupil, but also a deeper involvement in Sufi matters on the teacher’s part.538 This report therefore provides a measure for al-Fīrūzābādī’s reputation in Sufi circles and offers Ibn Fahd’s works as relevant subjects of future research. The scholar’s standing as a Sufi teacher is also evident in the fact that he was called “Meister unserer sufischen Gefährten in der Tihāma” by his opponent al-Khayyāṭ.539 Furthermore, the fact that al-Fīrūzābādī showed a prolonged interest in Sufi matters makes reports that doubt his commitment seem less credible. Nonetheless, there has been some debate on the matter. That al-Fīrūzābādī was an admirer of the Ṣāḥib al-Futūḥāt540 is almost undisputed. Al-Shaʿrānī, for example, mentions al-Fīrūzābādī alongside al-Yāfiʿī in a list of the Sufi’s defenders.541 Knysh justly raises the question whether this praise of Ibn al-ʿArabī was indeed motivated by personal conviction or by political calculation to gain the Rasūlid sulṭān’s favour.542 Given al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl’s known Sufi sympathies and the massive attacks to which al-Fīrūzābādī was exposed in Yemen, this reading has its justification. Nonetheless, the earlier onset of his interest in these matters would speak against mere flattery as a motive. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s lasting involvement in Sufi subjects also throws new light on a particular report regarding his travels and his commentary on the Ṣaḥīḥ al- Bukhārī; in this context, a passage from the Shadhārat al-dhahab is of special

537 See al-Kattānī, Fihrist al-fahāris ii, 907–909. Ibn Fahd may be the person mentioned in al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 251–252. 538 On this matter see Michon, Khirḳa. 539 “Master of our Sufi companions in the Tihāma”; Franke, Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī, 235. 540 Overviews of a number of sources on Ibn al-ʿArabī are provided, for example, by Ateş, Ibn al-ʿArabī. On him see also Clark, Ibn al-ʿArabī; s.n., Islām 29; Chittick Ibn ʿArabī, and idem, The School of Ibn ʿArabī. 541 See Winter, Society and Religion, 165. 542 Knysh, Ibn ʿArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition, 254. 146 chapter 3 interest. Ibn al-ʿImād says: “al-Majd, author of the Qāmūs, was of great faith in Ibn [sic] ʿArabī and he [used to] carry his word on a handsome camel litter and he adorned his sharḥ on al-Bukhārī with many of his words”.543 Ibn al- ʿImād does not only refer to al-Fīrūzābādī’s use of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s writing. It is debatable whether his description of a camel litter was intended only figura- tively. This statement could also be seen in connection with many biographers’ claim that al-Fīrūzābādī travelled with many camels. Thus, the camel litter mentioned above could be a literal description. This would entail the possibility that al-Fīrūzābādī carried with himself Ibn al-ʿArabī’s works, meaning that he did not only defend, but also actively sought to spread Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings. After al-Jabartī’s demise, al-Fīrūzābādī became one of the most powerful defenders of Ibn al-ʿArabī in the Rasūlid realm. This outbreak of bitter controversy has been extensively described by Knysh and systematized in phases by Aziz.544 Triggering of this conflict surrounding Ibn al-ʿArabī is ascribed either to al-Nāṣir, to Ibn al-Khayyāṭ, or to al-Fīrūzābādī himself. The first is stated by Aziz and Chodkiewicz,545 the second by Knysh,546 while the latter can be found, for example, in al-Shaʿrānī.547 Given the textual bonds between al-Fīrūzābādī’s commentary on the Ṣaḥīḥal-Bukhārī and Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Futūḥātal-makkiyya548 it is also possible that al-Ashraf played a role in sparking the discussion: the historian of the Rasūlid court tells of a public reading in 802/1399–1400 from which listeners could acquire an ijāza for Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ.549 This reading was con- vened on al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl’s orders, who is also said to have studied ḥadīth with al-Fīrūzābādī. Having his chief qāḍī read the Saḥīḥ, therefore, was a deliberate gesture on the part of the sovereign, as it simultaneously exemplifies al-Ashraf’s strong support for al-Fīrūzābādī. Of this commentary, the following is known:

Title: Fatḥ al-bārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Opening of the well as a commentary on the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī)

543 Translated into English by the author from the Arabic text given by Nicholson, The Lives of ‘Umar Ibnuʾl-Farid and Muhiyyuʾddin Ibnuʾl-ʿArabi, 812–813. 544 Refer to Knysh, Ibn ʿArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition, chapter 9 and p. 226. 545 See Aziz, Religion and Mysticism, 205, and Chodkiewicz, Le Procès Posthume. 546 Knysh, Ibn ʿArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition, 253. 547 Al-Shaʿrānī, Yawāqīt wa-l-jawāhir, 7. 548 On this work see Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1238–1239. 549 Cf. al-Khazrajī, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 274. a life’s journey 147

Title variants: – Manḥ al-bārī li-sayl al-faṣīḥ al-jārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn; al-Miknāsī, Durrat al- ḥijāl) – Fatḥ al-bārī bi-l-sayl al-faṣīḥ al-jārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn, al- Kattānī, Fihrist) – Manḥ al-bārī (al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman) – Manḥ al-bārī bi-sayḥ al-jārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – Manḥ al-bārī bi-sayḥ al-fasīḥ al-majārī fī sharḥ al-Bukhārī (Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn) – Manḥ al-bārī bi-l-shayḥ al-fasīḥ al-jārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ) – Fatḥ al-bārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ, al-Tarmanīnī: Aḥdāth al-tārīkh) – Fatḥ al-bārī bi-l-sīḥ al-fasīḥ al-jārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt)

Work attested in: – al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman, 328 – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 277 – Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn, ii, 1859 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn xii, 118 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl, 290 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh iv, 288 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered 148 chapter 3

Contents: Commentary on the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

Remarks: The sources agree that it covered four ʿibādāt. The reported extent of this commentary is 20 volumes,550 although al-Fīrūzābādī apparently planned the work to be twice that size,551 or 30 volumes,552 suggesting that the controversial commentary remained unfinished.553 It is praised for containing rare transmissions,554 but it is uncertain whether this praise actually applies to the book commonly associated with it. Ibn Ḥajar’s decision to name his own commentary on Bukhārī (concluded in 813/1410–1411)555 identically has caused confusion. In some compendia the Fatḥ al-bārī is ascribed either to al-Fīrūzābādī or to Ibn Ḥajar.556 Older biographical sources limit their discussion to the question of whether the identity of titles was caused by Ibn Ḥajar’s familiarity, or lack thereof, with al-Fīrūzābādī’s work. Such familiarity on Ibn Ḥajar’s part is beyond doubt: Ibn Ḥajar himself lists the work as one of his teacher’s making.557 We know from al-Fāsī that a separate commentary on the Saḥīḥ al-Bukhārī by al-Fīrūzābādī did indeed exist.558 In light of this, al-Sakhāwī’s assumption that Ibn Ḥajar may have taken his title from al-Fīrūzābādī’s work appears feasible, although he does not seem to have received al-Bukhārī chiefly from this teacher (as stated above). Furthermore, textual overlaps are unlikely, since Ibn Ḥajar rejected Ibn al-ʿArabī. With this monographical treatment of al-Bukhārī, al-Fīrūzābādī underscored the importance of this muḥaddith for himself. It is also obvious in the frequency of his studies of the Ṣaḥīḥ. Besides, the Manḥ al-bārī is also important regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s Sufi facet, as Brockelmann observes that “Sein Cmt. zu Buḫārī kam dadurch in Misskredit,

550 For these different traditions see, for instance, Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn xi, 118. 551 See Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs i, 50 n. 120m. 552 See al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman, 328. 553 See al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman, 328. 554 E.g. in Tashköprüzāde, Miftāḥ al-saʿāda i, 105. 555 On this work see Rosenthal, Ibn Ḥadjar al-ʿAsqalānī. 556 Ahlwardt refers to the work as authored by Ibn Ḥajar. Cf. Alhwardt, Die Handschriften- Verzeichnisse, ix, 580, nr. 10248,2 (lbg. 295, f. 317a); idem, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse ii, 237 no. 1527 and 37 no 5454; and idem, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse v, 99, no 5588. Ibn Ḥajar is also named as the author of the Fatḥal-bārī by al-Qannawjī, Mawsūʿatmuṣṭalaḥāt, 639 and 1010. This view was shared by Dāwūdī, who expressly states that the commentary was a work written by al-ʿAsqalanī; see al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 287. 557 Cf. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 161. 558 Al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Shifāʾ al-gharām i, 47. a life’s journey 149 dass er b. ʿArabī’s al-Futūḥāt al-Mekkīya darin benutzt hatte”.559 The exact contribution of the work to this overall image of al-Fīrūzābādī as a defender of the Ṣāḥib al-Futūḥāt remains to be elucidated as soon as the work has been recovered.

Date: Knysh specifies that the Manḥ al-bārī sparked al-Fīrūzābādī’s heated controversy with Ibn al-Khayyāṭ. This work must therefore have tpq. 796/1393–1394.

What is of special interest here is the fact that this struggle over ideas was fought not only through books, but also through attempts to seize the office of chief qāḍī of Yemen. The importance of the position of qāḍī al-quḍāt in this standoff also puts into a new light the circumstances surrounding al-Fīrūzābādī’s acceptance of the office, beginning with al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl’s invitation. No specifics concerning the time and contents of this invitation have been transmitted, but it is clear from al-Maqrīzī’s words that the vacant post of qāḍī was not al- Ashraf’s motive for calling al-Fīrūzābādī to his court:

When al-Raymī died, he [i.e. al-Muqrī560] was nominated to take his place [my italics, V.S.], this coincided with the coming of our shaykh, Majd al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, from India, who had considerable reputation in the country of Yemen. The king al-Ashraf was pleased by his arrival and welcomed him with honours and grace […] And the shaykh stayed in Zabīd. al-maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda ii, 268f.

One possible explanation for al-Fīrūzābādī’s decision to follow al-Ashraf’s request may have been the considerable financial incentive provided from the outset, as mentioned above. This financial support, however, most likely was an auxiliary cause, rather than a prime motivation. A different reading suggests that al-Fīrūzābādī was inclined to go to Yemen due to the political turmoil that broke out with Tīmūr’s renewed advance, as mentioned. If indeed al-Fīrūzābādī migrated into the Rasūlid realm in order to escape political upheaval, he did

559 “His commentary to al-Bukhārī had a bad reputation because he had used Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya in it”. Brockelmann, gal sii, 236. The same is stated by Goldziher, Die Richtungen, 250 n. 2. 560 On his teacher al-Raymī (d. 796/1393(4)) and his masjid see Ḥaḍramī, Zabīd, 133. His position as al-Raymī’s pupil is attested by al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulahāʾ al-Yaman, 118. Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqat al-Shāfiʿiyya iii, 63 n. 2, gives 791/1389 as the date of al-Raymī’s death. 150 chapter 3 not achieve his goal. Instead, he moved into a highly tense religious-political environment, where two other scholars aspired to this position. Besides al- Fīrūzābādī there was Ibn al-Muqrī (765/1363–837/1433),561 an avid opponent of Ibn al-ʿArabī and student of the deceased qāḍī al-Raymī, and a third scholar, who may have been ʿAbd Allāh al-Nāshirī, who was praised highly by al-Fīrūzā- bādī. He may also have been Aḥmad b. Abū Bakr al-Nāshirī, who soon took a position against al-Fīrūzābādī in the quarrels over Ibn al-ʿArabī562 and managed to seize the office, which had briefly been held by his relative. It is not reported how al-Muqrī took this defeat. His second failure to acquire the office after al-Fīrūzābādī had died,563 however, led to bitter attacks against Ibn al- Raddād, whom al-Fīrūzābādī had chosen as his sucessor.564 It is not surprising that there were also negative reactions to al-Ashraf’s choice of a new qāḍī; Ibn al-Ahdal,565 for example, is skeptical of al-Fīrūzābādī’s abilities in fiqh:

And he [al-Ashraf] made him [al-Fīrūzābādī] supreme qāḍī, under the impression that he [al-Fīrūzābādī] was a greater faqīh than the qāḍī Aḥmad al-Nāshirī. Then it turned out that al-Nāshirī was a greater faqīh than he [al-Fīrūzābādī] was, [but since] Majd al-Dīn was more knowl- edgeable than him [al-Nāshirī] in other sciences, not least the Arabic language, he retained qāḍīship for a while. And he was educated through his mingling with the fuqahāʾ, such as the qāḍī ʿAbd Allāh al-Nāshirī566 and Ibn Qahr and Ibn al-Muqrī, and others apart from them. al-ahdal al-yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman, 327f.

561 Brockelmann, gal gii, 190f./242ff. See for example al-Muqrī’s biography in Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya iii, 85–86. 562 For both men see al-Akwaʿ, Ḥijar al-ʿilm iv, 1170–1171. For their family ties refer to al- Khazrajī, ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 172. 563 Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya iii, 85 mentions Ibn al-Muqrī was nominated to take the office after al-Fīrūzābādī had died, but the competition seems to have been rather open. For this second application, Ibn al-Muqrī submitted his artistic history of the Rasūlid dynasty, as specified by al-Akwaʿ, Ḥijar al-ʿilm i, 39. Opinions on the work are divided. Bauer, Die Kultur der Ambiguität, 264ff. provides a schematic example of its structure and speaks highly of it. Aziz, Religion and Mysticism, 167, similarly sees the ʿUnwān al-sharaf al-wāfī positively. At the same time, Rosenthal calls it “nonsense”; Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography, 176. 564 See al-Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda ii, 125–130. 565 See al-Biqāʿī, ʿUnwān al-zamān ii, 169–170. 566 Al-Akwaʿ, Ḥijar al-ʿilm iv, 1170–1171, mentions two persons with the nisba Nāshirī and expertise in fiqh. It is crucial to note that both could be the person in question, when one is praised verbatim by al-Fīrūzābādī, while the other wrote a refutation against the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs in the dispute over Ibn al-ʿArabī that broke out under al-Nāṣir’s rule. a life’s journey 151

It is debatable whether al-Ahdal intended to destabilize al-Fīrūzābādī’s position. It is likely, however, that this report mirrors accusations leveled against al-Fīrūzābādī. In fact, these would be among the milder statements in the controversy (see below). Despite al-Fīrūzābādī’s success in retaining the position of qāḍī al-quḍāt until his death, the balance of power was delicate. Al-Muqrī and al-Nāshirī soon joined ranks with Ibn al-Khayyāṭ567 in the feud against the qāḍī. Al-Fīrūzābādī himself does not seem to have been strongly interested in the office of qāḍī over Zabīd, the Rasūlid’s second residence. Al-Khazrajī and others state that al-Fīrūzābādī took the office, but it seems to have been in the hands of al-Nāshirī until 800/1397–1398.568 After this, al-Fīrūzābādī fulfilled these obligations for a short time. But soon, the office passed from his hands into those of al-Muqrī, when al-Fīrūzābādī departed for Mecca.569 This decision by the newly installed sulṭān al-Nāṣir is surprising insofar as his decision to close down al-Fīrūzābādī’s madāris in the balad al-ḥaramayn suggests that the sulṭān wanted to keep al-Fīrūzābādī close to himself. With the office of qāḍī over Zabīd in al-Nāshirī’s hands, Ibn al-Muqrī remained in close range of power.570 In light of al-Ashraf’s strong personal inclination towards Sufism571 it seems possible that he invited al-Fīrūzābādī to his court in order to support his own position. This conflict may therefore have been the reason for al-Ashraf’s reluctance to let al-Fīrūzābādī travel to Mecca. It may also account for al-Nāṣir’s decision to close the madāris in the balad al-ḥaramayn and to assign al-Fīrūzābādī to teaching posts inside Yemen. This corresponds to the escalation of the conflict under al-Ashraf’s son. The fact that al-Fīrūzābādī managed to hold on to his office in a dispute that continued long enough to outlive him clearly illustrates the standing he enjoyed with the Rasūlid rulers. It also makes him a key figure in the shaping of Yemenī religious policy during his lifetime and beyond. Of this standoff, two opposed and complementary traditions have been preserved. In addition to an intrigue intended to raise Ḥanafī resistance against al-Fīrūzābādī, these two statements exemplify the way in which such political battles were fought at the Rasūlid court. The conflict is described as follows:

567 On Ibn al-Khayyāṭ see also al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 117–118. 568 See Halm, Die Ausbreitung, 291. 569 Al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 277. 570 See al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Dhayl al-taqyīd i, 277. After al-Fīrūzābādī’s successor Ibn al-Raddād had died, he finally succeeded in seizing the office. 571 Al-Khazrajī reports that al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl attended Sufi festivals; see al-Khazrajī: ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya, ii, 174. 152 chapter 3

the question [was] posed by Sulṭān an-Nāṣir Aḥmad (d. 827/1423) before Majd ad-Dīn al-Fayrūzabādī (d. 817/1415) with regard to the followers of Ibn ʿArabī. He asked: “What do the revered ʿulamāʾ, may God sustain religion and unify the scattered Muslims (by them), say about Shaykh Muḥyī ad-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī, may God be pleased with him, and his books such as al-Futūḥāt, al-Fuṣūṣ and others; is it permitted to read and teach them? Are they among the books [that are assigned] for reading and listening or not?” When Sulṭān an-Nāṣir received a long answer from Majd ad-Dīn al-Fayrūzabādī in favor of Ibn ʿArabī’s doctrine and his books, he sent the same question to Ibn al-Khayyāṭ in order to weigh other views of the scholarly community. Ibn al-Khayyāṭ’s answer was that it was not lawful to obtain Ibn ʿArabī’s books, nor to read or teach them. aziz, Religion and Mysticism, 205f.

The tone and overall orientation of al-Fīrūzābādī’s retort in the above competition of writings are obvious from the statements preserved by al-Shaʿrānī. These provide details regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s attitude towards Ibn al-ʿArabī. Commonly, these statements are ascribed to al-Fīrūzābādī’s fatwā on Ibn al- ʿArabī. Al-Tilimsānī’s words, combined with the transmitted passages, suggest that the faṭāwa may be identical with a work named Ightibāṭ bi-maʿājila Ibn al-Khayyāṭ.572 Al-Shaʿrānī does not specify the work from which he cites the passages in question.

Title: Fatāwā fī Muḥyī l-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī (Fatwas on Muḥyī l-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī)

Title variants: Fatāwā fī Muḥyī l-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī Status unclear. Stands for possibly several other works. May be identical with a work named Ightibāṭ bi-maʿājila Ibn al-Khayyāṭ.

Work(s) attested in: Faṭāwa fī Muḥyī l-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī

572 See al-Maqqarī al-Tilimsānī, Nafḥ al-ṭīb ii, 387ff. The title is mentioned in al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 20. a ms of this work is mentioned by al-Jazāʾirī in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Ṣilāt wa-l-bushr, kāf. a life’s journey 153 mss attested in:

Brockelmann, gal g ii, ?/234 [sic.!, flawed pagination] (reference given: “Fātiḥ 5376,3 (= 19?)”); Knysh, Ibn ʿArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition, 253; Ghānim mentions a manuscript in Cairo.573

Status: Extant, published

Contents: According to Knysh, the Fatwā has been preserved by al-Qārī,574 whose Manāqib Ibn al-ʿArabī could not be consulted. Knysh renders part of its text, pointing out that al- Fīrūzābādī deemed Ibn al-ʿArabī “the leader of those that have realized the ultimate truth” and that he described his works as “overflowing seas whose pearls are so numerous that one is unable to tell where they begin and where they end”, concluding “his fatwa with a verse that was to became [sic] the motto of the admirers of the Greatest Master:

So, why should I be afraid to make plain what I firmly believe in: (And let the fool interpret this straightforward answer as an offence, if he so wishes) By God, by God, by God the Greatest and the One, Who made him [i.e., Ibn ʿArabī] His evidence and proof. What I have said is only [a grain] of many virtues; I have added nothing, unless I have made them less perfect than they really are”.575 knysh, Ibn ʿArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition, 253

Remarks: Similar passages can be found in the introduction to al-Shaʿrānī’s Yawāqīt wa-l-jawāhir that contains several verbatim quotes of al-Fīrūzābādī, to the effect just mentioned. Al-Shaʿrānī’s work is therefore one of the most informative sources regarding al-Fīrūzā- bādī’s attitude towards Ibn al-ʿArabī in his dispute with Ibn al-Khayyāṭ.

573 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 23. 574 Knysh, Ibn ʿArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition, 137. 575 A slightly different partial rendering of these passages is given in O’Fahey, Enigmatic Saint, 103. 154 chapter 3

However, al-Shaʿrānī does not mention the title of the work from which the cited passages were taken. This vagueness ties in with the overall transmission regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s writings in matters of taṣawwuf that is evident from the overview of unica given below: with the exception of the Fatḥ al-bārī, all titles ascribed to al-Fīrūzābādī that have any connection with Ibn al-ʿArabī are mentioned without titles in traditions on al-Fīrūzābādī. Rather, they owe their ascription to mention of al-Fīrūzābādī’s name on their respective manuscripts. This also applies to the present work, the Fatāwā fī Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī. Nonetheless, there are two arguments in favour of accepting this work as representative of possible further writings in the canon of al-Fīrūzābādī’s oeuvre: first of all, the transmissions by al-Qārī and al-Shaʿrānī speak for the fact that al-Fīrūzābādī must have written some kind of retort to Ibn al-Khayyāṭ’s attacks. Secondly, there is reason to assume that the lack of concrete titles for works of taṣawwuf was caused by his biographers (see chapter 4.1).

Date: The fact that this work was supposedly written during al-Nāṣir’s rule makes it one of al-Fīrūzābādī’s Yemeni writings and gives it tpq. of 803/1400–1401.

Al-Fīrūzābādī answered specific points of conflict, such as the desire of the opposing group of scholars to demonstrate that Ibn al-ʿArabī was criticized even during his lifetime. Against this claim, al-Fīrūzābādī sets the statement that Ibn al-ʿArabī lived in al-Shām and enjoyed high esteem. Al- Fīrūzābādī’s verse, quoted above, clearly shows his appreciation of Ibn al- ʿArabī. Although they cannot be assigned to one specific work, these words may serve as a complement to the account above that neglects to repeat al-Fīrūzā- bādī’s stance in favour of Ibn al-Khayyāṭ’s view.Al-Shaʿrānī quotes al-Fīrūzābādī with a number of statements in which he praises the richness of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s works, gives biographical evidence for lack of criticism during Ibn al-ʿArabī’s own lifetime, and rebukes the faultiness—even invention—of wrong claims by Ibn al-Khayyāṭ, culminating in the assertion

As to the statements of some of the critics that the shaykh’s books do not warrant being read or recited, this is kufr [! …] They have already come to me one time asking questions regarding what is said of the books ascribed to the shaykh Muhyī al-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī, such as the Fuṣūṣ or the Futūḥāt, like: Is their recitation befitting and are they among the books [that should be] heard and read, or not? And I answered them ‘Yes.’ […] Studying the shaykh’s books is a pious deed towards God the most a life’s journey 155

elevated—and whoever says differently is a fool [“jāhil”], who has erred from the righteous path. al-shaʿrānī, Yawāqīt wa-l-jawāhir, 7–8

Between these lines one can almost hear al-Fīrūzābādī insistence on his position and his outrage at the lack of appreciation of Ibn al-ʿArabī. His choice of words is strong, effectively declaring other dignitaries in his patron’s court unbelievers, and it is questionable whether the sulṭān would have phrased his assessment similarly. Nonetheless, the fact that al-Fīrūzābādī could publicly make such an assertion and still not fall from grace demonstrates the degree to which he was supported by the rulers. On the other hand, the latter fact also makes him an agent of state policy and supports the assumption that it was his inclination towards Ibn al-ʿArabī that may have been a significant cause of his rise to office. The bitterness with which disputes over Ibn al-ʿArabī were fought is also very graphically illustrated by the circumstances that accompanied al-Fīrūzābādī’s writing of a biographical monograph on Ḥanafī scholars. Both the Shāfiʿī and the Ḥanafī madhāhib appear in reports on al-Fīrūzābādī, with the Ṭabaqāt al- Ḥanafīyya interestingly being referred to more often than its Shāfiʿī counterpart. This imbalance between both ṭabaqāt works in posterity’s perception is clearest in Taymūr’s writing; he is one of only a few writers to go beyond simply giving the title of Mirqāt al-wafiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya and provide more detail, and implies that it must have contained at least 40 entries.576 Although this does not do justice to the scope of the work, it is a rare mention of detail. By contrast, he does not mention the work on Shāfiʿī scholars in the corresponding section of his book.577 Elements connected to the Ḥanafī madhhab can be found in al-Fīrūzābādī’s network and his personal interests, as well as his writings and possessions. As mentioned, al-Fīrūzābādī had a Ḥanafī teacher in the early stages of his education. This Ḥanafī teacher was al-Zarandī al-Madanī, who instructed al- Fīrūzābādī in ḥadīth in Shīrāz. For personal contact with Ḥanafī scholars, Da- mascus emerges as an important location. Here, two teachers are named who

576 See Taymūr, Naẓra tārīkhiyya, 8. 577 Cf. Taymūr, Naẓra tārīkhiyya, 28–37. Similarly Spies, Die Bibliotheken des Hidschas, 117 calls the Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafīyya “Ein seltenes Werk” (“a rare work”) and does not mention its Shāfiʿī counterpart. Brockelmann’s reproduction of extant quotations suggests that part of al-Fīrūzābādī’s concern was with the history of written codification of Abū Ḥanīfa’s teachings; see Brockelmann, gal si, 287. 156 chapter 3 adhered to this school: Yaḥyā b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥaddād and Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Muẓaffar al-Nābulusī.578 The latter is said to have instructed al-Fīrūzābādī regarding al-Tirmidhī’s writing and the Muʿjam Ibn Jamīʿ. As well as these matters of instruction, it is also reported that al-Fīrūzābādī encountered Abū l- ʿIzz al-Ḥanafī (731/1330–1331 – 792/1389–1390)579 at a majlis in the same city in the year 763/1361. As Damascus was an important junction for caravans to the holy sites, it is not surprising to learn that al-Fīrūzābādī should have come into contact with scholars who adhered to madhāhib other than that of al- Shāfiʿī. In themselves, these encounters simply reveal that he was not disin- clined to study with persons of other schools. Furthermore, the first manuscript al-Fīrūzābādī is known to have been in possession of was by a Ḥanafī scholar. He studied and owned a copy of al-Sarakhsī’s Muḥīṭ in Shīrāz.580 In light of the available dates, it is possible that he was introduced to this work by al- Zarandī. Continued use of al-Fīrūzābādī as an authority in the realm of Ḥanafī biography is evident with al-Laknawī, who cites al-Fīrūzābādī’s tarjama of Raḍī al-Dīn al-Sarakhsī.581 Of the Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya, on the other hand, no manuscripts or traces seem to have come down to us. It therefore seems no surprise that al- Fīrūzābādī was at times counted among the Ḥanafī madhhab. Such instances can be found in al-Baghdādī,582 who names the author of the Names of old wine “Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb b. Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb b. Ibrāhīm al-Shīrāzī al- qāḍī bi-Zabīd al-Yaman al-maʿrūf bi-l-Fīrūzābādī al-Ḥanafī [my italics, V.S.] al- lughawī”.583 This does not necessarily contradict an affiliation to the Shāfiʿī school, depending on the field of expertise affected: al-Fīrūzābādī apparently followed

578 The former may be identical with the scholar mentioned in Brockelmann, gal gii, 189/241 (d. 808/1397 in Zabīd). He is said to have instructed al-Fīrūzābādī in Yaḥyā b. Sharaf al-Nawawī’s Arabaʿīn al-Nawawī. Al-Nābulusī is not identical with the well-known mystic of the same nisba, who died in 1143/1731 (see Khalidi, ʿAbd al-Ghanī). For al-Fīrūzābādī’s teacher, nisba and affiliation are given, but no biographical specifics or information on the subject matter he taught are available. 579 See Lāshīn, al-Ṣafadī, 39–40, for further reading on the scholar. 580 See al-Fīrūzābādī’s autobiographical statement from the Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya as rendered in al-Laknawī al-Hindī, al-Fawāʾid al-bahiyya, 311. On the Ḥanafī jurist see Calder, Sarakhsī. 581 See al-Laknawī al-Hindī, al-Fawāʾid al-bahiyya, 311ff. 582 Cf. Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn i, 80 and al-Baghdādī, Īḍāḥ al-maknūn i, 80 and 85 respectively. 583 Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn i, 80. a life’s journey 157 al-Shāfiʿī in matters of fiqh.584 Furthermore, in his treatise on the names of wine (item no. 26) al-Fīrūzābādī distances himself from Ḥanafī attitudes towards the consumption of intoxicating substances. Nonetheless, this does not preclude him from following other madhāhib in further religiously relevant areas, as “Ṧāfiʿīs juristische Methode ist keiner bestimmten theologischen Lehre ver- pflichtet.”585 Al-Fīrūzābādī’s religious attitudes have not yet been studied in detail, and this assumption cannot currently be evaluated conclusively. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s biographical compendium on the Ḥanafī madhhab came to play a role in an intrigue by his opponents in the conflicts surrounding Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings. Al-Shaʿrānī preserves a report that (presumably) illustrates an attempt to discredit al-Fīrūzābādī by declaring him an enemy of the Ḥanafī madhhab. Al-Shaʿrānī recounts that an unspecified group of opponents “conspiratorially ascribed a book to the shaykh al-Islām, Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī, author of the Qāmūs, which was a radd on Abū Ḥanīfa and his takfīr and handed it to Abū Bakr al-Khayyāṭ al-Yamanī al-Baghawī”.586 The ver- satile scholar and—in some people’s eyes mujaddid—al-Qārī (d. 1014/1606)587 also renders information on this incident. But his report has a different tone. He quotes a fatwā by al-Khayyāṭ, which says that

Ich habe mich gewundert über Scheich Mağd ad-Dīn, dass er ein in Leder gebundenes Buch zur Verketzerung Abū Ḥanīfas verfasst hat, obwohl er der Šayḫ al-Islām ist, der Meister unserer sufischen Gefährten in der Tihāma und der Meister ihres Maḏhabs. Wie soll es ihm erlaubt sein, ihn zu verketzern, obwohl sein Wissen Ost und West erfüllt und nur der- jenige die Ausdauer zu seinem Werk hat, den Gott wie ihn dazu befähigt hat?588 franke, Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī, 235

584 See al-Suyūṭī, Radd ʿalā man akhlada, 117. On al-Shāfiʿī and a discussion of his risāla see Hallaq, Was al-Shāfiʿī the Master Architect. 585 “Shāfiʿīs juridicial method is not bound to a certain theological school”; Halm, Die Ausbre- itung, 32. 586 Al-Shaʿrānī, Yawāqīt wa-l-jawāhir, 6. 587 On the issue of wanting biographical treatment see Franke, Mullā ʿAli al-Qārī, p. 7, n. 49. 588 “I have been surprised by the shaykh Majd al-Dīn, who composed a leather-bound book to mark Abū Ḥanīfa as a heretic, although he is the shaykh al-Islām, the master of our Sufi companions in the Tihāma and the master of their madhhab. How should he be allowed to condemn him, although his learning fills east and west and only those gifted for this by God have the preservarence for his work”. 158 chapter 3

To this accusation, al-Fīrūzābādī is said to have answered in a letter to al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl:

Bin ich nicht der erste, der das Äußerste getan hat zur Verherrlichung seines Maḏhabs und zur Abfassung eines monumentalen Buches über seine Klassen, in dem ihre Verdienste erwähnt und ihre Stärke dargelegt wird. Dieses Buch ist bei den Muslimen in Syrien, Ägypten und Jemen, in Ost und West verbeitet. Wenn sich jenes untergeschobene Buch nun aber im Bücherschrank eines Gelehrten befindet, möge er es doch her- vorholen, damit wir es verbrennen und seinen Verfasser verketzern.589 franke, Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī, 235

As Franke shows, the concrete points of dispute concerned questions of marital law, in which—according to al-Qārī—al-Fīrūzābādī is said to have degraded the Ḥanafī madhhab. It seems rather unsurprising that al-Qārī’s critique ends on a note that concerns al-Fīrūzābādī’s lexicographical abilities.

Der Verfasser des Qāmūs hat sich davon blenden lassen, dass er ein Lexi- kograph (luġawī) ist. Dabei ist er eigentlich ein Schwätzer (laġwī). Er hat von al-Ğawharī die Juwelen (ğawāhir) der Lexik genommen und wollte ihm an vielen Stellen weismachen, er sei einem der Imame gefolgt. In den meisten Fällen kann dieser Vorwurf abgewendet und die Stelle des Irrtums aufgedeckt werden. Auf einige dieser Stellen habe ich in meinem Buch an-Nāmūs hingewiesen. Ich habe (dort) auch einige Fehlvorstellun- gen des Autors des Qāmūs aufgezeigt, doch ist der Mensch vergesslich, und ein jeder akzeptiert seine Aussagen.590 franke, Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī, 237

589 “Am I not the first one who has done the utmost to glorify his madhhab and to compose a monumental book on its classes, in which its merits are mentioned and its strength expounded. This book has spread among the Muslims of Syria, Egypt and Yemen. If this secretly deposited book should be found on a scholar’s bookshelves, let him bring it forth so that we burn it and condemn its author”. 590 “The author of the Qāmūs let himself be blinded by the fact that he is a lexicographer (lughawī). But in fact he is a tattler (laghwī). He took the jewels of vocabulary from al-Jawharī and wanted to make him believe that he had followed one of the imāms. In most cases this claim can be disqualified and the point of mistake can be disclosed. I have pointed out some of these passages in my book al-Nāmūs. (There) I have also highlighted some of the misconceptions of the author of the Qāmūs. But man is forgetful and everyone accepts his claims”. a life’s journey 159

Although it is not unfounded to say that al-Fīrūzābādī was much more educated in lugha than in legal matters, it is noteworthy that al-Qārī uses lugha to discredit the scholar rather than criticising his legal abilities. This also shows that some of the critique levelled against al-Fīrūzābādī’s Qāmūs may have been motivated by dispute in fields other than lexicography. The monumental work on Ḥanafī scholars which al-Fīrūzābādī mentions is the Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya.

Title: al-Mirqāt al-wafiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya (The perfect stair591 regarding the classes of Ḥanafī scholars)

Title variants: – Mirqāt al-wafiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Shaw- kānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ; al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh, al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām) – al-Alṭāf al-khafiyya fī ashrāf al-Ḥanafiyya (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn;592 Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l- muʾarrikhūn) – Mirqāt al-raqiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafīyya (Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya) – Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya (Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn; al-Kattānī, Fihrist; al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt) – Mirḳāt al-wafiyya fī ṭabaḳāt al-Ḥanafiyya (Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī) – Scala perfecta de classibus Ḥanefitarum (Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya, 66 – Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, 926

591 A pun—in the interest of rhyme—on the fact that ṭabaqāt-works are arranged according to generation or stages of related kind, through which the reader progresses like over a flight of stairs. 592 Cites this work twice. 160 chapter 3

– Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1097ff. – Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 92 and 94 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shafiʿiyya iii, 66 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh iv, 288 – Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203 – al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal sii, 236 (reference to Spies); www.yazmalar.gov.tr (03 Gedik 17186— Milli Kütüphane Ankara, collection: Afyon Gedik Ahmet Paşa İl Halk Kütüphanesi, 110 pages and 50 Gül-Kara 149—Milli Kütüphane-Ankara, collection: Nevşehir Gülşe- hir Karavezir İlçe Halk Kütüphansi); Spies, Die Bibliotheken des Hidschas, 117. Two manuscripts (miṣr and Mecca) are mentioned by al-Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 94f. ms. description: The present description is based on the electronic version of the ms. displayed on www.yazmalar.gov.tr under the identification 03 Gedik 17186. The manuscript consists of folios 0–115 verso with 25 lines to each page. Its measurements are given as 16.5cm × app. 18cm. The cover seems to be made of cardboard bolstered with recy- cled manuscript material. The front inside cover displays Arabic stamps of property, obviously of an older age in black, as well as modern, Latin script stamps in black and red. The front inside cover also provides a table of contents in black writing that states the page number for the beginning of each bāb. The back inside cover is bolstered with manuscript material that appears to be a mathematical chart. The main body of the text and the marginal glosses are written in black script. The individual headings and subor- dinate headings, as well as the nisab noted in the margin are given in red ink. The scipt is mostly dotted. The manuscript neither has a khātima nor a colophon. It should also be noted that not all elements of the textual body can stem from the author—a number of biographies contain dates (in Persian script numerals) that postdate al-Fīrūzābādī’s death.

Status: Extant, unpublished a life’s journey 161

Contents: This work is a biographical dictionary of Ḥanafī scholars. The work commences with the basmala and praise formulas (f. 0, ll. 1–3), followed by “wa-baʿdu”. This introduces a short statement by the author in which he says that the present summary contained scholars of the school of “the madhhab of Abū Ḥanīfa” (ll. f. 0, ll. 3–8). Following these short preliminaries, the work proper begins with a biography of Abū Ḥanīfa under the heading “al-imām” (f. 0, ll. 8–f. 1r, l. 9). Subsequently, the first bāb (alif) commences. For the following folios, the author sorts the biographies according to ism in alphabetical order according to the first radical. Within each bāb, the biographies follow alphabetical order. These alphabetical chapters are followed by a final division concerning the kunya, again ordered alphabetically. In total, the work lists over 2400 entries. These are mostly short, providing the name of the person in question, at times the names of their teachers, and occasional poems (for example, folios 21r and 23r).

Remarks: Some biographers state a connection to the works of “ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Ḥanafī”.593 This person is identified by Rosenthal as Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad Naṣr Allāh al-Qurashī, who wrote al-Jawāhir al-muḍiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya.594 Recourse to “ʿAbd al-Qādir” can indeed be traced, for instance in the paragraph dedicated to Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad ‘Raḍī al-Dīn’ al-Sarakhsī.595 Al-Fīrūzābādī lists several scholars of his own time (see for example folios 12r, 13r, 41v, 55r–55v, 66r, 768r). Among the biographical entries, the one dedicated to Abū Ḥanīfa is by far the most extensive, spanning approximately a whole page. There are rarely any entries this long. Among these, however, is one that is especially noteworthy: folios 24r–24v contain a biography of al-Ṣaghānī, including a poem that shows his concern with al-Jawharī.

Date: A marginal commentary on f. 11v contains a note stating “tārīkh hādhā l-kitāb 786”.Since the entry on Aḥmad b. Abū l-Ḥārith gives his date of death as 789/1387, however, this year (as the latest given date before the author’s death)596 can be taken as the tpq. for the present work. The quote given above suggests that the work must have had some time to spread before he used it to argue in the conflict.

593 Al-Sākhāwī, al-Dawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82. 594 See Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography, 417. 595 See 03 Gedik 17186, f. 65v. 596 See 03 Gedik 17186, f. 12r. 162 chapter 3

photo 4 The al-ʿAshāʾir mosque in Zabīd

His opponents’s choice of subject matter illustrates the balance of power between the different strata and schools in Rasūlid Yemen at the turn of the 8th/14th century. Besides the Shāfiʿī school and mystical organizations, the Ḥanafī madhhab was also gaining ground in the Rasūlid realm and was establishing madāris to educate pupils in their tradition. The episode described clearly shows that their influence must have been great enough to impede the rise of a scholar, if he should be found hostile towards them. It also suggests that the religious tensions in the Rasūlid realm were not limited to the dissemination of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings, although this is the conflict that emerges most prominently in the sources. Rather, al-Shaʿrānī’s account speaks of generally tense relations between different believes. This balance was actively shaped by the Rasūlid sulṭāns, and al-Fīrūzābādī participated in this process, not only through his fostering of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings, but also at his patron’s request. The concrete details available on this matter concern only the Ḥanafī madhhab. Al-Khazrajī reports concerning the al-ʿAshāʾir mosque:

The first of the jaunting Saturdays [of the year 798/1396] fell on the 23rd Rejeb (22nd April), and the next day an edict of the Sulṭān was issued to the judge Mejduʾd-Dín, judge of judges at that time, that he should induct a precentor of the Sháfiʿiyy school to the mosque of the ʿEshʿariyy tribe, which said mosque had belonged from its earliest times to the followers of the protojurist ʾEbú-Ḥanífa, on whom be God’s mercy, according to what we have seen and heared. The judge Mejduʾd-Dín selected a number, and out of them the Sulṭān chose the jurist Muwaffaquʾd-Dín ʿAliyy son of a life’s journey 163

Muḥammed son of Fakhr, who was appointed to the precentorship of said mosque from the date specified. al-khazrajī, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 259

This mosque had been a central point of reference for numerous religious schools since the founding of Zabīd in 203–204/819.597 In 795/1392, the Rasūlid sulṭān al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl himself estimated the number of madāris in its surroundings at no less than 230–240.598 Installing a Shāfiʿī precentor in it was therefore a momentous decision. Al-Shaʿrānī’s report suggests that, when al- Fīrūzābādī was charged with hostility against Abū Ḥanīfa, al-Khayyāṭ still had the upper hand in their quarrel. This changed around the turn of the century, which suggests that the charge mentioned may have been raised in connection with al-Ashraf’s decision to empower the Shāfiʿīs in the al-ʿAshāʾir mosque. For the overall picture of the balance of power in the Rasūlid realm this speaks of Ibn al-Khayyāṭ’s strength, as he was influential enough to intimidate al- Fīrūzābādī. As al-Fīrūzābādī was in the sulṭān’s favour, his reaction may be read as mirroring al-Ashraf’s wish to avoid additional tension with the Ḥanafī school, notwithstanding his decision to transfer the al-ʿAshāʾir mosque into the hands of a Shāfiʿī. These combined incidents reveal the degree to which al-Fīrūzābādī became entangled in religious and political struggles. They shows him as an agent of his patrons and a defender of Ibn al-ʿArabī who gained and retained political office in the midst of Rasūlid endeavors to consolidate a Sufi presence in their lands. And he was not the only voice in the controversies surrounding the Ṣāḥib al-Futūḥāt: the standoff between al-Fīrūzābādī, his rival quḍāt, and their followers marked the beginning of a new level of intensity in the “open war [that] was declared against speculative Sufism in general and that of ibn ʿArabi [sic] and ibn al-Farīd [sic] in particular”.599 Al-Fīrūzābādī’s writings on Ibn al-ʿArabī and his emnity towards Ibn al-Khayyāṭ therefore put him at the forefront of discussion at an important juncture in the history of Islamic thought, making him one of the major defenders of Ibn al-ʿArabī and one of the scholars who prevented those teachings from being suppressed.

597 Kopp, Länderkunde Jemen, 203. 598 See Sadek, Zabīd. 599 Sharif, A History of Muslim Philosophy i, 406–407. On these two contemporaries see also Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions, esp. 263–286. 164 chapter 3

This conflict continued after al-Fīrūzābādī had died in Zabīd on the 20th of Shawwāl 817/3 January, 1415,600 where he lies buried in close proximity to the tomb of the shaykh al-Jabartī (d. 806/1403(4) or 807/1404(5)).601

600 Tashköprüzāde, Miftāḥ al-saʿāda i, 105, places his death in 816/1413–1414 or 817/1414. Lane, in his introduction to the Madd al-Qāmūs, has 816/1413. 601 So it is reported in a number of biographies. On him see Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Dhayl al-durar, 141. These references are in concordance with the information provided by the local guide, Mohammad Ali Gafer, although the grave, as most of the tombs on the Zabīd cemetery, is unmarked. a life’s journey 165

graph 1 Stations of al-Fīrūzābādī’s Life chapter 4 A lughawī and More

He [al-Fīrūzābādī] was the last of those who died among those learned men at the end of the ninth century who surpassed their contemporaries in a discipline And among them where: the shaykh Sirāj al-Dīn al-Bulqaynī in the Shāfiʿī madhhab and the shaykh Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿIrāqī in ḥadīth and the shaykh Sirāj al-Dīn b. al-Mulaqqin with many writings in the art of fiqh and ḥadīth and the shaykh Shams al-Dīn al-Fanārī, who was concerned with all speculative (ʿaqlī) and transmission-bound (naqlī) sciences and the Arabic language and the shaykh Abū ʿAbdallāh b. b. [sic] ʿArafa in Mālikī fiqh and the remaining disciplines in the maghrib and the shaykh Majd al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī in lugha.1

This poem—repeated in Arabic as well as European sources—again stresses al- Fīrūzābādī’s position as a lughawī. Originally composed by Ibn Ḥajar,2 it often follows a rather selective naming of his works that only partially demonstrates the diversity of al-Fīrūzābādī’s writings. These various works are presented below in chapter 4.2. Before moving on to this first critical consideration of the transmitted corpus, however, it will be worthwhile to consider the imbalance between oeuvre and reputation.

4.1 Matters of Reputation

There are some questions surrounding al-Fīrūzābādī’s established reputation. Most obviously, such issues include al-Fīrūzābādī’s religious affiliation, since this matter is encoded in his onomastic chain alongside his ancestral pretences. As the preceding chapters have shown, he followed the currents of his time by making contact with a number of madhāhib. It may also be argued that

1 Translated from the Arabic as given in Tashköprüzāde: al-Shaqāʾiq al-nuʿmāniyya, 30–31. 2 Cf. al-Kattānī, Fihrist al-fahāris ii, 909.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004305403_005 a lughawī and more 167 he—like many other scholars—sought such a prolific pedigree in order to consolidate his own standing. However, his decision to take on new ancestors may also have served to further al-Fīrūzābādī’s personal goal of declaring a Rasūlid khalīfa. As described, opinion is divided regarding another matter negotiated through naming chains, that of his madhhab. The majority of transmitters assign al-Fīrūzābādī to the Shāfiʿī school, while some individual voices state that he was a Ḥanafī. The matter is additionally complicated by the fact that scholars did not necessarily have to adhere to one single school in all matters. The possibility also exists that al-Fīrūzābādī may have opted for different schools over the course of his life. An in-depth study of his religious writings is wanting. Nominally, al-Fīrūzābādī affiliated himself with the Shāfiʿī school,3 this orientation stands against his contacts with teachers and books of the Ḥanafī, Ḥanbalī and Mālikī madhāhib. The last of these schools has left hardly any traces in reports on al-Fīrūzābādī, aside from the fact that he employed teachers of this religious school in his educational institutions in the balad al- ḥaramayn. As proposed above, al-Fīrūzābādī’s biography of the Ḥanbalī ʿAbdal- Qādir al-Jīlānī may have been caused by Ibn al-ʿArabī’s high regard for al-Jīlānī, rather than by any profound consideration of Ḥanbalī teachings. Nonetheless, the presence of Mālikī teachers in al-Fīrūzābādī’s madāris and the subject of the only biography in al-Fīrūzābādī’s corpus give the Mālikī and Ḥanbalī schools a significant position that future inquiries into his religious attitudes should address. The same is true of the occasional explicit ascription of Ḥanafī views. In this respect, his early exposure to Ḥanafī manuscripts is as relevant as the fact that al-Fīrūzābādī took the time to compose a compendium of Ḥanafī ʿulamāʾ. In addition to these questions of religious conviction, al-Fīrūzābādī’s strong interest in religious matters in general emerges as a point of incongruity in his reputation. As the following overview of his corpus of works shows, his writing is characterized by a particular interest in both linguistics and religious works. In this corpus, studies on religious matters slightly outnumber those on linguistic ones. Furthermore, his religious works are frequently mentioned in biographies before his linguistic ones. Nonetheless, al-Fīrūzābādī remains, in collective memory, a lexicographer rather than a religious scholar. A number of different possibilities account for this. One possible reason for this shift in perception may have been that many of al-Fīrūzābādī’s works have remained unrecovered to the present day; this applies to linguistic writings and to reli-

3 For this madhhab refer to Chaumont, al-Shāfiʿiyya. 168 chapter 4 gious treatises alike. With the scope and width of circulation of the Qāmūs al- muḥīṭ, the lexicon may simply have eclipsed other works in posterity. Another explanation may be reception of his works by his pupils—this study establishes the reception of individual writings by al-Fīrūzābādī’s pupils through remaining quotation of individual works, which are given under the respective entries on each work. On the other hand, Ibn Ḥajar—the most influential ḥadīth scholar of his time—apparently did not use al-Fīrūzābādī’s commentary in the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. This may have been motivated by differences of opinion, especially given the reportedly close ties between the Futūḥāt al-makkiyya and al-Fīrūzābādī’s Fatḥ al-bārī. Regardless of Ibn Ḥajar’s reasons, his decision certainly impeded the spread of the work. In light of the dates established for a number of al-Fīrūzābādī’s works, however, the outcome of legend-building as manifest in reports on al-Fīrūzābādī seems primarily to have been conditioned by timing: al-Sakhāwī states that al-Fīrūzābādī’s works were being copied by 770/1368. Al-Fīrūzābādī reportedly also carried a number of books wherever he went, and had a prolonged stay in Damascus with its numerous important scholars and the rakb al-shāmī. Both of these factors certainly enhanced his renown. With the copying of his books, this process probably gained further momentum. The year 770/1368 therefore emerges as an important element in the formation of his reputation in posterity. The dates established for a number of his works show that most of the writings that were concluded prior to this point in time were of a linguistic nature. Thus, of his religiously relevant writings, only the Quṭbat al-khashshāf fī sharḥ khuṭbat al-Kashshāf and its amendment, the Nughbat al-rashshāf min khuṭbat al-Kashshāf, can be assigned to the years before 768/1366–1367 and that year respectively. The Ṣalāt wa-l-bushr fi-l-ṣalāt ʿalā khayr al-bashar must have been written after 750/1350, but its time of composition cannot be narrowed down more specifically. In contrast to this, among al-Fīrūzābādī’s linguistic works, al-Rawḍ al-maslūf fī-mā lahū ismān ilā l-ulūf and the Tanẓīm al-laʾāl fī taḥrīm al-sulāl were both written before the year 764/1362–1363. Furthermore, al-Fīrūzābādī’s treatise on wine for the Mamlūk ruler of Egypt, Jalīs al-anīs fī asmāʾ al-khandarīs, falls into the years 764/1362–1363 – 770/1368. As outlined above, the 760s/late 1350s— late 1360s were also a time in which al-Fīrūzābādī took an interest in poetry, as his studies with Ibn Jamāʿa, the Zād al-maʿād fī wazn Bānat Suʿād and the Sharḥ zād al-maʿād fī wazn Bānat Suʿād, both written after 764/1362–1363, show. If the first edition of the Qāmūs is accepted as being their source, the linguistic works on the names of the lion and on muthallathāt also have to be counted among the works written before 770/1368: the Asmāʾ al-asad, the Muthallath al- a lughawī and more 169 muttafiq al-maʿānī and its complement, the Muthallath al-mukhtalif al-maʿānī, all have textual links to the Encompassing Ocean and may therefore have been concluded between 759/1357(8) and 790/1388. Most importantly, many preconditions for the Qāmūs were met before 770/ 1368: by 749/1348, al-Fīrūzābādī may have been familiar with his main grammatical source, the Mughnī l-labīb. In Ramaḍān 755/September 1354, he studied one of his central works of reference, al-Ṣaghānī’s ʿUbāb. By the year 759/1357– 1358, work on the Lāmiʿ and possibly the Qāmūs had begun. 763/1361–1362 is the latest date at which al-Fīrūzābādī was familiar with al-Jawharī’s lexicon. From al-Zabīdī we know that the Qāmūs was half-finished by 768/1366–1367. By that time, al-Fīrūzābādī had long established himself as an expert on lugha,4 having spent a decade before working on his greatest linguistic project. The widespread perception of the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs therefore seems to be based on the middle period of his life, in which he was primarily concerned with this work. The bulk of his religiously-oriented works came later: 19 of al-Fīrūzābādī’s works post-date his arrival in Yemen, seven of which are known to have borne explicit dedications to the Rasūlids. Of these 19, one belongs to the field of adab, one treats the subject of honey from a number of angles. Notably, three works of manāqib address holy places along with one taʾrīkh of Mecca. Additionally, during this phase of his life, al-Fīrūzābādī wrote two works on fiqh/kalām, three tafsīr works, five works on matters of ḥadīth and the sīra nabawiyya, and one work on taṣawwuf. These endeavors are complemented by only three works of lugha, if the revised edition of the Qāmūs is counted as an independent work. This shows a clear shifting of preference in writing towards the end of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life. The time of composition for 28 further writings by the scholar presently remains unknown. It is therefore unclear how and when exactly the transition of focus took place. The clear preoccupation with religious matters towards the end of his life may have had different reasons. In biographies, we find the statement that al-Fīrūzābādī wished to die in Mecca. Furthermore, it is obvious from the above reconstruction of his travels that he visited the balad al-ḥaramayn repeatedly for religious reasons alone, after his schools had been closed. He may therefore have felt growing piety in later life. However, and notably, the time in Yemen was the only period during which al-Fīrūzābādī abandoned his detachment from political turmoil. This suggests that his pronounced interest in religious subjects may have been conditioned

4 See Ibn Kathīr’s statement on the Damascene majlis as given by Lāshīn, al-Ṣafadī, 40. 170 chapter 4 by the fact that he participated in a struggle that was fought both by means and in the interest of religious books and their subjects. With al-Fīrūzābādī’s commentary on the Saḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, this connection is made explicit. Pertaining to al-Fīrūzābādī’s general reputation, it should therefore be noted that this shift of subjects could have resulted in a different perception, if al- Fīrūzābādī had not decided to edit his lexicon a second time, thereby fore- grounding his linguistic interests. Paradoxically, his involvement in religious debate could in itself have furthered marginalization of this field in transmissions of his vita: as mentioned, there is a notable lack of information regarding his Sufi works despite his widely reported affinity to Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings. This tilt of posterity’s perception may thus be grounded in his network of scholarly contacts. The quantity and diversity of these contacts have been shown above. One needs only consult reference works such as the Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā to realize how intricate the bonds of mutual acquaintance within this scholarly elite were: al-Fīrūzābādī’s Baghdādī pupil Ibn ʿAqīl later became nāʾib to Ibn Jamāʿa, who taught al-Fīrūzābādī. Al-Ṣafadī, who learned from al-Fīrūzābādī in Baghdad, was a childhood friend of al-Fīrūzābādī’s later teacher Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī, and a pupil, as well as a rival of al-Fīrūzābādī’s teacher Ibn Nubāta. Ibn Ḥajar, who studied with al-Fīrūzābādī in Yemen, knew Ibn Jamāʿa. Al- Isnawī, who was among al-Fīrūzābādī’s first pupils, also studied with al-Subkī, al-Fīrūzābādī’s later teacher. And al-Fīrūzābādī’s pupil al-Fāsī encountered al- Ṣafadī in Minā, to name only a few examples. With regard to Ibn al-ʿArabī, the fact that some of al-Fīrūzābādī’s earlier teachers, such as Ibn Jamāʿa, held a negative attitude may be seen as an occasion of difference in outlook and as a sign of emancipation on al-Fīrūzābādī’s part. By contrast, the matter may have been different with some of his later pupils: among them, the most frequently consulted biographers—al-Sakhāwī, Ibn Ḥajar and al-Fāsī—were opposed to Ibn al-ʿArabī. With al-ʿAsqalānī, we find an outright denial of al-Fīrūzābādī’s adherence to Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings, echoed by al-Sakhāwī.5 This is paired with the fact that Ibn Ḥajar apparently did not recognize his reception of the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī from al-Fīrūzābādī—who had connected his monographic study of al-Bukhārī to the Futūḥāt al-makkiyya.6

5 See, for example, Knysh, Ibn ʿArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition, 254. Al-Sakhāwī, al-Dawʾ al-lāmiʿ has textual elements that are identical with Ibn Ḥajar’s text. 6 Through his preference for the Futūḥāt over the Fuṣūṣ, al-Fīrūzābādī was part of a less dominant tendency. On the influence of the Fuṣūṣ see Nasr, Oral Transmission. a lughawī and more 171

Finally, al-Fāsī, who provides the only detailed account of al-Fīrūzābādī’s later life, the height of his scholarly and political power, completely ignores the topic. Reports on this phase of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life therefore were in the hands of scholars who denied those doctrines that most strongly influenced al-Fīrūzābā- dī’s religious outlook. This suppression of information regarding his Sufi works may have furthered underestimation of al-Fīrūzābādī’s scholarly activities in religious matters in favour of his general linguistic expertise. The following section provides an overview of al-Fīrūzābādī’s corpus of works as it has come down to us.

4.2 Oeuvre

The numerous constituents of this oeuvre are given with greatly variant titles, frequently resulting in doublets or split titles recorded as two separate works. Their most frequently given titles are therefore noted below beside title variants. In the following, al-Fīrūzābādī’s oeuvre is presented sorted according to fields of expertise, with the entries in the individual subchapters arranged according to the Latin alphabet. This order is modified whenever works are listed that resulted from preceding writings. This sequencing was chosen as an alternative to other methods due to the challenges of categorization. It should also be noted that grouping al-Fīrūzābādī’s works in strict chronological order of composition is not possible. On the basis of internal textual references, dedications, and a small number of reports, it is nonetheless possible to determine the terminus ante / ad / post quem for a number of the scholar’s writings, as indicated in the following under the heading ‘date’.

4.2.1 Accepted Works Overall, 56 works in 13 areas of expertise may be regarded as having reasonably certainly been authored by al-Fīrūzābādī on the basis of frequent transmission and—at times—personal testimony. These are:

4.2.1.1 Adab

No.: 1

Title: al-Faḍl al-wāfī fi-l-ʿadl al-Ashrafī (The complete virtue of the Ashrafī nobility) 172 chapter 4

Title variants:7 Consistent (some sources have al-Faḍl al-wafī fi-l-ʿadl al-Ashrafī. See for example al- Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181)

Work attested in:8 – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: Ishāra for al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl, the Rasūlid ruler.9 See also above, chapter 3.6.

Date: Yemen.

4.2.1.2 ʿAsal

No.: 2

Titles: Tarqīq al-asal fī taṣfīq al-ʿasal (The sharpening of the tips of the tongues concerning the shaking of the honey[- combs])

7 In the following, title variants are given 1. according to quantity and 2. where a title variant is mentioned by only one source, these individual variants are given in Latin alphabetical order according to the name of the author of the source in which the individual variants are named. 8 References given here in Latin alphabetical order. 9 Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs i, 54, n. 137m. a lughawī and more 173

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82–83 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal sii, 236 (reference given: “Mešh. xvi, 9, 28”)

Status: Published

Contents: Encyclopeadic treatment of honey. See also above, chapter 3.6.

Date: The work was probably written around the turn of the century.

4.2.1.3 Faḍāʾil

No.: 3

Title: Aḥāsin al-laṭāʾif fī maḥāsin al-Ṭāʾif (The most beautiful amenities concerning the virtues of al-Ṭāʾif)

Title variants: No title variants (Wüstenfeld has Latin translation) 174 chapter 4

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 180 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 277 – Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn i, 14 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203 mss attested in: Ahlwardt, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse v, 390 (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußi- scher Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung, no. 6073)

Status: Remnant quotations extant.10

Contents: From the title of the work it can be surmised that it contains a work on the manāqib11 of al-Ṭāʾif. No further information regarding this work has been transmitted.

Date: Unknown

No.: 4

Title: Faṣl al-durra fī faḍl al-Salāma ʿalā l-Khubza (Separation of the pearl regarding the advantage of al-Salāma over al-Khubza)

Title variants: – Faṣl al-durr min kharza fī faḍl al-Salāma ʿalā l-Jīza (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar)

10 According to Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 92 there is a fragment in the ʿIqd al-thamīn. 11 There is not sufficient information on al-Fīrūzābādī’s works in this discipline to judge whether possible ideological strands discussed in relation to this genre apply. Therefore the present thesis follows Afsaruddin in using faḍāʾil and manāqib “fairly interchange- ably”. Afsaruddin, In Praise of the Caliphs, 329. a lughawī and more 175

– Faḍl al-durar min al-kharza fī faḍl al-Salāma ʿalā l-Khubza (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – Faṣl al-durr min al-kharza fī faḍl al-Salāma ʿalā l-Khibaza (Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn) – Faṣl al-durra min al-kharza fī faḍl qaryat al-Salāma ʿalā l-Khibza (Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn) – Faṣl al-durra min al-kharza fī faḍl al-Salāma ʿalā l-Jaza12 (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 304–305 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1620 – Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 94 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 mss attested in: A manuscript of this work is listed among the property of Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung (no. 6073) according to Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l- muʾarrikhūn, 94.

Status: Extant, unpublished

Contents: Description of two villages in the wādī of Ṭāʾif, near Mecca.13

Remarks: Arguably, these locations may be added to the array of places visited by al-Fīrūzābādī during one of his numerous pilgrimages. Al-Khubza is also mentioned in the Qāmūs and in al-Maghānim al-muṭāba.14

Date: The work is at times said to have been written in Ṭāʾif, offering the years 794/1391–1392, 805/1402, 806/1403–1404, or sometime between 806/1403 and 816/1414 as dates of composition.

12 May also be “jiza” or “juza”. No vocalization ndicated, no long vowel. 13 Cf. also Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān ii, 399 and iii, 113. 14 See lemma “kh-b-z”, in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ ii, 196 (edition al-Sayyid). 176 chapter 4

No.: 5

Title: Ishārat al-shujūn ilā ziyārat al-Ḥajūn (Indication of the roads to the visit of Mount Ḥajūn)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 180–181 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal sii, 236 (reference given: “Kairo2 v, 7”); in his edition of the Qāmūs al-Sayyid mentions a ms (p. 6). Al-Jazāʾirī mentions a ms in the Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya (no. 3952)15

Status: Extant. According to al-Jāsir,16 it was published in Mecca in 1332/1913–1914.

Contents: It concerns ṣaḥāba who where buried in the surroundings of Mecca. See also chapter 3.6.

Date: Since al-Fāsī was familiar with the work, it was available by the early 800s/1400s.

15 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Ṣilāt wa-l-bushr, kāf. 16 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, nūn. a lughawī and more 177

No.: 6 Title: al-Maghānim al-muṭāba fī maʿālim Ṭāba (The well-scented profits concerning the particularities of Ṭāba)

Title variants: No title variants

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 95 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 mss attested in: www.yazmalar.gov.tr17 (34 Fe 1529 – İstanbul Millet Kütüphanesi, collection: Feyzullah Efendi Kolleksiyonu, 274 pages); al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, qāf f.

Status: Partially published (edition used here al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim al-muṭāba fī maʿālim Ṭāba, ed. Ḥamad al-Jāsir, al-Riyaḍ 1969/1389.)

Contents: Description of al-Madīna. See also chapter 3.4.

Date: Al-Fīrūzābādī’s own testimony places the initial incentive for this work in the year 782/1380–1381, when he visited al-Madīna.18 Consequently, this year is the tpq. for this work.

17 Due to technical malfuntions, the manuscripts provided here could not be accessed. 18 Al-Fāsī in al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, ʿayn. 178 chapter 4

No.: 7

Title: Taʿyīn al-ghurafāt li-l-muʿīn ʿalā ʿayn ʿArafāt (Clarification of the [hand-scoped] ration of water for the assistant at the springs of ʿArafāt)

Title variants: No title variants

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 277 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 mss attested in: According to Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 93, there is a manuscript of this work in the collections of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin.19

Status: Extant, unpublished

Contents: No details regarding this work have been transmitted. Its title suggests treatment of the ʿArafāt plain20 near Mecca, including its wells.

Remarks: The only instance of al-Fīrūzābādī’s concern with related subject matter is provided by al-Fāsī. He recounts a statement by his teacher, who denied the significance of Mount Thabīr (between ʿArafa and Mecca) for the pilgrimage.21

19 Al-Hila mentions no. 6073. See al-Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 93. 20 Cf. for details Gibb/Wensinck, ʿArafa. 21 Al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Shifāʾ al-gharām i, 290. a lughawī and more 179

Date: Unknown. At present, it cannot be validated whether the abovementioned statement by al-Fīrūzābādī was connected to the work.

No.: 8

Title: al-Waṣl wa-l-munā fī faḍāʾil Minā (The union and the fulfilled wishes regarding the virtues of Minā)

Title variants: – al-Waṣl wa-l-munā fi faḍl Minā (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; al-Sakhā- wī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ) – al-Wuṣūl wa-l-munā fi faḍl Minā (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – al-Wuṣl wa-l-munā fi faḍl Minā (Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn) – De praestantiis urbis Ṭâȉf (Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber)

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: This work treats the city of Minā. See also chapter 3.6. 180 chapter 4

4.2.1.4 Fiqh / Kalām

No.: 9

Title: al-Ishārāt ilā mā fī kutub al-fiqh min al-asmāʾ wa-l-amākin wa-l-lughāt (Indications of that which is in the books of fiqh regarding names and places and dialect variants)

Title variants: No title variants

Work attested in: – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: As is apparent from its title, this work is an onomastic, geographical and linguistic concordance to works treating uṣūl al-fiqh.

Remarks: Through the implied indexical character, this work is situated on the intersection of the disciplines of fiqh, onomastics, geography and lugha.

Date: Unknown a lughawī and more 181

No.: 10

Title: Imtiḍāḍ al-shihād fī iftirāḍ al-jihād (The suffering of witnesses in case of jihād)

Title variants: – Imtiḍāḍ al-sihād fī iftirāḍ al-jihād (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Shawkānī: al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ) – Iftiḍāḍ al-sihād fī iftirāḍ al-jihād (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – Imtiṣāṣ al-shihād fī iftirāḍ al-jihād (al-Zanūzī, Riyāḍ al-janna)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Zanūzī, Riyāḍ al-janna iv, 148 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: Treatise on the prescription of jihād. No specifics known.

Remarks: This work is said to have consisted of one volume.22 Besides the general relevance of this topic in theology and in historico-political perspective, future research on this work should address the issue of al-Fīrūzābādī’s religious stance. Given that al-Fīrūzābādī took a different impetus from and interest in ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī it is important here that “[al-Jīlānī’s] concept of Ṣufism [was that]

22 See for example al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282. 182 chapter 4 of a holy war or jihād waged against one’s own will in order to submit to God’s will”.23 As soon as the Imtiḍāḍ al-shihād fī iftirāḍ al-jihād has been recovered, it should therefore be understood whether al-Fīrūzābādī’s treatise on the prescription of jihād was oriented along similar lines.

Date: Unknown

No.: 11

Title: al-Isʿād bi-l-iṣʿād ilā darajat al-ijtihād (The providing of happiness through the elevation to the degree of ijtihād)

23 s.n., ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī, 16. a lughawī and more 183

– al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – al-Suyūṭī, Radd ʿalā man akhlada, 117 mss attested in: Al-Sayyid and al-Jazāʾirī mention a ms in the Ẓāhiriyya in Damascus (no. 414).24

Status: Extant, unpublished

Contents: It is centred on the rejection of taqlīd. See also chapter 3.6.

Date: It is unknown when al-Fīrūzābādī began writing this book, but he presented it to al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl on 15 Shaʿbān 801 / 23 April 1399.25

4.2.1.5 Ḥadīth / Sīra nabawiyya

No.: 12

Title: ʿUddat al-ḥukkām fī sharḥ ʿUmdat al-aḥkām (The tool of the judges referring to a commentary on the ʿUmdat al-aḥkām)

Title variants: – ʿUmdat al-ḥukkām fī sharḥ ʿUmdat al-aḥkām (al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Shawkānī, al- Badr al-ṭāliʿ) – Sharḥ ʿUmdat al-aḥkām (Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya; al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl; al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt) – ʿAddat al-ḥukkām fī sharḥ ʿUmdat al-aḥkām (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn, al-Kattānī, Fihrist) – ʿUmdat al-ḥukkām fī sharḥ al-Aḥkām (al-Zanūzī, Riyāḍ al-janna)

24 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs a-muḥīṭ i, 6 (edition al-Sayyid), and al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Ṣilāt wa-l- bushr, kāf. 25 See al-Khazrajī, ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 266. 184 chapter 4

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 304 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 377 – Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya iii, 66 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl, 290 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – al-Zanūz, Riyāḍ al-janna iv, 148 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: Sharḥ to al-Muqaddasī’s (d. 380/990) ʿUmdat al-aḥkām min khayr al-Anām,26 in two volumes.27

Date: Unknown

No.: 13

Title: al-Aḥādīth al-ḍaʿīfa (The weak aḥādīth)

Title variants: No title variants

26 See Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs i, 50 n. 212m. 27 Cf. al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908. a lughawī and more 185

Status: Extant, unpublished

Contents: Work on the weak aḥādīth. See also chapter 3.6.

Comments: Said to have comprised 4 volumes.28

Date: This work was written for al-Nāṣir29 and therefore falls into the Yemeni period of al-Fīrūzābādīs life.

No.: 14

Title: al-Durr al-ghālī fi-l-aḥādīth al-ʿawālī (The precious pearls on the highest aḥādīth)

Title variants: No title variants

28 A-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302. 29 Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82. 186 chapter 4

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī: Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: No specifics on this work are reported.

Remarks: It seems probable that this is the work which Ibn Ḥajar claims to have studied with al-Fīrūzābādī in Mecca, although his indication of its title is rather unspecific.30

Date: If the above proposal of identity is accepted the work must have taq. 800/1397–1398.

No.: 15

Title: Fatḥ al-bārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Opening of the well as a commentary on the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī)

30 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 162. a lughawī and more 187

– Fatḥ al-bārī bi-l-sayl al-fasīḥ al-jārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn, al- Kattānī, Fihrist) – Manḥ al-bārī (al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman) – Manḥ al-bārī bi-sayḥ al-jārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – Manḥ al-bārī bi-sayḥ al-fasīḥ al-majārī fī sharḥ al-Bukhārī (Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn) – Manḥ al-bārī bi-l-shayḥ al-fasīḥ al-jārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ) – Fatḥ al-bārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ; al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh) – Fatḥ al-bārī bi-l-sīḥ al-fasīḥ al-jārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt)

Work attested in: – al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman, 328 – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 277 – Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1859 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn xii, 118 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl, 290 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh iv, 288 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: Commentary on the Ṣaḥīḥ by al-Bukhārī. See also chapter 3.6.3. 188 chapter 4

Date: Knysh specifies that the Manḥ al-bārī sparked al-Fīrūzābādī’s heated controversy with Ibn al-Khayyāṭ. This work must therefore have tpq. 796/1393–1394.

No.: 16

Title: al-Munyat al-sūl fī daʿawāt al-rasūl (The wish for the object of desire concerning the prayers of the prophet)

Title variants: No title variants

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 288 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: Its title suggests that it was centred on Muḥammad’s prophetical status.31 The work may have treated blessings (and curses?) transmitted by the Prophet, but no details regarding this work have been preserved.

Date: Unknown

31 On daʿwat al-rasūl see Canard, Daʿwa. a lughawī and more 189

No.: 17

Title: al-Nafḥa al-ʿanbariyya fī mawlid khayr al-bariyya (The dissemination of ʿanbar-like smell at the mawlid of the best of men [Muḥammad])

Title variants: No title variants (Wüstenfeld has Latin translation)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 306 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 277 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: No details regarding this work have been transmitted. Its title offers two possible interpretations: if the term mawlid is read as referring to Muḥammad’s death, the Nafḥatal-ʿanbariyya would be a work concentrating primarily on the hereafter, possibly concerned with ascension to Paradise.32 The second possible reading of the title is based on the interpretation of mawlid as referring to celebrations commemorating Muḥammad’s birth. This would move the work into a controversy of al-Fīrūzābādī’s time, as, in the 8th/14th century, the custom of celebrating the mawlid al-nabī became increasingly contested. Al-Fīrūzābādī thus lived in a period of particularly strong dissonances and he clearly was aware of Ibn Jubayr, who wrote the earliest description of a mawlid celebration.33

32 Ruska/Plessner, ʿAnbar. 33 That al-Fīrūzābādī was familiar with Ibn Jubayr is obvious from al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghā- nim, 259–260. 190 chapter 4

Questions to be addressed to this work also include whether it was written in connection with al-Fīrūzābādī’s treatment of ziyārat al-qubūr (see above, no. 5), and whether this work may have been influenced by those of al-Fīrūzābādī’s teacher Ṣalāh al-Dīn Khalīl b. al-Kaykaldī al-ʿAlāʾī, who wrote a work with a similar title.

Date: Unknown

No.: 18

Title: Sifr/Sufar al-saʿāda (The Book of Happiness)

Title variants: It is also known under the titles Sirāṭ al-mustaqīm, Fī ṣuḥbat al-ḥabīb Muḥammad and as Min hady al-rasūl.34 The title Sifr al-saʿāda appears to be the best known.35 Wüstenfeld lists it as Liber felicitatum.

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 304 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/234 [sic.!, flawed pagination] – Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, 926 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203 – al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/234 [sic.!, flawed pagination] (reference given “Gotha pers. 33”); Brockelmann, gal sii, 235 (“Gotha 33, Wien 1963 (frgm.) Paris i, 89, Kairo2 i, 123,

34 See the edition by Tahṭāwī and ʿŪd and the 1997 Cairo edition by Sāyīḥ and Ḥamza respectively. 35 See the edition by Ṣabīḥ and the 1978 edition by an unnamed editor published in Bayrūt. a lughawī and more 191

Peš. 371, Bank. xiv, 1185”); www.yazmalar.gov.tr (05 Ba 1384/4(a)—Amasya Beyazit İl Halk Kütüphanesi, ff. 202b–205b and 34 Atf 1410—Artif Efendi Yazma Eser Kütüphane- si, collection: Atif Efendi Kolleksiyonu, 52 pages); Storey: Persian literature i/i, 180– 181.

Status: Published, numerous editions36 (edition used here al-Fīrūzābādī, Fī ṣuḥbat al-ḥabīb Muḥammad. Sīratuhū wa-akhbāru- hū wa-ādātuhū wa-ibādātuhu fi-l-yawm wa-l-layla, al-musammā Sifr al-saʿāda, Aḥmad Muṣṭafā Qāsim al-Ṭaḥṭāwī and Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Tawwāb ʿŪd (eds.), Cairo s.a.)

Contents: Sifr al-saʿāda provides guidance on all central religious duties, following Muḥam- mad’s example. It contains chapters treating “(1) ablutions (wuḍūʾ), prayer (namāz and adʿiyah), fasting (ṣiyām) etc., (2) Friday and Friday service, (3) the pilgrimage, the glo- rification of God (adhkār), the prophet’s general manner of life”.37

Remarks: Al-Fīrūzābādī approaches these topics by providing related aḥādīth of varying status. In the khātima of his work, al-Fīrūzābādī discusses individual questions for which Muḥammad’s life does not offer specific answers (and no aḥādīth that are ṣaḥīḥ). These, therefore, need to be settled on the basis of the statements of ṣaḥāba and tābiʿūn: among numerous other things, these include the Murjiʾa and the Ashʿariyya,38 the faḍāʾil of both al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥanīfa,39 as well as the Persian language.40 While the former instances clearly speak of a historical approach to the evaluation of aḥādīth, al-Fīrūzābādī’s insistence that there are no reports for a dislike of the Persian language may also have had a more personal element to it. Reference to the virtues of both al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥanīfa mirrors the presence of both of these madhāhib in al-Fīrūzābādī’s biographical monographs. It is therefore obvious that the scholar seems to have been motivated (by personal inclination or political tension) to accommodate both madhāhib.

36 For information on a number of editions, as well as Arabic and Persian commentaries see Storey, Persian Literature i/i, 180–181 and idem, Persian Literature i/ii, 1253. 37 Storey, Persian Literature i/i, 180f. 38 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Fī ṣuḥbat al-ḥabīb, 343. 39 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Fī ṣuḥbat al-ḥabīb, 346. 40 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Fī ṣuḥbat al-ḥabīb, 352. 192 chapter 4

It should also be noted here that the Risāla fī bayān mā lam yathbut fīhi ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth min al-abwāb, available at www.al-Mostafa.com,41 and which is at times mentioned as an independent work,42 shows considerable overlap in terms of content and sequence with the khātima of the Sifr al-saʿāda. There are some small variations in wording, such as the explicit inclusion of the Qadariyya in the mentioned statement on the Murjiʾa43 and the Ashʿariyya, but this risāla does not seem to be an independent work, rather an extract from or draft of the Sifr al-saʿāda. This work is possibly the most frequently edited after the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ. It is also one of the few works reportedly written in Persian44 and al-Fīrūzābādī’s most famous work in the field of ḥadīth/sīra nabawiyya. The Persian text was translated into Arabic towards the end of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life, in 814/1401.

Date: Unknown.

No.: 19

Title: Shawāriq al-asrār al-ʿāliya fī sharḥ Mashāriq al-anwār al-nabawiyya (The rising Places of the Secrets regarding a commentary on the Mashāriq al-anwār al-nabawiyya)

41 File name: “m001401.pdf”,property of the Maktabat Abī ʿAbdal-ʿAzīz(ismal-nāshir: Khalīfa b. Arḥama b. Jahhām). 42 See Brockelmann, gal sii, 235, where one ms is indexed, and Ghānim’s edition of al- Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 20. 43 See on this religious group Madelung, Murdjiʾa. 44 See Brockelmann, gal g ii, ?/334 [sic. Flawed pagination, should be ?/234, marginal pagination also flawed]. a lughawī and more 193

– al-Shawāriq al-ʿāliya fī sharḥ Mashāriq al-anwār al-nabawiyya (al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ)

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: As is obvious from its title, it is a commentary on al-Ṣaghānī’s Mashāriq al-anwār al-nabawiyya.45 See also chapter 3.2.

Date: Unknown

No.: 20

Title: Tajārīḥ fī fawāʾid mutaʿalliqa bi-aḥādīth al-maṣābīḥ (Dissection of some points related to the traditions of the Maṣābīḥ [al-sunna])

45 For biographical details cf. Baalbaki, al-Ṣaghānī. 194 chapter 4

Title variants: – Tajārīḥ fī fawāʾid mutaʿalliqa bi-l-aḥādīth al-maṣābīḥ (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – Tajārīḥ fī fawāʾid mutaʿalliqa bi-aḥādīth al-maṣābīḥ (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Kattānī, Fihrist)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 mss attested in: www.yazmalar.gov.tr (05 Ba 154/1—Amasya Beyazit İl Halk Kütüphanesi, ff. 1r–3v). A further manuscript fragment of this work is available from www.al-Mostafa.com. The mss could not be consulted.

Status: Extant, unpublished

Contents: This is a work of ḥadīth regarding Muḥammad al-Farrāʾ al-Baghawī (d. 510/1117 or 516/1122).46

Remarks: Judging from its title, this work may be an extract from the Shāfiʿī jurist’s Maṣābīḥ al- sunna that covers the whole range of classifications, except aḥādīth that are mawdūʿ.47

Date: Unknown

46 Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs i, 53, n. 131. On the muḥaddith see Brockelmann, gal gi, 363ff./447ff. and idem, gal si, 620ff. 47 Cf. Robson, al-Baghawī. a lughawī and more 195

No.: 21

Title: Tashīl ṭarīq al-wuṣūl ilā l-aḥādīth al-zāʾida ʿalā Jāmiʿ al-uṣūl (Alleviation of a way of reaching the aḥādīth appended to the Jāmiʿ al-uṣūl)

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: Elaboration on Ibn al-Athīr’s (544/1149–606/1210?)48 reference work on ḥadīth, the Jāmiʿ al-uṣūl. See also chapter 3.6.

48 See Rosenthal, Ibn al-Athīr (1). Brockelmann, gal gi, 357/438f.; idem, gal s, 607–609. 196 chapter 4

Date: This work was either written for al-Ashraf or for al-Nāṣir,49 placing it in the Yemeni phase of al-Fīrūzābādī’s life.

4.2.1.6 Lugha

No.: 22

Title: Anwāʾ al-ghayth fī asmāʾ al-layth (The storm of abundant rains on the names of the lion)

Title variants: – Anwāʾ al-ghayth fi-asmāʾ al-layth (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al- fikr; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ) – Asmāʾ al-layth (al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 mss attested in: To the Qāmūs ms Cod.arab. 782 of the Bayrische Staatsbibliothek München a text is annexed, whose description reads “Am Schlusse die Partikeln alphabetisch, dann die Unterschrift, hierauf die Namen des Löwen”.50 The description below is based on this manuscript.

49 The former is stated by Tashköprüzāde, Miftāḥ al-saʿāda i, 105, the latter by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 161. 50 “At the end the particles in alphabetical order, then the colophone, following this the names of the lion”.Aumer, Catalogus i/ii, 346. I thank Dr. Helga Rebhan for her forthcoming permission to consult the document, as well as Christopher Winter for his kind hospitality. a lughawī and more 197

Status: Extant, unpublished.

Manuscript: It is included in a fully vocalized and dotted copy of the Qāmūs that is in very good condition.51 Dated 1092a.h. by its colophon, the manuscript consists of 463 folios. Of these, folio 1r contains a short biography of al-Fīrūzābādī based on al-Sakhāwī’s tarjama. This is followed by al-Fīrūzābādī’s muqaddima (folios 1v to 3r). Folios 3r to 462r contain a complete copy of the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ in three colors—dark red for chapter headings, black for the running text, and light red for highlighting particular words, the headings of abwāb, abbreviations, parts of the vocalization, and some elements of the marginal commentary.52 Some of these red highlights also contain lexemes that were initially highlighted in red by al-Fīrūzābādī. The manuscript therefore partially preserves this central typograph- ical feature of the Encompassing Ocean. The final folio, 463r, provides two paragraphs of a lexicographical nature that treat the names of the months (first paragraph, ll. 1–8), and the names of the times during the light and dark hours of the day (second paragraph, ll. 9–13). As for the Names of the Lion, folios 462r–v contain 481 synonyms for the lion. This part of the manuscript does not have its own colophon, but the identity of script suggests that it was copied together with the preceding Qāmūs. Each lexeme of the Asmāʾ al-asad is separated from the following by a red dot. They are given in abwāb alphabetically, and arranged according to the last radical of the lexeme. The beginnings of each new bāb is indicated in red in the margin.

Contents: Collection of synonyms regarding the lion. Of the 481 entries, some distinctly listed lexemes are actually variants in vocalisation. In the Qāmūs, most of these lexemes are connected back to “al-asadu”, which makes the title given in the manuscript (containing the word asad) more likely correct than the title given in most biographical sources (containing the word layth instead).

51 The ink is damaged only occasionally (for instance 210 r.) and there are only occasional traces of repair (for example 210v.) 52 These notes in the margins seem to have been carried out by at least two different scribes, and they are mostly highlights of morphological patterns, such as muthallathāt and aḍdād. 198 chapter 4

Remarks: The sources do not specify that Asmāʾ al-layth was an extract of the Qāmūs as the manuscript suggests: Min asmāʾ al-asad mimmā fi-l-Qāmūs.53 Textual composition suggests that the text in question is not merely a list appended by the copyist, but rather a composed body of lexemes.

Date: From the title of the work, Asmāʾ al-layth must have been written simultaneously to the Qāmūs or after its completion. This would set its tpq. at 759/1357–1358 or 803/1400–1401, depending on its source.

No.: 23

Title: Asmāʾ al-ghāda fī asmāʾ al-ʿāda (Names of the young girl regarding the names of the menstruation)

Title variants: – Asmāʾ al-ghāda fī asmāʾ al-ʿāda (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 180; al-Ḥabashī: Maṣādir al-fikr; al-Sakhāwī, al- Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ) – Asmāʾ al-ʿāda fī asmāʾ al-ghāda (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar) – Asmāʾ al-ghāda (al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 180 – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 mss attested in: None listed

53 ms Cod. arab. 782 (catalogue number 184x Quatr.), f. 462r. a lughawī and more 199

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: This is a collection of synonyms for young women, or of matters related to menstruation and synonyms for these. No further details regarding this work have been transmitted.

Date: Unknown

No.: 24

Title: Asmāʾ al-sirāḥ fī asmāʾ al-nikāḥ (Names of the release into divorce among designations of marriage)

Title variants: – Asmāʾ al-sirāḥ fī asmāʾ al-nikāḥ (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Ḥa- bashī, Maṣādir al-fikr) – Asmāʾ al-nikāḥ (Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn; al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt) – al-Asmāʾ al-sirāḥ fī asmāʾ al-nikākh (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar) – Asmāʾ al-sirāj / Asmāʾ al-nikāḥ (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn54)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 180 – Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn i, 90 – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274

54 Al-Baghdādī splits this title; see idem, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 180. 200 chapter 4 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: This work treats synonyms designating marriage.

Remarks: No specifics regarding this work have been recorded, except the fact that Taqī al-Dīn al-Fāsī heard it 15 years after its author’s death.55

Date: Unknown.

No.: 25

Title: Balāgh al-talqīn fī gharāʾib al-laʿīn/ʿayn (?) (The declaration of explanation regarding the rare words of the scarecrow / Kitāb al-ʿAyn)

Title variants: Commonly written al-laʿīn, but ʿayn may also be applicable.

Work attested in: – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

55 Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs i, 53 n. 134. a lughawī and more 201

Contents: No details concerning the contents of this work have been transmitted. Possibly a work on al-Khalīl b. Aḥmad’s Kitāb al-ʿAyn.56

Date: Unknown

No.: 26

Title: al-Jalīs al-anīs fī asmāʾ al-khandarīs (The trustworthy companion to the names of old wine)

Title variants: – al-Jalīs al-anīs fī asmāʾ al-khandarīs (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; Brockelmann, gal gii; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shad- harāt al-dhahab; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al- al-tārīkh; al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām) – Jalīs al-anīs fī asmāʾ al-khandarīs (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – Jalīs fī asmāʾ al-khandarīs (al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr) – Asmā al-khandarīs (al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm: ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 [sic.!, flawed pagination] – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh iv, 288 – al-Ziriklī: al-Aʿlām viii, 19

56 On this work see, for example, Wild, Neues zur ältesten, idem, Das Kitāb al-ʿAin, and Versteegh, Linguistic Tradition, 23–35. This title could possibly also mean “Delivery of the instruction on the strange things of the devil”, which would make it a work of theology. 202 chapter 4 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 [sic.!, flawed pagination] (reference given: “Alex. Adab 32, Kairo 1iv, 233, 2ii, ii, iii, 75”); Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/235 [sic.!, flawed pagination] (reference given “Kairo2, ii, iii, 75”); Fulton, Fīrūzābādī’s “Wine List”, 579 (Or. 9200, British Museum); www.yazmalar.gov.tr (01 Hk 149/1—Milli Kütüphane-Ankara, collection: Adana İl Halk Kütüphanesi, ff. 1a–68b); al-Jazāʾirī mentions a ms in the Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya (no. nūn ʿayn 1871),57 see also Nemoy, Transactions, 167 (l515).

Status: Extant, partially published (edition used here Fulton, Fīrūzābādī’s “Wine List”, in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 12,1 (1947), 579–585.)

Contents: Collection of the names of old wine. See also chapter 3.4.

Date: As this work is dedicated to the Baḥrī Mamlūk (r. 764–1363 – 778–1376) ruler of Egypt, its tpq. is 764/1362–1363.

No.: 27

Title: al-Lāmiʿ al-muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb (The Lightning Marked with Wonders uniting between the Muḥkam and the ʿUbāb)

57 See al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Ṣilāt wa-l-bushr, lām. a lughawī and more 203

– Alāmiʿ al-muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb wa-ziyādāt imtilāʾ- ihā al-wiṭāb (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – al-Lāmiʿ wa-l-muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb (Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr) – Alāmiʿ al-muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – al-Muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb wa-ziyādāt imtilāʾ bi-hā al-wiṭāb (al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ) – al- Lāmiʿ al-ʿilm ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb (al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt) – Liber de lexicologia radians (Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 [sic.!, flawed pagination] – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 277 – Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, 926 – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 160 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Qannawjī, Mawsūʿa, 890 – al-Qummī, al-Kunnā wa-l-alqāb iii, 38 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – Ṭashköprüzādeh, al-Shaqāʾiq al-nuʿmāniyya, 30 – Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered, remnant quotations extant

Contents: Precursor of the Encompassing Ocean. 204 chapter 4

Remarks: al-Sakhāwī saw an autograph of this work.

Date: Although al-Fīrūzābādī repeatedly mentions this work in the Qāmūs,58 he does not specify where or when he wrote it. Since the Lāmiʿ formed the basis of the Qāmūs, it must have been written before the latter, placing its taq. in 759/1357–1358.

No.: 28

Title variants: – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr; al-Qummi, al-Kunnā wa-l- alqāb; al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh; Ṭashköprüzādeh, al-Shaqāʾiq al-nuʿmāniyya; al-Ziriklī: al-Aʿlām) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ wa-l-qābūs al-wasīṭ al-jāmiʿ li-mā dhahaba min lughat al-ʿarab shamāṭīṭ (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ; Ṭashköprüzādeh, Miftāḥ al-saʿāda) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ al-qābūs al-wasīṭ al-jāmiʿ li-mā dhahaba min lughat al-ʿarab sha- māṭīṭ (al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn; al-Qannawjī, Mawsūʿa) – Qāmūs (Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī; al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ bi-mā dhahaba min lughat al-ʿarab shamāṭīṭ (al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman, 328) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ al-qābūs al-wasīṭ fī mukhtaṣar al-Lāmiʿ (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn)

58 See al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ i, 3 (Būlāq edition) and idem, lemma “f-k-h”, in al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ iv, 329 (edition al-Sayyid). a lughawī and more 205

– al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ wa-l-qabas al-wasīṭ al-jāmiʿ li-mā dhahaba min lughat al-ʿarab shamāṭīṭ (Brockelmann, gal gii) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ wa-l-qābūs al-wasīṭ (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ fi-l-lugha (Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī: Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya) – al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ al-qābūs al-wasīṭ al-jāmiʿ li-mā dhahaba min kalām al-ʿarab sha- māṭīṭ (Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn) – al-Qāmūs fi-l-lugha (al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt)

Work attested in: Redundant mss attested in: Although the almost proverbial saying that there are manuscripts of the Qāmūs in every library59 might be slightly overstated, it is true that the overwhelming majority of manuscripts of al-Fīrūzābādī’s works preserved are copies of this lexicon.

Status: Published, numerous editions. (editions used here al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, no editor, Būlāq: Maṭbaʿat al- Mīriyya, 4 vols., 1301–1302/1883–1884 and al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūsal-muḥīṭ, ed. Muḥam- mad al-Sayyid, 4 vols., s.l.: al-Tawfīqiyya, s.a.)

Contents: For treatment of this work see chapter 3.4.2.

Date: The first edition of the Qāmūs was probably begun around the year 759/1357–1358. It was half-finished by the year 768/1366–1367 and concluded by 790/1388. The time at which al-Fīrūzābādī embarked on the second edition is unknown. It is likely that this edition was concluded after the year 803/1400(1).

59 See, for example, Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 or Wild, Das Kitāb al-ʿain, 91. 206 chapter 4

No.: 29

Title: Majmaʿ al-suʾālāt / Asʾila min Siḥāḥ al-Jawharī (Collection of the questions regarding the Siḥāḥ of al-Jawharī)

Title variants: See above

Work attested in: al-Aẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/23360 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 (reference given “Köpr. 1571”)

Status: Extant, unpublished

Contents: This rarely mentioned work is another treatment of al-Jawharī’s Ṣiḥāḥ aside from the Qāmūs.

Date: Unknown

Nos: 30 and 30a

Title: al-Muthallath al-muttafiq al-maʿānī and al-Muthallath al-mukhtalif al-maʿānī (Muthallath with agreement of meaning and Muthallath without agreement of meaning)

60 Here, the double pagination commonly found in the edition of Brockelmann’s work is incomplete. a lughawī and more 207

Title variants: – al-Muthallath al-kabīr (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; al-Sak- hāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ) – al-Muthallath al-ṣaghīr (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ; al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman61) – al-Muthallath al-wasīṭ (al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman62) – al-Muthallath fi-l-lugha (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ) – al-Ghurar al-muthallatha wa-l-mubaththatha (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; Brockelmann, gal gii) – al-Durar al-mubaththatha fi-l-ghurar al-muthallatha (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; Baalbaki, The Arabic Lexicographical Tradition) – ad-Durar al-mubaththatha fi’l-luġa (Brockelmann, gas sii) – al-Muthallath al-muttafiq al-maʿānī (al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr; al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām)

Work attested in: – al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman, 328 – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 – Baalbaki, The Arabic Lexicographical Tradition, multiple references – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 [sic.!, flawed pagination] – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 283 – al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19 mss attested in:

Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 [sic.!, flawed pagination] (reference given “Alger 246,3, Garr. 284”); Brockelmann, gal sii, 235 (reference given: “Brill-H.2 287, Selīm Āġā 1261”)

61 Al-Ahdal says: “al-mawsūm bi-l- durar al-mubaththatha”; see idem, Tuḥfat al-zaman, 328. 62 Al-Ahdal says: “al-mawsūm bi-l-ghurar al-muthallatha”; see idem, Tuḥfat al-zaman, 328. 208 chapter 4

Status: Published (edition used here al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Durar al-mubaththatha fi-l-ghurar al-muthallatha (al-muthallath al-muttafiq al-maʿānī), ʿAlī Ḥusayn al-Bawwāb (ed.), al-Riyaḍ 1401/11981)

Contents: Collection of words of three consonants in relation to which change in vocalization does or—respectively—does not entail change of meaning.

Remarks: In relation to al-Fīrūzābādī’s monographic activity on muthallathāt, diversity in titles is even greater than usual. The quantity of writings in this field is disputed. Four different titles are mentioned in varying combinations: al-Muthallath al-kabīr (said to have consisted of five volumes); al-Muthallathal-ṣaghīr (said to have been in five parts): al-Durar al-mubaththatha fi ghurar al-muthallatha; and al-Muthallath al-muttafiq al-maʿānī. In his introductory words, al-Fīrūzābādī states his intention of gathering everything that has come to light in works on muthallathāt, of which he names Quṭrub’s63 writings as the first among a number of further sources. He divided his works into two parts “about the agreement of meaning and about the divergence of meaning [caused by alternation in vocalization]”.64 This division indeed accounts for the titles of al-Muthallath al-muttafiq al-maʿānī and al-Muthallath al- mukhtalif al-maʿānī, as they correspond to the Arabic wording of the above statement. Their relationship to possible further works entitled al-Muthallath al-ṣaghīr and al- Muthallath al-kabīr remains unclear. Based on information transmitted by al-Fāsī, al-Bawwāb considers the al-Durar al- mubaththatha fi ghurar al-muthallatha and al-Muthallath al-muttafiq al-maʿānī to be identical and assumes that the al-Muthallath al-mukhtalif al-maʿānī may have been lost. Ibn Shihāb, on the other hand, mentions an edition of this title.65 This edition could not be consulted. Future examinations could confirm the identity or difference of these two texts and their relative scope in order to evaluate the possibility that ‘al-muthallath al-ṣaghīr’ and ‘al-muthallath al-kabīr’ are descriptors, rather than titles.66

63 For details see Troupeau, Ḳuṭrub. 64 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Durar al-mubaththatha, 49. 65 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 20, n. 1. 66 This is a likely option in light of reports that claim that the Muthallath al-muttafiq al- maʿānī comprised the Muthallath al-ṣaghīr and the Muthallath al-kabīr. See for example al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305. a lughawī and more 209

As things stand, the existence of two editions of works of muthallathāt is certain. The work at hand, entitled al-Durar al-mubaththatha presents itself as follows: it is divided into abwāb, one for each letter of the alphabet. The sequence of hāʾ and wāw is reversed—possibly a hint at the author’s Persian mother tongue that can also be observed in other works. Within the individual abwāb, lexemes are ordered according to the alphabet. The initial lexeme is followed by alternatively vocalized words with identical rasm. Then, the root consonant affected by a change of vocalization is named, followed by brief remarks on the meaning of the word, as well as citation of authorities and proof material to validate usage of the forms.

Date: Since both the Lāmiʿ and the Qāmūs are mentioned in this work,67 it must have been written after them, or at least simultaneously with the Qāmūs.

No.: 31

Title: al-Rawḍ al-maslūf fī-mā lahu ismān ilā l-ulūf (The Smooth Garden, on things having two or more names up to thousands68)

Title variants: – al-Rawḍ al-maslūf fī-mā lahu asmān ilā l-ulūf (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; Brockelmann, gal sii, 236; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-ghumr; al- Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ) – al-Rawḍ al-maslūf fī-mā lahu ismān ilā l-ulūf (al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman) – al-Rawḍ al-maslūf fī-mā lahu asmān ilā ulūf (al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl) – al-Rawwāḍ al-maslūf fī-mā lahu asmān ilā l-ulūf (al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt)

Work attested in: – al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Tuḥfat al-zaman, 328 – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303

67 See al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Durar al-mubaththatha, 80, 166, 213. 68 Translation taken from Fulton, Fīrūzābādī’s “Wine List”, 580. 210 chapter 4

– al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Brockelmann, gal sii, 236 – Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 162 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl, 290 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 283 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Extant, published.69

Contents: A work on things with two or more names. From first person testimony, the work contained at least 150 synonyms to the lexeme fiʾa.70

Remarks: It is occasionally ascribed to Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī,71 just as is the Qāmūs.72 That it is among al-Fīrūzābādī’s works is proven by his statement in the Nughbat al-rashshāf.73 This work could not be consulted.

Date: Judging from the fact that this work is mentioned in the Jalīs al-anīs,74 it must have taq. 764/1362–1363.

69 According to al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383. 70 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 176. 71 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 176 n. 6. 72 Allen considers the Tāj to be the completion of the Qāmūs, or a joint venture between both authors. See Allen, The Arabic Literary Heritage, 68 and Allen, An Introduction, 44 respectively. Meier, on the other hand, makes al-Fīrūzābādī the author of the Tāj al-ʿarūs. See Schubert, Fritz Meier, 205. 73 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 176. 74 Cf. Fulton, Fīrūzābādī’s “Wine List”, 580. a lughawī and more 211

No.: 32

Title: Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn fī-mā yuqāl bi-l-sīn wa-l-shīn (The decorator’s embellishement of that which is said with sīn and shīn)

Title variants: – Takhbīr al-muwashshīn fī-mā yuqāl bi-l-sīn wa-l-shīn (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302–303 – Baalbaki, The Arabic Lexicographical Tradition, multiple references – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 [sic.!, flawed pagination] – Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, 926 – Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn i, 305 – al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al-fikr, 383 – Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-ghumr vii, 162 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 273 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19 mss attested in:

Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 [sic.!, flawed pagination] (reference given “Br. Mus. 526,3,

Alger 246,4”); Brockelmann, gal sii, 235 (reference given: “Leipz. 426 […] Alger 1909”); www.yazmalar.gov.tr (19 Hk 4551/1—Çorum Hasan Paşa İl Halk Kütüphanesi, ff. 2b– 8a); al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 27–32; al-Jazāʾirī mentions a ms in the Ẓāhi- riyya in Damascus (no. 9225)75 Several manuscripts are also given by Ghānim.76

75 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Ṣilāt wa-l-bushr, lām. 76 Cf. al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 15–16. 212 chapter 4

Status: Extant, published77 (edition used here al-Fīrūzābādī:, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn fi-l-taʿbīr bi-l-sīn wa-l-shīn, Aḥmad ʿAbd Allāh Bājur [ed.], Cairo 1999.)

Contents: This work lists “Vocabulaire des mots ar. s’écrivant indifferemment avec un s ou ch”.78 See also chapter 3.6.

Date: Judging from al-Fīrūzābādī’s extended reference to al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl in his preface, this work was written during al-Fīrūzābādī’s Yemeni period. This dedication suggests conclusion of the work between 796/1393–1394 and 803/1400–1401.

No.: 33

Title: Tanẓīm al-laʾāl fī taḥrīm al-sulāl (Ordering of the pearls regarding the prohibition of wine [w.: the extracted])

Title variants: None extant—singular personal testimony by the author.

Work attested in: Fulton, Fīrūzābādī’s “Wine List”, 580. mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: This work is a second treatise on the names of alcoholics.

77 Besides the edition utilized here, Fischer, gap iii. Supplement, 267 mentions a 1983 Dam- ascene edition of the work. 78 Brockelmann, gal sii, 235. This formulation has been translated verbatim into English by Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī. a lughawī and more 213

Remarks: On this work, Fulton writes: in this preface [that of the Jalīs al-anīs, see item no. 26] he quotes some lines from a collection of aphorisms, which he compiled in rhymed prose condemning wine and embodying its numerous names; he called it Tanẓīm al-laʾālī fī taḥrīm as-sulāli. (Fulton, Fīrūzābādī’s “Wine List”, 580)

Although al-Sakhāwī’s reference to one Asmāʾ al-ḥamd,79 amended to Asmāʾ al- khamd80 by Ghānim, may refer to this work, the only viable proof of its existence is al-Fīrūzābādī’s remark on his authorship.81 The fact that its title is not mentioned in biographies seems to suggest low reception of this work.

Date: As this work is mentioned in the Jalīs al-anīs,82 it must have taq. 764/1362(3).

No.: 34

Title: Tuḥfat al-qamāʿīl fī-man yusammā min malāʾika wa-l-nās (bi-)Ismāʿīl (Present to the Lords on those among angels and men who are named Ismāʿīl)

79 Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82. 80 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 12 n. 5. 81 Cf. Fulton, Fīrūzābādī’s “Wine List”, 580. 82 Ibid. 214 chapter 4

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: This work is on men and angels83 with the name Ismāʿīl. See also chapter 3.6.

Date: This work was written for al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl al-Rasūlī84 and therefore falls into al- Fīrūzābādī’s Yemeni phase. Judging from the inclusion of a citation in the Baṣāʿir, the Tuḥfat al-qamāʿīl must have been composed before or simultaneously with the Baṣāʾir. As al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl did not live to see the conclusion of the latter work, Tuḥfat al- qamāʿīl may also have been concluded after 803/1400–1401.

4.2.1.7 Naḥw

No.: 35

Title: Maqṣūd dhawī l-albāb fī ʿilm al-iʿrāb (The goal of the intelligent regarding the science of iʿrāb [inflection])

83 On the matter of angels see, for example, Chittick, Iblīs and the Jinn. 84 See al-Akwaʿ, Ḥijar al-ʿilm ix, 39, among others. a lughawī and more 215

Title variants: – Maqṣūd dhawī l-albāb fī ʿilm al-iʿrāb (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; al-Ḥabashī, Maṣādir al- fikr; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl; al- Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt) – Maqṣūd dhawī l-albāb min ʿilm al-iʿrāb (al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ)

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: From its title, this work treats the subject of iʿrāb. No specifics have been transmitted. See also chapter 3.2.

Date: Unknown

4.2.1.8 Ṣalāt

No.: 36

Title: al-Ṣalāt wa-l-bushr fi-l-ṣalāt ʿalā khayr al-bashar (The Prayer and the glad tidings regarding prayer on behalf of the best of men [Muḥam- mad]) 216 chapter 4

Title variants: – al-Ṣalāt wa-l-bushr fi-l-ṣalāt ʿalā khayr al-bashar (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn; Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Khashf al-ẓunūn; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; al-Kattānī, Fihrist; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ) – al-Ṣilāt al-bariyya fi-l-Ṣalāt ʿalā khayr al-bariyya (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar85) – aṣ-Ṣilāt wal-bušar fi’ṣ-ṣalāt ʿalā sayyid al-bašar (Brockelmann, gal sii)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 304 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Brockelmann, gal sii, 236 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 277 – Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Khashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1081 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ, 82 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal sii, 236 (reference given: “Brill-H21110”). Ghānim mentions a manuscript in the Maktabat al-Iskandariyya (no. 618/Jaʿfar Walī) and in the Dār al-kutub wa-l-wathāʾiq al-Miṣriyya (no. 182/ḥadīth Taymūr ʿarabī).86

Status: Extant, published (edition used here al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Ṣilāt wa-l-bushr fi-l-ṣalāt ʿalā khayr al-bashar, Mu- ḥammad Nūr al-Dīn ʿAdnān, ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Khayārī and Muḥammad al-Ḥāfiẓ (eds.), Damascus 1385/1966.)

Contents: Work regarding prayer on behalf of Muḥammad.

85 Likely a dublicate title. 86 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 22. a lughawī and more 217

Remarks: This work falls into four abwāb and a khātima.87 In these greater units al-Fīrūzābādī utilizes the didactic question/answer scheme, besides explanatory texts to address questions connected to prayer on behalf of Muḥammad.

Date: The work must have been written after the year 750/1350, since al-Fīrūzābādī mentions al-Subkī. Judging from the the author’s remark in the preface, which connects the work to his decision to visit the mount Thawr, the work may well have tpq. 770/1368.88 It is unknown whether the author actually went on this journey.

4.2.1.9 Shiʿr

No.: 37

Title: Nukhab al-ẓarāʾif fi-l-nukat al-sharāʾif (The witty selections concerning the noble anecdotes)

Title variants: – Nukhab al-ẓarāʾif fi-l-nukat al-sharāʾif (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥan- balī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – al-Tuḥaf wa-l-ẓarāʾif fi-l-nukat al-sharāʾif (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar) – Nukhab al-ṭarāʾif fi-l-nukat al-sharāʾif (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1935 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 83

87 Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1081. 88 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Ṣilāt wa-l-bushr, 3. 218 chapter 4 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: No details regarding this work have been transmitted, but its title suggests that it was a collection of anecdotes.

Remarks: Examination of the contemporaneous manẓūma by Muḥammad b. al-Shamanī (d. 817) and a sharḥ upon this didactic poem by his son, Taqī al-Dīn Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad (d. 876),89 may in the future yield information on this lost work.

Date: Unknown.

Nos: 38, 38a

Title variants a): No title variants

Title variants b): No variants, description (its sharḥ)

89 See Hājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1935. a lughawī and more 219

– al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 83

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: Comment upon the qaṣīda of the same name by Kaʿb b. Zuhayr.90 See also chapter 3.4.

4.2.1.10 Tafsīr

No.: 39

Title: Baṣāʾir dhawī l-tamyīz fī laṭāʾif al-kitāb al-ʿazīz (The keen insights of those with discernment in the subtleties of the holy book91)

90 See al-Qummī, al-Kunnā wa-l-alqāb iii, 38. For details on the poet Basset, see Kaʿb b. Zuhayr. See also Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1329–1330. 91 Translation taken from Gilliot, Exegesis of the Qurʾān, 121. 220 chapter 4

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 276 – Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn i, 243 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 127 – Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya iii, 66 – Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn, 118 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmi vii, 81 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 281 – al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh iv, 288 – al-Zanūzī, Riyāḍ al-janna iv, 147 – al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal sii, 235 (reference given: “Selim Āġā 72”); www.yazmalar.gov.tr (32 Hk 1597—Konya Bölge Yazma Eserler Kütüphanesi, collection: Isparta İl Halk Kütüphanesi, 495 pages and 07 Ak 27—Konya Bölge Yazma Eserler Kütüphanesi, collection: Antalia Akseki Yeğen Mehmet Paşa İlçe Halk Kütüphanesi, 429 pages and 34 Fe 29 – İstanbul Millet Kütüphanesi, collection: Feyzullah Efendi Kolleksiyonu, 307 pages and 42 Kon 3938—Konya Bölge Yazma Eserler Kütüphanesi, collection: Konya İl Halk Kütüphanesi); al-Jazāʾirī mentions a ms in the Kitābkhāne Walī al-Dīn (no. 66) and two mss in the Taymūriyya (nos 229 and 259).92 Ghānim mentions two manuscripts in Cairo (Dār al-Kutub wa-l-Wathāʾiq al-Miṣriyya, nos 229 and 259).93 For a description of the ms in the possession of the Köprülü Library see Şeşen et al., Catalogue i, 113f.,

92 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Ṣilāt wa-l-bushr, kāf. 93 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 14. a lughawī and more 221 no. 212. The same catalogue also lists a summary of al-Baṣāʾir dating from the 11th century a.h.94

Status: Published (edition used here al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir dhawī l-tamyīz fī laṭāʾif al-kitāb al-ʿazīz, Mu- ḥammad ʿAlī al-Najjār (ed.), 6 vols., Cairo 21986 [1406].)

Contents: This is al-Fīrūzābādī’s most famous work in the field of tafsīr and the only whole scale treatment of the Qurʾān currently available and safely ascribable to al-Fīrūzābādī. See also chapter 3.6.2.1.

Date: Because of its dedication to al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl, the work falls into al-Fīrūzābādī’s Yemenī period.

No.: 40

Title: al-Durr al-naẓīm al-murshid ilā maqāṣid al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm (The strung pearls guiding towards the aims of the great Qurʾān)

Title variants: – al-Durr al-naẓīm al-murshid ilā maqāṣid al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al- mufassirīn; al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ) – al-Durr al-naẓīm al-murshid ilā faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – al-Durr al-ʿaẓīm al-murshid ilā maqāṣid al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm (al-Zanūzī, Riyāḍ al-janna)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 276

94 Şeşen et al., Catalogue i, 116, n. 216. 222 chapter 4

– Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 127 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Zanūzī, Riyāḍ al-janna iv, 148 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: No details have been preserved regarding this book. From its title, it is clear that it belongs to the field of maqāṣid al-Qurʾān.

Remarks: Its subject places it on the borderline between tafsīr and lugha.

Date: Unknown

No.: 41

Title: Faṣl fī sūrat Yā-Sīn (A chapter on the sūrat Yā-Sīn)

Title variants: No title variants

Status: Unrecovered a lughawī and more 223

Contents: Treatise on the 36th sūra of the Qurʾān. See also chapter 3.6.

Date: Given al-Jabartī’s request as al-Fīrūzābādī’s motivation for the work, composition the Faṣl fī sūrat Yā-Sīn may be assumed between al-Fīrūzābādī’s arrival in Yemen in 796/ 1393(4) and al-Jabartī’s death in 807/1404(5).

No.: 42

Title: Ḥāṣil kūrat al-khalāṣ fī faḍāʾil sūrat al-ikhlāṣ (The produce of the land of salvation regarding the virtues of the sūrat al-ikhlāṣ)

Title variants: No title variants

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 276 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 127 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 81 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 mss attested in: A manuscript in Mashhad is mentioned by Ghānim.95

Status: Extant, unpublished

Contents: This is an exegetical treatment of the 112th sūra of the Qurʾān.

95 Cf. al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 19. 224 chapter 4

Remarks: By focusing on this sūra, al-Fīrūzābādī examined a part of the Scripture that touches upon the central articles of faith.96 Its recovery therefore could bring insight into al-Fīrūzābādī’s religious convictions.

Date: Unknown

No.: 43 and 43a

Title variants a): – Quṭbat al-khashshāf fī ḥall khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – Quṭbat al-khashshāf fī sharḥ khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ)

Title variants b): – Nughbat al-rashshāf min khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām) – Buhgyat al-rashshāf min khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – Sharḥ quṭbat al-khashshāf fī sharḥ khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn) – Sharḥ quṭbat al-Khashshāf (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – Sharh quṭbat al-ḥassāf fi sharḥ khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ)

96 On this sūra see, for example, Gardet, Ikhlāṣ; Paret, Der Koran, 530. a lughawī and more 225

Title variants, unspecific: – Sharḥ khuṭbat al-Kashshāf (al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl; al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt)

Works attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 and 306 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 276 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 127 – al-Miknāsī, Durrat al-ḥijāl, 290 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 81 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal sii;97 Catalogue of the Tarīm library (digital copy in my possession). Ghānim mentions mss in the Dār al-kutub al-Miṣriyya (no. 300/lugha ʿarabī and no. 500 tafsīr Taymūr ʿarabī).98

Status: Extant, partially published

Contents: This risāla99 is a sentence by sentence commentary upon al-Zamakhsharī’s introduction to his Kashshāf with some small deviations between the textual corpus of the Kashshāf and al-Fīrūzābādī’s own work. See also chapter 3.4.

Date: Al-Fīrūzābādī states that the second of both works was concluded in 768/1366–1367,100 which makes the Nughbat al-rashshāf a product of al-Fīrūzābādī’s time in Egypt.

97 There are no references to mss of the first of the two works. The second is vocalized as “Naghbat” by Brockelmann, gal sii, 235. 98 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 25. 99 Al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19. 100 Cf. al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 27. 226 chapter 4

No.: 44

Title: Taysīr fātiḥat al-īhāb bi-tafsīr fātiḥat al-kitāb (The alleviation of the opening of gifting for the exegesis of the Opening of the Book)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Brockelmann, gal sii, 235 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 127 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 81 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 281 – al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 276 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal sii, 235 (reference given: “Kairo2 i, 42”). Ghānim mentions a manuscript in the Dār al-Kutub wa-l-Wathāʾiq al-Miṣriyya in Cairo (no. [6] tafsīr shīn ʿara- bī).101

101 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 18. a lughawī and more 227

Status: Extant, unpublished

Contents: As is apparent from its name, this work is an exegesis of the first sūra of the Qurʾān. See also chapter 3.6.

4.2.1.11 Tarājim / ʿIlm al-rijāl

No.: 45

Title: al-Bulgha fī tārīkh aʾimmat al-naḥw wa-l-lugha (The sufficience regarding the history of the authorities in naḥw and lugha)

Title variants: – al-Bulgha fī tarājim aʾimmat al-naḥw wa-l-lugha (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn) – al-Bulgha fī taʾrīkh aʾimmat al-lugha (Brockelmann, gal gii; Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī; al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt; al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām) – al-Bulgha fī tarjamat aʾimmat al-nuḥāt wa-l-lugha (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn) – al-Bulgha fī tarājim aʾimmat al-nuḥāt wa-l-lugha (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ) – al-Bulġah fî aʾimmat al-luġah (Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography) – Portio sufficiens de vitis Imamorum grammaticae et lexicologiae (Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/334 [sic.!, flawed pagination, should be ?/234] – Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, 926 228 chapter 4

– Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn, 118 – Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography, 423 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203 – al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19 mss attested in: – Brockelmann, gal gii, sic.!, flawed pagination, should be ?/234] (reference given “Berl. 10060/1.)”, Brockelmann: gal sii, p. 235 (reference given: “Āṣaf. ii, 332,59”); Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, p. 926 – Sezgin, gas viii, 19; al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Bulgha, 5; Ahlwardt, Die Handschriften-Ver- zeichnisse ix, 462 (Staatsbibiothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabtei- lung, nos 10060 and 10061)

Status: Published (edition used here al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Bulgha fi tarājim aʾimmat al-naḥw wa-l-lugha, Mu- ḥammad al-Miṣrī [ed.], Kuwayt 1407/11987.)

Contents: In the Bulgha, al-Fīrūzābādī lists 420 biographies of lughawiyyūn and naḥwiyyūn in alphabetical order according to their ism.

Remarks: This book is praised by al-Sakhāwī, al-Ṣuyūṭī and Tasköprüzāde, who describe it as a fine book, seen in Mecca, and an exceedingly witty book, respectively.102 For the entries al-Fīrūzābādī does not give any sources and they vary in length and detail—at times al-Fīrūzābādī states a man’s name just to add that he has nothing to say on his life. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s compilation includes linguists from the mashriq and the maghrib, as well as scholars adhering to the Kūfan school alongside Baṣrans. Through this inclusive approach, it may also serve as a biographical source,103 not least on al-Fīrūzābādī’s opponent of choice, al-Jawharī.104

102 Cf. al-Sakhāwī, al-Iʿlān, 567; al-Ṣuyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt, 274; and Tasköprüzāde, Miftāḥ al-saʿāda i, 105. 103 Kraemer took advantage of this characteristic. See Kraemer, Studien, 225. Similarly, Ibn al-ʿAlāʾī, Taʿrīf al-qudamāʾ, 419, used the work for his biography of al-ʿAydarūsī. 104 See al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Bulgha, 66. An example of the proliferation of this work is found with a lughawī and more 229

Date: Unknown

No.: 46

Title: al-Mirqāt al-wafiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya (The perfect stair regarding the classes of Ḥanafī scholars)

Title variants:105 – Mirqāt al-wafiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Shaw- kānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ; al-Tarmanīnī. Aḥdāth al-tārīkh, al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām) – al-Alṭāf al-khafiyya fī ashrāf al-Ḥanafiyya (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn;106 Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l- muʾarrikhūn) – Mirqāt al-raqiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafīyya (Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya) – Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya (Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn; al-Kattānī, Fihrist; al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt) – Mirḳāt al-wafiyya fī ṭabaḳāt al-Ḥanafiyya (Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī) – Scala perfecta de classibus Ḥanefitarum (Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya, 66 – Fleisch, al-Fīrūzābādī, 926 – Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1097ff. – Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 92, 94

Ibn al-ʿAlāʾī, who drew on it for his treatment of al–ʿAydarūs; Ibn al-ʿAlāʾī, Taʿrīf al-qudamāʾ, 419. For amendments to the Bulgha, see Ṣidqī, “Naẓarāt”. 105 Al-ʿAẓm and al-Baghdādī mention the work under two different titles. 106 Cites this work twice. 230 chapter 4

– Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shafiʿiyya iii, 66 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh iv, 288 – Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203 – al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām viii, 19 mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal sii, 236 (reference to Spies); www.yazmalar.gov.tr (03 Gedik 17186— Milli Kütüphane Ankara, collection: Afyon Gedik Ahmet Paşa İl Halk Kütüphanesi, 110 pages and 50 Gül-Kara 149—Milli Kütüphane-Ankara, collection: Nevşehir Gülşe- hir Karavezir İlçe Halk Kütüphansi); Spies, Die Bibliotheken des Hidschas, 117. Two manuscripts (miṣr and Mecca) are mentioned by al-Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 94–95.

Status: Extant, unpublished

Contents: This work is a biographical companion to Ḥanafī scholars. See also chapter 3.6.3.

Date: Unknown

No.: 47

Title: al-Mirqāt al-arfaʿiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya (The ascending ladder concerning the classes of the Shāfiʿiyya)

Title variants: – Mirqāt al-arfaʿiyya fī-ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiy- ya) – al-Mirqāt al-arfaʿiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya (Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn) a lughawī and more 231

– Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya (al-Kattānī, Fihrist) – Scala altissima de classibus Schâfi’itarum (Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber)

Work attested in: – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 94 – Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya iii, 66 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: It treats ʿulamāʾ of the madhhab to which al-Fīrūzābādī pointedly affiliated himself by his chosen nisba.

Remarks: This apparently was a counterpart to the previous work.

Date: Unknown

No.: 48

Title: Rawḍat al-nāẓir fī tarjamat al-shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir (The garden of the observer concerning the biography of the shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir)

– Rawḍat al-nāẓir fī tarjamat al-shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303–304 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 93 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Sakhāwī: al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: Biography of ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī. See also chapter 3.3.

Date: Unknown.

No.: 49

Title: Tuḥfat al-abīh fī-man nusiba ilā ghayr abīh (The present to the considerate regarding those who trace themselves to others than their father(s))

Title variants: No title variants

Work attested in: Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/334 [sic.!, flawed pagination, should be ?/234] and by Ghānim (al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 16) mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/334 [sic.!, flawed pagination, should be ?/234] (reference given “Alger 246, 10”); Brockelmann, gal sii, 235 (reference given: “Kairo2 iii, 115, v, 125”); a lughawī and more 233 mss in Alexandria (Maktabat Jāmiʿat al-Iskandariyya, no. 355/Gaʿfar Walī); Cairo (Dār al-kutub al-Miṣriyya, no. 38/adab shīn) and in the Maktabat al-Jazāʾir (46/adab) are given by Ghānim.107

Status: Published (edition used here al-Fīrūzābādī, Tuḥfat al-abīh fī-man nusiba ilā ghayr abīh, in: ʿAbd al-Salām Hārūn [ed.]: Nawādir al-makhṭūṭāt, i, Bayrut 1411/11991, 108–122. [reprint of the edition Cairo 1951, 97–110])

Comments: This work treats persons who trace their descent to one person or more (as strictly speaking al-Fīrūzābādī himself did) and also includes people who were raised as adopted children. See also chapter 3.1

Date: Unknown.

4.2.1.12 Tārīkh / Buldān

No.: 50

Title: Tahyīj al-gharām ilā l-balad al-ḥarām (The stirring of passionate longing for the Holy Land)

107 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 16. 234 chapter 4

Status: Extant, unpublished

Contents: This risāla109 is a history of Mecca. See also chapter 3.4.

Date: In light of quotations, it may be assumed that the Tahyīj was not yet completed when al-Fīrūzābādī wrote al-Maghānim, but that it was at least in a conceptually advanced stage, possibly being written simultaneously to the latter. This would mean tpq. 782/1380–1381.

No.: 51

Title: al-Muttafiq waḍʿan wa-l-mukhtalif ṣuqʿan ((Place)-names that agree in wording but differ in location)

Title variants: – al-Muttafiq waḍʿan wa-mukhtalif ṣunʿan (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; al-Kattānī: Fihrist) – al-Muttafiq waḍʿan al-mukhtalif ṣuqʿan (Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Su- yūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt)

108 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, nūn. 109 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, 219 n. 1. a lughawī and more 235

– al-Muštarik waḍʿan wa-l-muftariq ṣaqʿan (Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography) – al-Muttafiq waḍʿan wa-l-mukhtalif ṣuqʿan (al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ, Hīla: al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn) – Quod scriptura par, situ diversum est (Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber)

Work attested in: – al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305 – al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181 – Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt al-dhahab vii, 128 – al-Kattānī, Fihrist ii, 908 – Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography, 487 – al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82 – al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ ii, 282 – al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274 – Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: This work treats places in different geographical locations, whose names are written identically.110 Wüstenfeld connects it to Yāqūt’s writing.111

Remarks: It has at times been compared to Yaqūt’s Muʿjam al-buldān.112 Given the strong language-related aspect inherent in such a work, this book stands on the borderline between lexicography and geography.

Date: Unknown

110 Cf. Rosenthal, Muslim Historiography, 487. 111 See Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203. 112 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Maghānim, sīn. 236 chapter 4

No.: 52

Title: Nuzhat al-adhhān fī tārīkh Iṣbahān (Delight of the Minds regarding the history of Iṣbahān)

Title variants: – Nuzhat al-adhhān fī tārīkh Iṣbahān (al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn; Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn; al-Sakhāwī, al- Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ; al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ; al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām) – Nazh al-adhhān fī tārīkh Iṣbahān (al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar; al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanba- lī, Shadharāt al-dhahab) – Tārīkh Iṣbahān (al-Tarmanīnī, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh) – Oblectamentum ingeniorum de historia Içpahânae (Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber)

Status: Unpublished

Contents: Treatment of the city Iṣfahān. See also chapter 3.2 a lughawī and more 237

Date: Unknown

No.: 53

Title: Tārīkh Marw (History of Marw)

Title variants: – Historia urbis Merw (Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber) – Tārīkh Marw (al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal) – Tārīkh Harū (al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf )

Work attested in: – al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 15 – al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 21 – Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 203 mss attested in: None listed

Status: Unrecovered

Contents: History of the city Marw.

Remarks: This is mentioned less frequently than other works. Although no explicit mention of a stay in Marw can be found within the biographical corpus, existence of this work suggests the possibility that al-Fīrūzābādī visited the city.

Date: Unknown 238 chapter 4

4.2.1.13 Taṣawwuf

No.: 54

Title: Fatāwā fī Muḥyī l-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī (Fatwas regarding Muḥyī l-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī)

Title variants: Fatāwā fī Muḥyī l-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī Status unclear. Stands for possibly several other works. May be identical with a work named Ightibāṭ bi-maʿājila Ibn al-Khayyāṭ. See above chapter 3.4. mss attested in: Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/334 [sic.!, flawed pagination, should be ?/234] (reference given: “Fātiḥ 5376,3 (= 19?)”); Knysh, Ibn ʿArabi in Later Islamic Tradition, 253

Status: Extant, published

Contents: Treatise on permissiveness of reading Ibn al-ʿArabī’s works.

Date: The fact that this work was supposedly written during al-Nāṣir’s rule makes this work one of al-Fīrūzābādī’s Yemeni writings and gives it tpq. 803/1400–1401.

4.2.2 Disputed and Doubtful Ascriptions The aforementioned works can be ascribed to al-Fīrūzābādī according to consensus. They are mostly mentioned in early sources and their titles are cited with varying degrees of frequency. Besides these writings, there are a number of other works whose status is doubtful. First among these titles are those works that are mentioned by only one source, or by a number of texts that take their information from one and the same original source. Of these unica little more than their title is known and it is unclear whether they actually existed. But they warrant inclusion for the sake of comprehensiveness and due to the implications of these titles for the transmitted image of the scholar al-Fīrūzābādī. A second group comprises works whose ascription to al-Fīrūzābādī is uncertain (or has been disproven), but whose existence is validated by multiple naming or by actually extant material proof. a lughawī and more 239

To complete the overview of works connected to al-Fīrūzābādī, these writings are presented below.

4.2.2.1 Unica Six unica are mentioned in the ʿUqūd al-jawhar:

1. Baṣāʾir al-naẓāʾir, of which al-ʿAẓm states that it treats subjects of lugha113 2. Ibtihāj al-nufūs bi-dhikr mā fāta al-Qāmūs,114 that is placed in this category by its title reference to al-Fīrūzābādī’s most famous work. 3. Sharḥ Tāʾiyyat ʿIzz al-Dīn b. Jamāʿa115 (apparently an interpretation of a poem ending on “t”) 4. Faṣl al-durr fi-l-nuḥūr116 (shiʿr?), written in Ṭāʾif. 5. Jām jahān nāma;117 judging from its obviously Arabicised title, it may have been one of the few works that al-Fīrūzābādī wrote in the Persian language. Of this work, al-ʿAẓm states that it concerned taṣawwuf. 6. A Kitāb al-ʿaqāʾid118 is mentioned, whose subject matter remains unclear. Judging from its title, it could touch upon a wide range of questions,119 possibly including al-Fīrūzābādī’s religious convictions.

Further unica titles are given in the Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal: a. al-Muʿīn (unknown) b. Mukhtaṣar (unknown)

Nothing besides their titles is known of these works, but it is possible that the former may have been connected to the work of Muʾīn al-Dīn Yazdī (789/ 1387),120 a contemporary of Fīrūzābādī and teacher to Shāh Shujāʿ whom al-

113 Al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302. See also Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn i, 246, but without reference to its author. 114 Al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 302, also mentioned by Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233, but with indication of uncertainty regarding its authorship. 115 Al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqʿūd al-jawhar iv, 304. 116 Ibid. 117 Al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 303. 118 Al-ʿAẓm, ʿUqūd al-jawhar iv, 305. Ghānim lists a work by the title of ʿAqāʾid al-Fīrūzābādī (cf. al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 22). As nothing of this work is known, it is unclear whether these two works are identical. 119 For an overview see Watt,ʿAqīda. 120 On him see Hartmann, Muʽīn al-Dīn. 240 chapter 4

Fīrūzābādī met in Tabrīz in 776/1374–1375. The second work may have been connected to ʿImād al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī’s (b. 519/1125)121 work of the same title. Ghānim, with reference to al-Dāwūdī’s Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn,122 additionally mentions a Mazād al-zād.123 Under varying titles, this work is also mentioned in Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn124 and by al-Sakhāwī.125 It is likely that these three texts stand in a line of transmission regarding this title: it would seem that al- Sakhāwī’s reference was copied first by al-Dāwūdī and later by al-Baghdādī. Nothing of this work is known. The editor of the Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal also acknowledges the unique naming of Nuzhat al-ṭālibīn wa-tuḥfat al-rāghīn fī sharḥ Qaṣīdat al-burda in Hadiy- yat al-ʿārifīn. Judging from its title, it may have been a third commentary on Kaʿb b. Zuhayr’s poetry.126 Futher unica are mentioned by al-Kattānī:

1. a Fahrasa127 (subject unknown) 2. a Mashyakha128 (subject unknown) 3. a work by the title of Muʿjam129 (subject unknown)

Al-Suyūṭī refers to a work named al-Wajīz fī laṭāʾif al-kitāb al-ʿazīz,130 which may be counted among works of tafsīr. This title might be an alternative one for the Baṣāʾir dhawī l-tamyīz. Additionally, Bājur mentions a work on the sūrat Ṭāʾ-Hāʾ.131 Apart from these titles, there are a number of works, whose ascription to al-Fīrūzābādī may not be considered secure.

4.2.2.2 Authorship Of certain other works, material proof is extant. Aside from the Tanwīr al- miqbās fī tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās that has seen many editions under al-Fīrūzābādī’s

121 For biographical information see Massé, ʿImād al-Dīn. 122 See al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn ii, 278. 123 Cf. al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 27. 124 See al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181. 125 See al-Sakhāwī, al-Dawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 83. 126 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 28; al-Baghdādī, Ḥadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 181. 127 Al- Kattānī, Fihrist al-fahāris ii, 907. 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid. 130 Al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 274. 131 See al-Fīrūzābādī, Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn, 33. a lughawī and more 241 name,132 the titles in question have not been recorded in biographical tradition on the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs. Rather, they owe their ascription to information provided by copyists (or scribes?), which in itself is no valid proof of de facto authorship. These titles include:

1. Risāla fi-l-intiṣār li-ṣāhib al-futūḥāt al-makkiyya,133 mentioned by Brockel- mann,134 as well as by Ibn Shihāb135 and Ghānim.136 2. al-Sayyid, in the preface to his edition of the Qāmūs, mentions a work entitled al-Farāʾid, that was preserved in the Ẓāhiriyya and awaits examination.137 3. Sharḥ ādāb al-baḥth (available from www.al-Mostafa.com). On this work, Daiber remarks

fol. 191r–192r: al-Fīrūzābādī: Šarḥ ādāb al-baḥṯ. On the expression ḍim- nu qaulihī wa-rutbatuhū [sic.]. Author and title are mentioned fol. 2r The author may be identical with Muḥammad Ibn Yaʿqūb al-Fīrūzābādī who died 817/1515 […] However the title is not mentioned anywhere. The text is a semantic treatment on the use of the terms risāla, muqad- dama (sic) and mauḍūʿ. daiber, Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts, 38

4. Muṣṭalaḥ al-hadīth al-nabawī.138 www.al-Mostafa.com provides a manuscript of this manẓūma. It is the property of the King Saud University and also available from their database, where it is catalogued as category number 213.1/m.P, general number 1643. The 4-page manuscript is dated to 1231h. Determining whether this work actually is al-Fīrūzābādī’s is especially interesting given that it is a longer piece of poetry.

132 For example the 1980 edition by the Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyya in Bayrūt, on which the below description is based. References to mss are given by Ghānim (al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 17–18.). 133 On this work see Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ii, 1238–1239. 134 Brockelmann, gal sii, 236 provides reference to a ms. 135 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Nughbat al-rashshāf, 20. 136 Al-Fīrūzābādī, Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal, 20. 137 Al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ i, 7 (edition by al-Sayyid); see also al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Ṣilāt wa-l-bushr, lām. 138 Probably identical to the work by the title of Urjūzat al-muṣṭalaḥ al-ḥadīth, for which Brockelmann, gal sii, 235–236 gives a ms and references to commentaries. 242 chapter 4

5. The ms database www.al-Mostafa.com furthermore lists a work by the title Muqaddima fī ʿilm al-ḥurūf al-hijāʾ (file name: m016405.pdf), under al-Fīrū- zābādī’s name. 6. Additionally, al-Hīla mentions a work with the title of Faḍāʾil al-khamsa, for which he does not give references of transmission, but states that it has been printed.139 7. Brockelmann refers to a work named Risāla fī ḥukm al-qanādīl al-nabawiyya fī dhikr al-qanādīl al-Madīna al-munawwara min al-dhahab wa-l-fiḍḍa.140 He specifies that that this work treats the permissiveness of silver and golden chandeliers in al-Madīna.141 Fatāwā on individual questions over the per- missiveness142 of certain religious practices certainly fall into the realm of legal activities. Recovery of the work could therefore possibly shed new light on al-Fīrūzābādī’s activities as a qāḍī, besides exemplifying his pronounced interest in matters related to the holy sites and Muḥammad. One further question to be addressed of these documents is their connection to al-Subkī’s work on a similar subject. If it is a work by al-Fīrūzābādī, it is possible that Risāla fī ḥukm al-qanādīl al-nabawiyya may have been a statement made in the capacity of qāḍī, which would give the work tpq. 797/1394– 1395.

To settle the question of authorship, al-Fīrūzābādī’s textual and stylistic markers will have to be established on the basis of those works that can with reasonable security be ascribed to the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs. This issue of authorship is settled regarding the work that dominates internet discourse on al-Fīrūzābādī, the Tanwīr al-miqbās min tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās.143 Of this “‘Arabic translation’ of the scripture”,144 there are a number of printed editions that have been published under al-Fīrūzābādī’s name.145 From these, systematic treatment of the individual suwar is visible. Treatment of each sūra

139 Al-Hīla, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn, 94. 140 Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/334 (reference given “eb. 1360,3”); idem, gal sii, 235 (reference given: “Alger 1360,6, Köpr. Mğm. 1587”). 141 Cf. Brockelmann, gal sii, 235. 142 Although the use of lamps in religiously significant places was widespread after having been declared permissive, it was not uncontested; see Beg, Sirādj and Ehrenkreutz, Dhahab. 143 On him see Veccia Vaglieri, ʿAbd Allāh b. al-ʿAbbās, and Sezgin, gas viii, 21. 144 Rippin, Lexicographical Texts and the Qurʾān, 164. 145 For manuscripts see Brockelmann, gal sii; Sezgin, gas i. For the challenges posed by these editions see Rippin, Tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās, 41–42. a lughawī and more 243 is begun with a synopsis of its central topic, its allocation to either the Med- inan or the Meccan period, and a precise indication of the number of āyāt, words, and letters that constitute the text of the respective sūra. In tarājim on al-Fīrūzābādī, it is said to have consisted of four mujalladāt.146 No further remarks are made by biographers and it is therefore apparent that they considered the work to be undoubtedly authored by al-Fīrūzābādī, just as Sezgin assumed.147 This view stands vis-à-vis other perceptions. Versteegh and Renard, for instance, advocate the view that the ascription was false.148 This view is shared by a number of other scholars, who assume Ibn ʿAbbās and al-Kalbī as possible authors rather than al-Fīrūzābādī. Böwering sees the Tanwīr as a collection of traditions transmitted by al-Kalbī from al-Hāshimī gathered by al-Fīrūzābādī.149 Rippin, on the other hand, dates it into the 3rd or 4th hijrī century,150 as he considers the authorship of al-Kalbī absurd and that of Ibn ʿAbbās even more so.151 Rather, he connects the work to al-Dīnawarī’s Wāḍiḥ fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān.152 These findings are considered further by Rippin in his “Tafsīr Ibn Abbās” (1994), in which he traces the contradictions surrounding ascription of the text to al-Fīrūzābādī. In concurrence with Rippin, Gilliot concludes that “if it seems to be confirmed that al-Fīrūzābādī did write a commentary bearing that title, it is nevertheless certain that the work which circulates under this title is not by him”.153 The text on Ibn ʿAbbās written by the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs therefore still awaits recovery. The same is true of a number of al-Fīrūzābādī’s other works, as the above overview has shown. For the currently unrecovered writings, as well as for those that have been preserved, there should be future in-depth analysis to consolidate our picture of their author. The above examinations of al-Fīrūzābādī’s vita and works bring to light certain aspects of his unexplored scholarly profile that will be presented in the following.

146 Cf. for example al-Sakhāhwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 82. 147 Cf. Sezgin, gas i, 27. This view is also shared by Brockelmann, gal s ii, 235, al-Qaysī, Tārīkh al-tafsīr, 135, and others. As Rippin points out, however, there are some contradictions within Sezgin’s attribution of the work; Rippin, al-Zuhrī, 23. 148 See Versteegh, Arabic Grammar, 60, and Renard, Windows on the House of Islam, 394, n. 7. 149 See Böwering, The Scriptual “Senses”, 359. 150 Rippin, Lexicographical Texts and the Qurʾān, 164. 151 Rippin, al-Zuhrī, 23. 152 Ibid. 153 Gilliot, The beginnings of Qurʾānic exegesis, 254. I thank Prof. Gilliot for his advice on this matter. 244 chapter 4

4.3 Overview of Works

It has been shown that Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī was a much more complex personality, both personally and academically, than it may appear from the undisputed core of information outlined in Chapter 1. The biographies and works contain traits of his scholarly profile. These facets have gone largely unnoticed, leading to a narrow image of the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs. The following chapter highlights them as key points of departure for future research on al- Fīrūzābādī, as they show polymatic ambitions. A complete overview of al- Fīrūzābādī’s writing will have to wait until the remainder of his works have been recovered and until the individual constituents of al-Fīrūzābādī’s oeuvre, as well as his personal markers as a writer, have been examined. At present, the following can be said: Reference to al-Fīrūzābādī is given mostly in conjunction with the title of al-lughawī. Only occasionally do we find the epithet al-muḥaddith and even less frequently al-faqīh. However, his scholarship was not limited to these fields of study. The preceding overview has shown that the number of al-Fīrūzābādī’s writings is greater than the 40 works commonly ascribed to him. Furthermore, their subjects are much more diverse than the honourific titles granted to their author suggest. As mentioned previously, al-Fīrūzābādī’s oeuvre is characterized by a strong interest in matters of language and religion. In these areas of expertise, he wrote the greatest number of works. Nonetheless, portraying him only as a student of these disciplines would not do justice to his scholarly profile. Rather, he can be seen as a polymath who composed monographs in no less than twelve scientific disciplines. Moreover, there are a number of subjects that are not treated monographically, but which are included in some of his works, such as, for example, medical aspects which are mentioned in the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ. Al-Fīrūzābādī did not have equal command of all the disciplines he covered so that, for example, regarding fiqh, al-Fīrūzābādī wrote little in the field proper. Only six of the recorded 80 works can with reasonable certainty be counted in the field of fiqh and kalām. This produces an ambivalent picture: the small quantity of works in the field of fiqh cannot be taken at face value as an indicator of lacking expertise. Al-Fīrūzābādī became an actor in the legal field after he had spent most of his life studying other fields, mostly lugha and ḥadīth. It therefore seems reasonable that he may have needed some time to accommodate the new necessities. That he did so is clear from the reported lessons at the hands of ʿAbd Allāh al-Nāshirī, Ibn Qahr and Ibn al-Muqrī. That he tried to spend as much of his time as possible outside Yemen strongly suggests that he was not a lughawī and more 245

graph 2 Works according to subject overly enthusiastic regarding his office as qāḍī, aside from the power it provided in his standoff with Ibn al-Muqrī. Another field in which al-Fīrūzābādī’s writing is at times disputed was that of poetry. Apart from his commentaries on the Bānat Suʿād, al-Fīrūzābādī did not write monographs on the subject. In the Qāmūs, he deleted much of the shawāhid commonly included as indications of usage. Nonetheless, this should not be taken as a sign of general aversion to rhyming. Rather, it is a decision taken in the interest of space. Similarly marginal in terms of writings are the fields of adab and naḥw. On the former, no conclusions can currently be drawn. In the field of grammar, al-Fīrūzābādī concerned himself only with the phenomenon of iʿrāb, while relying on others scholars’ writing for his works, as outlined above. Regarding the field of ḥadīth, posterity’s assessment is slightly imbalanced. Besides linguistics, this field was the strongest of his oeuvre. But al-Fīrūzābādī’s impact on the most prominent ḥadīth scholar of the age, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, seems questionable. The sources suggest a notable increase in al-Fīrūzābādī’s teaching of and writing on religious matters after his transition to Yemen.Based on the titles mentioned, works of ḥadīth effectively outnumber those of other fields as far as transmission to his students is concerned. Still, al-Fīrūzābādī is not remembered as a muḥaddith, but as a lexicographer. Of his personal attitudes in the field one interesting element has come to light, as van Ess says: “Fīrūzābādī, der Verfasser des Qāmūs, erklärt ganz dezidiert, daß kein Ḥadīt in dem die Murğiʾa und die Qadariya getadelt würden, authentisch (ṣaḥīḥ) sei”.154

154 “Fīrūzābādī, the author of the Qāmūs, explicitely declares that no ḥadīth in which the 246 chapter 4

This statement is corroborated by the khātima of the Sifr al-saʿāda, and it may be seen as a manifestation of historical consciousness in matters of ḥadīth evaluation.155 It is not surprising that al-Fīrūzābādī—somewhat ironically— showed a pronounced interest in genealogy. This especially concerned the ṣaḥāba, as is evident from the focus chosen for his bio-genealogical monograph (see above, item no. 49). This concern also ties in with his interest in Bābā Ratan, for whose assessment he travelled to Bhattinda. Despite the reservations voiced regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s skills in fiqh, shiʿr, adab and naḥw, the breadth of subjects addressed by the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs is considerable. It speaks of polymathic ambitions. These ambitions are clearest with two of his most copious works, the Qāmūs and the Baṣāʾir. While the former included words from a wide range of registers, the outline of the latter clearly shows that al-Fīrūzābādī wanted to treat all the major disciplines of his time. Of the 80 works ascribed to al-Fīrūzābādī, 29 are lost, 13 are extant but unpublished and 15 published in part or in whole.156 Of these titles, 14 are unica of which no material proof has been recovered, and 9 are of doubtful or disproven authorship. This leaves a core of 56 writings of acceptable ascription, of which 29 are lost, 14 in manuscript and 14 (partially) published. The overall image of ascription to al- Fīrūzābādī, as established by the previous examinations, is the following. Regarding those works that are widely accepted as al-Fīrūzābādī’s own, underlying strata of his oeuvre can be discerned: the first of these characteristics surfaces if one tries to systematize al-Fīrūzābādī’s writings into disciplines. A fair number of them transcend such categories. In a number of biographies this led to the utilization of disciplinary conglomerates that have been retained up to the near past.157 The Tuḥfat al-abīh fī-man nusiba ilā ghayr abīh (item 49), for example, might be counted among works of kalām (to which the genre of ʿilm al-rijāl may be counted158), or as a biographical work (as done here), depending on the view taken on it. This transcending of disciplines is especially clear with the Baṣāʾir dhawī l-tamyīz (item no. 39). In its deviation from

Murjiʾa and the Qadariyya are rebuked, could be authentic (ṣaḥīḥ)”. Van Ess, Zwischen Ḥadīṯ und Theologie, 129. On the Qadiriyya see Margoliouth, Ḳādiriyya. 155 As a case study for the connected implications see for example Gilliot, Le sept “lectures” and idem, Le sept “lectures”. Second Partie. 156 For summary listings of different editions of published works cf. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Dhak- hāʾir al-turāth ii, 746–748, and Weipert, Classical Arabic Philology, 34–35. 157 Cf., for example, al-Sakhāwī and Fleisch. 158 See Scarcia Amoretti, ʿIlm al-ridjāl. a lughawī and more 247

graph 3 Works according to consensus established customs of composition, the Baṣāʾir is a special case among al- Fīrūzābādī’s books. A number of al-Fīrūzābādī’s writings rather defy categorization because they approach a specific question from the perspective of multiple scholarly fields: al-Fīrūzābādī’s work on those who have been called Ismāʿīl (item no. 34) could be counted among his religious endeavors (it commences with the Prophet Ismāʿīl and treats angels) or it could be grouped with onomastics. The Maqāṣid al-Qurʾān (item no. 40) is both in the realms of tafsīr159 and lugha. Also, the Ishārāt mā fī kutub al-fiqh (item no. 9) could be seen as a work of fiqh,160 onomastics, geography or lugha. Vis-à-vis this, there are fields of expertise in which al-Fīrūzābādī’s foci are clear cut: in contrast to other authors, he concentrates exclusively on places connected to the Holy Cities and the pilgrimage in matters of manāqib. In ḥadīth,161 he covers a range of classifications, from weak to strong aḥādīth, and he had a specific interest in al-Bukhārī’s work, the canonical collection which he studied most frequently.

159 On tafsīr see Rippin, Tafsīr. 160 On these disciplines see Schacht, Fiḳh, and Gardet, ʿIlm al-Kalām. 161 On the discipline of ḥadīth see Robson, Ḥadīth. 248 chapter 4

The most strongly specialized interest, however, can be detected in the field of lugha. Here, al-Fīrūzābādī displays flexibility in methodology of organiza- tion162 alongside a strongly defined focus on linguistic patterns. His linguistic interest seems to have been not so much on grammar and syntax but rather in the fields of semantics and morphology. He shows pronounced interest in synonyms (item nos. 2, 6, 22, 23, 24, 26, 31 and 33), morphology/phoneme sub- stitution (item nos. 30, 30a, 32) and—arguably—typography (items no. 30, 30a, 32 and 51), alongside his concern with al-Jawharī (item nos 27, 28, 29). Rare expressions (item no. 25) and grammatical phenomena (item no. 35) are not as central. There is another, related, thread in al-Fīrūzābādī’s corpus: his love of word lists. More specifically, many of his works contain chapters on the vocabulary connected to their respective subjects. These lists often consist of indices of proper names, and as such they are lists of synonyms. Such elements can be found in a number of his works. On the one hand, these may be said to correspond to the instances of monographic listings of synonyms (items no 20, 23, 24, 26, 31 and 33); on the other, they are incorporated in the framework of more comprehensive treatments of a certain subject. This fact brings to light the most central element in al-Fīrūzābādī’s overall scholarly approach and outlook, an approach that also accounts for the mentioned difficulties in categorizing his oeuvre: providing all the names for something in a monograph, approaching a subject monographically from the perspective of multiple disciplines and—especially in the case of his manāqib and the Baṣāʾir—providing extensive alphabetical lists of explanations for matters connected to the respective subject, these summarily are indicators of an encyclopaedic approach. Given the total number of listings of synonyms and, last but not least, the enormous—encyclopaedic163—scope of the Encompass- ing Ocean, this overall approach certainly has a strong linguistic character to it. However, this tendency to encyclopaedic perspective also influenced the outcome of al-Fīrūzābādī’s editorial in creating the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, which in its turn became an unmarked index (an index without explicit statement of references and sources) of the lexicographical tradition. Besides the field of lugha, the religious sciences constituted a second area of pronounced productivity, and there is a clear focus on the only legitimate sources of the sunna as according to al-Shāfiʿī: the Qurʾān and ḥadīth.

162 For an overview of these possible modi see Carter, lexicography, medieval. 163 As judged by van Ess, Encyclopaedic Activities, 14. a lughawī and more 249

Regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s treatment of the Qurʾān, the overall image is heterogeneous: besides a treatise on the maqāṣid al-Qurʾān (item no. 40), al- Fīrūzābādī showed a particular interest in al-Zamakhasharī’s exegesis (items no. 43 and 43a) and individual suwar (items no. 41, 42, 44), with the only comprehensive treatment of the Qurʾān (item no. 39) being an atypical stylistic and methodological hybrid. The subject of the Qurʾān takes second place to al-Fīrūzābādī’s preoccupation with Muḥammad and matters of prophecy.164 Besides Muḥammad, Ismāʿīl is treated outside the Baṣāʾir and is named at the beginning of the Tuḥfat al- qamāʿīl (see above, item no. 34). Al-Fīrūzābādī’s particular preoccupation with Muḥammad is one point of interest for al-Fīrūzābādī’s position as a scholar on the eve of the Early Modern Period.

164 On the characteristics of prophecy see Schöck, Propheten. chapter 5 A Man on the Eve of the Early Modern Period

In many respects, al-Fīrūzābādī adhered to the conventions of his time: he embarked on his search for knowledge at a normal age; he was promoted by scholars who held political office; and he sought protection and a livelihood from noble patrons and repaid their favour with books dedicated to them. He also spent a considerable period of time in Damascus, a central meeting-point for the contemporary travelling intellectual elite.1 The main members of his network and the information about his education that has been preserved also show him to have moved within safely-established frameworks. In terms of reception Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Futūḥāt are possibly the most controversial. In terms of writings, al-Fīrūzābādī’s twofold commentary on al-Zamakhsharī stands out as somewhat anachronistic, as the heyday of the controversy surrounding the Muʿtazila had passed. On the other hand, the Kashshāf has continued to be commented upon and studied up to the present day, making al-Fīrūzābādī one link in a long chain of this tradition. Despite his purported personal motives, even his yearning for Mecca was not unheard of in pious cycles. Similarly, al-Fīrūzābādī’s decision to move to Yemen made him one of a number of scholars who sought refuge from political upheavals of the time in the Rasūlid realm. Furthermore, through his contacts with a number of religious groups, al-Fīrūzābādī’s contacts and writings mirror the circumstances of his time. Roemer stresses the complexity of religious matters at the centre of the Mongol Storms saying:

Die Wirklichkeit […] zeigt einen großen Teil der islamischen Welt in leb- hafter religiöser Bewegung. Diese beginnt spätestens mit dem Untergang des abbasidischen Chalifats, mit der Herrschaft der Mongolen und mit der dadurch bewirkten Zurückdrängung der Theologen im islamischen Osten. Zu ihren wichtigsten Kennzeichen gehören zahlreiche Äußerun- gen der Volksfrömmigkeit, die Zunahme des islamischen Ordenswesens (ṭarīqāt, taṣawwuf ), der Heiligenverehrung, des Wallfahrtswesens, der

1 Bauer, Die Kultur der Ambiguität, 325.

Wundergläubigkeit, der Verehrung ʿAlīs und der Sippe des Propheten (ahl al-bait) überhaupt.2 roemer, Persien auf dem Weg in die Neuzeit,3160f.

Al-Fīrūzābādī was strongly connected to the Shāfiʿī madhhab. He demonstrated this attachment by composing a ṭabaqāt work on its scholars and through his choice of his personal ancestral claims. Although no reports have come down to us that attest to his reading the Tanbīh or other writings, al-Suyūṭī’s description of al-Isʿād bi-l-iṣʿād ilā darajat al-ijtihād suggests that al-Fīrūzābādī followed al- Shāfiʿī in his rejection of taqlīd.4 In al-Fīrūzābādī’s writing, occasional explicit recourse to al-Shāfiʿī can also be found, and he supported this madhhab in his own madāris. However, in these schools he is also said to have installed Mālikī scholars. Only a few connections to this madhhab can be detected in al-Fīrūzābādī’s vita. Among them is his early exposure to Ibn ʿArafa’s work, whose writings he studied in Shīrāz, as well as in his reception of the Muwaṭṭaʾ. Among his teachers, al-Khalīl b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān stands out as a Mālikī contact, but beyond these details no information is available regarding al-Fīrūzābādī’s motivation for installing Mālikī teachers in his schools. However, one concrete indication in this respect is al-Fīrūzābādī’s contact with his pupil al-Fāsī, who became the Mālikī qāḍī of Mecca. More pronounced than these hints at Mālikī connections are factors that suggest contact with the Ḥanafī madhhab, as outlined above. To these contacts, circumstancial evidence for his reception of Ḥanbalī matters may be added, as also shown. Whether al-Fīrūzābādī was also influenced by al-Jīlānī’s Sufi activities presents itself as one further question to be addressed with regards to his biography of al-Jīlānī and the Imtiḍāḍ al-shihād fī iftirāḍ al-jihād (see above, item no. 10). These various interests and contacts show al-Fīrūzābādī’s interactions with the different religious groups of his time. An awareness of contemporary conditions can also be detected in his pronounced detachment from most of the

2 “Reality […] shows a great part of the Islamic world in lively religious motion. This motion begins at the latest with the downfall of the ʿAbbāsid caliphate, with the rule of the Mongols and the pushing back of theologians in the Islamic east caused by it. Among its most important manifestations are numerous manifestations of folk piety, the increase of Islamic orders (ṭarīqāt, taṣawwuf ), of reverence for saints, of pilgrimage, of belief in miracles and of worship of ʿAlī and of the prophet’s family (ahl al-bayt) in general”. 3 For reference to al-Fīrūzābādī see p. 119. 4 On this see Calder, Taḳlīd. 252 chapter 5 contemporary political conflicts. As far as the sources reveal, he kept out of harm’s way for most of his life, and his relocation to Yemen also reveals his good sense of self-preservation as, through his departure, he managed to evade the effects of Tīmūr’s renewed campaigns. These major outbursts of tensions with Tīmūr came at a time when al-Fīrūzābādī had withdrawn to Mecca and Yemen. It is likely, therefore, that an invitation by al-Ashraf Ismāʾīl fortunately coincided with the scholar’s need to seek a safer place. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s departure from Bursa, and from Baghdad at the Gürgen’s approach, are one of only few instances in which al-Fīrūzābādī’s travels actually seem to have been affected by political conflicts. The third of these instances of influence concerns al-Fīrūzābādī’s double focus of Yemen and Mecca in the last phase of his life. As has been shown, there is reason to believe that both his desire to move to Mecca and his return to Yemen can be read in the context of the conflict surrounding the teachings of Ibn al-ʿArabī. Al-Fīrūzābādī’s renewed activities inside the Rasūlid realm thus may not have been entirely voluntary. In contrast, his endeavors to declare a Rasūlid khalīfa certainly were. Wheth- er this proclamation was motivated by an acute awareness of the destabilized political situation as well as a personal desire to support his patron’s stance has to remain open. Regardless of which it is, al-Fīrūzābādī’s concern for the caliphate—while bold in its directness—situates him amidst common political debates and practices of his time. Despite his debatable statements regarding the consequences on the development of intellectual and cultural history, al-Faruque fittingly summarizes the impact of the Mongol Storm when he says:

The Mongol conquest of Baghdād under Hülegü Khan in 656/1258 is a landmark in the history of Islam. Throughout its history Islam never experienced a greater catastrophe. It brought the classical period of Islamic history to an end. al-faruque, The Mongol Conquest, 194

Vis-à-vis this detachment from political conflicts, active participation in some of the main debates of his time can be discerned. Among the issues addressed are the debates surrounding muʿammarūn, grave visitation, and the mawlid. Most pronounced among these contemporary controversies is the debate over the legitimacy of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s books. Through his outspoken defence and with the help of the power he gained through his office and scholarly prestige, al-Fīrūzābādī contributed markedly to the spreading and consolidation of these teachings in Yemen at a time when the reception of Ibn al-ʿArabī was a man on the eve of the early modern period 253 seriously opposed in many places and when the debate had reached a new level of intensity. In this dispute, al-Fīrūzābādī set the tone for developments after his death and thereby was among those scholars who actually ensured that Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings would continue to spread rather than be suppressed. As well as this important influence in favour of the Ṣāḥib al-Futūḥāt, another issue continued to gain momentum after al-Fīrūzābādī’s death, one related to his strong interest in matters of prophecy.The breadth of his concern with these questions is evident in the variety of subjects which he addresses, namely the mawlid5 (item no. 17), daʿwa and prophecy (items no. 16 and 17), the qaṣīdat al- burda as a document of a memorable incident (items no. 38 and 38a), Muḥam- mad’s way of life (item no. 18), and prayer on his behalf (item no. 36). Besides these matters connected to the living, al-Fīrūzābādī also treated subjects concerning the transmission of his legacy, among which are how to ascertain valid chains of transmission (item no. 49), and the study of the transmission itself (items no. 12, 13, 19, 21). His treatment of these subjects involves works from different fields of scholarship. Particularly with regard to fiqh, it should be noted that a twofold reading can be applied to his rejection of taqlīd, and he certainly followed in al-Shāfiʿī’s footsteps, as Suyūṭī remarks. On the other hand, assigning paramount importance to the soundest of aḥādīth and the resulting sunna as the central source for legal decisions inevitably makes their subject, Muḥammad, the most important factor.6 The second of these readings is further supported by the variety demonstrated in al-Fīrūzābādī’s examination of aḥādīth, in which he by no means limited himself exclusively to those reports that were ṣaḥīḥ: “Die Prophetenbiographie ist […] eine hinsichtlich textlicher Gestalt und Anord- nung besondere Form der Zusammenstellung bzw. Kontextualisierung von Ḥadīṯ-Material”, says Schöller.7 Consequently, a pronounced interest in the whole of ḥadīth literature—as shown by al-Fīrūzābādī—may indicate not only a stance in the field of fiqh, but also a pronounced personal interest in Muḥammad. To this aspect, the disciplines of fiqh/kalām (items no. 9–11), ḥadīth (items no. 12–21), biography (items no. 45–49), poetry (items no. 38–38a), and faḍāʾil (items no. 3–8) also

5 On mawlid see Knappert, Mawlid or Mawlūd. 6 On this issue of shifting authority see also Schöller, Exegetisches Denken, 163ff.; Jackson, From Prophetic Actions, 72. 7 “The prophet’s biography is a special form of compilation resp. contextualization of ḥadīth material regarding textual characteristics and arrangement”; Schöller, Exegetisches Denken, 147. 254 chapter 5 contribute their share. Additionally, with treatises on honey8 (item no. 2) and iʿrāb (item no. 35),9 as well as his history of Mecca (item no. 50), al-Fīrūzābādī also selected topics of general religious relevance. Besides these written indicators of al-Fīrūzābādī’s special interest in the prophet of Islam, there are also clear biographical ones, given his prolonged presence in Mecca and the lifelong focus given to the Holy Cities. His choice of ancestor plays a significant role in this context; by choosing first Isḥāq al- Fīrūzābādī and later Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq as his forebears, al-Fīrūzābādī effectively connected himself to the Prophet’s family, and these choices may have been motivated by political considerations, as indicated above. Besides these possible political implications, al-Fīrūzābādī’s preoccupation with Muḥam- mad is also relevant in the religio-historical arena, as it foreshadows an important development of the Early Modern Period, on whose threshold al-Fīrūzābā- dī stood.10 As Reichmuth says:

Typisch für die nzl. Entwicklung der islam. Theologie war ferner eine immer stärkere Hervorhebung des Propheten Muḥammad als religiöses und moralisches Vorbild und als maßgebliche Autorität im Recht, aber auch im mystischen Sinne als ursprüngliches Geschöpf Gottes […]11 reichmuth, Islam. 1–4, 1100

That al-Fīrūzābādī’s chosen focus was a sign of the rising Propheten-Frömmig- keit12 is more than likely, especially as the mystical aspects of this venera-

8 He was by far not the only scholar to study this subject. See for example Canova, al- Maqrīzī’s Treatise on Bees, for discussion of a work from al-Fīrūzābādī’s closer prosopographical surroundings. 9 See Chejne, The Arabic Language, 12. For statements regarding the traditional reputation of iʿrāb as a marker of linguistic competence see Pellat, Arabische Geisteswelt, 168– 169. 10 Following Jaeger, the onset of the Early Modern Period falls into the mid-15th century c.e. Cf. Jaeger, Neuzeit. On the Early Modern Period itself see Behringer, Frühe Neuzeit. 11 “Furthermore, an ever increasing emphasis of the prophet Muḥammad as a religious and moral role model and as a decisive authority in law, but also in the mystical sense as a primordial creation of god, was typical of the development of Islamic theology in modernity”. 12 See Reichmuth, Tradition. 4.-4.4: Islam, 693. See also Tagungsbericht ht 2010: Historische Epochengrenzen und Periodisierungssysteme im globalen Vergleich 28.09.2010–001.10.2010, Berlin, in: H-Soz-u-Kult, 30.10.2010, available online at http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu -berlin.de/tagungsberichte/id=3346 (30 April, 2012). a man on the eve of the early modern period 255 tion for Muḥammad was also important for Sunnī mystics,13 a descriptor that arguably fits the Sāḥib al-Qāmūs and his preoccupation with Ibn al-ʿArabī. Also, al-Fīrūzābādī’s concern with salāsil, ṣaḥāba, and muʿammarūn fits into this picture.14 Such a preoccupation with Muḥammad may also explain why al-Fīrūzābādī made limited efforts in the field of exegesis. Reports of his education suggest that ḥadīth was much stronger a focus than tafsīr. Also, as the Tanwīr al-miqbās is a mis-ascription, al-Fīrūzābādī’s work on tafsīr effectively amounts to no more than eight works that treat specific aspects of the Qurān. To these endeavors, the Baṣāʾir may be added—a non-traditional glossary that does not even include the sacrosanct text itself. As highlighted, the dating of his works suggests that there was an increase in religiously oriented writings by al-Fīrūzābādī at a late point of the scholar’s life, while his earliest works chiefly treat matters of language. These religious writings, however, do not primarily concern the Qurān, but rather Muḥammad, despite the fact that al-Fīrūzābādī held an office in jurisprudence in later life. This may be due to the fact that there was a growing tendency to set Muḥammad above the Qurān as a source of law.15 This concern with the imitatio Muhammadi ties in with the increasing po- tency of mystical strata, on whose behalf al-Fīrūzābādī faced a decade of controversy. Through his focus on both Muḥammad and Ibn al-ʿArabī, al-Fīrūzābā- dī participated in preparing for the developments of the following centuries that saw a pronounced concern with Muḥammad and with Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings.16 The third central element in which al-Fīrūzābādī had lasting influence is through his linguistic work. He lived in a time of changing relations between the Arabic and the Persian languages, and he himself stood between them. In biographical reports, Persian language has moved to the periphery, and al- Fīrūzābādī seems to have written very little in his mother tongue; Sifr al-saʿāda is the only work of which this is definitely the case. This work, however, was translated into Arabic even before its author died.17 Similarly, it is stated that al-Fīrūzābādī was a fine poet in both the Arabic and the Persian languages.

13 Reichmuth, Islam. 1–4, 1100. On the Sufīc element in concentration on Muḥammad and the ḥadīth see also Reichmuth, Muslimische Gesellschaften, 965. 14 As the growing concentration on Muḥammad automatically entailed an increased interest in ḥadīth in general and in valid chains of transmission specifically; cf. Reichmuth, Sufismus, 114. 15 See, for example, Jackson, From Prophetic Actions, 72. 16 Cf. Reichmuth, Islam. 1–4, 1100. 17 Brockelmann, gal gii, ?/233 provides reference to a translation dated 814/1401. 256 chapter 5

Although very little has been preserved in the former, the sources do not yield any material in the latter. It is possible that this imbalance between both languages may be indicative of the author trying to make a point of his expertise. The critical potential of linguistic competence and performance of foreign languages is expressed in an anecdote told by Ahmad. He writes:

Haven’t you heard the interesting story about the compiler of the Arabic lexicon, Qāmūs? This much at least you may know that of the numerous Arabic lexicons, Qāmūs is the most exhaustive and authentic. Its compiler was of Persian origin. Ever since his childhood he had aspired to become a master of Arabic. He studied as much as possible in Persia. Then he went from place to place—Najd, Tahama, Yemen, Syria, Khazarat and Badawa—to gain mastery over it. He pursued his ambition throughout his life and then he compiled the Qāmūs, which is still considered an authority all over the world. But look, how God was to expose his knowledge of Arabic. He married an Arab woman. One night he asked his maid-servant to blow out the earthen lamp. What did his parrot-like speech reveal? Instead of the Arabic idiom ‘blow out the lamp’ he used the Persian one, ‘murder the lamp’. The Arab wife at once found out. The very next morn- ing she went to the Qazi’s court and made a complaint against him. God knows whether she remained with him or got separated but his knowledge of Arabic was well exposed. ahmad, Ibn al-waqt, 4–5.

Aḥmad’s words stand in the context of rebuking English criticism of Bengali English and therefore stem from a specific political context. Furthermore, it is unclear from which source he took the very minute details of the described occasion. Thus, their authenticity consequently remains doubtful as it cannot be evaluated. Yet the above statement is interesting nevertheless. First of all, it presents al-Fīrūzābādī as the prototype of a non-Arabic native speaker trying to acquire the Arabic language and simultaneously is an example of political utilization of the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs by posterity. Secondly, despite the necessary reservations surrounding this tale, it highlights the socio-linguistic tensions between Arabic and Persian, a tension that was perceived as acute by al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, who stresses how strongly al- Fīrūzābādī strove to master the Arabic language.18

18 Al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman, 297. a man on the eve of the early modern period 257

Al-Fīrūzābādī’s linguistic influence is most obvious in relation to the Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ. The reported foci on this work reveal the points that were regarded as critical. The majority of commentaries on the Qāmūs are centred on its treatment of al-Jawharī. However, critiques—even polemics—of one lexicographer against another are not rare in the field. To a certain degree, it was even customary among such works and was required in order to set one’s own work apart from preceding ones. Al-Ṣaghānī, for example, strongly criticized al-Jawharī without sparking a response as strong as that to The Encompassing Ocean. This difference in reception may be explained by the unrivalled spread of the Qāmūs—the more attention a work receives, the more scholars may be tempted to comment on it. This spread, however, presents a question in itself: as al-Jawharī had been treated extensively before al-Fīrūzābādī’s Qāmūs, this element cannot have been the main asset of the work at the time. His biographers, especially al-Sakhawī, Ṭashköprüzādeh and Ibn Ḥajar, praise the Qāmūs very highly. The most frequently given reason for praise in literature on the Qāmūs is the ease of its use. This ease of use, however, only applies to those who have sufficient command of Arabic to make sense of the at-times rather cryptic definitions. To clarify what its readers saw in The Encompassing Ocean, it is necessary to analyse the Qāmūs regarding features other than its treatment of al-Jawharī, especially where the nahḍa19 is concerned. Not least for the number of works on the lexicon and due to the size of the lexicon itself, this cannot be done here. The Qāmūs displays a rather curious mixture of approaches. Its macro structure follows previous authors’ examples, while the internal structure of lemmata is highly organized and systematic. The book therefore displays a somewhat utilitarian approach to its subject matter. This is mirrored in the author’s decision to omit large parts of the shawāhid and Qurānic references. As has been shown, however, these omissions do not signal emancipation from these time-honoured elements of lexicography. Rather, in harmony with his hymn on the divinely provided gift of language in the muqaddima, the author displays a remarkable degree of elitism in simply pre-supposing these elements as required background knowledge. Thereby, the Qāmūs is even more conser- vative regarding high cultural goods than other lexicons, which do not dispense with the aforementioned textual elements. Vis-à-vis this attitude is the fact that the Qāmūs covered a wide range of registers, often scientific ones, to which it owes its extensiveness. This extensive scientific material might be a trait of the second Qāmūs, resulting from the

19 On this development in the 19th century see Tomiche, Nahḍa. 258 chapter 5 cultural hegemonic project described above. To validate al-Fīrūzābādī’s stance towards language and the intentions he had in composing The Encompassing Ocean may therefore be clarified as soon as means are available to tell both editions apart. The image currently emerging is that of a scholar who shared the widespread high esteem for a language that was commonly perceived as divine, even favouring it over his own mother-tongue. Paradoxically, he expressed this regard by omitting the relevant textual material. He followed established norms in a number of his decisions. He was probably involved in several of the ongoing debates, as his works show. Besides this conformity to the strata of his time, he also massively influenced developments of later periods, to the extent that the Qāmūs became synonymous with ‘dictionary’ in matters of lugha. It also applies to his salvaging of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s reputation in Yemen. It is possible that this aspect of Sufism would have taken a different path during the Early Modern Period had Ibn al-ʿArabī’s books not been protected by him. Al-Fīrūzābādī therefore emerges as a man between two eras, a scholar ma- turing in the structures of his time, but standing on the threshold of later developments. chapter 6 Summary

This study has compiled, collated, discussed, evaluated, and interpreted the information on al-Fīrūzābādī that is scattered across a variety of sources. This was done in an attempt to establish the first detailed chronology of his dynamic life, to perform the first critical examination of the ascriptions of works made to him, to compile information on the status of these works, to validate the information handed down regarding their contents, to elucidate possible characteristics of his intellectual interests, and to highlight the questions presented by these works, the emerging image of his vita, and the issues surrounding this transmitted perception. It has demonstrated that al-Fīrūzābādī’s life and career involved six major phases, through which he developed from a promising young man into a teacher and traveller who made a name for himself, and who was to conclude his life in high political office after years spent defending Ibn al-ʿArabī and the Rasūlid dynasty, in whose interest he added a political preface to his most famous work. Furthermore, the fame he won during his career, his travels, the vagaries of transmission in reports on his life, and the rather odd imbalance between his many contacts and his apparent detachment from political upheavals have been portayed. All of this has been carried out while considering the vagaries of transmission. Despite the scarcity of personal testimony,1 some examples have shown al-Fīrūzābādī to have been a very self-assertive scholar. In light of the many works he managed to complete during his lifetime such self-confidence may not be too surpising. This study has established the status of preservation and ascription for these many works by al-Fīrūzābādī, has offered dates of composition for 25 of them, has drawn attention to a manuscript copy of The Names of the Lion, and has shown that the Risāla fī bayān mā lam yathbut fīhi ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth min al-abwāb is not a separate work. Furthermore, surviving quotations from a number of works have been found and possible research questions for each of al-Fīrūzābādī’s writings stated. In summary, this corpus shows polymatic ambition as well as a strong focus on lugha and ḥadīth. There are also works that suggest his involvement in schol-

1 Such information can be quite revealing if it is available in sufficient quantity. See, for example, Franke, Querverweis als Selbstzeugnis.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004305403_007 260 chapter 6 arly discourses of his time, such as those on grave visitations or on celebrating the mawlid al-nabī. In al-Fīrūzābādī’s works and personal interests, aspects which reached full bloom during the Early Modern Period appear to be foreshadowed.2 He shows a strong interest in ḥadīth and in Muḥammad, and he was one of the scholars who helped save Ibn al-ʿArabī’s works from suppression by their opponents. A possible reading of al-Fīrūzābādī’s importance beyond his lifetime—and thus for the era on whose threshold he stood—have been presented in connection to the Baṣāʾir and the Qāmūs. It has also been argued that—for this last named work as for his personal life—al-Ṣaghānī was the single most important influence. These, along with other conclusions, present al-Fīrūzābādī’s life in greater depth than his reputation simply as the author of the Qāmūs would suggest. The findings of this study thus provide a foundation on which future research can build, particularly as it has also revealed that there are fewer definitive answers than open questions where al-Fīrūzābādī is concerned. Therefore, if the reader now feels that they are left with more questions than answers, this work has achieved its goal. It set out from the premise that too little is known of al-Fīrūzābādī and that this fact could be remedied. As the above examinations have shown, such detailed knowledge—beginning with his vita and works—complements understanding of al-Fīrūzābādī’s outlook and writings. And although this first examination is but a drop taken from a sea of possible questions, it may be instrumental in further research on the Ṣāḥib al-Qāmūs.

2 See on these matters Reichmuth, Muslimische Gesellschaften. appendix 1 A Manuscript Source: al-Nuʿmānī’s Kitāb al-rawḍ al-ʿāṭir

Sharaf al-Dīn Mūsā b. Ayyūb was born either 946/1539(40), 947/1540(1), or 948/ 1541(2)—the exact date remains uncertain as the scholar himself makes contradictory remarks on this point.1 He studied with a number of prolific scholars of his time, selected a prestigeous Shāfiʿī genelogy for himself and died on 13 Rabīʿ ii 1000/ 28 Jan- uary 1592.2 By contrast, Wüstenfeld states that “Mûsá ben Jûsuf ben Aḥmed ben Jûsuf Scharaf ed-dîn Ibn Ajjûb el-Ançárí el-Dimaschkí el-Schaʾfi’í”3 lived 946–999/1539(40)– 1590(1). Copies of his works seem to be as scarce as information on his life. According to Güneş, the manuscript preserved in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (Wetzstein 289) is the only known copy of the biographical compendium in 367 entries concerning persons of note who lived between the 7th and the 10th hijrī century.4 In this copy the following biography of al-Fīrūzābādī is included.

1 See Güneş, Das Kitāb ar-rauḍ al-ʿāṭir, 2f. 2 Ibid. 3 Wüstenfeld, Die Geschichtschreiber, 252. 4 Cf. Güneş, Das Kitāb ar-rauḍ al-ʿāṭir, 7.

photo 5 Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī’s tarjama of al-Fīrūzābādī, folio 217v manuscript signature: “Wetzstein 289”, property of STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung. reproduced with permission from staatsbibliothek zu berlin.

photo 6 Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī’s tarjama of al-Fīrūzābādī, folio 218r. manuscript signature: “Wetzstein 289”, property of STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN. reproduced with permission. 264 appendix 2

photo 7 Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī’s tarjama of al-Fīrūzābādī, folio 218v. manuscript signature: “Wetzstein 289”, property of STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN. reproduced with permission. photos ibn ayyūb al-nuʿmānī’s tarjama of al-fīrūzābādī 265

photo 8 Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī’s tarjama of al-Fīrūzābādī, folio 219r. manuscript signature: “Wetzstein 289”, property of STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN. reproduced with permission. 266 appendix 2

photo 9 Ibn Ayyūb al-Nuʿmānī’s tarjama of al-Fīrūzābādī, folio 219v. manuscript signature: “Wetzstein 289”, property of STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN. reproduced with permission. Bibliography1

1 Works by al-Fīrūzābādī al-Fīrūzābādī, Majd al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb, Baṣāʾirdhawīl-tamyīzfīlaṭāʾifal-kitāb al-ʿazīz, ed. Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Najjār, 6 vols., Cairo 1406/1986. al-Bulgha fi tarājim aʾimmat al-naḥw wa-l-lugha, ed. Muḥammad al-Miṣrī, Kuwait 1407/1987. al-Durar al-mubaththatha fi-l-ghurar al-muthallatha (al-muthallath al-muttafiq al-maʿānī), ed. ʿAlī Ḥusayn al-Bawwāb, Riyaḍ 1401/1981. Fīṣuḥbatal-ḥabībMuḥammad:Sīratuhūwa-akhbāruhūwa-ādātuhūwa-ʿibādā- tuhū fi-l-yawm wa-l-layla, al-musammā Sifr al-saʿāda, eds. Aḥmad Muṣṭafā Qāsim al-Ṭaḥṭāwī and Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Tawwāb ʿŪd, Cairo s.d. Kitāb al-jāmiʿ fi-l-ʿasal al-mawsūm bi-Kitāb tarqīq al-asal li-taṣfīq al-ʿasal, eds. ʿIṣām Muḥammad al-Shanṭī and Aḥmad Salīm Ghānim, Beirut 2006. al-Maghānim al-muṭāba fī maʿālim Ṭāba, ed. Ḥamad al-Jāsir, Riyaḍ 1389/1969. Min hady al-rasūl (al-musammā) Sifr al-saʿāda, eds. Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Raḥīm al-Sāyīḥ and ʿUmar Yūsuf Ḥamza, Cairo 1997. Nughbat al-rashshāf min khuṭbat al-Kashshāf, ed. ʿUmar ʿAlawī (?) b. Shihāb, s.l. s.d. al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, editor unidentified, 4 vols., Būlāq 1301–1302/1883–1884. al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, ed. Muḥammad al-Sayyid, 4 vols., s.l. s.d. al-Ṣilāt wa-l-bushr fi-l-ṣalāt ʿalā khayr al-bashar, eds. Muḥammad Nūr al-Dīn ʿAdnān, ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Khayārī, and Muḥammad al-Ḥāfiẓ, Damascus 1385/1966. Sifr al-saʿāda, ed. Maḥmūd ʿAlī Ṣabīḥ, Cairo 1348/1929. Sifr al-saʿāda, editor unidentified, Beirut 1398/1978. Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn fi-l-taʿbīr bi-l-sīn wa-l-shīn, ed. Aḥmad ʿAbdallāh Bājur, Cairo 1999. Tanwīr al-miqyās min Tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās, editor unidentified, Beirut 1980. Tuḥfat al-abīh fī-man nusiba ilā ghayr abīh, in ʿAbd al-Salām Hārūn (ed.), Nawādir al-makhṭūṭāt i, Beirut 1411/1991, 108–122. [reprint of the edition Cairo 1951, 97–110]

1 The Arabic definite article was not considered in sequencing of authors. Whenever there are multiple works by the same author these are given in ascending chronological order according to the date of their publication. Where no date of publication is available, multiple works by one author are given in alphabetical sequence of their titles without consideration for the Arabic definite article. 268 bibliography

2 Manuscript Sources

Ishārat al-shujūn ilā ziyārat al-Ḥajūn, accessed via a manuscript that is property of the King Saud University (shelf mark 1210, catalogue number: 219r908-m, accessed via www.al-Mostafa.com) Franke, Patrick: Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī. Textproduktion und Gedankenwelt eines mekkanischen Religionsgelehrten der islamischen Jahrtausendwende, Habilitationsschrift, Halle (unpublished, publication forthcoming, cited with permission from the author) Kitāb al-Rawḍ al-ʿatīr, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientab- teilung (shelf mark We 289, see Ahlwardt: Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse ix, 357– 358., no. 9886). al-Mirqāt al-wafiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya (03 Gedik 17186, Milli Kütüphane Ankara, collection: Afyon Gedik Ahmet Paşa İl Halk Kütüphanesi. Accessed via www .yazmalar.gov.tr). “Prophetic Hadeeth”/“Masabih al-ahadith al-nabawiya” [sic.]: King Saud University. (Category Number: 213.1/m.P. General Number: 1641. Accessed via Makhtota.ksu.edu .sa/makhtotaenglish.aspx). al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabtei- lung (shelf mark Gl. 33, see Ahlwardt: Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse vi, 256, no. 6973/6). al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabtei- lung (shelf mark Lbg. 83, see Ahlwardt: Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse vi, 254, no. 6973/1). al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabtei- lung (shelf mark ms Or. Fol. 215 see Ahlwardt: DieHandschriften-Verzeichnisse vi, 255, no. Lg. 6973, Lbg 83, 3). al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabtei- lung (shelf mark Ms Or. Quart 520 see Ahlwardt: Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse vi, 256, no. 2973, Lbg 83, 4). al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabtei- lung (shelf mark we. 148, see Ahlwardt: Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse vi, 254, no. 6972). Reichmuth, Stefan: “Prophetisches Erbe und kulturelle Kreativität: Fīrūzābādī (gest. 817/1415) und sein Lob des Arabischen in der Einleitung des Qāmūs” (manuscript presentation, received 5 November, 2008). Risāla fī bayān mā lam yathbut fīhi ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth min al-abwāb (File name “m001401.pdf”, property of the Maktabat Abī ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (ism al-nāshir: Khalīfa b. Arḥama b. Jahhām). Accessed via www.al-Mostafa.com) bibliography 269

3 Printed Sources

ʿAbdallāh, Yusrī ʿAbd al-Ghanī, Muʿjam al-maʿājim al-ʿarabiyya, Beirut 1991. ʿAbd al-Ghānī Ḥasan, Muḥammad, Muʾallafāt rāʾida li-muʾallifīn ruwwād, Cairo 1301/ 1981. ʿAbd al-Jalīl, ʿAbd al-Qādir: Madāris al-muʿjamiyya: Dirāsa fi-l-binya al-tarkībiyya, Am- man 1420/11999. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Dhakhāʾir al-turāth al-ʿarabī al-islāmī: Dalīl bibliyūg- hrāfī li-l-makhṭūṭāt al-ʿarabiyya al-maṭbūʿa ḥattā ʿām 1980, maʿa kashshāf al-ʿanāwīn wa-kashshāf al-muḥaqqiqīn wa-l-mustadrak, 2 vols., Baghdad 1403/11983. Abū l-Fidāʾ, ʿImād al-Dīn b. Ismāʿīl, Taqwīm al-buldān, editor unidentifed, Cairo 2007. Abū Makhrama, Ibn Muḥammad ʿAbdallāh al-Ṭayyib b. ʿAbdallāh b. Aḥmad, Kitāb tārīkh thaghr ʿAdan, ed. O. Löfgren, Leiden 1936. Afsaruddin, A., In Praise of the Caliphs, in International Journal of Middle East Studies 31 (1999), 329–350. al-Ahdal al-Yamanī, Badr al-Dīn Abī ʿAbdallāh Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥam- mad, Tuḥfat al-zaman fī tārīkh sādāt al-Yaman, ed. ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad al-Ḥaba- shī, Abu Dhabi 2004. Ahmad, N., Ibn al-waqt, in Muḥammad Zakir (ed.), The Son of the Moment, Translated from the Urdu, Ibn-ul-Vaqt with an Introduction by Mohammad Zakir, Foreword by Mushirul Hasan, Delhi 2002. Ahlwardt, W., Verzeichniss der Arabischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, 10 vols., Berlin 1887–1895. Ahmed, L., Edward William Lane. A Study of his Life and Works and of British Ideas of the Middle East in the Nineteenth Century, London/New York 1978. al-Akwaʿ, Ismāʿīl b. ʿAlī, Ḥijar al-ʿilm wa-maʿāqiluhu fi-l-Yaman, 5 vols., Beirut/Damascus 1995–1996. Allen, R.H., Star Names. Their Lore and Meaning. Formerly titled Star Names and Their Meanings, New York 1963. Allen, R., An Introduction to Arabic Literature, Cambridge 2000. The Arabic Literary Heritage. The Development of its Genres and Criticism, Cambridge 2005. Amitai, R. and M. Biran, Mongols, Turks and Others. Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World, Leiden/Boston 2005. Anawati, G.C., Textes arabes anciens édités en Egypte au cour des années 1963, 1964 et 1965—Textes, no. 22, in Mélanges de l’Institut Dominicain d’Etudes Orientales 8 (1964–1966), 273–275. Anawati, G.C. and L. Gardet, Mystique Musulmane: Aspects et Tendances—Expériences et Techniques, Paris 1976. ʿAnkawi, A., The Pilgrimage to Mecca in Mamlūk Times, in Arabian Studies 1 (1974), 146–170. 270 bibliography

Arabi, Oussama, The interdiction of the Spendthrift (al-safīh): a Human Rights debate in classical fiqh, in Islamic Law and Society 7 (2000), 300–324. Arberry, A.J., British Orientalists: With 8 Plates in Colour and 20 Illustrations in Black and White, London 1943. A Second Supplementary Hand-List of the Muḥammadan Manuscripts in the University & Colleges of Cambridge, Cambridge 1952. Oriental Essays: British Orientalists. Portraits of Seven Scholars, London 1960. al-Arnāʾūṭ, ʿAbd al-Qādir, Sīrat al-ʿallāma al-Shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Arnāʾūṭ (1346– 1425h.), Damascus 1426/2005. Aro, J., Die Arabischen, Persischen und Türkischen Handschriften der Universitätsbiblio- thek zu Helsinki, s.l. 1959. Ateş, A., Ibn al-ʿArabī, Muḥyī l-Dīn Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. al-ʿArabī al-Ḥātimī al-Ṭāʾī, in ei2, iii, 707–711. al-ʿAṭṭār, Bū Shitā, al-Maʿājim al-ʿarabiyya. Ruʾya tārīkhiyya wa-taqwīmiyya, El-Jadida 1410/11990. Auchterlonie, P., Arabic Biographical Dictionaries: A Summary Guide and Bibliography, Durham 1987. Aumer, J., Catalogus Codicum Manu Scriptorum: Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, i/ii (Codices Arabicos (Cod. arab.) 1–937 Complectens), Wiesbaden 1970 (reprint of the edition Munich 1866). Ayalon, A., Nāʾib, in ei2, vii, 915–916. Aziz, M.A., Religion and Mysticism in Early Islam: Theology and Ṣūfism in Yemen. The Legacy of Aḥmad Ibn ʿAlwān, London/New York 2011. al-ʿAẓm, J.B., ʿUqūd al-jawhar fī tarājim man lahum khamsūn taṣnīfan fa-miʾa fa-akthar, Beirut 1426. Baalbaki, R., al-Ṣaghānī, Raḍiyy al-Dīn al-Ḥasan, in ei2, viii, 820–821. The Arabic Lexicographical Tradition: From the 2nd/8th to the 12th/18th Century, Leiden/Boston 2014. al-Baghdādī, Īḍāḥ al-maknūn fi-l-dhayl ʿalā Kashf al-ẓunūn ʿan asāmī al-kutub wa-l- funūn, ed. Ş. Yaltkaya and K.R. Bilge, 2 vols., Istanbul 1945–1947. Ismāʿīl Bāshā: Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn asmāʾ al-muʾallifīn wa-āthār al-muṣannifīn, ed. K.R. Bilge and M.K. Inal, 2 vols., Istanbul 1951–1955. al-Baḥrānī, Yūsuf b. Aḥmad, Luʾluʾat al-baḥrayn fi-l-ijāzāt wa-tarājim rijāl al-ḥadīth, ed. Muḥammad Ṣādiq, Najaf s.d. Bakich, M.E., 1,001 Celestial Wonders to See Before You Die, New York et al. 2010. Basset, R., Kaʿb b. Zuhayr, in ei2, iv, 316. Bauer, T., Jamāl al-Dīn Ibn Nubātah (April 1287–13 October 1366), in J.E. Lowry and D.J. Stewart (eds.), Essays in Arabic Literary Biography: 1350–1850, Wiesbaden 2009, 184–202. Die Kultur der Ambiguität: Eine andere Geschichte des Islams, Berlin 2011. bibliography 271

Bazmee Ansari, A.S., Bhattinda, in ei2, i, 1193–1194. Beg, M.A.J., Sirādj, in ei2, ix, 665–666. Behn, W., Concise Biographical Companion to Index Islamicus: An International Who’s Who in Islamic Studies from its Beginnings down to the Twentieth Century. Biobiblio- graphical Supplement to Index Islamicus, 3 vols., Leiden/Boston 2004–2006. Behringer, W., Frühe Neuzeit, in F. Jaeger (ed.), Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit. Im Auftrag des Kulturwissenschaftlichen Instituts (Essen) und in Verbindung mit den Fachwis- senschaftlern, iv, Stuttgart/Weimar 2006, 80–87. Ben Abdesselem, A., al-Sharīshī, Abū l-ʿAbbās Kamāl al-Dīn Aḥmad, in ei2, ix, 350. Berkel, M. van, al-Qalqashandī (1355–1418), in J.E. Lowry and D.J. Stewart (eds.), Essays in Arabic Literary Biography: 1350–1850, Wiesbaden 2009, 331–340. Bernards, M., Muḥammad Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī (1732–1791), in J.E. Lowry and D.J. Stewart (eds.), Essays in Arabic Literary Biography: 1350–1850, Wiesbaden 2009, 419–428. al-Biqāʿī, Ibrāhīm b. Ḥasan, ʿUnwān al-zamān bi-tarājim al-shuyūkh wa-l-aqrān, ed. Ḥasan al-Ḥabashī, 4 vols., Cairo 1430/2009. Blachère, R., Un pionier de la culture arabe en Espagne au xe siècle: Ṣāʿid de Bagdād [sic], in Hespéris 10 (1930), 13–36. al-Ğawharī et sa place dans l’évolution de la Lexicographie Arabe, in Analecta, Damascus 1975, 21–29. Blair, S.S., Tabrīz, in ei2, ix, 41–50. Böwering, G., The Scriptual ‘Senses’ in Medieval Ṣūfī Qurʾān Exegesis, in J.D. McAuliffe, B. Walfish and J.W. Goering (eds.), With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptual Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Oxford 2003, 346–365. Bosworth, C.E., al-Ḳalḳashandī, in ei2, iv, 509–511. al-Khazradjī, Muwaffaḳ al-Dīn Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan al-Khazradjī al- Zabīdī, in ei2, iv, 1188. Laḳab, in ei2, v, 618–631. Marw al-Rūdh, in ei2, vi, 617–618. Marw al-Shāhidjān, in ei2, vi, 618–621. The New Islamic Dynasties. A chronological and genealogical manual, Edin- burgh 1996. Sarakhs, in ei2, ix, 34. al-Shām, in ei2, ix, 261–262. Boyle, J.A., Indjū, in ei2, iii, 1208. Braune, W., ʿAbd al-Ḳādir al-Djīlānī (or al-Djīlī), Muḥyī al-Dīn Abū Muḥ. b. Abī Ṣāliḥ Djengī Dōst, in ei2, i, 69–70. Brockelmann, C., al-Fīrūzābādī, Abū l-Ṭāhir Muḥammed b. Yaʿḳūb b. Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm Nadjd [sic] al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī al-Shāfiʿī, in M.Th. Houtsma et al. (eds.), Enzyk- lopädie des Islam: Geographisches, Ethnographisches, und Biographisches Wörter- buch der Muhammedanischen Völker, i, Leiden 1927, 119–120. 272 bibliography

Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur, 5 vols., Leiden 1937–1949. Muḥammad Murtaḍā, b. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Abd al-Razzāḳ al- Ḥusaynī al-Zabīdī al-Ḥanafī, in ei2, vii, 445. Browne, E.G., A Hand-List of Muḥammadan Manuscripts including all those written in the Arabic character, preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge, London 1900. A Literary History of Persia, 4 vols., Cambridge 1964. Buhl, F., Minā, in ei2, vii, 65–66. al-Burayhī al-Saksakī al-Yamanī, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman al-maʿrūf bi-tārīkh al-Barīhī, ed. ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad al-Ḥabashī, Sana 21994. Burke, J.C., Edward W. Lane. A Critique of his Life and Work, in: Folia Orientalia 32 (1996), 95–114. Burton, R.F., First Footsteps in East Africa or an Exploration of Harar, Cologne 2000. Burton, J., An Introduction to the Ḥadīth, Edinburgh 1994. Burton-Page, J., Dihlī, in ei2, ii, 255–266. Busse, H., Arabische Historiographie und Geographie, in H. Gätje (ed.), Grundriss der Arabischen Philologie, Band ii: Literaturwissenschaft, Wiesbaden 1987, 264–297. Cabanelas, R.D., El-Mujassas de Ibn Sīda de Murcia, primer diccionario de ideas afines en el Occidente musulman, in Miscelánea de estudios Árabes y Hebraicos, Granada 1961, 7–36. Calder, N., al-Sarakhsī, Muḥammad, in ei2, ix, 35–36. Taḳlīd, in ei2, x, 137–138. Canard, M., Daʿwa, in ei2, ii, 168–172. Canova, G., al-Maqrīzī’s Treatise on Bees, in A. Vrolijk and J.P. Hogendijk (eds.), O ye Gentlemen: Arabic Studies on Science and Literary Culture. In Honour of Remke Kruk, Leiden/Boston 2007, 15–23. Caracciolo, P.L. (ed.), The Arabian Nights in English Literature: Studies in the Reception of The Thousand and One Nights into British Culture, New York 1988. Carter, M.G., Lexicography, medieval, in J. Scott Meisami and P. Starkey (eds.), Ency- clopaedia of Arabic Literature, ii, London/New York 1998, 467–469. Chamberlain, M., Knowledge and Social Practice in medieval Damascus, 1190–1350, Cam- bridge 2002. Chaumont, E., al-Shāfiʿiyya, in ei2, ix, 185–189. al-Shīrāzī, al-Shaykh al-Imām Abū Isḥāḳ Ibrāhīm b. ʿAlī b. Yūsuf al-Fīrūzābādī, in ei2, ix, 481–483. Chejne, A.G., The Arabic Language: Its Role in History, Minneapolis 1969. Chelhod, J., Introduction à l’Histoire Sociale et Urbaine de Zabid, in: Arabica 25 (1978), 48–88. Chittick, W.C., Ibn ʿArabī, in M.M. Sharif (ed.), History of Islamic Philosophy, i, Lon- don/New York 2001, 497–510. bibliography 273

The School of Ibn ʿArabī, in M.M. Sharif (ed.), History of Islamic Philosophy, i, London/New York 2001, 510–523. Iblīs and the Jinn in al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya, in B. Gruendler (ed.), Classi- cal Arabic Humanities in Their Own Terms. Festschrift for Wolfhart Heinrichs on his 65th Birthday Presented by his Students and Colleagues, Leiden/Boston 2008, 99– 126. Chodkiewicz, M., Le Procès Posthume d’Ibn ʿArabī, in F. de Jong and B. Radtke (eds.), Islamic Mysticism Contested: Thirteen Centuries of Controversies and Polemics, Lei- den/Boston/Cologne 1999, 93–123. Cilardo, A., The Qurʾānic Term Kalāla: Studies in Arabic Language and Poetry, Ḥadīṯ, Tafsīr, and Fiqh–Notes on the Origins of Islamic Law, Edinburgh 2005. Clark, J., Ibn al-ʿArabī (560/1165–638/1240), in T. De Young and M. St. Germain (eds.), Essays in Arabic Literary Biography: 925–1350, Wiesbaden 2011, 95–115. Crone, P., Medieval Islamic Political Thought, Edinburgh 2005. Daiber, H.: Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in the Daiber Collection, 2 vols., Tokyo 1988–1996. Dammen McAuliffe, J. (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, 6 vols., Leiden/Boston 2002– 2006. Darley-Doran, R., Wāsiṭ–4. The Mint, in ei2, xi, 169–171. al-Dāwūdī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Aḥmad, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn, ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad ʿUmar, 2 vols., Cairo 1972. Demeerseman, A. Noveau regard sur la voie spirituelle d’ʻAbd al-Qâdir al-Jilânî, Paris 1988. Duri, A.A., Baghdād, in ei2, i, 894–908. Dutton, Y., The Origins of Islamic Law: The Qurʾān, the Muwaṭṭaʾ and Madinan ʿAmal, London 22002. Ed., ʿIlm, in ei2, iii, 1133–1134. Ism, in ei2, iv, 179–181. al-Ṣiddīḳī, in ei2, ix 535. Ehrenkreutz, A.S., Dhahab, in ei2, ii, 214. Eickelman, D.F., Tardjama 1, in ei2, x, 224–225. Elisséeff, N., Dimashḳ, in ei2, ii, 277–291. Ibn ʿAsākir, in ei2, iii, 713–715. El Omari, R., Muʿtazilah, in J.L. Esposito et al. (eds.), The Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Islamic World, iv, Oxford 2009, 199–200. Endreß, G., Die wissenschaftliche Literatur [part 1], in H. Gätje (ed.), Grundriß der Arabischen Philologie, ii: Literaturwissenschaft, Wiesbaden 1987, 400–506. Die wissenschaftliche Literatur, in W. Fischer (ed.), Grundriß der Arabischen Philologie, iii: Supplement, Wiesbaden 1992, 3–152. Der Islam: Eine Einführung in seine Geschichte, München 1997. 274 bibliography

Ess, J. van, Zwischen Ḥadīt und Theologie: Studien zum Entstehen prädestinatianischer Überlieferung, Berlin/New York 1975. Ṣafadī-Splitter, in Der Islam. Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kultur des Islamis- chen Orients 53 (1976), 242–266. Ṣafadī-Splitter: Teil ii, in Der Islam. Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kultur des Islamischen Orients 54 (1977), 77–108. Encyclopaedic Activities in the Islamic World: A Few Questions and No An- swers, in G. Endress (ed.), Organizing Knowledge. Encyclopaedic Activities in the Pre- Eighteenth Century Islamic World, Leiden/Boston 2006, 3–19. Ettinghausen, R., Īlkhāns, in ei2, iii, 1120–1127. Fāris, Aḥmad (Efendi), al-Jāsūsʿ alā al-Qāmūs, editor unidentified, Istanbul 1299/1881. Faroqhi, S., Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, Munich 2006. al-Faruque, Muḥammad, The Mongol Conquest of Baghdād: Medieval Accounts and their Modern Assessment, in Islamic Quarterly 32 (1988), 194–206. al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī, Abū al-Ṭayyib Taqī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, Shifāʾ al-gharām bī-akhbār al-balad al-ḥarām, 2 vols., Mecca 1956. Dhayl al-taqyīd fī ruwāt al-sunan wa-l-masānīd, ed. Kamāl Yūsuf al-Ḥūt, 2 vols., Beirut 1410/1990. al-ʿIqd al-thamīn fī tārīkh al-balad al-amīn, ed. Muḥammad Surūz al-Sabbāḥ, Cairo s.d. Fischer, A. and A.K. Irvine, Ḳaḥṭān, in ei2, iv, 447–449. Fischer, W. (ed.), Grundriß der Arabischen Philologie, iii: Supplement, Wiesbaden 1992. Fleisch, H., al-Fīrūzābādī, Abū l-Ṭāhir Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb b. Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm Madjd al-Dīn al-Shāfiʿī al-Shīrāzī, in ei2, ii, 926–927. Ibn Fāris, Abu l-Ḥusayn Aḥmad b. Fāris b. Zakariyyāʾ b. Muḥ. b. Ḥabīb, al-Shāfiʿī, in ei2, iii, 764–765. Ibn Hishām, Djamāl al-Dīn Abū Muḥammad ʿAbdallāh b. Yūsuf b. Aḥmad b. ʿAbdallāh al-Naḥwī, in ei2, iii, 801–802. Traité de philologie Arabe, 2 vols., Beirut 1961–1979. Flemming, B., Ṭashköprüzāde. 2, in ei2, x, 351–352. Forbes Manz, B., The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane, Cambridge 1999. Fragner, B.G., Die “Persophonie”: Regionalität, Identität und Sprachkontakt in der Ge- schichte Asiens, Berlin 1999. Franke, P., Querverweis als Selbstzeugnis. Individualität und Intertextualität in den Schriften des Mekkanischen Gelehrten Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī (gest. 1014/1606), in S. Reichmuth and F. Schwarz (ed.), Zwischen Alltag und Schriftkultur: Horizonte des Individuellen in der arabischen Literatur des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, Beirut/Würz- burg 2008, 131–163. Fulton, A.S., Fīrūzābādī’s “Wine List”, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 12 (1947), 579–585. bibliography 275

Furat, A.S., Ein bisher unbekanntes Werk über die grammatischen Streitfragen der Kufer und Basrer (ms, Şehid Ali Paşa Bibl. Nr. 2348), in Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 1 (1978), 8–23. Gabrieli, F., Adab, in ei2, i, 175–176. Gardet, L., Ikhlāṣ, in ei2, iii, 1059–1060. ʿIlm al-kalām, in ei2, iii, 1141–1150. Geoffroy, E., al-Suyūṭī, Abū l-Faḍl ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr, in ei2, ix, 913–916. al-Yāfiʿī, Abū ʿAbdallāh b. Asʿad, in ei2, xi, 236. Gerard, M.I., The Art of Story-Telling: A Literary Study of the Thousand and One Nights, Leiden 1963. Gibb, H.A.R. and A.J. Wensinck, ʿArafa, in ei2, i, 604. Giladi, A., Infants, Parents and Wet Nurses: Medieval Islamic Views on Breastfeeding and their Social Implications, Leiden/Boston/Cologne 1999. Gilli-Elewy, H., Baghdād nach dem Sturz des Kalifats: Die Geschichte einer Provinz unter ilhanischer Herrschaft (656–735/1258–1335), Berlin 2000. Gilliot, C., Les Sept ‘Lectures’: Corps social et écriture rélévée, in Studia Islamica 61 (1985), 5–25. Les Sept ‘Lectures’: Corps Social et Écriture Rélévée. Seconde Partie, in Studia Islamica 63 (1986), 49–82. L’exégèse du Coran en Asie Central et au Khorasan, in Studia Islamica 89 (1999), 75–90. Ṭabaqāt, in ei2, x, 7–10. Exegesis of the Qurʾān: Classical and Medieval, in J. Dammen McAuliffe (ed.), The Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, ii, Leiden/Boston 2002, 99–121. The beginnings of Qurʾānic exegesis, in C. Turner (ed.), The Koran. Critical Concepts in Islamic Studies. Volume iv: Translation and Exegesis, London/New York 2006, 248–263 (originally published in Andrew Rippin (ed.), The Koran. Formative Interpretation, Aldershot 1999, 1–27). Gimaret, D., Muʿtazila, in ei2, vii, 783–793. Goldziher, i., Beiträge zur Sprachgelehrsamkeit bei den Arabern, Wien 1872. Die Richtungen der islamischen Koranauslegung: An der Universität Upsala gehaltene Olaus-Petri-Vorlesungen, Leiden 1920. Muhammedanische Studien, 2 vols., Hildesheim 1961. Grabar, O., al-Ḳuds, in ei2, v, 322–344. Gronke, M. Die mongolische Epoche (1250–1500), in A. Noth and J. Paul (eds.): Der islamische Orient: Grundzüge seiner Geschichte, Würzburg 1998, 255–332. Gruber, E.A., Verdienst und Rang: Die Faḍāʾil als literarisches und gesellschaftliches Prob- lem im Islam, Freiburg 1975. Güneş, A.H., Das Kitāb ar-rauḍ al-ʿāṭir des Ibn Aiyūb: Damaszener Biographien des 10./16. Jahrhunderts. Beschreibung und Edition, Berlin 1981. 276 bibliography al-Ḥabashī, ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad, Maṣādir al-fikr al-islāmī fi-l-Yaman, Abu Dhabi 2004. Habicht, M. (ed.), Tausend und Eine Nacht—Arabisch: Nach einer Handschrift aus Tunis, herausgegeben von Maximilian Habicht, fortgesetzt von H.L. Fleischer, 12 vols. Breslau 1825–1845. Hadj-Salah, A., Lugha, in ei2, v, 803–806. Ḥaḍramī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbdallāh, Zabīd: Masājiduhā, wa-madārisuhā al-ʿilmiyya fi-l-tārīkh, Damascus 2000. Ḥājjī Khalīfa (Kātib Çelebī), Kashf al-ẓunūn fī asmāʾal-kutub wa-l-funūn, eds. Ş. Yaltkaya and K.R. Bilge, 2 vols., Istanbul 1945–1947. Hallaq, W.B., Was the Gate of Ijtihād closed? in International Journal of Middle East Studies 16 (1984), 3–41. Was al-Shāfiʿī the Master Architect of Islamic Jurisprudence? in International Journal of Middle East Studies 25 (1993), 587–605. Halm, H., Die Ausbreitung der šāfiʿītischen Rechtsschule von den Anfängen bis zum 8./14. Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden 1974. Hamilton, A., Arab Culture and Ottoman Magnificence in Antwerp’s Golden Age, Oxford 2001. Hamza, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, al-Ḥaraka al-fikriyya fī Miṣr fi-l-aṣrayn al-ayūbī wa-l-mamlūkī al-awwal, Cairo 1974. Harmaneh, S.K., Index of Manuscripts on Medicine, Pharmacy and Allied Sciences in the Ẓāhiriyah Library, Damascus, 1968. Harlow, B., Cairo Curiosities: E.W. Lane’s Account and Aḥmad Amin’s Dictionary, in Journal of the History of Ideas 46 (1985), 279–286. Hartmann, A., Muʿīn al-Dīn, ʿAlī b. Djalāl al-Dīn Muḥammad Yazdī, in ei2, vii, 480–481. Hārūn, ʿAbd al-Salām Muḥammad, Taḥqīqāt wa-tanbīhāt fī Muʿjam Lisān al-ʿarab, Cairo 1979/1399. Ḥasan, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ghanī, Muʾallafāt rāʾida li-muʾallifin ruwwād, Cairo 1981. Hassanein, Aḥmad Taher, Lexicography: Monolingual Dictionaries, in Kees Versteegh (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, iii, Leiden/Boston 2008, 37–45. Haywood, J.A., Arabic Contributions to the Science of Lexicography in Medieval Period, in Journal of the Asiatic Society of Pakistan 4 (1959), 27–40. Arabic Lexicography. Its History, and its Place in the General History of Lexicog- raphy, Leiden 1960. Ibn Sīda (d. 458/1066): The Greatest Andalusian Lexicographer, in Primer Congreso de Estudios Arabes e Islamicos, Cordoba, 1962. Actas, Madrid 1964, 309–316. Arabic Lexicography, in H. Steger and H.E. Wiegand (eds.): Wörterbücher. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexikographie. Dritter Teilband, Berlin/New York 1991, 2438–2448. bibliography 277

Heidemann, S., Das Aleppiner Kalifat (1260ad): Vom Ende des Kalifates in Bagdad über Aleppo zu den Restaurationen in Kairo, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1994. Heinrichs, W.P., Ṣafī al-Dīn, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Sarāyā al-Ḥillī, in ei2, viii, 801–805. al-Hīla, Muḥammad al-Ḥabīb, al-Tārīkh wa-l-muʾarrikhūn bi-Makka min al-qarn al-thā- lith al-hijrī ilā l-qarn al-thālith ʿashar, Mecca and Beirut 1994. Ḥimsī, Asmāʾ, Fihrist al-makhṭūṭāt Dar al-Kutub al-Ẓāhiriyya. ʿUlūm al-lugha al- ʿara- biyya: al-lugha, al-balāgha, al-ʿarūḍ, al-ṣarf, Damascus s.d. Hiskett, M. et al., Shiʿr, in ei2, ix, 448–470. Holt, P.M., Khalīfa, in ei2, iv, 937–953. Mamlūks, in ei2, vi, 321–323. Holtzman, L., Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (1292–1350), in J.E. Lowry and D.J. Stewart (eds.), Essays in Arabic Literary Biography: 1350–1850, Wiesbaden 2009, 202–223. Honigmann, E., al-Ramla, in ei2, viii, 423–424. Horovitz, J., Bābā Ratan: the Saint of Bhatinda, in Journal of the Panjab Historical Society (1913), 97–117. Huart, C., A History of Arabic Literature, London 1903. Humphreys, R.S., Taʾrīkh. A, in ei2, x, 257–280. Hunwick, J.O. et al., Taṣawwuf, in ei2, x, 313–340. West African Arabic Manuscipt colophons ii: a sixteenth-century Timbuktu copy of the Muḥkam of Ibn Sīda, in Sudanic Africa: A Journal of Historical Sources 13 (2002) [2004], 131–152. al-Ḥusaynī al-Dimashqī, Shams al-Dīn Abī l-Maḥāsin Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan, Dhayl Tadhkirat al-ḥuffāẓ li-l-Dhahabī, Damascus 1347/1928. Ibn al-ʿAlāʾī, Taʿrīf al-qudamāʾ bi-Abī l-ʿAlāʾī, ed. Ṭāhā Ḥusayn, s.l. 1406/1986. Ibn ʿAlī, Yaḥyā b. Ḥusayn b. al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad, Ghāyat al-amānī fi akhbār al-quṭr al-amānī, eds. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ ʿĀshūr and Muḥammad Muṣṭafā Ziyāda, 2 vols., Cairo 1388/1968. Ibn Fahd al-Hāshimī al-Makkī, Taqī al-Dīn Abī l-Faḍl Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad, Laḥẓ al-alḥāẓ bi-dhayl Ṭabaqāt al-ḥuffāẓ, Damascus 1347/1928. Ibn Ḥajar al-Kinānī al-Asqalānī al-Miṣrī, Shihāb al-Dīn Abū l-Faḍl Aḥmad b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, Kitāb al-iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba, 4 vols., Bagh- dad 1328/1910. [reprint of the 1328/1910 Cairo edition]. Inbāʾ al-ghumr bi-abnāʾ al-ʿumr, multiple vols., Hyderabad 1394/11974. Dhaylal-Duraral-kāminafīaʿyānal-miʾaal-thāmina, ed. ʿAdnān Darwīsh, Cairo 1412/1992. Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Abū l-Falāḥ ʿAbd al-Ḥayy, Shadharāt al-dhahab fī-akhbār man dhahab, multiple vols., Beirut 1973. Ibn Iyās al-Ḥanafī, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr fī waqāʾiʿ al-duhūr, accessed through the edition Mohammed Mostafa (ed.), Die Chronik des Ibn Ijās, bearbeitet und mit Einleitung und Indices versehen. Zweiter Teil, Wiesbaden 1972. 278 bibliography

Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba al-Dimashqī, Abū Bakr b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿUmar b. Muḥam- mad Taqī al-Dīn, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya, ed. ʿAbd al-ʿAlīm Khān, 4 parts in 2 volumes, Beirut 1987. Ibn Taghrībirdī, Jamāl al-Dīn Abū l-Maḥāsin Yūsuf, al-Nujūm al-zāhira fī mulūk Miṣr wa-l-Qāhira, eds. Jamāl Muḥammad Maḥris (?) and Fahīm Muḥammad Shaltūt, multiple vols., Cairo 1391/1976. al-Dalīl al-shāfī ʿalā minhal al-ṣāfī, ed. Muḥammad Shaltūt, multiple vols., Cairo 21998. Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Fāsī, Muḥammad, Iḍāʾat al-rāmūs wa-iḍāfat al-nāmūs ʿalā al-iḍāʾat al-Qāmūs, ed. ʿAbd al-Salām al-Fāsī, 2 vols., Muḥammadiyya 1983. Idris, H.R., Ibn ʿArafa, in ei2, iii, 712. Inalcik, H., Bāyazīd (Bāyezīd) i, in ei2, i, 1117–1119. Inayatullah, Sh., Bānat Suʿād, in ei2, i, 1011. Jaeger, Friedrich, Neuzeit, in idem (ed), Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit. Im Auftrag des Kultur- wissenschaftlichen Instituts (Essen) und in Verbindung mit den Fachwissenschaftlern, ix, Stuttgart/Weimar 2004, 158–181. Jackson, P., Muẓaffarids, in ei2, vii, 820–822. Jackson, S.A., From Prophetic Actions to Constitutional Theory: A Novel chapter in Medieval Islamic Jurisprudence, in International Journal of Middle East Studies 25 (1993), 71–90. Jansen, J.J.G., al-Shawkānī, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, in ei2, ix, 378. Jomier, J. and J.M. Rogers, al-Ḳāhira, in ei2, iv, 424–424. Juynboll, G.H.A., Muʿammar, in ei2, vii, 258–259. al-Tirmidhī, Abū ʿĪsā Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā, in ei2, x, 546. Encyclopaedia of Canonical Ḥadīth, Leiden 2007. Kaḥḥāla, ʿU.R., Muʾjam al-muʾallifīn tarājim muṣannifī al-kutub al-ʿarabiyya, 15 vols., Damascus 1380/1960. Kamaly, H., Isfahan vi. Medieval Period, in E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopaedia Iranica, xiii, New York 2006, 641–650. al-Kattānī, ʿAbd al-Ḥayy b. ʿAbd al-Kabīr, Fihrist al-fahāris wa-l-athbāt wa-muʿjam al- maʿājim wa-l-mashyakhāt wa-l-musalsalāt, ed. Iḥsān ʿAbbās, 3 vols., s.l. 21982–1989. al-Kawkabānī, ʿAbd al-Qādir, Fulk al-Qāmūs, ed. Ibrāhīm al-Sāfrāʾī, Beirut 1994. Khalidi, W.A.S., ʿAbd al-Ghanī, b. Ismāʿīl al-Nābulusī, in ei2, i, 60. Khān, Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Bahādur, al-Bulgha fī uṣūl al-lugha, Istanbul 1296/1879. al-Khazrajī, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya, accessed through the edition J.W. Redhouse (ed.), The Pearl-Strings; A History of the Resúliyy Dynasty of Yemen by ʿAliyyuʾbnuʾl-Hasan ‘El-Khazrejiyy; Translation and Text with Annotations and Index, 3 vols., Leiden/London 1906–1908. Khoury, A.T., Der Koran, Arabisch-Deutsch: Übersetzung und wissenschaftlicher Kom- mentar, 12 vols., Gütersloh 1990–2001. bibliography 279

Kishlī Fawwāz, Ḥikma, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ li-l-Fīrūzābādī, Beirut 1416/11996. Klein-Franke, F., Vorlesungen über die Medizin im Islam, Wiesbaden 1982. Knappert, J., Mawlid or Mawlūd, in ei2, vi, 895–897. Knysh, A.D., Ibn ʿArabi in the Later Islamic Tradition, Albany n.y. 1999. Islamic Mysticism: A Short History, Leiden/Boston/Cologne 2000. Kopf, L., al-Djawharī, Abū Naṣr Ismāʿīl (b. Naṣr?) b. Ḥammad, in ei2, ii, 495–497. Religious Influences on Medieval Arabic Philology, in Studia Islamica 5 (1956), 33–59. Kopp, Horst (ed.), Länderkunde Jemen, Wiesbaden 2005. Kračkovskij, I.J., Tārīkh al-adab al-jughrāfī al-ʿarabī, transl. Ṣalāh al-Dīn ʿUthmān Hā- shim, 2 vols., Bagdad 1957. Kraemer, J., Studien zur Altarabischen Lexikographie nach Istanbuler und Berliner Handschriften, in Oriens 6 (1953), 201–238. Kraemer, J., A. Spitaler and H. Gätje (eds.), Wörterbuch der Klassischen Arabischen Sprache, i, Wiesbaden 1970. Kreiser, K., Der Osmaniche Staat 1300–1922, Munich 2001. Kremer, A. von, Beiträge zur Arabischen Lexicographie ii: Von A. Freiherr von Kremer, Wirklichem Mitgliede der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna 1884. Kulke, H. and S. Rothermund, Geschichte Indiens: Von der Induskultur bis heute, Munich 1998. al-Laknawī al-Hindī, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ḥayy, al-Fawāʾid al-bahiyya fī tarājim al-Ḥa- nafiyya, ed. Aḥmad al-Zuʿbī, Beirut 1418/11998. Lambton, A.K.S., Shīrāz, in ei2, ix, 472–479. Lane, E.W., Über die Lexicographie der arabischen Sprache, in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 3 (1849), 90–108. Über die Aussprache der arabischen Vocale und die Betonung der arabischen Wörter, in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 4 (1850), 171–186. Madd al-Qāmūs. An Arabic-English Lexicon: Derived from the best and most copious Eastern sources; Comprising a very large collection of words and significations omitted in the Kamoos, with supplements to its abridged and defective explanations, ample grammatical and critical comments, and examples in prose and verse. In two books: The first containing all the classical words and significations commonly known to the learned among the Arabs: the second, those that are of rare occurrence and not commonly known, Book i—8 Parts, Beirut 1968 [reprint]. Lane-Poole, S., The Arabian Nights, in The Edinburgh Review or Critical Journal 164 (July 1886), 166–189. Lane, Edward William, in: Sir L. Stephen and Sir S. Lee (eds.), The Dictionary of National Biography. From the Earliest Times to 1900, xi, Oxford 1921–1922 [reprint], 512–515. 280 bibliography

The Mohammadan Dynasties: Chronological and Genealogical Tables with His- torical Introductions, Karachi 1969 (reprint of 1893 edition). Laoust, H., Les Gouverneurs de Damas sous les Mamlouks et les premiers Ottomans (658–1156/1260–1744): Traduction des Annales d’Ibn Ṭūlūn et d’Ibn Ğumʿa, Damascus 1952. Ibn Kathīr, ʿImād al-Dīn Ismāʿīl b. ʿUmar, in ei2, iii, 817–818. Ibn Ḳayyim al-Djawziyya, Shams al-Dīn Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-Zarʿī, in ei2, iii, 821–822. Lāshīn, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Majīd, al-Ṣafadī wa-āthāruhu fi-l-adab wa-l-naqd, Cairo 12005. Lech, K., Das mongolische Weltreich: Al-ʿUmarī’s Darstellung der mongolischen Reiche in seinem Werk Masālik al-abṣār fī mamālik al-amṣār. Mit Paraphrase und Kommentar, Wiesbaden 1968. Lecker, M., al-Ṭāʾif, in ei2, x, 113–116. Lévi-Provençal, E. and Ch. Pellat, al-Maḳḳarī, Shihāb al-Dīn Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā al-Tilimsānī al-Fāsī al-Mālikī, in ei2, vi, 187–188. Lewicka, P.B., Food and Foodways of Medieval Cairenes: Aspects of Life in an Islamic Metropolis of the Eastern Mediterranean, Leiden/Boston 2011. Lewis, B., Egypt and Syria, in P.M. Holt, A.K.S. Lambton and B. Lewis (eds.), The Cam- bridge History of Islam, i, Cambridge 1970, 175–230. Little, D.P., Al-Ṣafadī as Biographer on his Contemporaries, in idem, History and Histo- riography of the Mamlūks, London 1986, 190–210. Littmann, E., Alf Layla wa-Layla, in ei2, i, 358–364. Lockhart, L., Hurmuz, in ei2, iii, 584–586. Longrigg, S.H., Dahlak, in ei2, ii, 90–91. Löfgren, O., ʿAdan, in ei2, i, 180–182. Makhrama, Bā or Abū, in ei2, vi, 132–133. Madelung, W. Murdjiʾa, in ei2, vii, 605–607. al-Taftazānī, Saʿd al-Dīn Masʿūd b. ʿUmar, in ei2, x, 88–89. al-Maghāwarī Ibrāhīm, ʿĀṭif Aḥmad, Kashshāf tawhīmāt al-Fīrūzābādī fī Qāmūsihi al- Jawharī fī Siḥāḥihi, Riyaḍ 1428/2006. Malti-Douglas, F., Structures of Avarice: The Bukhalāʾ in Medieval Arabic Literature, Leiden 1985. Manz, B.F., Tīmūr Lang, in ei2, x, 510–513. al-Maqqarī al-Tilimsānī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, Nafḥ al-ṭīb min ghusn al-Andalus al- raṭīb wa-dhikr wazīrihā Lisān al-Dīn b. Khaṭīb, 11 vols., Beirut 1415/1995. al-Maqrīzī, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī, Durar al-῾uqūd al-farīda fī tarājim al-aʿyān al-mufīda, eds. ʿAdnan Darwīsh and Muḥammad al-Maṣrī, 2 vols., Damascus 1995. Margoliouth, D.S., Ḳādiriyya, in ei2, iv, 380–383. Marquet, Y., al-Tirmidhī, Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Ḥakīm, in ei2, x, 544–546. bibliography 281

Massé, H., ʿImād al-Dīn, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Kātib al-Iṣfahānī, in ei2, iii, 1157–1158. Meyerhof, M. and J. Schacht, Ibn al-Nafīs, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Abu ʾl-ʿAlāʾ ʿAlī b. Abī ʾl-Ḥaram al-Ḳurashī al-Dimashḳī, ei2, iii, 897–898. Michon, J.-L., Khirḳa, in ei2, v, 17–18. al-Miknāsī, Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Abū l-ʿAfiyya b. al-Qāḍī, Durrat al-ḥijāl fī ghurrat asmāʾ al-rijāl, ed. Muṣṭafā ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭāʾ, Beirut 1423/12002. ʿAḳīda, in ei2, i, 332–336. Morgan, D., Medieval Persia 1040–1797, London/New York 1988. Mongols, in ei2, vii, 230–235. Mortel, R.T., The Ḥusaynid Amirate of Madīna during the Mamlūk Period, in Studia Islamica 80 (1994), 98–119. Motzki, H., Die Entstehung des Rechts, in A. Noth and J. Paul (eds.), Der islamische Orient: Grundzüge seiner Geschichte, Würzburg s.d., 151–172. Murray, H.J.R., A History of Board Games other than Chess, Oxford 1952. Nagel, T., Tīmūr der Eroberer und die islamische Welt des späten Mittelalters, Munich 1993. Die Islamische Welt bis 1500, Munich 1998. Das islamische Recht: Eine Einführung, Westhofen 2001. Naṣṣār, Ḥusayn: al-Muʿjam al-ʿarabī, 2 vols., Cairo 1956. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, Oral Transmission and the Book in Islamic Education: The Spoken and the Written Word, in Journal of Islamic Studies 3 (1992), 1–14. Nemoy, L., Transactions of the Conneticut Academy of Arts and Sciences Volume 40: Pages 1–273, Arabic Manuscripts in the Yale University Library, New Haven ct 1956. Niebuhr, C., Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und anderen umliegenden Ländern, ed. F. Sezgin, multiple vols., Frankfurt 1994 (reprint of the edition Copenhagen 1774). Nicholson, R.A., The Lives of ʿUmar Ibnuʾl-Farid and Muhiyyuʾddin Ibnuʾl-ʿArabi. Ex- tracted from the Shadharátuʾl-Dhahab, in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 38 (1906), 797–824. A Literary History of the Arabs, Cambridge 1953. Northrup, L.S., The Baḥrī Mamlūk sultanate: 1250–1390, in The Cambridge History of Egypt, i, ed. C.F. Petry, Cambridge 1998, 242–289. Nützel, H., Münzen der Rasūliden nebst einem Abriss der Geschichte dieser jemenitischen Dynastie, Berlin 1891. O’Fahey, R.S., Enigmatic Saint: Aḥmad Ibn Idris and the Idrisi Tradition, London 1990. Ouyang, W.-C., Literary Criticism in Medieval Arabic-Islamic Culture: The Making of a Tradition, Edinbugh 1997. Paret, R., Der Koran: Kommentar und Konkordanz: Zweite Auflage, Stuttgart/Berlin/ Cologne/Mainz 1977. Parlett, D., The Oxford History of Board Games, Oxford 1999. 282 bibliography

Pellat, C., Arabische Geisteswelt: Ausgewählte und übersetzte Texte von al-Ğāḥiẓ (777– 869) unter Zugrundelegung der arabischen Originaltexte. Aus dem Französischen übertragen von Walter W. Müller, Zürich/Stuttgart 1967. Petry, C.F., Travel patterns of medieval notables in the Near East, in Studia Islamica 62 (1986), 53–88. al-Sakhāwī, Shams al-Dīn Abū l-Khayr Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al- Shāfiʿī, in ei2, viii, 881–882. Popper, W., Abū l-Maḥāsin, Djamāl al-Dīn Yūsuf b. Taghrībirdī, in ei2, i, 138. al-Qannawjī, Abū l-Ṭayyib Ṣiddīq b. Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Luṭf Allāh al-Ḥusaynī al-Bukhārī, al- Tāj al-mukallal min jawāhir māʾāthir al-ṭirāz al-ākhir wa-l-awwal, ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥakīm Sharaf al-Dīn, s.l. 1383/1963. Mawsūʿat muṣṭalaḥāt abjad al-ʿulūm, ed. Rafīq al-ʿAjam and ʿAbdallāh al-Khāli- dī, Beirut 2001. al-Qaysī, Qāsim, Tārīkh al-tafsīr, s.l. 1385/1966. Quiring-Zoche, R., Iṣfahān im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert: Ein Beitrag zur persischen Stadt- geschichte, Freiburg 1980. al-Qummī, ʿAbbās b. Muḥammad Riḍā, al-Kunā wa-l-alqāb, 3 vols., Najaf 1969. Qutbuddin, T., Khuṭba, in B. Gruendler (ed.), Classical Arabic Humanities in Their Own Terms. Festschrift for Wolfhart Heinrichs on his 65th Birthday Presented by his Students and Colleagues, Leiden/Boston 2008, 176–273. Redhouse, J.W. (ed.), The Pearl-Strings; A History of the Resúliyy Dynasty of Yemen by ʿAliyyuʾbnuʾl-Hasan ʿEl-Khazrejiyy; Translation and Text with Annotations and Index, 3 vols., Leiden/London, 1906–1908. Reichmuth, S., The Interplay of Local Developments and Transnational Relations in the Islamic World: Perceptions and Perspectives, in A. von Kügelgen, M. Kemper and A. Frank (eds.), Muslim Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries, Berlin 1998, 5–38. Islamic Scholarship between Imperial Center and Pronvices in the 18th Cen- tury: The Case of Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī (d. 1205/1791) and his Ottoman Contacts, in K. Çiçek et al. (eds.), The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilization 3: Philosophy, Science, and Institutions, Ankara 2000, 357–365. Notes on Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī’s Muʿjam as a Source for al-Jabartī’s History, in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 25 (2001), 374–383. Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī und die Afrikaner. Beziehungen und Diskurse in einem islamischen Gelehrten-Netzwerk des 18. Jahrhunderts, in Sudanic Africa. A Journal of Historical Sources 12 (2001), 43–82. Islam. 1–4, in F. Jaeger (ed.), Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit. Im Auftrag des Kultur- wissenschaftlichen Instituts (Essen) und in Verbindung mit den Fachwissenschaftlern, v, Stuttgart/Weimar 2007, 1098–1123. Freundschaft und Liebe im Werk von Murtaḍā az-Zabīdī (1145–1205/1732–1791), bibliography 283

in S. Reichmuth and F. Schwarz (eds.), Zwischen Alltag und Schriftkultur: Horizonte des Individuellen in der arabischen Literatur des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, Würburg 2008, 101–129. Muslimische Gesellschaften, in F. Jaeger (ed.), Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit. Im Auftrag des Kulturwissenschaftlichen Instituts (Essen) und in Verbindung mit den Fachwissenschaftlern, viii, Stuttgart/Weimar 2008, 956–977. The World of Murṭadā al-Zabīdī (1732–1791): Life, Networks and Writings, Oxford 2009. Sufismus, in Friedrich Jaeger (ed.), Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit. Im Auftrag des Kulturwissenschaftlichen Instituts (Essen) und in Verbindung mit den Fachwissen- schaftlern, xiii, Stuttgart/Weimar 2011, 108–116. Tradition. 4.-4.4: Islam, in F. Jaeger (ed.), Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit. Im Auftrag des Kulturwissenschaftlichen Instituts (Essen) und in Verbindung mit den Fachwis- senschaftlern, xiii, Stuttgart/Weimar 2011, 692–695. Reichmuth, S. and H. Sievert, Osmanisches Reich, in F. Jaeger (ed.), Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit. Im Auftrag des Kulturwissenschaftlichen Instituts (Essen) und in Verbindung mit den Fachwissenschaftlern, ix, Stuttgart/Weimar 2009, 560–586. Renard, J., Windows on the House of Islam. Muslim Sources on Spirituality and Religious Life, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1996. Rikabi, J., Ibn Nubāta, Abū Yaḥyā ʿAbd al-Raḥīm b. Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl al-Ḥudhaqī al-Fāriqī, in ei2, iii, 900–901. Rippin, A., al-Zuhrī, nash al-Qurʾān and the Problem of Early Tafsīr Texts, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 47 (1984), 22–43. Lexicographical Texts and the Qurʾān, in idem (ed.), Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qurʾān, Oxford 1988, 158–174. Tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās and Criteria for dating early tafsīr texts, in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 18 (1994), 38–83. Tafsīr, in ei2, x, 83–88. Ritter, H., Autographs in Turkish Libraries, in Oriens 6 (1953), 63–90. Robson, J., al-Baghawī, Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥusayn b. Masʿūd b. Muḥammad al-Farrāʾ, in ei2, i, 893. Robson, J., Ḥadīth, in ei2, iii, 23–28. Roemer, H.R., Persien auf dem Weg in die Neuzeit: Iranische Geschichte von 1350–1750, Stuttgart 1989. Roper, G., Texts from Nineteenth Century Egypt: The Role of E.W. Lane, in P. Starkey and J. Starkey (eds.), Travellers in Egypt, London/New York 1998, 244–254. Rosenthal, F., The Technique and Approach of Muslim Scholarship, Rome 1947. A History of Muslim Historiography: Second Revised Edition, Leiden 1968. Ibn al-Athīr (1), in ei2, iii, 723–724. Ibn Ḥadjar al-ʿAsqalānī, Shihāb al-Dīn Abū l-Faḍl Aḥmad b. Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad, in ei2, iii, 776–778. 284 bibliography

Ibn al-ʿImād, ʿAbd al-Ḥayy b. Aḥmad, in ei2, iii, 807. al-Maḳrīzī, Taḳī al-Dīn Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Ḳādir, in ei2, vi, 193–194. nasab, in ei2, vii, 967–968. al-Ṣafadī, Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Khalīl b. Aybak, Abū l-Ṣafāʾ al-Albakī, in ei2, viii, 759– 760. Rowson, E.K., al-Ṣafadī (1297–23 July 1363), in J.E. Lowry and D.J. Stewart (eds.), Essays in Arabic Literary Biography: 1350–1850, Wiesbaden 2009, 341–357. Ruska, J. and M. Plessner, ʿAnbar, in ei2, i, 484. Rypka, J., Iranische Literaturgeschichte, Wiesbaden 1959. Sadek, N., Zabīd, in ei2, xi, 370–371. Şaik Gökyay, O., Kātib Čelebi, in ei2, iv, 760–762. al-Sakhāwī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, al-Iʿlān bi-l-tawbīkh li-man dhamma ahl al-taʾrīkh, in F. Rosenthal, A History of Muslim Historiography (ʿIlm al- taʾrīkhʿindaal-muslimīn), trans. Ṣāliḥ Aḥmad al-ʿAlī, ed. Muḥammad Tawfīq Ḥusayn, Baghdad 1963, 371–725. al-Jawāhir wa-l-durar, in F. Rosenthal, ʿIlm al-tārīkh ʿind al-muslimīn, trans. Ṣāliḥ Aḥmad al-ʿĀlī, ed. Muḥammad Tawfīq Ḥusayn, Baghdad 1963, 727–751. al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ li-ahl al-qarn al-tāsiʿ, 12 vols., Beirut 1992. Sakli, M., Wāsiṭ, in ei2, xi, 165–169. Salibi, K.S., Ibn Djamāʿ, in ei2, iii, 748–749. Sarkīs, Yūsuf Ilyās, Muʿjam al-maṭbūʿāt al-ʿarabiyya wa-l-muʿarraba. Wa-huwa shāmil al-asmāʾ al-kutub al-maṭbūʿa fi-l-aqṭār al-sharqiyya wa-l-gharbiyya maʿa dhikr asmāʾ muʿallifīhā wa-lumʿa min tarājim wa-dhālika min yawm ẓuhūr al-ṭibāʿa ilā nihāyat al-sana al-hijriyya 1339 al-muwāfiqa li-sanat 1919 mīlādiyya, Cairo 1346/1928. Saunders, J.J., The History of the Mongol Conquests, London 1971. Sauvaget, J., Ḥalab, in ei2, iii, 85–90. Savory, R.M., Čūbānids, in ei2, ii, 67–68. Scarcia Amoretti, B., ʿIlm al-ridjāl, in ei2, iii, 1150–1152. Schacht, J., Fiḳh, in ei2, ii, 886–891. Ibn ʿAḳīl, ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbdallāh Bahāʾ al-Dīn al-Hāshimī, in ei2, iii, 698–699. Ibn Ḳāḍī Shuhba, in ei2, iii, 814. Schacht, J. and C.E. Bosworth, al-Subkī, in ei2, ix, 743–745. Schacker-Mill, J., Otherness and Otherworldliness. E.W.Lane’s Ethnographic Treatment of The Arabian Nights, Journal of American Folklore 113/448 (2000), 164–184. Schimmel, A., Mystical Dimensions of Islam, Chapel Hill 1975. Islamic Names, Edinburgh 1989. Schoeler, G., Wer ist der Verfasser des Kitāb al-ʿAin?, in S. Leder, H. Kilpatrick, B. Martel- Thoumian and H. Schönig (eds.), Studies in Arabic and Islam: proceedings of the 19th bibliography 285

congress, Union Européenne des Arabisants et Islamisants, Halle 1998, Leuven/Paris/ Sterling 2002, 409–418. Schöck, C., Propheten, in R.W. Brednich et al. (eds.), Enzyklopädie des Märchens. Hand- wörterbuch zur historischen und vergleichenden Erzählforschung, x, Berlin/New York 2002, 1405–1414. Schöller, M., Exegetisches Denken und Prophetenbiographie: Eine quellenkritische Ana- lyse der Sīra-Überlieferung zu Muḥammads Konflikt mit den Juden, Wiesbaden 1998. Schubert, G. (ed.), Fritz Meier.Nachgelassene Schriften, i: Bemerkungen zur Mohammed- verehrung, Teil i: Die Segenssprechung über Mohammed (herausgegeben von Bernd Radtke und Gudrun Schubert), Leiden/Boston/Cologne 2002. Schubert, G. and R. Würsch, Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Basel: Arabis- che Handschriften, Basel 2001. Seidensticker, T., Lexicography. Classical Arabic, in C. Versteegh (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, iii, Leiden/Boston 2008, 30–37. Sellheim, R., al-Khalīl b. Aḥmad, in ei2, iv, 962–964. Şeşen, R., C. İzgi, and C. Akpinar (eds.), Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Köprülü Library, 3 vols., Istanbul 1406/1986. Sezgin, F., Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifttums, 15 vols., Leiden/Frankfurt 1967–2010. Shafīʿ, M., Ratan, Bābā, Ḥādjdjī, Abū ʾl-Riḍā, in ei2, viii, 457–459. al-Shaʿrānī, Yawāqīt wa-l-jawāhir (sharḥ Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya li-Ibn al-ʿArabī), ed. Aḥ- mad al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, Cairo 1306/1888–1889. Sharif, M.M., A History of Muslim Philosophy. With Short Accounts of other Disciplines and the Modern Renaissance in Muslim Lands, 2 vols., Wiesbaden 1963–1966. al-Shawkānī, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ bi-maḥāsin man baʿd al-qarn al-sābiʿ, 2 vols., Cairo ca. 1990. Shivtiel, Avihai, Root-Dictionary or Alphabetical Dictionary. A Methodological Dilem- ma, in K. Dévényi, T. Iványi and A. Shivtiel (eds.), Proceedings of the Colloquium on Arabic Lexicology and Lexicography (c.a.l.l.). Part One—Budapest, 1–7 September 1993, Budapest 1993, 13–25. Ṣidqī, B., Naẓarāt fī taḥqīq kitāb al-Bulgha fī tārīkh aʾimmat al-lugha li-l-Fīrūzābādī, in Revue de l’Académie Arabe de Damas 48 (1973), 429–436. Smith, J.M. Jr., Djalāyir, Djalāyirid, in ei2, ii, 401–402. Smith, G.R., The Ayyūbids and Early Rasūlids in the Yemen (557–694/1173–1295), ii, Lon- don 1978. Taʿizz, in ei2, x, 118. s.n., ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī, in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, i, Chicago et al. 1994, 16. s.n., Fīrūzābādī, al-, in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, iv, Chicago et al. 1994, 794. s.n., Islām, in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, xxii, Chicago et al. 1994, 1–44. s.n., Rasūlid Dynasty, in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, ix, Chicago et al. 1994, 950. 286 bibliography

Sourdel, D., Ghazza, in ei2, ii, 1056–1057. Sourdel-Thomine, J. et al., Iṣfahān, in ei2, iv, 97–107. Spies, O., Die Bibliotheken des Hidschas, in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 90/15 (1936), 83–120. Spuler, B. (ed.), Wüstenfeld-Mahler’sche Vergleichungstabellen zur muslimischen und iranischen Zeitrechnung mit Tafeln zur Umrechnung Orient-Christlicher Ären: Dritte, verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage der “Vergleichungs-Tabellen der Mohammedanis- chen und Christlichen Zeitrechnung”, Wiesbaden 1961. Die Mongolen in Iran. Politik, Verwaltung und Kultur der Ilchanzeit 1220–1350, Berlin 1968. Stevens, M. (ed.), The Orientalists: Delacroix to Matisse. European Painters in North Africa and the Near East, London 1984. Stocks, P., Edward William Lane and his Arabic-English “Thesaurus”, in The British Library Journal 15 (1989), 23–34. Storey, C.A., Persian Literature: A Bio-Bibliographical Survey, 8 vols., London 1927–1939. Streck, M. and G.C. Miles, Iṣṭakhr, in ei2, iv, 219–222. al-Subkī, Tāj al-Dīn Abū Naṣr ʿAbd al-Wahhāb b. ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Kāfī, Ṭabaqātal-Shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā, ed. Maḥmud Muḥammad al-Ṭanāḥī and ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Muḥammad al- Ḥulw, 10 vols., Cairo 1383/1964. Suleiman, Y., The Arabic Grammatical Tradition: A Study in taʿlīl, Edinburgh 1999. al-Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Dhayl Ṭabaqāt al-ḥuffāẓ li-l-Dhahabī, Damascus 1347/1928. Bughyat al-wuʿāt fī ṭabaqāt al-lughawiyyīn wa-l-nuḥāt, ed. Muḥammad Abū l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm, 2 vols., Cairo 1384/1964–1965. al-Muzhir fī ʿulūm al-lugha wa-anwāʿihā, eds. Muḥammad Aḥmad Jād-al-Maw- la Beg, Muḥammad Abū l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm and ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Bajāwī, 2 vols., Cairo, s.d. Radd ʿalā man akhlada ilā l-arḍ wa-jahila ʿan al-ijtihād fi-kulli aṣrin farḍ, Beirut 1403/11983. Ṭalbī, M., Al-Muhaṣṣas [sic.] d’Ibn Sīda: Étude-Index, Tunis 1956. Ibn Khaldūn, Walī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan, in ei2, iii, 825–831. Ibn Sīda (Sīduh) Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Ismāʿīl, in ei2, iii, 940. Talmon, R., Arabic Grammar in its Formative Age. Kitāb al-ʿAyn and its Attribution to Ḫalīl b. Aḥmad, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1997. al-Tarmānīnī, ʿAbd al-Salām, Aḥdāth al-tārīkh al-islāmī bi-tartīb al-sinīn. Yashtamil ʿalā ahamm aḥdāth al-tārīkh al-islāmī maʿa tarjama li-ashhar al-aʿlām wa-taʿrīf bi-l-ma- wāqiʿ wa-l-buldān, 6 vols., Damascus 1417/1997. Ṭashköprüzādeh, Aḥmad b. Muṣṭafā, Miftāḥ al-saʿāda wa-miṣbāḥ al-siyāda, 3 vols., Hyderabad 1328–1356/1910–1937. bibliography 287

al-Shaqāʾiq al-nuʿmāniyya fī ʿulamāʾ al-dawla al-ʿuthmāniyya, ed. Aḥmad Ṣubḥī Furāt, Istanbul 1985. Taymūr, A., Taṣḥīḥ al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, Cairo 1343/11924. Naẓratārīkhiyyafīḥudūthal-madhāhibal-arbaʿa—Ḥanafīwa-Mālikīwa-Shāfiʿī wa-ntishāruhā, Cairo 1344/1925. The Encyclopaedia of Islam: New Edition. Multiple editors, multiple publishers, Vol. i (1960) – Vol. xi (2002), Supplement (2004) and Index (2009). Thompson, J. “I felt like an Eastern Bridegroom”: Edward William Lane’s first Trip to Egypt, 1825–1828, in Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 17 (1993), 138–141. A reassessment of Edward William Lane, in NewsletteroftheAmericanResearch Center in Egypt 16 (Fall/Winter 1994–1995), 1–5. Edward William Lane as Egyptologist, in Minerva 6 (Fall 1995), 12–17. “Of the Osma’nlees, or Turks”: An Unpublished Chapter from Edward William Lane’s Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, in Turkish Studies Associa- tion Bulletin 19 (1995), 19–39. Edward William Lane’s “Description of Egypt”, in International Journal of Mid- dle Eastern Studies 28 (1996), 565–583. Edward William Lane in Egypt, in Newsletter of the American Research Center in Egypt 34 (1997), 243–261. Edward William Lane (1801–1876): The Life of the Pioneering Egyptologist and Orientalist, Cairo/New York 2010. Thomson, A., Les Égyptiens d’Edward William Lane, in Égypt/Monde Arabe 24 (1995), 29–75. Toomer, G.J., Eastern Wisedome and Learning: The Study of Arabic in Seventeenth-Cen- tury England, Oxford 1996. Tomiche, N., Nahḍa, in ei2, vii, 900–903. Troupeau, G., Ḳuṭrub, in ei2, v, 567. Naḥw, in ei2, vii, 913–915. Ullmann, M., Die Medizin im Islam, Leiden/Cologne 1970. Ullmann, M./ Kellermann, M. (eds.): Wörterbuch der Klassischen Arabischen Sprache, ii/iv, Wiesbaden 2009. Veccia Vaglieri, L., ʿAbdallāh b. al-ʿAbbās, in ei2, i, 40–41. Versteegh, C.H.M., Arabische Sprachwissenschaft (Grammatik), in H. Gätje (ed.), Grundriß der Arabischen Philologie, Band ii: Literaturwissenchaft, Wiesbaden 1987, 148–176. Arabic Grammar and Qurʾānic Exegesis in Early Islam, Leiden/New York/Co- logne 1993. The Arabic Linguistic Tradition, London 1997. The Arabic Language, Edinburgh 1997. Watt, W.M., Abū Bakr, in ei2, i, 109–111. 288 bibliography

Weipert, R., Classical Arabic Philology and Poetry: A Bibliographical Handbook of Impor- tant Editions from 1960 to 2000, Leiden/Boston/Colgone 2002. Weiss, B., The Madhhab in Islamic Legal Theory, in P. Bearman, R. Peters and F.E. Vogel (eds.), The Islamic School of Law. Evolution, Devolution, and Progress, Cambridge ma 2005. Wensinck, A.J., Kunya, in ei2, v, 395–396. Miṣr. C, in ei2, vii, 146–147. Wensinck, A.J., and C.E. Bosworth, Makka iii, in ei2, vi, 149–150. Wiet, G., Barḳūḳ, in ei2, i, 1050–1051. Wild, S., Neues zur ältesten arabischen Lexikographie, in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 112 (1962), 291–298. Das Kitāb al-ʿAin und die arabische Lexikographie, Wiesbaden 1965. Arabische Lexikographie, in H. Gätje (ed.), Grundriß der arabischen Philologie, Band ii: Literaturwissenschaft, Wiesbaden 1987, 136–147. Winder, R.B. et al., al-Madīna, in ei2, v, 994–1007. Winter, M., Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt: Studies in the Writings of ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Shaʿrānī, New Brunswick/London 1982. Witkam, J.J., De Egyptische Arts Ibn al-Akfānī (gest. 749/1348) en zijn Indeling van de Wetenschappen, Leiden 1989. Wüstenfeld, F., Die Academien der Araber und ihre Lehrer: Nach Auszügen aus Ibn Schohba’s Klassen der Schafeȉten, bearbeitet von Ferdinand Wüstenfeld, Doctor der Philosophie und Assessor der philosophischen Facultät. Zur hundertjährigen Stif- tungsfeier der Academia Georgia Augusta. Göttingen 1837. Die Geschichtsschreiber der Araber und ihre Werke: Aus dem xxviii. Bande der Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft zu Göttingen, Göttingen 1882. Yaqūt b. ʿAbdallāh al-Ḥamawī al-Rūmī al-Baghdādī, Shihāb al-Dīn Abū ʿAbdallāh, Kitāb Muʿjam al-buldān, F. Wüstenfeld, Jacut’s Geographisches Wörterbuch aus den Hand- schriften zu Berlin, St. Petersburg, Paris, London und Oxford auf Kosten der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 6 vols., Leipzig 1866–1870. al-Zabīdī, Muḥammad Murtaḍā al-Ḥusaynī, Tāj al-ʿarūs min jawāhir al-Qāmūs, ed. ʿAbd al-Sattār Aḥmad Farrāj et al., 40 vols., Kuwait 1422/2001. al-Zanūzī, Muḥammad Ḥasan al-Ḥusaynī, Riyāḍ al-janna, ed. Maḥmūd al-Marʿashī al-Najafī et al., multiple vols., Qom 2007. al-Zāwī [al-Ṭarābulusī], al-Ṭāhir Aḥmad, Tartīb al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ ʿāla ṭarīq al-Miṣbāḥ al-munīr wa-Asās al-balāgha, 4 vols, Cairo s.d. Mukhtār al-Qāmūs. Murattab ʿalā ṭarīqat mukhtār al-Ṣiḥāḥ wa-l-Miṣbāḥ al- Munīr, s.l. 11964/1383. Zenker, T.J., Bibliotheca Orientalis: Manuel de Bibliographie Orientale. Contenant Par- ties i et ii, Appendix: Moritz Steinschneider: Neu-persische Drucke der Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, Amsterdam 1966. bibliography 289 al-Ziriklī, Khayr al-Dīn, al-Aʿlām. Qāmūs tarājim li-ashhar al-rijāl wa-l-nisāʾ min al-ʿArab wa-l-mustaʿribīn wa-l-mustashriqīn, 13 vols., Beirut 1970.

4 Internet Sources http://tuhfa-ahlhadeeth.blogspot.de/2012/08/blog-post_1299.html. (24 January, 2014)

Tagungsbericht ht 2010: Historische Epochengrenzen und Periodisierungssysteme im globalen Vergleich 28.09.2010–01.10.2010, Berlin, in: H-Soz-u-Kult, 30.10.2010, available online at http:// hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/tagungsberichte/id = 3346. (30 April, 2012) al-Maqqarī al-Tilimsānī: al-Zahr al-riyāḍ accessed via http://ktp.isam.org.tr/?url=dokuman/findrecords.php (url does not change during search process. Select: Document Database—Letter f—page 6—al-Fīrūzābādī pdf.) (10 January, 2014) www.al-Mostafa.com (Manuscript database. Access procedure does not yield url. Details given with citation of the individual manuscripts) www.yazmalar.gov.tr (Manuscript database—signatures of mss given where the database is cited) Index adab 101 al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl as discipline 12n19 marrying al-Fīrūzābādī’s daughter 130 al-Fīrūzābādī studying 12, 13 relationship to 131 works of 101, 171–172 see also Rasūlids Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 28, 254 Ashraf Nāṣir al-Dīn Shaʿbān 46 Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar b. ʿUthmān 44 see also Mamlūks Abū Ḥafṣ, Zayn al-Dīn 99 Asmāʾ al-ghāda fī asmāʾ al-ʿāda ʿAdan 66, 66n290, 88, 89, 89n376, 94, 95, description of 198–199 95n388 influence by al-Ṣaghānī 62 al-Aḥādīth al-ḍaʿīfa Asmāʾ al-ḥamd 213 and Bābā Ratan al-Batrandī 61 Asmāʾ al-khamd 213 description of 102–103, 184–185 Asmāʾ al-sirāḥ fī asmāʾ al-nikāḥ 199–200 Aḥāsin al-laṭāʾif fī maḥāsin al-Ṭāʾif 173–174 al-ʿAṭṭār, Muẓaffar al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Uways Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā 98 escaping from Tīmūr Lank 65n289, 88, al-ʿAwādī, Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿUmar 100 126 inviting al-Fīrūzābādī 65, 88 see also Jalāʾirid dynasty Bābā Ratan al-Batrandī al-ʿAlāʾī, Khalīl b. al-Kaykaldī debate of 61 influence on al-Fīrūzābādī’s works 104, and al-Aḥādīth al-ḍaʿīfa 61 190 see also Bhattrinda, muʿammar, ṣaḥāba teaching al-Fīrūzābādī 38, 38n146 Baghdad teaching transmitted by al-Fīrūzābādī conquest by Tīmūr Lank 88 118 diversification of reports 10, 30, 90, 92 al-ʿAlawī, Sulaymān b. Ibrāhīm b. ʿUmar 55, fall of 132, 133, 252 55n224, 127 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, alcohol 30, 31, 62, 65, 88 attitude towards 48 al-Fīrūzābādī teaching in 2, 22, 124, 170 works on 46–48, 201–202, 212–213 al-Bajalī, Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ḥusayn Aleppo 126 as rarely mentioned location 8 al-Bakrī, Ṣadr al-Dīn 36 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 37 Baʿlabakk al-Anṣārī al-Zarandī al-Madanī, Shams al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī present in 37 b. ʿAbd Allāh Maḥmūd b. Yūsuf as rarely mentioned location 8 teaching al-Fīrūzābādī 12, 19, 155, 156 balad al-rūm 29, 52, 64, 92 introducing al-Fīrūzābādī to Sufism 66, Balāgh al-talqīn fī gharāʾib al-laʿīn/ʿayn (?) 143 200–201 Anwāʾ al-ghayth fī asmāʾ al-layth Banū l-qāḍī Aḥmad b. Ḍiyāʾ 127 description of 196–197 al-Baṣāʾir dhawī l-tamyīz fī laṭāʾif al-kitāb influence by al-Ṣaghānī 62 al-ʿazīz ʿArafa as unconventional tafsīr 101, 141, 146, al-Fīrūzābādī present in 114 255 work on 178–179 description of 134–141, 219–221 al-ʿArdī, ʿAlī b. Aḥmad 40, 98 used poltically 19, 133, 141, 142, 146 al-ʿArshānī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b. relationship to Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ 85, 142, Aḥmad 127 146 index 291

Baṣāʾir al-naẓāʾir 239 Delhi al-Bayānī, Allāh Shams al-Dīn 36 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 60 Bāyazīd Yildirim see also India fighting Tīmūr Lank 65, 100 al-Dīwānī, Shihāb Aḥmad b. ʿAlī 22 meeting al-Fīrūzābādī 64, 65, 94 al-Durr al-ghālī fi-l-aḥādīth al-ʿawālī 185– see also Ottoman dynasty 186 Bhattrinda al-Durr al-naẓīm al-murshid ilā maqāṣid al-Fīrūzābādī present in 60 al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm 221–222 see also Bābā Ratan al-Batrandī al-Bulgha fī tārīkh aʾimmat al-naḥw wa-l-lugha Egypt 227–229 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 46, 51, 52, 77 al-Burayhī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b. see also Cairo, Miṣr Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. ʿUmar 126 al-Burayhī, Ṣafī al-Dīn ʿAbd Allāh b. Abū Bakr faḍāʾil 126 of madhāhib 191 Bursa works of 173–174 conquest by Tīmūr Lank 65 Faḍāʾil al-khamsa 242 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 65, 95, 252 al-Faḍl al-wāfī fi-l-ʿadl al-Ashrafī 101, as rarely mentioned location 8 171–172 Fahrasa 240 Cairo al-Farāʾid 241 al-Fīrūzābādī meeting Ibn Hishām in al-Fāsī al-Makkī al-Mālikī 29–30 as biographer 7, 35, 36, 90, 91, 93, 96, 170 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 29–30, 40, 42, meeting al-Fīrūzābādī 117, 118, 123 48, 53, 92 reception of works by 53, 109, 101, 111, 117, al-Fīrūzābādī studying in 37, 53 118, 119, 121 see also Miṣr Faṣl al-durr fi-l-nuḥūr 239 caliphate see khalīfa Faṣl al-durra fī faḍl al-Salāma ʿalā l-Khubza Čubānid dynasty 21, 21n59 174–175 Faṣl fī sūrat Yā-Sīn Dahlak archipelago 116, 116n448 description of 115–116, 222–223 Damascus and al-Jabartī 115, 144 disputed time of arrival 30, 35 Fatāwā fī Muḥyī l-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī 152–154, al-Fīrūzābādī present in 31, 34, 36, 43, 45, 238 46 Fatḥ al-bārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī al-Fīrūzābādī studying in 37, 40, 92 and Futūḥāt al-makkiyya 146, 168 importance for scholar’s develop- description of 146–149, 186–188 ment 2, 31–32, 34, 36, 45, 155–156, fiqh 250 reputation in 150–151, 157, 244, 246 see also al-Shām al-Fīrūzābādī studying 13, 38 al-Damatī, Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ṣāliḥ al-Fīrūzābādī teaching 126 127 works of 138, 180–183 al-Ḍarāsī (?), Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Abī al-Fīrūzābādī, Isḥāq 14, 17, 254 l-Qāsim 126 al-Fīrūzābādī, Majd al-Dīn Muḥammad b. decent Yaʿqūb passim ambiguity relating to 14–15 Fīrūz Shāh Ẓafar b. Fīrūz Shāh iii 60 claims made to 14–15 Futūḥāt al-makkiyya significance of 17–19 and Fatḥ al-bārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī see also genealogy 146, 168 292 index genealogy Ibn ʿAbbād 79, 80 interest in 15, 246 Ibn ʿAbd al-Dāʾim, Aḥmad 36, 118n455 and ḥadīth 16 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ṣamad 127 Ghazza Ibn ʿAqīl 22, 170 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 38 Ibn al-ʿArabī in Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ 38n151 and ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī 42 grammar dipute over 143–163 interest in 245, 248 and Fatḥ al-bārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī orientation in 27 148–149 reputation in 27 al-Fīrūzābādī’s reception of 39 works of 28–29, 138 al-Fīrūzābādī’s works on 146–149, 152–154 ḥadīth Ibn ʿAsākir, Aḥmad b. Hibat Allāh 36 al-Fīrūzābādī studying 38, 145, 155 Ibn Baktāsh, al-Sharaf ʿAbd Allāh 23 al-Fīrūzābādī teaching 123, 125, 126, 127, “Ibn al-Baṣṣāl” Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Aḥmad b. 128, 129, 146 Khalīl b. Nāṣir b. ʿAlī 127 and interest in genealogy 15, 41 Ibn Fahhād 129 and interest in prophecy 248, 253 Ibn Ḥaddad al-Ḥanafī, Yaḥyā b. ʿAlī 98 reputation in 148–149, 169, 245 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī al-Kinānī al-Shāfiʿī transmission of al-Fīrūzābādī’s works on meeting al-Fīrūzābādī 18 168 reception of works by al-Fīrūzābādī 78, works of 138, 183–196, 241 125, 148, 168, 245, 257 al-Ḥaḍramī, Muḥammad b. Sālim 99 and al-Fīrūzābādī’s reputation 170 al-Ḥalabī, Sibṭ b. al-ʿAjamī, Burhān al-Dīn Abū Ibn Ḥamawī, Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl 13 Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad b. Khalīl Ibn Hishām 127 his works used by al-Fīrūzābādī 9, 27 Hama influence on al-Fīrūzābādī 29 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 37 meeting al-Fīrūzābādī 29–30 as rarely mentioned location 8 Ibn Jahbal, Nāṣir al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl al-Ḥamawī, Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl 98 b. Yaḥyā b. Ismāʿīl al-Dimashqī 33, 35–36 al-Ḥamīrī/Ḥumayrī (?) al-Damatī, ʿAfīf al-Dīn Ibn Jamāʿa Ṣāliḥ b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿUmrān teaching al-Fīrūzābādī 53 127 transmission of his teaching by al- Ḥanbaliyya Fīrūzābādī 53, 118 contact to 40 and Zād[at] al-maʿād fī wazn Bānat Suʿād and Rawḍat al-nāẓir fī tarjamat al-shaykh 55, 219 ʿAbd al-Qādir 40, 42, 167 Ibn Kathīr, ʿImād al-Dīn Ismāʿīl b. ʿUmar 45, Ḥanafiyya 46 attitude towards 21, 48, 154 Ibn al-Khabbāz, Muḥammad b. Ismāʾīl b. contact to 34, 155f. Ibrāḥīm b. Sālim 12 work on 159–161, 229–230 Ibn al-Khayyāṭ 146–163 al-Ḥarāzī, Taqī al-Dīn 99 Ibn Madar, Ibrāhīm 36 al-Ḥillī, Ṣafī al-Dīn 30 Ibn Nafīs al-Mawṣilī, Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī 36 al-Hind see India Ibn al-Najm, ʿAbd Allāh b. Maḥmūd 12 Hurmuz Ibn Nubāta, Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. al-Fīrūzābādī present in 66, 88–89 Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan and Dahlak 116n448 al-Fāriqī al-Miṣrī 39, 42, 170 Ḥāṣil kūrat al-khalāṣ fī faḍāʾil sūrat al-ikhlāṣ Ibn Qahr 150 223–224 Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya 34–35, 66 index 293

Ibn Qāymāz al-Aṣgharī (?), Dāwūd b. ʿAlī b. al-Jalīs al-anīs fī asmāʾ al-khandarīs Abī Bakr 128 description of 46–48, 201–202 Ibn al-Sabbāk, Tāj al-Dīn Muḥammad 24, 26 see also alcohol Ibn Ṣārim 45 Jām jahān nāma 239 Ibn Sharīshī, Badr al-Dīn 45 al-Jarīrī, Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿUmar Ibn Sīda, Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Ismāʿīl 126 as authority in al-Fīrūzābādī’s works 50, al-Jawharī 120 as authority in al-Fīrūzābādī’s works 84, Ibn al-Tūnisī, Naṣr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Abī 120 l-Qāsim 98 critique of 83–85 Ibn ʿUdīs, Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Jazāʾirī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-Ghaffār 12, 128 98 Ibn Zubayda 128 Jerusalem Ibn Qalāwūn, Muḥammad 52 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 31–32, 38 Ibtihāj al-nufūs bi-dhikr mā fāta al-Qāmūs importance for scholar’s development 2, 239 38 ijtihād jihād work on 112–113, 182–183 and ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī and affiliation to madhhab 251 work on 181–182 Imtiḍāḍ al-shihād fī iftirāḍ al-jihād al-Jīlānī, ʿAbd al-Qādir description of 181–182 interest in 40, 42, 167 and ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī 182 work on 40–41, 231–232 India dating al-Fīrūzābādī’s presence in Kaʿb b. Zuhayr 54 60–62 kalām contacts to Yemen 60 interest in 244 see also Delhi works of 180–183 Indjūnids 21 Kārizīn 11 Īlkhānids 10, 10n4, 21n62 Kāzarūn 11 iʿrāb khalīfa work on 28–29, 214–215 end of caliphate 133 see also grammar Rasūlids as 19, 132, 141, 142, 167, 252 ʿIrāq see Baghdad al-Khubza al-Isʿād bi-l-iṣʿād ilā darajat al-ijtihād 112– al-Fīrūzābādī present in 114 213, 182–183 work on 174–175 Iṣfahān Kitāb al-ʿaqāʾid 239 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 19 Kitāb al-fawāʾid al-mashhūr bi-l-Ghaylāniyyāt work on 19–20 al-Fīrūzābādī studying 39, 98 al-Ishārāt ilā mā fī kutub al-fiqh min al-asmāʾ wa-l-amākin wa-l-lughāt 180 al-Lāmiʿ al-muʿallam al-ʿujāb al-jāmiʿ bayn Ishārat al-shujūn ilā ziyārat al-Ḥajūn 109 al-Muḥkam wa-l-ʿUbāb 72–74, 202– al-Isnawī 22, 113, 170 204 Lane, Edward William 68 al-Jabaljīlī, Sirāj al-Dīn Abū Ḥafṣ 51 Lexicon Arabico-Latinum 67 al-Jaʿbārī, al-Khalīl b. Aḥmad 36 al-Lisān al-ʿarab 81n344 al-Jabartī lugha teaching al-Fīrūzābādī 143 attitude towards 85–86 and Faṣl fī sūrat Yā-Sīn 115, 144, 233 reputation in 36, 97, 159, 169, 244 Jalāʾirid dynasty 21, 23, 65, 88 al-Fīrūzābādī studying 11, 12, 13 294 index

al-Fīrūzābādī teaching 45, 125, 126 Minā works of 196–219, 239 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 116, 118 madāris in 100, 124, 129 Madd al-Qāmūs 69–71 work on 116–118, 179–180 madhhab al-Mirqāt al-arfaʿiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya ambivalence of affiliation 21, 113, 156f., 230–231 166f. al-Mirqāt al-wafiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya ascription to al-Fīrūzābādī 18 229–230, 159–161 al-Madīna Miṣr al-Fīrūzābādī present in 58, 114, 116 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 46 madāris in 118, 124 see also Cairo, Egypt work on 56–58, 177, 242 muʿammar al-Maghānim al-muṭāba fī maʿālim Ṭāba interest in 60 56–58, 177 see also Bābā Ratan al-Batrandī Majmaʿ al-suʾālāt / Asʾila min Siḥāḥ al-Jawharī al-Mughnī l-labīb ʿan kutub al-aʿārīb 9, 27, 206 169 al-Makkī al-Mālikī, (Bakr) al-Khalīl b. ʿAbd Muḥammad see prayer, prophecy, al-Raḥmān 99 Prophetenfrömmigkeit, sīra naba- Mālikiyya 167, 251 wiyya manuscripts al-Muʿīn 239 possession of 12 mujaddid autographs 62, 73, 83, 143, 204 al-Qārī as 157 Mamlūks 29, 30, 46, 52 status ascribed to al-Fīrūzābādī 86n366 Maqṣūd dhawī l-albāb fī ʿilm al-iʿrāb 28–29 Muʿjam 240 al-Maqrīzī Muʾnisa Khātūn bt. Malik al-ʿĀdil meeting al-Fīrūzābādī 56, 125 reception of 42, 98 reception of Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ by 55 Mukhtaṣar 239 al-Marāghī al-Miṣrī, Abū l-Fatḥ Sharaf al-Dīn al-Munyat al-sūl fī daʿawāt al-rasūl 188 Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥusayn b. al-Muqaddasī, ʿAbd al-Ghanī 13, 118 ʿUmar b. Muḥammad b. Yūnis b. Abū Muqaddima fī ʿilm al-ḥurūf al-hijāʾ 242 l-Fakhr b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb b. Muḥammad al-Muqrī, Taqī al-Dīn 128 conflict with 149–152 al-Mardāwī, Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān/ʿAbd teaching al-Fīrūzābādī 150 al-Muʾmin 33 Muṣṭalaḥ al-hadīth al-nabawī 241 Marw Muʿtazila 51, 52 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 63 al-Muthallath al-mukhtalif al-maʿānī 206– work on 137 209 Mashāriq al-anwār al-nabawiyya al-Muthallath al-muttafiq al-maʿānī 206–209 al-Fīrūzābādī studying 24, 62 al-Muttafiq waḍʿan wa-l-mukhtalif ṣuqʿan commentary on 25–26, 192–193 234–235 Mashyakha 240 Muẓaffarids 21, 56, 88 mawlid 189–190, 252, 253, 260 Mazād al-zād 240 al-Nābulusī, Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Muẓaffar Mecca 34, 156 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 22, 30, 35, al-Nafḥa al-ʿanbariyya fī mawlid khayr 44–45, 46, 55, 56, 63, 64, 65, 88, 94, 96, al-bariyya 189–190 109, 113, 114, 115, 125 naḥw madāris in 56, 100, 124, 125, 129 reputation in 27 work on 58–59, 233–234 see also grammar index 295 al-Nāshirī, ʿAbd Allāh 150 al-Qalqashandī, Taqī al-Dīn 38 al-Nāshirī, Aḥmad b. Abū Bakr al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ wa-l-qabas al-wasīṭ teaching al-Fīrūzābādī 150 al-jāmiʿ li-mā dhahaba min lughat al-ʿarab conflict with 151 shamāṭīṭ Nughbat al-rashshāf min khuṭbat al-Kashshāf conclusion of first version 56 description of 49–51, 224–225 critique of al-Jawharī 82–86 and ḥadīth 52 design of lemmata 79–81 Nukhab al-ẓarāʾif fi-l-nukat al-sharāʾif imagined readership 81, 86 217–218 influence on European Arabic lexicogra- Nuzhat al-adhhān fī tārīkh Iṣbahān 19–20, phy 67–71 236–237 and Lane’s Madd al- Qāmūs 69–71 Nuzhat al-ṭālibīn wa-tuḥfat al-rāghīn fī sharḥ loanwords in 85–86 Qaṣīdat al-burda 240 reception by pupils 55, 78 textual history 77–78 Ottoman dynasty transmission 78 fighting Tīmūr Lank 65, 100 used for political purposes 19 see also Bāyazīd Yildirim versions 76–77, 78–79 Qaṣīdat al-burda patrons al-Fīrūzābādī studying 53 and detachment from conflict 17, 23–24, work on 53–55, 218–219, 240 97 al-Qasṭalānī, Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. al-Zayn 99 misapprehensions regarding identity 56 al-Qazwīnī, al-Sirāj ʿUmar b. ʿAlī 24 poetry Qurʾān al-Fīrūzābādī studying 22, 39, 42, 98, 153 al-Fīrūzābādī studying qirāʾāt 22 reputation in 86, 245 use in Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ 81–82, 257 works of 241, 217–219, 239 see also tafsīr see also shiʿr Quṭbat al-kashshāf fī sharḥ khuṭbat al- prayer Kashshāf 49–51, 224–225 work on 188 and Muḥammad 188, 215–217 al-Ramla 38 and Sifr al-saʿāda 191 Rasūlids prophecy declared khalīfa 19, 132, 141, 142, 167, interest in 18, 141, 253 252 work on 188 patronage from 100–114, 132, 155 see also Prophetenfrömmigkeit and Sufism 113, 143, 151 prophet(s) al-Rawḍ al-maslūf fī-mā lahu ismān ilā l-ulūf in Baṣāʾīr 137 209–210 and Ismāʿīl 247 Rawḍat al-nāẓir fī tarjamat al-shaykh ʿAbd and Muḥammad 154 al-Qādir Prophetenfrömmigkeit description of 40–41, 231–232 rise of 18, 251, 254 and interest in Ibn al-ʿArabī 42 see also prophecy Risāla fī bayān mā lam yathbut fīhi ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth min al-abwāb 102, 192 qāḍī Risāla fī ḥukm al-qanādīl al-nabawiyya fī dhikr ascention to office of 130, 149 al-qanādīl al-Madīna al-munawwara min office as means in conflict 149–151 al-dhahab wa-l-fiḍḍa 242 Qādiriyya 41, 42 Risāla fi-l-intiṣār li-ṣāhib al-futūḥāt al- al-Qalānisī, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. makkiyya 241 Abū l-Ḥarām 40, 98 296 index al-Ṣafadī, Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Shīrāz studying with al-Fīrūzābādī 22, 43 conquest by Tīmūr Lank 88, 91 reception of Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ by 44 al-Fīrūzābādī meeting Tīmūr Lank in 90, al-Ṣaghānī 95, 96 and critique of al-Jawharī 82–84 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 11, 66, 88, 97 emulation of 44, 131 al-Fīrūzābādī studying in 13, 27, 96, 251 influence on al-Fīrūzābādī 26, 62–63 Sifr/Sufar al-saʿāda reception of works 24 descripton of 190–192 ṣaḥāba and al-Aḥādīth al-ḍaʿīfa 102 works on 109–111, 176 and al-Fīrūzābādī’s attitude towards ḥadīth see also Bābā Ratan al-Batrandī 245–246 Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and al-Fīrūzābādī’s Persian writing 255 al-Fīrūzābādī studying 12, 13, 147 and Risāla fī bayān mā lam yathbut fīhi transmission by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth min al-abwāb 102, 192 125 Sikandar Shāh 60 see also Fatḥ al-bārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Sīra nabawiyya al-Bukhārī and ḥadīth 253 Sharḥ Tāʾiyyat ʿIzz al-Dīn b. Jamāʿa 239 reception of 118 al-Sharīshī al-Shāfiʿī, Jamāl al-Dīn Aḥmad b. works of 183–196 Muḥammad 45 see also prophecy, Prophetenfrömmig- al-Shīrāzī al-Bālī, Majd al-Dīn Abū Ibrāhīm keit al-Tamīmī 26 Siryaqaws al-Sakhāwī al-Fīrūzābādī present in 48 and al-Fīrūzābādī’s reputation 148 debate of identity 51–52 reception of al-Fīrūzābādī’s works 73, 101, Sufism see ṭasawwuf 170, 204, 228, 240, 257 al-Subkī, Tāj al-Dīn 27, 37 al-Salāma al-Subkī, Taqī al-Dīn 37 al-Fīrūzābādī present in 114 work on 174–175 ṭabaqāt al-Ṣalāt wa-l-bushr fi-l-ṣalāt ʿalā khayr work on ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī 40–41, al-bashar 215–217 231–232 Sarakhs 64 work on Ḥanafī scholars 159–161, Shāfiʿiyya 229–230 affiliation to 18, 21, 132, 155, 157, 253 work on Shāfiʿī scholars 230–231 attitude towards 18, 191, 251 Tabrīz 56, 77, 240 contact to 13, 125 tafsīr work on 230–231 as in al-Baṣāʾr 134–141 Shāh Shujāʿ 56 mis-ascription of 242–243 al-Shām al-Fīrūzābādī teaching 126, 127 ambivalence of meaning 31n, 131 works of 121–123, 219–227, 240 see also Damascus al-Taftazānī 63, 64, 66, 143 Sharḥ ādāb al-baḥth 241 Taḥbīr al-muwashshīn fī-mā yuqāl bi-l-sīn Sharḥ zād[at] al-maʿād fī wazn Bānat Suʿād wa-l-shīn 104–105, 211–212 53–55 Tahyīj al-gharām ilā l-balad al-ḥarām 58–59, Shawāriq al-asrār al-ʿāliya fī sharḥ Mashāriq 178–179 al-anwār al-nabawiyya 24–25, 192–193 Ṭāʾif shiʿr al-Fīrūzābādī present in 65 works of 217–219 work on 173–174 see also poetry Tāj al-ʿarūs min jawāhir al-Qāmūs 70–71 index 297

Tāj al-lugha wa-ṣiḥāḥ al-ʿarabiyya Tughluqid 59, 94 reception of 45–46, 76 Tuḥfat al-abīh fī-man nusiba ilā ghayr abīh see also Majmaʿ al-suʾālāt/ Asʾila min Siḥāḥ description of 15–16, 232–233 al-Jawharī see also genelogy see also al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ wa-l-qabas Tuḥfat al-qamāʿīl fī-man yusammā min al-wasīṭ al-jāmiʿ li-mā dhahaba min malāʾika wa-l-nās (bi-)Ismāʿīl 107–108, lughat al-ʿarab shamāṭīṭ 213–214 Tajārīḥ fī fawāʾid mutaʿalliqa bi-aḥādīth al-maṣābīḥ 193–194 al-ʿUbāb al-zākhir wa-l-lubāb al-fākhir Tankiz 34 commentary on 72–74, 202–204 al-Tanwīr al-miqbās fī tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās al-Fīrūzābādī studying 39, 42, 83, 242–243 169 Tanẓīm al-laʾāl fī taḥrīm al-sulāl 212–213 ʿUddat al-ḥukkām fī sharḥ ʿUmdat al-aḥkām taqlīd 113, 183, 251, 253 183–184 tārīkh works of 233–238 al-Wajīz fī laṭāʾif al-kitāb al-ʿazīz 240 Tārīkh Marw 237 Wāsiṭ 19, 21, 22, 92 tarjama al-Waṣl wa-l-munā fī faḍāʾil Minā 116, as genre 7 179–180 works of 227–233 Tarqīq al-asal fī taṣfīq al-ʿasal 119–121, al-Yāfiʿī 172–173 as contact to Sufim 41, 143, 145 taṣawwuf teaching al-Fīrūzābādī 35, 44 conflict over 143–163 al-Fīrūzābādī’s regard for 143 contact to 34, 44, 66, 145 works of 238 Zabīd Tashīl ṭarīq al-wuṣūl ilā l-aḥādīth al-zāʾida ʿalā al-Fīrūzābādī present in 92, 108, 109, 111, Jāmiʿ al-uṣūl 103–104, 195–196 113, 115, 123, 129, 164 Taysīr fātiḥat al-īhāb bi-tafsīr fātiḥat al-kitāb madāris in 100, 125, 128 121, 226–227 al-Zabīdī, Muḥammad Murtaḍā 68 al-Tibāʿī, Ahamd b. Muḥammad b. Ali 128 Zād[at] al-maʿād fī wazn Bānat Suʿād Tīmūr Lank 53–55 meeting al-Fīrūzābādī 88, 96 al-Ẓāhira, Jamāl al-Dīn 128 patronage from 124 al-Zamakhasharī transmission interest in 249 mechanisms of 8 commentary on 49–51, 224–225 disputed aspects of 9 and Muʿtazila 52, 250 deviation in 30, 32, 43, 51, 64–65, 89–97, ziyārat al-qubūr 111 124f.