ABX5

Table of Contents

 VIEW PER PAGE: SHOWING 201-250 of 494

 ʿABDALLĀH BAYĀNĪ CROSS-REFERENCE See ʿABDALLĀH MORVĀRĪD.

 ʿABDALLĀH BEHBAHĀNĪ H. ALGAR Theologian, prominent leader of the constitutional movement (1840- 1910).

 ʿABDALLĀH BOḴĀRĪ P. P. SOUCEK Paintings signed by ʿAbdallāh are of two types: compositions showing strong influence from Herat painting of the late 15th and early 16th centuries and studies of couples, often in a garden setting, a theme which appears to have been especially popular in Bokhara. This Article Has Images/Tables.

 ʿABDALLĀH HERAVĪ P. P. SOUCEK Calligrapher active in Herat, Samarqand, and Mashad (mid-15th century).

 ʿABDALLĀH ḤOSAYNĪ P. P. SOUCEK Scribe and poet in the service of the Mughal emperors Akbar and Jahāngīr (17th century).

 ʿABDALLĀH KABRĪ D. PINGREE Mathematician (d. 1083-84).  ʿABDALLĀH KHAN B. W. ROBINSON Court painter (18th-19th century).

 ʿABDALLĀH KHAN B. ESKANDAR YU. BREGEL Šaybānīd ruler of Transoxania (d. 1598).

 ʿABDALLĀH KHAN UZBEK M. H. SIDDIQI Mughal noble and general and also briefly an autonomous ruler (10th/16th century).

 ʿABDALLĀH MĀZANDARĀNĪ, SHAIKH H. ALGAR Theologian and supporter of the constitutional movement (1840-1912).

 ʿABDALLĀH MĪRZĀ DĀRĀ Ḥ. MAḤBŪBĪ ARDAKĀNĪ Son of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah and governor of Ḵamsa province (1796-1846).

 ʿABDALLĀH MORVĀRĪD P. P. SOUCEK (d. 1516), Timurid court official, poet, scribe, and musician.

 ʿABDALLĀH PAŠA KÖPRÜLÜZĀDE M. KOHBACH Ottoman statesman and commander-in-chief (d. 1735).

 ʿABDALLĀH ṢAYRAFĪ P. P. SOUCEK Dūst Moḥammad claims that the traditions of Khorasani calligraphy in the nasḵ script are derived from the writing of ʿAbdallāh Ṣayrafī, with Jaʿfar Tabrīzī acting perhaps as the transmitter of the tradition. ʿAbdallāh achieved his greatest fame as a designer of architectural inscriptions. This Article Has Images/Tables.  ʿABDALLĀH ŠĪRĀZĪ P. P. SOUCEK Qāżī Aḥmad praises ʿAbdallāh’s skill in lacquer painting (rang o rowḡan). This technique was widely used in the decoration of bookbindings during the 16th century, and the examination of surviving bindings may lead to the discovery of further works by ʿAbdallāh. This Article Has Images/Tables.

 ʿABDALLĀH, MĪRZĀ M. CATON (ca. 1843-1918), court musician and master of the setār and tār.

 ʿABDALLĀH, QAVĀM-AL-DĪN T. KUROYANAGI 14th century theologian and faqīh of Shiraz (d. 772/1370).

 ʿABDALLĀH, ŠĀH K. A. NIZAMI (d. 1485), Persian Sufi who introduced the Šaṭṭārī order into India.

 ʿABDALLĀH, ṢĀRĪ T. YAZICI (1584-1660), Ottoman scholar, mystic, poet, and commentator of Rūmī.

 ʿABDĀN B. AL-RABĪṬ W. MADELUNG early Ismaʿili missionary (dāʿī).

 ʿABDĪ T. YAZICI pen name of ʿABD-AL-RAḤMĀN PASHA, Ottoman official and historian (d. 1692).

 ʿABDĪ BOḴĀRĀʾĪ M. ZAND (d. 1921-22), Tajik taḏkeranevīs (biographer) and poet.  ʿABDĪ NĪŠĀPŪRĪ P. P. SOUCEK 16th-century calligrapher and poet.

 ʿABDĪ ŠĪRĀZĪ M. DABĪRSĪĀQĪ AND B. FRAGNER (1513-80), poet.

 ABDĪH UD SAHĪGĪH Ī SAGASTĀN A. TAFAŻŻOLĪ (“The wonder and remarkability of Sagastān”), short Pahlavi treatise.

 ʿĀBEDĪ C. E. BOSWORTH a landowner (dehqān) of Transoxania (12th century).

 ĀBƎRƎT W. W. MALANDRA one of the eight Zoroastrian priests of the yasna ritual.

 ĀBEŠ ḴĀTŪN B. SPULER Salghurid ruler of Fārs (1263-84), daughter of Atābeg Saʿd II.

 ABGAR J. B. SEGAL dynasty of Edessa, 2nd century B.C. to 3rd century A.D.

 ABHAR C. E. BOSWORTH a small town in the Qazvīn district.

 ʿABHAR AL-ʿĀŠEQĪN H. CORBIN work of the Persian mystic Rūzbehān Baqlī Šīrāzī (1128-1209).

 ABHARĪ, ABŪ BAKR B. REINERT Sufi of Persian ʿErāq (d. 941-42).

 ABHARĪ, AMĪN-AL-DĪN D. PINGREE mathematician, said to have died in 1332-33.

 ABHARĪ, AṮĪR-AL-DĪN G. C. ANAWATI (d. 1264), logician, mathematician, and astronomer.

 ABHARĪ, KAMĀL-AL-DĪN C. E. BOSWORTH vizier of the last two Great Saljuq sultans in western Persia.

 ABHARĪ, MAḴDŪM HAMEED UD-DIN 16th-century traditionist.

 ĀBĪ E. EHLERS Persian term for those agricultural lands which are irrigated.

 ĀBĪ, ABŪ ʿABDALLĀH ABU’L-QĀSEM GORJI 8th-century traditionist.

 ĀBĪ, ABŪ SAʿĪD M. M. MAZZAOUI 11th-century vizier and man of letters.

 ĀBĪ, ʿEZZ-AL-DĪN ABU’L-QĀSEM GORJI Imami faqīh (jurist) of the 13th century.

 ABIRĀDŪŠ M. DANDAMAYEV a village in Elam.

 ABIRATTA(Š) M. MAYRHOFER ancient Near Eastern proper name said to be of (Indo-)Aryan origin, by comparison with Vedic ratha, Avestan raθa “chariot.” This analysis, however, remains uncertain.

 ABĪVARD C. E. BOSWORTH a town in medieval northern Khorasan.

 ABĪVARDĪ, ABU’L-MOẒAFFAR L. A. GIFFEN poet, historian, and writer on genealogy (d. 1113).

 ABĪVARDĪ, ḤOSĀM-AL-DĪN L. A. GIFFEN jurisconsult, mathematician and logician (d. 1413).

 ABJAD G. KROTKOFF “alphabet,” a word formed from the first four letters of the Semitic alphabet. This Article Has Images/Tables.

 ABJADĪ M. BAQIR Poetical name of MĪR MOḤAMMAD ESMĀʿĪL KHAN, 18th century south- Indian poet of Persian and Urdu.

 ABḴĀZ DZH. GIUNASHVILI (also APSUA, APSNI), ethnic group of the Caucasus.

 ABLUTION, ISLAMIC I. K. POONAWALA (vożūʾ), the minor ritual purification performed before prayers.

 ABLUTION, ZOROASTRIAN CROSS-REFERENCE See PADYĀB.

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………..

* ʿABDALLĀH BAYĀNĪ CROSS-REFERENCE See ʿABDALLĀH MORVĀRĪD.

ʿABDALLĀH BAYĀNĪ See ʿABDALLĀH MORVĀRĪD.

(Cross-Reference) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABDALLĀH BEHBAHĀNĪ H. ALGAR Theologian, prominent leader of the constitutional movement (1840- 1910).

ABDALLĀH BEHBAHĀNĪ Theologian, prominent leader of the constitutional movement (1840- 1910).

ʿABDALLĀH BEHBAHĀNĪ (1256-1328/1840-1910), theologian (moǰtahed) and a prominent leader of the constitutional movement. Born in Naǰaf in 1256/1840, he was descended from a prominent Shiʿite scholar of Baḥrayn, ʿAbdallāh al-Belādī from the village of al-Ḡorayfa, whose numerous offspring migrated to various centers of learning in Iraq and Iran. The task of ʿAbdallāh Behbahānī’s education was at first assumed by his father, Sayyed Esmāʿīl; but he later studied under more prominent scholars in Naǰaf, such as Ḥosayn Kūhkamaraʾī, Mīrzā Ḥasan Šīrāzī, and Shaikh Rāżī Naǰafī. In 1287/1870, Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah made the acquaintance of Sayyed Esmāʿīl while on a visit to Naǰaf; and he prevailed upon him to accompany him back to Tehran in order to establish a center of religious leadership favorable to the court (Āḡā Bozorg Ṭehrānī, Ṭabaqāt aʿlām al-šīʿa II, Naǰaf, 1381/1962, pp. 146-47). Three years later, we find him among the few ʿolamāʾ to bid the monarch a friendly farewell on the eve of one of his European journeys (Nāṣer-al- dīn Shah,Rūznāma-ye safar-e farangestān, Bombay, 1293/1876, p. 4). In addition to his royal patronage, Sayyed Esmāʿīl attained a position of some influence among the people of Tehran as marǰaʿ-e taqlīd and judge of the religious law (šarīʿa; see Mīrzā Moḥammad Ḥasan Khan Eʿtemād- al-salṭana, al-Maʾāṯer wa’l-āṯār, Tehran, 1306/1889, p. 140; Moḥammad Mahdī Mūsavī Eṣfahānī Kāẓemī, Aḥsan al-wadīʿa fī tarāǰem mašāhīr moǰtahedīn al-šīʿa, 2nd ed., Naǰaf, 1387/1965, I, pp. 65-66). When he died in 1295/1878, ʿAbdallāh Behbahānī fell heir to his function and influence and emerged as one of the influential ʿolamāʾ of Tehran. His first significant participation in political affairs reflected the loyalist attitudes of his father, as well as a lively ambitiousness that was to persist until the end of his life. In 1309/1891 a campaign took place under clerical leadership against the tobacco concession that had been granted by Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah to a British company; and a fatvā attributed to Mīrzā Ḥasan Šīrāzī forbade all consumption of tobacco until the concession was rescinded. Behbahānī refused to associate himself with the boycott and was seen to smoke openly in a gathering at the Ottoman embassy in Tehran (Mīrzā ʿAlī Khan Amīn-al- dawla, Ḵāṭerāt-e sīāsī, ed. Ḥāfeẓ Farmānfarmāʾīān, Tehran, 1341 Š./1962, p. 155; according to other accounts he went so far as to smoke while preaching from the menbar; see Sayyed Ḥasan Taqīzāda, “Ašḵāṣī ke dar mašrūṭīyat sahmī dāštand,” Yaḡmā 24, 1350 Š./1971-72, p. 66). He claimed that as moǰtahed he was exempt from obedience to the fatvā, the accuracy of whose ascription to Mīrzā Ḥasan Šīrāzī he in any event doubted; and he raised certain other technical objections to the boycott (Nāẓem-al-eslām Kermānī,Tārīḵ-e bīdārī-e īrānīān, ed. ʿAlī Akbar Saʿīdī Sīrǰānī, Tehran, 1346 Š./1967, p. 22; Mīrzā Moḥammad Ḥasan Khan Eʿtemād-al-salṭana, Rūznāma-ye ḵāṭerāt, ed. Īraǰ Afšar, 2nd ed., Tehran, 1350 Š./1971, pp. 784-85). Suspicions arose, however, that he had been bribed; one source claims that he received 1,000 pounds from the British to smoke in public (ʿAbbās Mīrzā Molkārā, Šarḥ-e ḥāl, ed. ʿAbd-al- Ḥosayn Navāʾī, Tehran, 1325 Š./1946, p. 116; see also Nikki R. Keddie, Religion and Rebellion in Iran: the Tobacco Protest of 1891-92, London, 1961, p. 79). The accusations raised against Behbahānī are plausible; for he maintained close relations with the British legation in Tehran for a number of years and was described by Lt. Col. H. Picot in May, 1897, as having “stood by his legation at the time of the Régie [Tobacco Monopoly]” (memorandum enclosed in dispatch of Hardinge to Salisbury, F. O. 539/76, quoted in Keddie, Religion and Rebellion, p. 118; and Firuz Kazemzade, Russia and Britain in Persia, 1864-1914, New Haven, 1968, p. 309). It is also said that the Iranian government rewarded him for his loyalty in the episode with a gold watch (Picot, “Biographical Notes of Persian Notables,” F. O. 60/592, quoted in Hamid Algar, Religion and State in Iran, p. 213, n. 46). His alleged venality in any event earned him the opprobrious epithet of Ebn al-Feżża (“Son of silver”) (Eʿtemād-al-salṭana, Rūznāma-ye ḵāṭerāt, p. 947). Loyalty to Mīrzā ʿAlī Aṣḡar Khan Amīn-al-solṭān, the minister under whose auspices the concession had been granted, provided another reason for Behbahānī to oppose the tobacco boycott; and he once visited Ornstein, Tehran manager of the company that had obtained the concession, on behalf of Amīn-al-solṭān to discuss ways of breaking the boycott (Ebrāhīm Teymūrī, Taḥrīm-e tanbākū yā avvalīn moqāvamat-e manfī dar Īrān, Tehran, 1328 Š./1949, p. 149). The political activities of Behbahānī in the decade following the tobacco boycott appear to have been coordinated with the British legation in Tehran. Whether, for example, the ʿolamāʾ began demanding the dismissal of ʿAlāʾ-al-dawla, governor of the province of Ḵūzestān (then called ʿArabestān), because of the alleged murder of one of their number in Šūštar, be contacted the British legation to inquire of their wishes in the matter, offering to “throw cold water on the whole affair” (see Picot’s memorandum of May, 1897, quoted above). Further contacts took place in 1319/1902, when the Iranian government was about to conclude a new loan agreement with Russia. Behbahānī was now faced with a conflict of loyalties; for Amīn-al-solṭān, now in his second term as prime minister, had aligned himself with the Russians instead of the British after the repeal of the tobacco concession. He was therefore initially reluctant to participate in the clerical agitation against Amīn-al-solṭān and the Russian loan; but in February, 1902, he was visited by Grahame, an agent of the British legation, “under the guise of other business,” and encouraged to “express himself.” He confided to the agent that, together with all moǰtaheds of Tehran, he was “revolted at the loan and its conditions,” but pointed out that his opposition to an earlier loan had had no effect. He would nonetheless seek to prevent conclusion of the new loan, and he asked for 2,000 tomans to bring over those ʿolamāʾ who were not yet hostilely disposed to it. In the course of a further meeting with Grahame at the end of the month, Behbahānī repeated the need for funds to bribe prominent moǰtaheds, but received only 250 tomans as traveling expenses for emissaries he was to send to contact ʿolamāʾ in the provinces (dispatches of Hardinge to Lansdowne, February 14 and 27, 1902, in F. O. 60/660, quoted by Kiddie, “Iranian Politics 1900-1905: Background to Revolution,” Middle Eastern Studies 5, 1969, pp. 22-24). Clerical agitation failed to prevent the conclusion of a new loan agreement for more than a year and ultimately forced the renewed dismissal of Amīn-al-solṭān in Jomādā II, 1321/September, 1903. Behbahānī had no share in the latter stages of this campaign, coming indeed to the minister’s aid late in 1320/1902 by persuading clerical demonstrators demanding the dismissal of the governor of Māzandarān to disperse (see his letter to Amīn-al-solṭān in Ebrāhīm Ṣafāʾī, Asnād-e nowyāfta, Tehran, 1349 Š./1970, p. 209). He re-emerged into political activity only when Amīn-al-solṭān’s successor, ʿAyn-al-dawla, failed to accord him the differential treatment which he had been accustomed to receive from the state and favored instead his chief rival for supremacy among the Tehran ʿolamāʾ, Shaikh Fażlallāh Nūrī. It was Behbahānī’s opposition to ʿAyn-al-dawla that gradually drew him into the constitutional movement, his share in the leadership of which came to form the most significant part of his career. The first clash between Behbahānī and ʿAyn-al-dawla occurred in the aftermath of a struggle between the ṭollāb of the twomadrasas in Tehran, the Moḥammadīya and the Ṣadr. Behbahānī gave refuge in his house to one of the ṭollāb of the Moḥammadīya, Moʿtamad-al-eslām, and as a result was attacked one night by a party of the opposing side as he was passing by the Masǰed-e Shah. The attack took place partly at the instigation of Ḥāǰǰ Mīrzā Abu’l- Qāsem Emām Jomʿa, who wished to avenge his father, Ḥāǰǰ Mīrzā Zayn- al-ʿābedīn, for a humiliation suffered by him and his party at the hands of Behbahānī, during commemorative ceremonies for Ṯeqat-al-eslām Eṣfahānī several years earlier (Kermānī, Bīdārī, pp. 96-98). Fourteen of those responsible for the attack were arrested at the demand of Behbahānī’s supporters, but they were punished with a severity that was received as an affront to the whole clerical class. Behbahānī’s intercession on their behalf with ʿAyn-al-dawla was brusquely rebuffed, and his hostility to the minister increased (Kermānī, Bīdārī, pp. 34-35; Mahdī-qolī Khan Hedāyat, Ḵāṭerāt va ḵaṭarāt, 2nd ed., Tehran, 1344 Š./1965, p. 141). In Moḥarram, 1323/March-April, 1905, there came into the hands of Behbahānī a photograph of Naus, the Belgian supervisor of the Iranian customs, attired in clerical dress on the occasion of a fancy-dress ball; this provided him with a pretext for demanding the dismissal of the unpopular Naus, who was widely accused of discriminating in favor of non-Muslim merchants. He had copies of the photograph distributed, and preached against Naus and ʿAyn-al-dawla throughout Moḥarram (Kermānī, Bīdārī, pp. 27-28; Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, pp. 37, 48; Yaḥyā Dawlatābādī,Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣer yā ḥayāt-e Yaḥyā, Tehran, 1331 Š./1952, II, pp. 4-5). These instigations were ineffectual, and the merchants of Tehran withdrew to the shrine at Shah ʿAbd-al-ʿAẓīm in protest at the government’s economic policies. Behbahānī was, however, assured by the crown prince, Moḥammad ʿAlī Mīrzā, that Naus would be dismissed, and temporarily ceased his preaching (Kermānī, Bīdārī, p. 58). Shortly after this episode, an alliance was formed between Behbahānī and another Tehran moǰtahed, the reform-minded Moḥammad Ṭabāṭabāʾī. Kasravī sees in this alliance the origin of the constitutional revolution (Mašrūṭa5, p. 48), and it is certainly true that the two moǰtaheds together effectively dominated both the events that led to the granting of the constitution and the activities of the first Maǰles. Kermānī claims that the alliance of the two men, and the direction of their combined energies to the cause of constitutionalism, was the achievement of a secret anǰoman (society) to which he belonged; emissaries were sent to Behbahānī persuading him to aim higher than the dismissal of Naus and the disgrace of ʿAyn-al-dawla (Bīdārī, pp. 29-33; see also Mahdī Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb-e mašrūṭīyat-e Īrān II, Tehran, 1329 Š./1950, pp. 24-25). Whatever the truth of this claim, Behbahānī appears to have initiated the alliance by approaching four of themoǰtaheds of Tehran through an intermediary and seeking their cooperation in bringing about the fall ʿAyn-al-dawla: Of the four, it was only Ṭabāṭabāʾī who gave him an unambiguously positive answer. The alliance was sealed by a visit of Behbahānī to Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s house on 25 Ramażān 1323/23 November 1905 (Bīdārī, p. 84). Less than a month after the conclusion of the alliance, ʿAlāʾ-al-dawla, now governor of Tehran and a protégé of ʿAyn- al-dawla, inflicted a beating on a group of Tehran merchants, allegedly for selling sugar at extortionate prices, but in reality to punish them for opposition to the government. A meeting of protest in the Masǰed-e Shah was organized under the leadership of Behbahānī and Ṭabāṭabāʾī; but the intrigues of the Emām Jomʿa, anxious for further vengeance on Behbahānī, caused it to end in violence and disarray. Behbahānī was escorted from the mosque by a guard of Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s supporters to the safety of the Madrasa-ye Khan-e Marvī; and the next day, at the suggestion of Ṭabāṭabāʾī, the two moǰtaheds led the ʿolamāʾ of the capital out of Tehran to take refuge at Shah ʿAbd-al-ʿAẓīm (Kermānī, Bīdārī, pp. 94-100; Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, pp. 60-64; Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb II, pp. 41-47; Dawlatābādī, Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣer II, pp. 10-17). Behbahānī and Ṭabāṭabāʾī, together with the other ʿolamāʾ, now formulated conditions for their return to Tehran, including a demand for the establishment of an ʿadālatḵāna (“House of Justice”), the nature of which was not yet fully defined but emerged later as the equivalent of a consultative assembly. ʿAyn-al-dawla was convinced that the aim of Behbahānī was merely personal, and he sought to separate him from Ṭabāṭabāʾī in order to destroy the leadership of the movement (Kermānī, Bīdārī, p. 107; Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, pp. 66). His efforts were fruitless, and Behbahānī emphasized the demand for an ʿadālatḵāna through a series of emissaries he sent to Tehran, as well as by the intervention of the Ottoman ambassador, Şemsettin Bey (Kermānī, Bīdārī, p. 120; Dawlatābādī, Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣerII, pp. 20-21, 29). The demands of the ʿolamāʾ were accepted, at least formally, by Moẓaffar-al-dīn Shah, and on 16 Ḏu’l-qaʿda 1323/13 January 1906, Behbahānī returned in triumph to Tehran, together with Ṭabāṭabāʾī and the other ʿolamāʾ. There now began for him a period of almost uncontested prominence among theʿolamāʾ of Tehran, his chief rival, Shaikh Fażlallāh Nūrī, having failed to associate himself with the rising constitutional movement. But many in the ranks of the constitutionalists suspected him of imperfect loyalty, and a private meeting he had with ʿAyn-al-dawla aroused great, if passing, hostility against him. Leaflets were distributed at night denouncing his alleged treachery (Kermānī, Bīdārī, p. 171; Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb II, p. 125; Dawlatābādī, Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣer II, pp. 35-36). Ṭabāṭabāʾī defended Behbahānī’s motives, despite his disapproval of the move; and Behbahānī cleared himself by continuing to preach in favor of constitutional reform at the Mesǰed-e Sar-e Pūlak. Before long, in any event, a new incident, the murder of one of Behbahānī’s followers, Sayyed ʿAbd-al-Ḥamīd, provoked a new clash between the ʿolamāʾ and the government, a new protest meeting (in the Mesǰed-e Jāmeʿ), and a new migration from the city, this time to Qom. All accounts agree that Behbahānī displayed exemplary courage and determination in these events (Kermānī, Bīdārī, pp. 240-58; Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, pp. 97-106; Dawlatābādī, Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣer II, pp. 68-71). A simultaneous movement of the merchants of Tehran into the grounds of the British legation took place, almost certainly at Behbahānī’s instigation. A British report, at the end of 1906, describes Behbahānī as “very corrupt” and acting chiefly out of personal motives (General Report on Persia for the Year 1906, F. O. 416/30, p. 29); but the same cooperative relationship that had existed earlier between the moǰtahed and the legation was still intact. Behbahānī wrote a series of letters to Grand Duff, chargé d’affaires, requesting his aid, and the replies he received must have been of a nature to inspire the influx of merchants into the legation (General Report, p. 5; Kermānī, Bīdārī, pp. 261-62; Dawlatābādī,Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣer II, p. 71; Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, p. 109, acquits Behbahānī of responsibility for unspecified reasons). On 27 Jomādā II 1324/18 August 1906, the ʿolamāʾ reentered Tehran, having achieved a triumph more substantial than their first. ʿAyn-al-dawla had left office, and before long the first Maǰles was convened. Behbahānī entered on a period of even greater influence than before. His only formal title to power in the Maǰles was a mandate to represent the Jewish and Armenian communities (Kermānī, Bīdārī, pp. 343, 196; Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb II, p. 179), but he exercised a decisive say in almost all matters concerning the Maǰles. Suspicions again arose that Behbahānī was concerned only with personal ambition; and after visiting the shah alone, he was obliged to defend himself before the Maǰles against the charges of having been bribed (Kermānī, Bīdārī, pp. 350-54; Dawlatābādī, Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣer II, p. 87; Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb II, p. 188). In Rabīʿ I, 1325/May, 1907, Behbahānī’s old patron, Amīn-al-solṭān (now titled Atābak) was reappointed prime minister; and the two men kept in close contact (Dawlatābādī, Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣer II, pp. 118, 125, 130- 31; Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb II, p. 12). But a complex pattern of rivalries was emerging, in and out of the Maǰles. The Atābak found himself caught between the shah and the Maǰles; a clerical party to support the court in its struggle against the Maǰles had been established by Shaikh Fażlallāh Nūrī; and within the Maǰles “moderate” and “extremist” groups had come into being. Behbahānī maintained cordial relations with the Atābak, despite the ambiguities of the minister’s position, and at the same time vigorously combated the efforts of Shaikh Fażlallāh Nūrī to portray the constitution as opposed to religion. This he did primarily with telegrams to provincial cities and to Naǰaf, denouncing the activities of Nūrī, and ultimately obtaining a condemnation of him by the influential moǰtaheds of Naǰaf (Kasravī,Mašrūṭa5, pp. 372-73; Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelab II, p. 167; “Do maktūb rāǰeʿ be tārīḵ-e mašrūṭīyat,” Yādgār 3, 1325 Š./1946-47, pp. 30-36). Two of Behbahānī’s contemporaries, Dawlatābādī and Mahdī-qolī Khan Hedāyat, blame him for driving Nūrī into hostility to the Maǰles by refusing to share with him any of the power and influence he had accumulated (Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣer II, p. 108; Ḵāṭerāt va ḵaṭarāt, p. 164). Within the Maǰles, Behbahānī aligned himself with the moderates, seeking to prevent the enactment of any legislation incompatible with Islamic law, and trying to avoid breach between the court and the Maǰles (Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, p. 286; Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb III, p. 204). The impatience of the radical wing of the Maǰles led to a sharpening of tensions and the assassination of the Atābak while emerging from the Maǰles in the company of Behbahānī on 21 Raǰab 1325/31 August, 1907 (Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, p. 447). Thereafter the hostility of the shah to the Maǰles continually increased, and matters were not helped by persistent conflicts within the Maǰles. Behbahānī insisted on subordinating the operations of the Ministry of Justice to his own dictates (Dawlatābādī, Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣer II, pp. 213, 239-40, 248). The rivalries within the Maǰles were brought to an abrupt end by the royal coup d’état of 23 Jomādā I 1326/23 June 1908, when the Maǰles was bombarded and its members dispersed. With his universally acknowledged courage, Behbahānī made his way to the Maǰles on the day of the bombardment, later seeking refuge in the garden of Amīn-al- dawla behind the Maǰles building. There he was discovered by the royal troops, beaten, stripped, insulted, and borne off to the royalist camp at Bāḡ-e Šāh. Taken into the presence of Moḥammad ʿAlī Shah, he insisted on being courteously addressed by the monarch. He was provided with traveling expenses and sent under armed guard for expulsion to the ʿatabāt, by way of Kermānšāh. The governor of Ḵāneqīn refused Behbahānī and his party entry to Ottoman territory, and he was obliged to live under guard at the village of Bezehrūd in Kurdistan for eight months before being able to proceed to Naǰaf in Rabīʿ I, 1327/March, 1909 (Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, pp. 643-47, 676; Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb IV, pp. 110-15; Ẓahīr-al-dawla, Asnād-e tārīḵ-e vaqāyeʿ-e mašrūṭa-ye Īrān, ed. Jahāngīr Qāʾemmaqāmī, Tehran, 1348 Š./1969, pp. 46-64). Soon after the constitutionalist forces had conquered Tehran and overthrown Moḥammad ʿAlī Shah in July, 1909, Behbahānī returned to Tehran, with the evident intention of resuming his dominant role. This time he had no formal mandate in the Maǰles, but continued to be active in promoting his interests and those of his followers; and his residence again took on the aspect of a minor court. The new Maǰles saw a recrudescence of the former division into moderates and extremists (i.e., the Social Democrats), the latter wing being led by the deputy from Tabrīz, Sayyed Ḥasan Taqīzāda. The moderates were able to obtain a condemnation of his attitudes as irreligious by the moǰtaheds of Naǰaf, and it was thought that Behbahānī was instrumental in this move. Partly as a result of this, and partly as a result of old resentments of Behbahānī’s autocratic ways, he was assassinated in his home on 8 Raǰab 1328/16 July 1910, by four men associated indirectly with the Social Democrats. No direct link could be established between the murderers and Taqīzāda; but he was widely suspected of responsibility and found it prudent to leave Tehran for Tabrīz and Istanbul (Dawlatābādī, Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣer III, pp. 128-29, 136- 37; Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb III, pp. 212-19; Mahdī-qolī Khan Hedāyat, Ḵāṭerāt va ḵaṭarāt, p. 211; Kasravī, Āzarbāyǰān3, pp. 130-32). Estimates vary of Behbahānī’s career and importance. The accounts of Dawlatābādī and Mahdī-qolī Khan—particularly the former—stress his egoism and ambition; while Nāẓem-al-eslām Kermānī suggests, instead, a gradual movement from personal to patriotic motive. By contrast, Taqīzāda—for whatever motive—lavishes praise on Behbahānī as the foremost leader of the constitutional revolution, a man without whose virtues the movement would never have succeeded (“Ašḵāṣī,” pp. 65- 66; Tārīḵ-e avāʾel-e enqelāb-e mašrūṭīyat-e Īrān, Tehran, 1338 Š./1959, p. 50; “Mašrūṭīyat va Sayyed ʿAbdallāh Behbahānī,” Maqālāt-e Taqīzāda, ed. Īraǰ Afšar, Tehran, 1350 Š./1971, II, pp. 174-76). Kasravī and Malekzāda offer a balanced judgment, noting the confluence of ambition with courage and a genuine desire for governmental reform. Although Behbahānī was not highly regarded as a scholar, he composed a collection of twenty-five treatises on feqh, a copy of which is said to exist at the Āstāna-ye Qods library in Mašhad. Among his numerous offspring, Āyatallāh Moḥammad Behbahānī (d. 1383/1963) attained some fame as one of the Tehran ʿolamāʾ friendly to the court.

Bibliography: See also: Hamid Algar, Religion and State in Iran, 1785-1906: the Role of the Ulama in the Qajar Period, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969, pp. 241, 243-44, 348-51. Esmāʿīl Mortażavī Borāzǰānī, Zendānī-e Bezehrūd, Tehran, 1337 Š./1958. E. G. Browne, The Persian Revolution of 1905-1909, Cambridge, 1910, pp. 113, 115, 203, 204, 206-07, 336. “Do maktūb az Qavām-al-salṭana be Sayyed ʿAbdallāh Behbahānī,” Rāhnemā-ye ketāb, 1341 Š./1962-63, pp. 907-09. Moḥammad Ḥerz-al-dīn, Maʿāref al-reǰāl fī tarāǰem al-ʿolamāʾ wa’l- odabāʾ, Naǰaf, 1383/1964, II, pp. 17-18. M. S. Ivanov, Iranskaya revolyutsiya 1905-1911 godov, Moscow, 1957, pp. 75, 94, 123, 129, 170, 174, 195, 202, 424. Ebrāhīm Ṣafāʾī, Asnād-e dawrān-e Qāǰārīya, Tehran, 1346 Š./1967, pp. 366, 382, 407. Idem, Rahbarān-e mašrūṭa VI: Sayyed ʿAbdallāh Behbahānī, Sayyed Moḥammad Tabāṭabāʾī, Tehran, 1343 Š./1964, pp. 4-31. Āḡā Bozorg Ṭehrānī, Ṭabaqāt aʿlām al-šīʿa, Naǰaf, 1373/1954, I, pp. 1193-95. Ẓahīr-al-dawla, Ḵāṭerāt va asnād, ed. Īraǰ Afšar, Tehran, 1351 Š./1972, pp. 108, 151-52, 248, 323, 332, 337-38. (H. Algar) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Cite this entry: H. Algar, “Abdallah Behbahani,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 190-193; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-behbahani (accessed on 17 January 2014). …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABDALLĀH BOḴĀRĪ P. P. SOUCEK Paintings signed by ʿAbdallāh are of two types: compositions showing strong influence from Herat painting of the late 15th and early 16th centuries and studies of couples, often in a garden setting, a theme which appears to have been especially popular in Bokhara. This Article Has Images/Tables.

ʿABDALLĀH BOḴĀRĪ Paintings signed by ʿAbdallāh are of two types: compositions showing strong influence from Herat painting of the late 15th and early 16th centuries and studies of couples, often in a garden setting, a theme which appears to have been especially popular in Bokhara.

ʿABDALLĀH BOḴĀRĪ, a painter active in Bokhara during the middle decades of the 16th century. His paintings are very similar in theme and execution to those of his contemporary Maḥmūd Moḏahheb, who may have been trained in Herat. Both painters appear to have been in the employ of the Shaibanid Abu’l-Ḡāzī ʿAbd-al-ʿAzīz (q.v.; 947-57/1540-49). Paintings signed by ʿAbdallāh are of two types: compositions showing strong influence from Herat painting of the late 15th and early 16th centuries and studies of couples, often in a garden setting, a theme which appears to have been especially popular in Bokhara. A copy of the Būstān of Saʿdī dedicated to Abu’l-Ḡāzī and dated between 949/1542 and 956/1549 contains paintings signed by both ʿAbdallāh and Maḥmūd (Lisbon, Gulbenkian Foundation, LA 177). Several paintings in the manuscript are adaptations of well-known compositions by Behzād and other painters from Herat. The painting signed by ʿAbdallāh is unpublished but is said to depict a man riding on a leopard surrounded by groups of spectators. The same subject is illustrated in a 931/1524 Būstān manuscript which may have been produced in Bokhara (L. Binyon et al., Persian Miniature Painting, London, 1933, no. 107, p. 123, pl. LXXXI-A). ʿAbdallāh’s debt to Behzād and his connection with Maḥmūd Moḏahheb can both be seen in a painting now in Kansas City which shows a group of people gathered at a mosque (Plate VIII; Nelson Gallery of Art; Handbook II, pp. 163-64). In general arrangement the scene recalls Behzād’s painting “A beggar refused entry into a mosque” from the 894/1488-89 Būstān manuscript now in Cairo (Binyon et al., pl. LXX-B). Both paintings depict a mosque courtyard beyond a facade containing a door and various recesses. In ʿAbdallāh’s painting there is a greater concern for symmetry, and the real wall of the mosque is an elaborately illuminated surface which eliminates any sense of space in this portion of the structure. The figures of men in and around the mosque, however, are drawn to suggest volume and substance. Their plain garments are contrasted with the elaborately patterned surfaces of the walls. Although derived from Behzād’s painting of the beggar at the mosque, the theme of ʿAbdallāh’s painting appears to be a discussion of love in which an old man is speaking to the youth seated before him. The painter’s signature, ʿAbdallāh Moṣavver, appears on a book lying in the courtyard in front of this old man. The figure of a hunched old man in green leaning on a staff to the left of the mosque entrance is reminiscent of the painting said to be a portrait of ʿAlī Šīr Navāʾī attributed to Maḥmūd Moḏahheb (ibid., pl. LXXVI-B, no. 104, p. 122). Although undated, ʿAbdallāh’s painting contains a dedication to Abu’l-Ḡāzī, which makes it contemporary with the 1542-49 Būstān manuscript in Lisbon. After the death of Abu’l-Ḡāzī in 957/1549, both ʿAbdallāh and Maḥmūd probably continued to execute paintings for his successors. A painting signed by Maḥmūd contains the name of ʿAbdallāh Khan (964- 1006/1556-98), and paintings very similar in style to the “Discussion in a mosque” by ʿAbdallāh are found in a manuscript of ʿAlī Šīr Navāʾī’s poetry dedicated to Yār Moḥammad and dated to 960/1553 (Binyon et al., no. 26, pp. 18-19; Miniatyury , pls. 30-32; Oxford Bodleian Library, Elliot 318, ibid., pls. 12-20; Elliot 340, ibid., pls. 26-29). This manuscript is now divided between Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, and the Bodleian Library, Oxford; both paintings in the style of ʿAbdallāh are found in the Lesān al-ṭayrportion of the text, in Paris (Suppl. turc 996, fols. 20b., 25a; ibid., pls. 30, 31). In the scene of “Shaikh Ṣaṇʿān fainting with love,” both the architectural setting and the portrayal of the figures are analogous to those in the mosque painting. In “Shaikh Ṣaṇʿān tending swine,” not only is the figure style very close to that in the Kansas City painting, but the landscape also has affinities to a signed painting by ʿAbdallāh showing a man and a woman standing in a landscape. The latter painting, formerly in the Demotte Collection, is said to have come from a copy of Jāmī’s Sobḥat al-abrār dated to 1575 (Rempel , p. 353, fig. 351). The paintings are similar in their use of small, leafless shrubs and their handling of the ground surface. Despite its late date the scene —lovers in a rocky landscape with pear-shaped trees on the horizon—is closely related to the landscape traditions of the 15th century Herat. A pair of lovers in a garden setting, in particular with the woman wearing an elaborately patterned čādor and looking over her shoulder at her beloved, is a favorite theme of Bokhara painters. Another manuscript with such scenes, a Būstān of Saʿdī dated to 983/1575-76, has been connected with ʿAbdallāh (Gosudarstvennaya Publichnaya Biblioteka, Leningrad, PNS 269; Gyuzal’yan, p. 22, pls. 9- 10). However, the paintings are probably the work of another artist using a style which is related to, and perhaps based on, ʿAbdallāh’s. One painting, for example, shows a woman teasing her lover with a piece of fruit. It is so similar to the figure style of signed works by ʿAbdallāh that even if the inscription on the left side of the page, ṣawwarahu ʿAbdallāh, is only an attribution, it probably was painted by an artist influenced by him (Binyon et al., no. 114, pl. LXXVII, p. 125).

Bibliography: Arte do Oriente Islâmico: Colecção da Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisbon, 1963, no. 123. Miniatyury k poemam Alishera Navoi , ed. Khamid Suleĭ man, Tashkent, 1969. W. R. Nelson Gallery of Art and M. Atkins Museum, Handbook of the Collections, Vol. II. Art of the Orient, Kansas City, Mo., 1973. G. A. Pugachenkova and L. Rempel’, Istoriya iskusstv Uzbekistana, Moscow, 1965. Robinson, Persian Paintings, pp. 129-30. M. M. Soares de Oliveira, “Arte do Livro Persae Turco,” Coloquio no. 28, April, 1964, p. 5. Sredneaziatskie miniatyury XVI-XVIII vekov, ed. L. T. Gyuzal’yan, Moscow, 1964. (P. P. Soucek) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 193-195 Cite this entry: P. P. Soucek, “Abdallah Bokari,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 193-195; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-bokari-a-painter-active-in- bokhara-during-the-middle-decades-of-the-16th-century (accessed on 17 January 2014). …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABDALLĀH HERAVĪ P. P. SOUCEK Calligrapher active in Herat, Samarqand, and Mashad (mid-15th century).

ʿABDALLĀH HERAVĪ Calligrapher active in Herat, Samarqand, and Mashad (mid-15th century).

ʿABDALLĀH HERAVĪ, ŠEHĀB-AL-DĪN (“Ṭabbāḵ” or “Āšpaz”), mid- 8th/15th century calligrapher active in Herat, Samarqand, and Mašhad. His major contribution appears to have been in designing monumental inscriptions for the Timurids, but he seems also to have worked as a gilder in the manuscript ateliers. A native of Herat, he apparently became a member of the Timurid court workshop during the reign of Šāhroḵ. ʿAbd-al-Razzāq Samarqandī mentions him along with Aẓhar and Shaikh Maḥmūd as the principal students of Jaʿfar Tabrīzī in a list of the notable figures associated with Bāysonqor b. Šāhroḵ (Maṭlaʿ al-saʿdayn, fol. 614a). Ḵᵛāndamīr also links ʿAbdallāh with Aẓhar and Shaikh Maḥmūd as students of Jaʿfar in his listing of the principal associates of Šāhroḵ (Ḥabīb al-sīar [Tehran] IV, p. 19). Apart from the praising the high level of accomplishment of ʿAbdallāh, these two accounts give little indication of his precise contribution. Fortunately further indications of his activities given by Qāżī Aḥmad and Dūst Moḥammad, when combined with documentary and historical evidence, provide a general framework for his biography. The only description of how ʿAbdallāh became attached to Jaʿfar, and presumably through him to the Timurid court workshop, is that found in an anonymous mid-16th century taḏkera cited by M. Bayānī (Ḵošnevīsān II, pp. 360-61). Here he is described as the son of a cook who had a shop in the bazaar of Herat. One day he was asked to deliver food to the students working in Jaʿfar Tabrīzī’s workshop. Feeling attracted by the scribal profession, he resolved to join the workshop. Once part of the workshop, his talents were soon apparent, and Jaʿfar encouraged the youth and later allowed ʿAbdallāh to marry his daughter. This account, which may well be legendary, suggests that his epithet “the Cook” (Ṭabbāḵ, Āšpaz) derives from the profession for which the youth was being trained. It is possible that he or his father performed this function in one of the Timurid households. The earliest surviving colophon signed by ʿAbdallāh is dated to 830/1430 (ibid., p. 363). Qāżī Aḥmad claims that the calligraphy of ʿAbdallāh is found on “most of the buildings of Herat, especially Gāzorgāh” (p. 27; tr., p. 66). The latter would appear to be a reference to the structure erected around the tomb of ʿAbdallāh Anṣārī on the order of Šāhroḵ between 829/1425 and 830/1426. If ʿAbdallāh had a major share in the planning or execution of inscriptions for this structure, it would suggest that he was an active member of the Timurid atelier by at least 829/1425. ʿAbdallāh appears to have remained in Herat during the 830s and 840s and may well have participated in the decoration of buildings erected by the Timurid family during this time. In addition to the preparation of architectural inscriptions, he was noted for his skill inafšān, gold sprinkling, and vaṣṣālī, the joining of two pieces of paper (ibid.). Both techniques were used in the preparation of luxurious manuscripts. The record of ʿAbdallāh’s movements aids the reconstruction of events between the death of Šāhroḵ in 850/1447 and the accession of Ḥosayn Bāqarā in 873/1469. According to Dūst Moḥammad (p. 27-28) after the death of Bāysonqor in 873/1433 the artists he had patronized came under the protection of his son ʿAlāʾ-al-dawla. When Uluḡ Beg defeated ʿAlāʾ-al-dawla b. Bāysonqor in Ḏu’l-qaʿda, 851/January, 1448, “Mawlānā Šehāb-al-dīn ʿAbdallāh and Mawlānā Ẓahīr-al-dīn Aẓhar and the other members of the Ketābḵāna” were taken to Samarqand. There he ordered them to prepare a history of his own time and showered them with kindness “day by day even hour by hour.” An examination of the brief reign of Uluḡ Beg (d. Ramażān, 853/October, 1449) suggests that he had few opportunities to exercise close supervision over artists in his employ. Nevertheless the general outlines of the story given by Dūst Moḥammad may well be correct. While less significant than his reburial of Šāhroḵ in the Gūr-e Mīr, the transplantation of the Timurid atelier to Samarqand would certainly be in harmony with Uluḡ Beg’s aim of restoring his capital to the position of eminence it had held during the lifetime of Tīmūr. The presence of members of the Timurid atelier in Samarqand is to suggest not only by Dūst Moḥammad’s statements but also by colophons signed by ʿAbdallāh and Aẓhar, along with a document now in Istanbul which describes the operation of a workshop. An undated colophon written by Aẓhar at Samarqand contains a dedication to Sultan Abū Saʿīd (Ḵošnevīsān I, p. 69). It must have been copied between Jomādā I, 855/June, 1451 and 863/1459, when Abū Saʿīd transferred the seat of his government to Herat. Colophons show that ʿAbdallāh Heravī was in Samarqand between 854/1450 and 859/1455, so that his period of activity also coincides with that of Abū Saʿīd, although he appears to have been in the city slightly before the latter’s victory (ibid., II, pp. 363-64). The most significant indication of the activity of major figures of the Timurid atelier in Samarqand comes in a document now in Istanbul. It is clearly a report to the patron of a workshop on the accomplishments of his employees. From their names, the major figures Amīr Ḵalīl, Ḵᵛāǰa ʿAlī, Ḡīāṯ-al-dīn, Šams-al-dīn, and Šehāb-al-dīn (presumably Šehāb-al-dīn ʿAbdallāh) would appear to be members of the Timurid atelier active during the period of Šāhroḵ and Bāysonqor (Kemal Özergin, pp. 471- 518). Internal evidence within the document suggests, however, that it comes from Samarqand rather than Herat. The place names contained in it, Bāḡ-e Maydān and Bāḡ-e Now, are garden palaces in the vicinity of Samarqand. Considering the other available evidence, one may conclude that the transplantation of the Timurid atelier to Samarqand mentioned by Dūst Moḥammad did in fact occur. It is certain that the key members of the workshop were there during the time of Abū Saʿīd, and there is at present no evidence to contradict Dūst Moḥammad’s statement that they were brought there at the command of Uluḡ Beg. In the document Šehāb-al-dīn is working on illuminated frontispieces for various manuscripts, adding gilding to the illuminated or painted pages (ibid., pp. 485, 490, 494). This activity would seem to be in harmony with Qāżī Aḥmad’s description of him as a specialist in “gold-sprinkling.” Toward the end of his career, ʿAbdallāh Heravī returned to his native city. M. Bayānī cites colophons mentioning the city of Herat signed by ʿAbdallāh which are dated between 860/1456 and 873/1469. A manuscript now in Leningrad, dated 877-82/1472-77, shows that he continued to be active during the reign of Ḥosayn Bāyqarā (Ḵošnevīsān II, pp. 362-64.). Although little is known of his work during these years, a remark by Qāżī Aḥmad (p. 27, tr., p. 66) suggests that he worked in Mašhad, executing projects for Ḥosayn Bāyqarā, since he mentions a building there named after “Āḡāča, the wife of Ḥosayn Mīrzā,” which has inscriptions written by ʿAbdallāh Heravī. Āḡāča was a title used by concubines at the court of Ḥosayn Bāyqarā, and the names of three of his favorites are known: Laṭīfa Solṭān Āḡāča, Pāpā Āḡāča, and Bībī Āḡāča. It is not known which of them should be connected with the building in Mašhad, no do any traces of the building appear to have survived. Another link between ʿAbdallāh and Mašhad is the work there of his pupil ʿAbd-al-Ḥaqq Sabzavārī, who composed inscriptions on the dome of the tomb of Imam Reżā, according to the testimony of Qāżī Aḥmad (p. 32; tr., p. 72).

Bibliography: ʿAbd-al-Razzāq Samarqandī, Maṭlaʿ al-saʿdayn, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library, Fatih no. 3317. Dūst Moḥammad, A Treatise on Calligraphists and Miniaturists, ed. M. Abdullah Chaghtai, Lahore, 1936, pp. 13-14, 25-27. B. Dorn, Catalogue des manuscrits et xylographes orientaux de la Bibliothèque Impériale de St. Petersbourg, St. Petersburg, 1852, ms. no. CXLVII. M. Kemal Özergin, “Temürlü sanatina âit eski bir belge; Tebrizli Caʾfarʾ in Bīr Arzi,”Sanat Tarihi Yillıği VI, Istanbul, 1974-75. Armenag Bey Sakisian, La miniature persane du XIIe au XVIIe siècle, Paris, 1929, p. 56. (P. P. Soucek) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 195-197 Cite this entry: P. P. Soucek, “Abdallah Heravi,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 195-197; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-heravi-mid-15th-century- calligrapher-active-in-herat-samarqand-and-mashad (accessed on 17 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABDALLĀH ḤOSAYNĪ P. P. SOUCEK Scribe and poet in the service of the Mughal emperors Akbar and Jahāngīr (17th century).

ABDALLĀH ḤOSAYNĪ Scribe and poet in the service of the Mughal emperors Akbar and Jahāngīr (17th century).

ʿABDALLĀH ḤOSAYNĪ, a scribe and poet in the service of the Mughal emperors Akbar and Jahāngīr. While in their employ he signed calligraphy as Moškīn-qalam and composed poetry under taḵalloṣ Vaṣfī (Badāʾūnī, ed. Fārūqī, p. 759; tr., III, p. 518; Bayānī, Ḵošnevīsān II, pp. 353-54). ʿAbdallāh may be the Vaṣfī Kābolī mentioned by Badāʾūnī (p. 659) or the poet and scribe Vaṣfī listed by Neṯārī (Moḏakker-e aḥbāb, pp. 204-5). The origin of ʿAbdallāh’s family is obscure. Badāʾūnī mentions only that his mother is related to Neẓām-al-dīn Aḥmad (d. 1003/1594-95; ed. Fārūqī, p. 659, tr., III, p. 518). Bayānī’s assertion that the family is descended from Neʿmatallāh Valīallāhī (q.v.) appears to be incorrect ( Ḵošnevīsān II, p. 353). ʿAbdallāh is probably identical with the Mīr ʿAbdallāh listed in the Āʾīn-e Akbarī as a court scribe (tr., I, p. 103). ʿAbdallāh had the rank of aḥadī at Akbar’s court (Badāʾūnī, ed. Fārūqī, p. 659; tr., III, p. 518). During Jahāngīr’s rebellion (1008-13/1599-1604) ʿAbdallāh formed part of that prince’s retinue. During this time he copied a manuscript of Ḥasan Dehlavī’s Dīvān (completed Moḥarram, 1010/July, 1601; Beach, The Grand Mogul, pp. 34-40; pl. 1). He uses a fluid style of nastaʿlīqscript similar to that popular in Herat and Bokhara during the early years of the 10th/ 16th century. Underneath the manuscript’s colophon a painter has executed ʿAbdallāh’s portrait showing him writing a letter to Jahāngīr. Other examples of ʿAbdallāh’s calligraphy are found in albums and bear dates between 1011/1602-03 and 1025/1616-17 (Bayānī, Ḵošnevīsān II, pp. 354-55). The date of ʿAbdallāh’s death is unknown. ʿAbdallāh may have settled in Lahore during the early years of the 17th century. His son, Moḥammad Ṣāleḥ, who served Shah Jahān as court historian and director of the royal library (ketābḵāna), is closely associated with that city (Ṣāleḥ, ʿAmal-e Ṣāleḥ I, preface, pp. 2-6).

Bibliography: Milo Beach, The Grand Mogul: Imperial Painting in India 1600-1660, Williamstown, 1978. Ḥasan Neṯārī Boḵārī, Moḏakker-e aḥbāb, ed. Fazlullah, Delhi, 1969. Moḥammad Ṣāleḥ, ʿAmal-e Ṣāleḥ: Shāh Jehānnāma, ed. Yazdānī and Qorayšī, Lahore, 1967. (P. P. Soucek) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 197 Cite this entry: P. P. Soucek, “Abdallah Hosayni,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 197; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-hosayni-early-mughal- period-scribe-and-poet (accessed on 17 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABDALLĀH KABRĪ D. PINGREE Mathematician (d. 1083-84). ABDALLĀH KABRĪ Mathematician (d. 1083-84).

ʿABDALLĀH B. EBRĀHĪM AL-KABRĪ ABŪ ḤAKĪM, mathematician, d. 476/1083-84. He was the pupil of Ḥosayn b. Moḥammad al-Vannī (killed in Baghdad in Ḏu’l-ḥeǰǰa, 451/January-February, 1060). According to Ebn Ḵallekān (tr. de Slane, I, p. 421), Ḵabrī wrote a Talḵīṣ fi’l-ḥesāb (“ Summary concerning computation”). Bibliography: Suter, Mathematiker, p. 108, no. 250. (D. Pingree) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 197 Cite this entry: David Pingree, “Abdallah Kabri,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 197; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-al-kabri-mathematician-d- 1083-84 (accessed on 17 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABDALLĀH KHAN B. W. ROBINSON Court painter (18th-19th century).

ABDALLĀH KHAN Court painter (18th-19th century).

ʿABDALLĀH KHAN, court painter, b. ca. 1770; d. ca. 1850. Very little is known of him personally. R. Murdoch Smith, who had access to reliable oral sources, wrote that he “died at a great age in the beginning of the present Shah’s reign” (sc. Nāṣer-al-dīn, acc. 1848; Persian Art, London, 1876, p. 78). William Price, who accompanied Sir Gore Ousely’s embassy in 1812, notes under May 13th of that year: “Called upon Akabdool (sc. Āqā ʿAbdallāh [Khan], Nakoshbashee [naqqāšbāšī] head painter to the shah; he shewed several portraits of the royal family, khans, etc.” (Journal of the British Embassy to Persia, London, 1832, p. 36). ʿAbdallāh’s most celebrated work was the great fresco covering three walls of the audience hall in the Negārestān Palace, which formerly stood next to the Maydān-e Mašq, or Drill Square, Tehran. The original is now lost, but a full-scale copy was made in 1904 and now hangs in the Persian Foreign Office; and several reduced copies were made for European envoys and visitors, one of which was engraved in London, 1834, by Robert Havell (see B. W. Robinson, Persian Paintings in the India Office Library, London, 1976, nos. 1280-83, where further references will be found). The painting comprises a total of 118 life-size figures; on the end wall was Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah enthroned and attended by twelve of his sons and six ḡolāms carrying the royal shield, etc., and on the side walls a double row of courtiers above and foreign envoys and guards below. Among the latter are Sir John Malcolm, Sir Harford Jones, and Sir Gore Ousely on the one side, and on the other General Gardanne, M. Jaubert, and M. Jouannin. In spite of an inscription, noted by Brown, dating the work to 1228/1813 and stating it was executed by ʿAbdallāh Khan, Curzon attributed it to Moḥammad Ḥasan Khan (Persia and the Persian Question, London, 1892, I, p. 338). His error was followed by Schulz (Die persisch-islamische Miniaturmalerei, Leipzig, 1914, I, p. 196). ʿAbdallāh Khan is also credited with an impressive pair of frescoes at Karaǰ, in what was formerly the Solaymānīya Palace (now the Government Agricultural College), which are thus described by Lady Sheil (Glimpses of Life and Manners in Persia, London, 1856, p. 115): “At one end of the apartment was a large fresco painting, full size of Fetteh Ali Shah in regal array, with a numerous party of his sons standing around him... At the other extremity of the room was another painting of still greater attraction. It represented Agha Mahommed Khan, the founder of the Kajjar dynasty, surrounded by the chiefs of his tribe who helped him to the sovereignty of Persia... The likenesses of the chiefs are said to be excellent, and that of Agha Mahommed Khan himself is inimitable. The former are fine, sturdy, determined-looking warriors. Agha Mahommed looks like a fiend. The atrocious, cold, calculating ferocity which marked the man is stamped on his countenance.” A full length life-size portrait of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (no. 707-1876) is reliably attributed to ʿAbdallāh Khan on the authority of Murdoch Smith. The king is represented standing, wearing a red robe and an astrakhan cap adorned with diamonds and an aigrette. Other oil paintings might perhaps be attributed to him on stylistic grounds, such as the two enormous canvases of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah’s sons (formerly on the market in London and Paris ; one secured by the Negārestān Museum, Tehran) which must have originally flanked a central section depicting the king himself. But the court style of the time was remarkably homogeneous, and such attributions must be regarded as extremely tentative. No evidence has so far come to light on the relationship between ʿAbdallāh Khan and his two former colleagues, Mīrzā Bābā and Mehr ʿAlī, the former of whom also enjoyed the title of naqqāšbāšī. Unlike them, ʿAbdallāh does not appear to have worked in other media, such as lacquer and enamel, but to have confined himself to painting in oils. Bibliography: Given in the text. (B. W. Robinson) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 197-198 Cite this entry: B. W. Robinson, “Abdallah Khan,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 197- 198; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-khan-court-painter-b-ca- 1770-d-ca-1850 (accessed on 17 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ʿABDALLĀH KHAN B. ESKANDAR YU. BREGEL Šaybānīd ruler of Transoxania (d. 1598).

ʿABDALLĀH KHAN B. ESKANDAR Šaybānīd ruler of Transoxania (d. 1598).

ʿABDALLĀH KHAN B. ESKANDAR, a ruler of Transoxania of the Šaybānīd (q.v.) dynasty, born in the year of the Dragon (thus Šarafnāma-ye šāhī; = 1532-33 A.D., 938-39 A.H., cf. W. Barthold in EI1 I, p. 26). In 918/1512-13, when the Šaybānī state was divided into appanages between the members of the ruling clan, ʿAbdallāh’s grandfather Jānībek Solṭān received the region of Karmīna and Mīānkāl. His son Eskandar (see W. Barthold, in EI1 II, p. 576) was half-witted, and it was ʿAbdallāh who had to defend his family possessions against other branches of the Šaybānīs, which from 959/1552 were led by Nowrūz Aḥmad (Baraq), the khan of all Uzbeks and the ruler of Tashkent. Twice during this struggle ʿAbdallāh fled before his enemies, first to Balḵ (in 961/1554), then to Maymana (in 963/1556). On the death of Nowrūz Aḥmad in 963/1556, ʿAbdallāh returned to his appanage in Mīānkāl; shortly after that he drove the sons of Nowrūz Aḥmad Khan from Samarqand, and in 964/1557 he seized Bokhara, which thereafter remained the capital of the rulers of Māwarāʾ al-Nahr until the Russian conquest in the 19th century. A great help was rendered to ʿAbdallāh in his struggle for power by the Jūybārī shaikhs. Their head, Ḵᵛāǰa Moḥammad Eslām (known as Ḵᵛāǰa Eslām or Īšān-e Kalān, a pupil of Ḵᵛāǰa Aḥmad Kāšānī Maḵdūm-e Aʿẓam, was instrumental in ʿAbdallāh’s seizure of Bokhara, and subsequently he and his son and heir Ḵᵛāǰa Abū Bakr Saʿd enjoyed ʿAbdallāh’s firm support and played an ever increasing role in the political and economic life of Transoxania. ʿAbdallāh’s uncle Pīr Moḥammad Kha n, who ruled in Balḵ, was proclaimed the supreme khan of the Uzbeks after Nowrūz Aḥmad. But already in 968/1561 ʿAbdallāh, taking advantage of an insurrection in Balḵ, proclaimed his father Eskandar supreme khan in Bokhara; the latter remained a figurehead, while ʿAbdallāh became the actual ruler. The consolidation of power in his hands was achieved after a long struggle with the other members of the dynasty, especially with the house of Nowrūz Aḥmad, headed by his son Bābā Solṭān, the ruler of Tashkent and Turkestan. In 981/1573, ʿAbdallāh captured Balḵ (which was given in appanage to his son ʿAbd-al-Moʾmen), in 982/1574 Ḥeṣār, in 986/1578 Samarqand. Bābā Solṭān was defeated first in 983/1575, but fled to the Qazaqs, with whom he invaded Transoxania in 987/1579. Tashkent and other regions to the north of the Syr Darya were finally captured in 990/1582, and Bābā Solṭān was put to death; during this war ʿAbdallāh reached the Ulu Tāḡ heights in the central Qazaq steppe, where he had a mosque built in the same place where Tīmūr had had an inscription erected in 793/1391. In 991/1583 ʿAbdallāh annexed Farḡāna. In the same year, after the death of his father, ʿAbdallāh was proclaimed khan in Bokhara; a leading role in his ascension to the throne was played by Ḵᵛāǰa Saʿd Jūybārī. Having eliminated his rivals among the Šaybānī dynasty (most of whom were killed or executed during the wars), ʿAbdallāh Khan proceeded to other conquests. In 992/1584 he conquered Badaḵšān. In 995/1587 the Uzbek army invaded Khorasan (the first raid into Khorasan had been undertaken by ʿAbdallāh already in 974/1567), and in 996/1588 Herat was captured after a long siege and Qul Bābā Kökältaš (q.v.) was appointed its governor. In 998/1590 ʿAbd-al-Moʾmen captured Mašhad; in the following years he took most of Khorasan, while ʿAbdallāh was busy with the conquest of Ḵᵛārazm (campaigns of 1002/1593 and 1004/1595-96). He invaded Kāšḡar and Yārkand in 1003/1594-95, but without result. The first years of the reign of ʿAbdallāh Khan were marred by conflict with ʿAbd-al-Moʾmen, who claimed the same power as ʿAbdallāh had enjoyed under Eskandar. Encouraged by the dissension in Bokhara, the Qazaqs under Tevekkel Khan (q.v.) invaded the northern regions of the Šaybānī state and captured Turkestan and Tashkent. ʿAbdallāh Khan died in Samarqand in 1006/1598, at the beginning of his campaign against the Qazaqs. ʿAbd-al-Moʾmen was killed after a reign of only six months and ʿAbdallāh’s conquests in Khorasan, Ḵᵛārazm, and north of Syr Darya were lost; from 1007/1599 a new dynasty of the Janids (q.v.) ruled in Bokhara. The reign of ʿAbdallāh Khan was a period of considerable achievements in the economic and cultural life of Transoxania. Popular tradition ascribes to him various buildings, both religious and secular, as well as irrigation works. Some of them are attested in the sources and still survive, such as domed market arcades and a number of madrasas in Bokhara. ʿAbdallāh Khan’s centralizing policy favored the development of trade, as did his improvement of roads, building of caravansaries and water cisterns, and monetary reform, which stabilized the silver currency. Bibliography: The main source for the history of ʿAbdallāh Khan is Šarafnāma-ye šāhī (also known as ʿAbdallāhnāma) by his contemporary Ḥāfeẓ Tanı š Boḵārī, but it reaches only to 996/1588 (not published; for MSS, see Storey-Bregel, p. 1129, no. 990; for a Russian epitome with some quotations from the original, see V. V. Vel’yaminov-Zernov in Trudy Vostochnogo Otdeleniya Russkogo Arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva 4, St. Petersburg, 1859, pp. 378-402). Another contemporary work is Rawżat al-reżwān wa ḥadīqat al-ḡelmān, written for the Jūybārī shaikhs by Badr-al-dīn Kašmīrī (the only known MS is in Tashkent; see Story-Bregel, p. 1134, no. 999 [1]). It contains some important material, including copies of correspondence between ʿAbdallāh Khan and the Jūybārī shaikhs. Among Persian sources the most important is Eskandar Beg Monšī (index, s.vv. ʿAbdallāh Khan Uzbek and ʿAbd-al-Moʾmen Khan), especially for the last years of ʿAbdallāh’s reign; for the same years also Baḥr al-asrār by Maḥmūd b. Valīallāhī, moǰallad 6, rokn 3 (for MSS see Storey-Bregel, p. 1133, no. 991; a Russian epitome by W. Barthold, SochineniyaVIII, Moscow, 1973, pp. 193-95). On the conquest of Ḵᵛārazm see also Abu’l-Ḡāzī, I, pp. 255-71, II, 273- 90. On the campaign in Kāšḡar see Taʾrīḵ-e Šāh Maḥmūd b. Mīrzā Fāżel Čorās, ed. O. F. Akimushkin, Moscow, 1976, text, pp. 24-28; Russian tr., pp. 171-74; comm., pp. 284-86. About the relations between ʿAbdallāh Khan and the Jūybārī shaikhs see Maṭlab al-ṭālebīn by Abu’l-ʿAbbās Moḥammad Ṭāleb (on the MSS see Sobranie vostochnykh rukopiseĭ Akademii nauk Uzbekskoĭ SSR, Tashkent, I, no. 316; III, nos. 2595-96; N. D. Miklukho-Maklay, Opisanie tadzhikskikh i persidskikh rukopiseĭ Instituta narodov Azii II, Moscow, 1961, no. 195). Cf. also P. P. Ivanov, Khozyaĭstvo dzhuĭbarskikh sheĭkhov, Moscow and Leningrad, 1954, pp. 20, 50-51, 59, 66; and V. L. Vyatkin, in ʿIqd al- ǰumān. W. W. Bartol’du(collected papers), Tashkent, 1927, pp. 12-18. On the coinage of ʿAbdallāh Khan see N. M. Lowick, in Numismatic Chronicle, ser. 7, vol. 6, 1966, pp. 305-08, and E. A. Davidovich, in Trudy Sredneaziatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, N.S. 23, Tashkent, 1951, pp. 126-41. (Yu. Bregel) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 198-199 Cite this entry: Yu. Bregel, “Abdallah Khan B. Eskandar,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 198-199; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-khan-b-eskandar-saybanid- ruler-of-transoxania-d-1598 (accessed on 17 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABDALLĀH KHAN UZBEK M. H. SIDDIQI Mughal noble and general and also briefly an autonomous ruler (10th/16th century).

ABDALLĀH KHAN UZBEK Mughal noble and general and also briefly an autonomous ruler (10th/16th century).

ʿABDALLĀH KHAN UZBEK, 10th/16th century Mughal noble and general and also briefly an autonomous ruler. His mother, ʿĀyeša Solṭān Be gom, was a daughter of the Timurid sultan, Ḥosayn Bāyqarā; and her mother, Zobayda Āḡāča, was a granddaughter of the ʿArabshahid Tīmūr Šayḵ (Ḥabīb al-sīar [Bombay], II, p. 206;Bābornāma, tr., pp. 267, 273, n.; Homāyūnnāma, pp. 208, 296-97). ʿĀyeša Solṭān was first married to Qāsem Solṭān, to whom she bore a son, Qāsem Ḥosayn Solṭān. After her husband’s death, she was given to his kinsman (brother?) Borān (Borhān) Solṭān in a yīnkālīk (levirate) marriage, from which issued ʿAbdallāh Solṭān. (On the problematic chronology of these events, see Beveridge, Homāyūnnāma, p. 209.) By 936/1530 ʿAbdallāh was in the Mughal military service; he drew Bābor’s notice as “now serving me and though young, not doing badly” (Bābornāma, tr., p. 267). Possibly he had accompanied Qāsem Ḥosayn Solṭān from Khorasan to India in 933/1526, since Qāsem had led a contingent of 500, including various prominent Shaibanid Uzbeks, in Bābor’s cause (Bābornāma, tr., pp. 550, 589, 631;Homāyūnnāma, p. 100). This force became available at a crucial moment and was thrown into the battle against Rānā Sāngā (Bābornāma, tr., 556). ʿAbdallāh may have attracted the king’s attention at that time. Qāsem Ḥosayn Solṭān continued to serve under Bābor and Homāyūn, and apparently ʿAbdallāh did also. When Homāyūn was routed at Chausa (946/1539), ʿĀyeša Solṭān was drowned or killed (Homāyūnnāma, p. 30). Her sons accompanied Homāyūn during his wanderings in the Panjab and Sind (Jawhar Āftābčī, Taḏkerat al-wāqeʿāt, tr. in W. Erskine,History of India under Báber and Humáyun, London, 1854, II, pp. 205f.;Akbarnāma, tr. I, pp. 355-60). They eventually defected to Kāmrān’s faction in Qandahār, as did most of the Uzbeks, but rejoined Homāyūn when he retook Qandahār and Kabul (Akbarnāma, I, pp. 370, 396, 465; Bāyazīd Bayāt, Taḏkera-ye Homāyūn va Akbar, Calcutta, 1941, pp. 51-52, 86-87, 97-99; Tārīḵ-e Rašīdī, tr., p. 484; Tārīḵ-e Sind, tr. M. H. Siddiqi, in History of Arghuns and Tarkhans of Sind, Sind, 1972, p. 89, n. 3). They also accompanied Homāyūn in the Balḵ and Badaḵšān campaigns of 953- 54/1548-49 (Akbarnāma I, pp. 527, 550, 558). Qāsem Ḥosayn Solṭān does not figure in Homāyūn’s reconquest of Hindustan and so may have died about that time. But ʿAbdallāh, now married to a daughter of Qāsem Barlās, a Qazāq sultan of the line of Jūǰī, played a prominent role, along with his father-in-law, in the restoration of Homāyūn and in the wars against the Sūr Afghans. Under Akbar, he distinguished himself in the battle of Panipat (5 November 1556) and received the title of Šaǰāʿat Khan and the ǰāgīr (toyūl) of Kalpi. He then joined the imperial troops against Khan Zamān (ʿAlī-qolī Uzbek), governor of Jaunpur. In the following year he also took part in the recovery of Malwa from Bāz Bahādor; to facilitate its reconquest, he was given broad authority and the rank of panǰhazārī (5,000; Akbarnāma, tr., II, pp. 260f.). In 974/1564 Akbar became wary of his power, however, and proceeded to subdue him. ʿAbdallāh, after brief resistance, fled with his son to Čangīz Khan in Gujerat. But the latter was pressured to dismiss him. Returning to Malwa, ʿAbdallāh eventually found refuge with his former opponent, Khan Zamān, at Jaunpur. The circumstances and date of his death are obscure. ʿAbdallāh’s conduct was motivated by more than personal ambition. The Bāyqarā group in Bābor’s entourage, including the Shaibanid Uzbeks, were seeking a stable seat of power after their displacement from Khorasan. They tended to be disloyal toward Bābor and Homāyūn, opting, instead, to show sympathy with Kāmrān and later with Mīrzā Ḥakīm, both of whom held Kabul. ʿAbdallāh’s failure paralleled that of Khan Zamān and others. Bibliography: Bābornāma, tr. A. S. Beveridge, London, 1921. Homāyūnnāma of Golbadan Bēgom, tr. idem, London, 1902. Akbarnāma, tr., II, passim. Āʾīn-e Akbarī, tr., I, p. 337. (M. H. Siddiqi) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 199-200 Cite this entry: M. H. Siddiqi, “Abdallah Khan Uzbek,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 199-200; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-khan-uzbek (accessed on 17 January 2014). ʿABDALLĀH MĀZANDARĀNĪ, SHAIKH H. ALGAR Theologian and supporter of the constitutional movement (1840-1912).

ʿABDALLĀH MĀZANDARĀNĪ, SHAIKH Theologian and supporter of the constitutional movement (1840-1912).

ʿABDALLĀH MĀZANDARĀNĪ, SHAIKH (1256-1330/1840-1912), a theologian (moǰtahed) who, through his fatvās and proclamations, lent powerful support to the constitutional movement. He was born in Bārforūš (present-day Āmol); in his early youth, after preliminary studies in Iran, he proceeded to the ʿatabāt to study under the leading scholars of the day. He settled first in Karbalā, where his chief teachers were Zayn-al-ʿābedīn Māzandarānī and Shaikh Ḥasan Ardakānī, and then moved to Naǰaf, where he was to spend almost all the rest of his life. There his teachers were Shaikh Mahdī Kāšef-al-ḡeṭāʾ, Mollā Moḥammad Īravānī, and, most important, Shaikh Ḥabīballāh Raštī, whose principal pupil and successor he became. He began to teach independently already in the lifetime of Shaikh Ḥabīballāh; and when his master died in 1312/1895, he inherited his considerable following. He was recognized as marǰaʿ-e taqlīd (q.v.) by all the Gīlānīs and Māzandarānīs resident in the ʿatabāt. Soon he acquired still wider fame and acceptance, so that he had become one of the foremost moǰtaheds of Naǰaf by the time the constitutional movement began. Māzandarānī supported the constitution from the very beginning, and came to form, together with Āḵūnd Ḵorāsānī (d. 1329/1911) and Ḥāǰǰī Mīrzā Ḥosayn Ḵalīlī Ṭehrānī (q.v.; 1326/1908), a trio of constitutionalist moǰtaheds; their activity in Naǰaf complemented the efforts of the two moǰtaheds leading the movement in Tehran, Sayyed ʿAbdallāh Behbahānī and Sayyed Moḥammad Ṭabāṭabāʾī. From the position of relative immunity afforded by their residence in the Ottoman territory, Māzandarānī and his colleagues dispatched a flow of telegrams to Iran that encouraged and guided the constitutionalists and condemned their opponents as traitors to religion. Their declarations afforded religious sanction to the constitutionalist cause and were decisive on some occasions in rallying popular support. Despite the influence they came to wield on events in Iran, the position of Māzandarānī and his associates in Naǰaf was initially weak. The opponents of the constitution, led by a rival moǰtahed, Sayyed Kāẓem Yazdī, were supported both by the Ottoman authorities and the Arab Shiʿites of Naǰaf. They enjoyed such superiority that Māzandarānī, Ḵorāsānī, and Ṭehrānī at one point almost hesitated to venture out to public prayers for fear of physical attack (Mahdī Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb-e mašrūṭīyat-e Īrān, Tehran, 1330 Š./1951, III, pp. 69-70; Kasravī,Mašrūṭa5, pp. 294, 382). They nonetheless held firm to the constitutionalist cause and sent telegrams to Tehran that both sanctioned the principle of a Maǰles and also offered guidance on the correct meaning and application of constitutionalism in the context of Shiʿite Iran (Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, p. 441). When, for example, in Šaʿbān, 1325/October, 1907, the Maǰles inserted an article in the supplement to the constitution stipulating that all legislation should be in conformity with the šarīʿa, Māzandarānī and Ḵorāsānī sent a telegram expressing their satisfaction, and proposed a further article prohibiting the diffusion of irreligion and atheism (Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, p. 411; Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb III, p. 90). In the spring of 1908, when Shaikh Fażlallāh Nūrī came out in open opposition to constitutional rule as contrary to Islam, Māzandarānī and Ḵorāsānī sent a telegram to their counterparts in Tehran denouncing him as a “worker of corruption” whose continued participation in affairs was repugnant to religion (Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, p. 528; Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb III, p. 167; Mahdī-qolī Khan Hedāyat, Ḵāṭerāt va ḵaṭarāt, 2nd ed., Tehran, 1334 Š./1965, p. 164, n. 1). They also criticized Mīrzā Ḥasan Tabrīzī, a moǰtahed with views similar to those of Nūrī, for his demand that all provisions of the šarīʿa be implemented; they pointed out that such perfect application of religious law would have to await the return of the Occulted Imam and the institution of a Maǰles was a necessary means of lessening the evil that inevitably obtained in the meantime (Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, pp. 286-87). The prestige of Naǰaf was thus enlisted on behalf of the constitutionalists. After the suppression of the constitution in Jomādā I, 1326/June, 1908, all constitutionalist voices among the ʿolamāʾ in Iran were silenced, and the role of Māzandarānī and his colleagues in Naǰaf became correspondingly enhanced. It was indeed the combined effect of their fatvās and proclamations and the armed resistance of the Tabrīzīs that brought about the restoration of the constitution one year later. The fatvās issued in this period by Māzandarānī, Ḵorāsānī, and others in Naǰaf were bold and decisive in tone. When informed by Behbahānī and Ṭabāṭabāʾī that the royalist troops were massing for their attack on the Maǰles, Māzandarānī and Ḵorāsānī responded with two telegrams, one informing the constitutionalists of continued support for the constitution and urging them to persist, and another addressed to the troops, prohibiting any action against the constitution as equivalent to an act of war against the Occulted Imam (Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, p. 645; Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb IV, p. 29). When, on 18 Jomādā I/19 June, Moḥammad ʿAlī Shah sent a telegram attempting to justify his actions as motivated by concern for religion and true constitutionalism, Māzandarānī, Ḵorāsānī, and Ṭehrānī sent an uncompromising reply. They demanded that the monarch fulfill his undertakings and regard himself as bound by law and the constitution (Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, p. 617; Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb III, p. 30-32; Yaḥyā Dawlatābādī, Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣer yā ḥayāt-e Yaḥyā, Tehran, 1331 Š./1952, II, pp. 358-65). Later the same year, they addressed to him a still stronger communication, which was printed and widely distributed, reproaching him for his hypocrisy and treachery, condemning the whole record of the Qajar dynasty, and concluding with the invocation of curses upon tyranny (Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelābV, pp. 111-13; Ẓahīr-al- dawla, Asnād va ḵāṭerāt, ed. Īraǰ Afšār, Tehran, 1351 Š./1972, pp. 387- 89; Dawlatābādī, Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣer III, p. 32). At almost the same time as the royalist coup d’état in Tehran, a change of opposite nature took place in Istanbul with the restoration of the Ottoman constitution. This development strengthened the position of Māzandarānī and the constitutionalists in Naǰaf. Yazdī was discountenanced, and links were established between Māzandarānī and the Ottoman government. In Šaʿbān, 1326/September, 1908, we find them seeking the intervention of Sultan ʿAbd-al-Ḥamīd in order to obtain the reestablishment of the Iranian constitution (Hairi, Shiʿism and Constitutionalism, pp. 164-65). Some communication with the British diplomatic representatives also took place, without any satisfactory result (see report of J. Ramsay, British consul-general in Baghdad, dated 4 August 1908, quoted in Hairi, op. cit., p. 166). More important were the close links now formed between Naǰaf and the Anǰoman-e Saʿādat in Istanbul, an organization of Iranians resident in the Ottoman capital favorable to the constitution. Many of the fatvās and proclamations issued by Māzandarānī and Ḵorāsānī were telegraphed to Iran— especially Tabrīz—by way of Anǰoman-e Saʿādat, which also printed and distributed copies of them in large quantities. Liaison between Naǰaf and Istanbul was assured by Asadallāh Mamaqānī, who went to Istanbul as personal representative of the moǰtaheds (Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb V, p. 105; Dawlatābādī, Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣer II, pp. 369-70). In their communications of support to Tabrīz, Māzandarānī and his colleagues again likened hostility to the constitution to warfare against the Occulted Imam. Invoking the memory of Karbalā, they declared that obeying Moḥammad ʿAlī Shah was tantamount to obeying Yazīd, and that the blockade of Tabrīz by the royalist forces was the same as that imposed on the camp of Ḥosayn (Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, pp. 729-30; Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb IV, pp. 174-75; Dawlatābādī, Tārīḵ-e moʿāṣerII, pp. 367-68). Later they expressed themselves still more clearly, calling for the overthrow of “this blood-thirsty tyrant” and prohibiting the payment of taxes (Kasravī, Mašrūṭa5, p. 730; Ẓahīr-al- dawla, Ḵāṭerāt va asnād, p. 403). In Jomādā II, 1324/July, 1909 constitutionalist forces advancing from Isfahan and Gīlān and elsewhere conquered Tehran and deposed the shah. A telegram was immediately sent to Naǰaf, thanking Māzandarānī and his colleagues for their efforts; and a similar declaration of gratitude was made at the first meeting of the reopened Maǰles (Malekzāda, Tārīḵ- e enqelāb VI, p. 95; Kasravī, Āẕarbāyǰān3, Tehran, 1340 Š./1961, p. 76). The moǰtaheds responded with messages of congratulation, calling upon the new Maǰles to show more unity than the old one (Malekzāda, Tārīḵ-e enqelāb VI, pp. 108-09; Nāẓem-al-eslām Kermānī, Tārīḵ-e bīdārī-e īrānīān, ed. ʿAlī Akbar Saʿīdī Sīrǰānī, Tehran, 1346 Š./1967, pp. 239-40). The irreligious tendencies that had aroused the concern of Māzandarānī and Ḵorāsānī in the first Maǰles were, however, to reappear. They found it necessary to protest, in a telegram to Nāṣer-al-molk in Rabīʿ II, 1328/June, 1910, at the continued absence of any restraint on atheism, and the open irreligiosity of the political authorities (Hairi, Shiʿism and Constitutionalism, p. 224). Later in the year they singled out Sayyed Ḥasan Taqīzāda for particular criticism, condemning his attitudes as contrary to Islam (text of their declaration in Esmāʿīl Rāʾīn, Ḥoqūq- begīrān-e Engelīs dar Īrān, Tehran, 1347 Š./1968, pp. 439-40). A more serious threat to constitutional rule in Iran was posed by the increasingly aggressive stance of both Britain and Russia, particularly the latter. Māzandarānī and Ḵorāsānī now turned their attention to this external danger. They protested against a British memorandum stating the intention to raise a force under British command in southern Iran, allegedly to establish security (Kasravī, Āẕarbāyǰān3, p. 150), and gave fatvās calling for a boycott of Russian goods (ibid., p. 241). Seeing Iranian independence threatened, they abandoned their preoccupation with constitutionalism and joined with quiescent and even royalist ʿolamāʾ to call for an effective union of the Ottomans and Iranians, under the leadership of the sultan, to save the freedom of the last two independent Muslim nations (see the declaration of the Shiʿite ʿolamāʾ of the ʿatabāt, headed by Māzandarānī, dated 1 Ḏu’l-ḥeǰǰa 1328/4 December 1910, reproduced in RMM 13, 1911, pp. 385-86). In Raǰab, 1329/July, 1911, the Russians openly invaded Iran and attempted to restore Moḥammad ʿAlī Shah to the throne. Their attack coincided with the Italian onslaught on Libya. Māzandarānī and his associates, condemning both invasions in the spirit of Pan-Islam, sent telegrams to Sultan Mehmed Reşad calling for ǰehād, and others to various parts of the Muslim world, especially India, asking for solidarity (Neẓām-al-dīn- zāda, Hoǰūm-e rūs be Īrān va eqdāmāt-e roʾasā-ye dīn dar ḥefẓ-e Īrān, Baghdad, 1330/1912, pp. 144-45, 204-05, 221-26; Hairi, Shiʿism and Constitutionalism, p. 232). Not content with issuing of fatvās, Māzandarānī and the other ʿolamāʾ of the ʿatabāt set out for Iran late in 1329/1911 in order personally to wage ǰehād against the Russians; but they were discouraged from proceeding beyond Kāẓemayn, first by the sudden death of Ḵorāsānī and then by the receipt of reassuring messages from the Iranian government (Kasravī, Āẕarbāyǰān3, p. 246; Hairi, Shiʿism and Constitutionalism, pp. 228-35; letter of Taqīzāda to E. G. Browne dated 6 January 1912, in Nāmahāʾī az Tabrīz, ed. Ḥasan Javādī, Tehran, 1353 Š./1974, pp. 85-86). Māzandarānī died in Naǰaf on 4 Ḏu’l-ḥeǰǰa 1330/11 November 1912, with his political objectives largely unattained. He had defined, however, with great clarity the clerical understanding of modern political concepts such as constitutional rule (“the limitation of the sovereign power by laws established in conformity with the Jaʿfarīmaḏhab”), liberty (“freedom from subjection to arbitrary impositions by the wielders of power”), and equality (“the absence of distinction between strong and weak, rich and poor, with respect to rights under the law”—see Kermānī, Bīdārī, intro., pp. 238-40). He also left a legacy of religiously authoritative comment on Iranian politics by the ʿolamāʾ of Naǰaf that persisted for many decades. In addition to his numerous proclamations, Māzandarānī also wrote a book in Arabic on fundamental religious obligations, entitled Ohbat al- maʿād and printed in Baghdad in 1327/1909 (Ṭehrānī, Ḏarīʿa II, p. 486), as well as some unpublished treatises on feqh and kalām.

Bibliography: Abdul-Hadi Hairi, Shiʿism and Constitutionalism in Iran: a Study of the Role Played by the Clerical Residents of Iraq in Iranian Politics, Ph.D. thesis, McGill University, 1973 (page references in text); publ. Leiden, 1977. H. Algar, “The Oppositional Role of the Ulema in Twentieth-Century Iran,”Scholars, Saints and Sufis, ed. N. R. Keddie, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972, pp. 233, 238. E. G. Browne, The Persian Revolution of 1905-1909, Cambridge, 1910, pp. 262, 421-22. Moḥammad Ḥerz-al-dīn, Maʿāref al-reǰāl fī tarāǰem al-ʿolamāʾ wa’l- odabāʾ, Naǰaf, 1383/1964, II, pp. 18-20. Mīrzā Moḥammad ʿAlī Modarres, Rayḥānat al-adab, 2nd ed., Tabrīz, n.d., V, p. 146. “Sanadī az ʿAbdallāh Māzandarānī va Moḥammad Kāẓem Ḵorāsānī,” Vaḥīd 1, 1342-43 Š./1963-64, p. 69. Āḡā Bozorg Ṭehrānī, Ṭabaqāt aʿlām al-šīʿa I, Naǰaf, 1381/1962, pp. 1291-20. (H. Algar) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: September 19, 2012 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 200-202 Cite this entry: H. Algar, “Abdallah Mazandarani, Shaikh,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 200-202; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-mazandarani-shaikh (accessed on 17 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABDALLĀH MĪRZĀ DĀRĀ Ḥ. MAḤBŪBĪ ARDAKĀNĪ Son of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah and governor of Ḵamsa province (1796-1846).

ʿABDALLĀH MĪRZĀ DĀRĀ Son of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah and governor of Ḵamsa province (1796-1846).

ʿABDALLĀH MĪRZĀ DĀRĀ (1211-62/1796-1846), eleventh son of Fatḥ- ʿAlī Shah and governor of Ḵamsa province. His mother Kolṯūm Ḵānom came from a family of sayyeds of Pāzvār (Makārem I, p. 398), and he himself was the son-in-law of Solaymān Khan Qāǰār Eʿteżād-al-dawla (Tārīḵ-e ʿAżodī, p. 126; Montaẓem III, p. 97). In 1224/1809-10 he was appointed governor of Ḵamsa, residing at Zanǰān; Mīrzā Ṭāqī ʿAlīābādī, the Ṣāḥeb Dīvān, was his vizier (Montaẓem III, p. 93). In the second Russo-Persian war, he was sent to Ardabīl with the army of Ḵamsa; there he raided the Russian forces under Madatov and captured horses, guns, and supplies. After his father’s death, ʿAbdallāh was twice reappointed governor of Ḵamsa. This prince was a witty and clever poet who used the taḵalloṣ Dārā. His father Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah and his nephew, the future Moḥammad Shah, enjoyed his company (Tārīḵ-e ʿAżodī II, pp. 6, 87). His dīvān was left with his grandson, Ḥosayn-ʿAlī Khan Kāẓem Beglarbeg at Dawlatābād in Malāyer (Makārem, p. 398), and his dīvānof elegies has been published (Ḏarīʿa IX, first section, p. 312). He studied astronomy under his brother Moḥammad Valī Mīrzā and became proficient in it. He foretold his own death, which occurred as he had predicted in the house of his sister Żīāʾ- al-salṭana on 23 Jomādā II 1262/18 June 1846 (Tārīḵ-e ʿAżodī, pp. 64- 65;Montaẓem III, p. 191). ʿAbdallāh Mīrzā built a school and a mosque in Zanǰān that were destroyed during the rebellion of Mollā Moḥammad-ʿAlī Zanǰānī. He had a son, the prince Moḥsen Mīrzā Mīrāḵor (Makārem I, p. 399).

Bibliography: Moḥammad Ḥasan Khan Eʿtemād-al-salṭana, Montaẓem-e Nāṣerī III, Tehran, 1300/1882-83, pp. 13, 98, 134, 191. ʿAżod-al-dawla Solṭān Aḥmad, Tārīḵ-e ʿAżodī, 2nd ed., Tehran, 1328 Š./1949, pp. 45-76. Moḥammad-ʿAlī Moʿallem Ḥabībābādī, Makārem al-āṯār I, Isfahan, 1337 Š./1958. Bāmdād, Reǰāl II, p. 293. (Ḥ. Maḥbūbī Ardakānī) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 202 Cite this entry: Ḥ. Maḥbūbī Ardakānī, “Abdallah Mirza Dara,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 202; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-mirza-dara-1796-1846-son- of-fath-ali-shah-and-governor-of-kamsa-province (accessed on 17 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABDALLĀH MORVĀRĪD P. P. SOUCEK (d. 1516), Timurid court official, poet, scribe, and musician.

ʿABDALLĀH MORVĀRĪD (d. 1516), Timurid court official, poet, scribe, and musician.

ʿABDALLĀH B. ŠAMS-AL-DĪN MOḤAMMAD MORVĀRĪD KERMĀNĪ, ŠEHĀB-AL-DĪN (d. Raǰab, 922/August, 1516), Timurid court official, poet, scribe, and musician. His father, Moḥammad Morvārīd, had moved to Herat from Kermān during the reign of Abū Saʿīd (855-73/1451-69) and later became that ruler’s vizier. Subsequently he performed the same function for Ḥosayn Bāyqarā until retiring to become custodian (motavallī) at the shrine of ʿAbdallāh Anṣārī (Ḵᵛāndamīr, Dastūr al-wozarāʾ, pp. 394- 98; Ḥabīb al-sīar [Tehran] IV, pp. 328-29; see the latter source for many of the following details). Moḥammad married the daughter of another Timurid vizier, Moẓaffar Šabān- karā of Qarābāḡ (d. 891/1486). ʿAbdallāh Morvārīd was a person of many talents. He enjoyed a high reputation as performer on the qānūn and composed poetry under the taḵalloṣ Bayānī. He wrote a narrative poem, Ḵosrow o Šīrīn and various shorter works which were collected into a dīvān entitled Mūnes al-aḥbāb (Bābornāma, fol. 278; Dawlatšāh, ed. Browne, pp. 515-17; Sām Mīrzā, Toḥfa, pp. 64-66). ʿAbdallāh was a close associate of Ḥosayn Bāyqarā and served that ruler in various capacities. Shortly after the latter’s accession to the throne in 874/1470 ʿAbdallāh was appointed ṣadr and served in that capacity for several years (Bābornāma, fol. 278). Later he composed official letters and documents and became the keeper of the royal seal. His contemporaries state that he displayed a remarkable aptitude for epistolary composition (enšāʾ) and was a skillful scribe particularly in the taʿlīqscript used for correspondence (Maǰāles al-nafāʾes, pp. 106, 281; Bābornāma, fol. 278). ʿAbdallāh also compiled an enšāʾ manual consisting of documents and letters in various styles (Roemer, Staatsschreiben, pp. 24-201 ). Ḵᵛānsārī has published a sample of calligraphy written by ʿAbdallāh in 921/1515-16 in the style of reqāʿfavored in Herat (Qāżī Aḥmad, intro. opposite p. 19). During the vizierate of Qavām-al-dīn Neẓām-al-molk (892-903/1486-98), ʿAbdallāh withdrew from public life for several years. Writing in 896/1490- 91, ʿAlī Šīr Navāʾī remarks that ʿAbdallāh had resigned his court position and was living in retirement (Maǰāles al-nafāʾes, pp. 106, 281). Following the demise of Qavām-al-dīn, ʿAbdallāh returned to Ḥosayn Bāyqarā’s service with the rank of amir and was given the privilege of being the first of the amirs to affix his seal on documents, an honor previously accorded to ʿAlī Šīr Navāʾī. During this period ʿAbdallāh became one of Ḥosayn Bāyqarā’s closest associates. He was, for example, entrusted with ministering to the dying ʿAlī Šīr in 906/1500 (Mīrḵᵛānd, Rawżat al- ṣafāʾ VI, pp. 191-92). Following Ḥosayn Bāyqarā’s death in 912/1506, ʿAbdallāh lived in seclusion and occupied himself with preparing copies of the Koran. Bābor states that during his last years ʿAbdallāh suffered from a painful disease which caused furuncles to form on his hands and feet (Bābornāma, fols. 175a, 278-79; Sām Mīrzā, Toḥfa, p. 64). Sām Mīrzā states that during these last years ʿAbdallāh met Shah Esmāʿīl (907- 30/1501-24) and composed histories of his reign in verse and prose (ibid.; see also Nafīsī, Naẓm o naṯr I, pp. 259-60). ʿAbdallāh’s close associate, Ḵᵛāndamīr writing in 930/1523-24, makes no mention of these treatises nor of the alleged meeting. The claim of a family association with Shah Esmāʿīl may have originated with ʿAbdallāh’s son, Moḥammad Moʾmen (d. 948/1541-42), a noted calligrapher, who was for some years in the service of Sām Mīrzā (Sām Mīrzā, Toḥfa, p. 66). Authors of taḏkeras sometimes confused ʿAbdallāh Morvārīd with ʿAbdallāh Ṭabbāḵ, since both lived in Herat and both used the title Šehāb-al-dīn (Bayānī,Ḵošnevīsān, pp. 351-52).

Bibliography: Bābornāma, ed. A. S. Beveridge, Leiden and London, 1905; tr. idem, London, 1921. Ḵᵛāndamīr, Dastūr al-wozarāʾ, ed. S. Nafīsī, Tehran, 1317/1934-35, pp. 399-400. Mīrḵᵛānd, Tārīḵ-e rawżat al-ṣafāʾ VI, Tehran, 1339/1960-61, pp. 243-44. Hans Roemer, Staatsschreiben der Timuridenzeit: das Šaraf-nāmā des ʿAbdallāh Marwārīd, Wiesbaden, 1952. Ḥasan Rūmlū, pp. 163-64. Toḥfa-ye Sāmī, pp. 64-66. Other sources given in the text. (P. P. Soucek) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 202-203 Cite this entry: P. P. Soucek, “Abdallah Morvarid,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 202- 203; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-morvarid-d-1516-timurid- court-official-poet-scribe-and-musician (accessed on 17 January 2014). …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABDALLĀH PAŠA KÖPRÜLÜZĀDE M. KOHBACH Ottoman statesman and commander-in-chief (d. 1735).

ʿABDALLĀH PAŠA KÖPRÜLÜZĀDE Ottoman statesman and commander-in-chief (d. 1735).

ʿABDALLĀH PAŠA KÖPRÜLÜZĀDE, Ottoman statesman and commander-in-chief, d. 1148/1735, who campaigned in Azerbaijan. His father was the grand vizier Moṣṭafā Paša Köprülüzāde; on 2 Šaʿbān 1112/23 January 1700 he married the daughter of Fayżallāh Efendi, the šayḵ-al-eslām. Patronized by his father-in-law, he became vizier (12 Šaʿbān 1113/22 January 1701) and gained later the dignified rank of the military commander of Constantinople, the so-called Istanbul qāʾim- maqāmı. During the revolt of 9 Rabīʿ II 1115/22 August 1703 (the so- called Edirne vaqʿası) ʿAbdallāh restrained the persecution directed against Fayżallāh Efendi and his family. Within the following years he held various posts as governor (Khania, Khios, Sivas) and in 1135/1723 was appointed vālī of Van (eastern Anatolia) andseṛʿasker (saṛʿaskar, commander-in-chief) for the planned Ottoman campaign against Tabrīz. This campaign (1136/1724) resulted in the conquest of Ḵoy and Čowrs, but the siege of Tabrīz failed after twenty-nine days, owing to the lateness of the year. After having spent the whole winter in camps near Ṭasūǰ, ʿAbdallāh led the Ottoman army, the strength of which at the time was about 70,000 troops, for a second attempt against Tabrīz. After the conquest of Zonūz and Marand, he besieged Tabrīz for six days until the surrender of her defenders (23 Ḏu’l-qaʿda 1137/3 August 1725). In 1138/1726, according to his demand, ʿAbdallāh gained the governorship of Raqqa (Syria), and so he resigned his rank as seṛʿasker (1139/1727). After having held various governorships (Candia, Egypt, Euboia, and Qaramān) he was again appointed seṛʿasker for a campaign towards Iranian soil. Against a lesser Iranian army led by Nāder Shah, ʿAbdallāh gave battle at the Arpačāy river in Armenia, near Baḡāvard. The battle ended with a severe defeat of the Ottoman troops and the death of ʿAbdallāh (26 or 27 Moḥarram 1148/18 or 19 June 1735). Bibliography: Meḥmed Rāšid and Ismāʿīl ʿĀṣım Küčük Čelebizāde, Taʾrīḵ, Istanbul, 1282/1865-66, II, pp. 524, 578; III, pp. 127, 222; VI, pp. 63, 123-30, 226- 32, 261-63, 276-86, 304-05, 403, 581. Sāmī, Taʾrīḵ, Istanbul, 1198/1784, pp. 24a, 45a, 53a, 61a, 64a. Mīrzā Moḥammad Mahdī Kawkabī Astarābādī, Tārīḵ-e Nāderī, Bombay, 1849, pp. 155-59. Meḥmed Sǰüreyyā, Sijill-i ʿos²mānī III, Istanbul, 1311/1893-94, pp. 367- 77. Joseph von Hammer, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, Pest, 1834-35, VII, pp. 7, 80, 305, 323, 325, 327, 380, 401, 458, 459. L. Lockhart, Nadir Shah, London, 1938, pp. 76, 81, 86-89, 100, 249. Idem, The Fall of the Ṣafavī Dynasty and the Afghan Occupation of Persia, Cambridge, 1958, pp. 261-65, 286, 342. (M. Kohbach) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 203 Cite this entry: M. Kohbach, “Abdallah Pasa Kopruluzade,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 203; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-pasa-kprlzade-ottoman- statesman-and-commander-in-chief-d-1735 (accessed on 17 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABDALLĀH ṢAYRAFĪ P. P. SOUCEK Dūst Moḥammad claims that the traditions of Khorasani calligraphy in the nasḵ script are derived from the writing of ʿAbdallāh Ṣayrafī, with Jaʿfar Tabrīzī acting perhaps as the transmitter of the tradition. ʿAbdallāh achieved his greatest fame as a designer of architectural inscriptions. This Article Has Images/Tables.

ABDALLĀH ṢAYRAFĪ Dūst Moḥammad claims that the traditions of Khorasani calligraphy in the nasḵ script are derived from the writing of ʿAbdallāh Ṣayrafī, with Jaʿfar Tabrīzī acting perhaps as the transmitter of the tradition. ʿAbdallāh achieved his greatest fame as a designer of architectural inscriptions.

ʿABDALLĀH ṢAYRAFĪ, influential calligrapher of the 8th/14th century in Iran (d. after 746/1345-46). He was the son of Ḵᵛāǰa Maḥmūd Ṣarrāf of Tabrīz and appears to have remained in that city all of his life. It is said that he was buried in the cemetery of Čarandāb southwest of Tabrīz. Trained in the six scripts used by calligraphers of the Iraqi school such as Yāqūt al-Mostaʿṣemī, ʿAbdallāh appears to have copied manuscripts and designed inscriptions for buildings. Surviving samples of his calligraphy include a Koran in moḥaqqaq script now in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin (Plate IX); one in nasḵ (dated 720/1324) in the library of the shrine of Imam Reżā, Mašhad; and a page of calligraphy (724/1324) in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad, executed in ṯolṯ, nasḵ, and reqāʿī. ʿAbdallāh achieved his greatest fame as a designer of architectural inscriptions. Sayyed Ḥaydar, said to be both a student of Yāqūt and the principal teacher of ʿAbdallāh, appears to have specialized in architectural inscriptions. Although all traces of them seem lost, ʿAbdallāh designed and probably executed the calligraphy on two monuments commissioned by descendants of Amīr Čūpān. The earlier structure, the Demašqīya Madrasa, was built on the order of Baghdad Ḵātūn bent Amīr Čūpān and subsequently became the burial place of her brother, Demašq Ḵᵛāǰa, who was killed on the order of Abū Saʿīd in 727/1327. The other structure acquired the popular name of ʿemārat-e ostād šāgerd (“Building of the master and the pupil”) in commemoration of the work of ʿAbdallāh and of his pupil Ḥāǰǰī Moḥammad Bandgīr. From the other names of this building (the ʿAlāʾīya or Solaymānīya structure), it can be seen that Qāżī Aḥmad’s ascription of it to the patronage of Amīr Čūpān is incorrect. According to the Rawżāt al-ǰenān of Ḥosayn Karbalāʾī, the building was constructed between 741/1340-41 and 743/1342-43 in the name of the nominal Il-khanid ruler Solaymān b. Yūsof Šāh and financed by ʿAlāʾ-al-dīn Ḥasan b. Tīmūrtāš b. Čūpān, better known as Ḥasan-e Kūčak. The calligraphy of ʿAbdallāh Ṣayrafī was still held in high esteem during the 9th/15th century, when his style was followed by Jaʿfar Tabrīzī. Dūst Moḥammad claims that the traditions of Khorasani calligraphy in the nasḵ script are derived from the writing of ʿAbdallāh Ṣayrafī, with Jaʿfar Tabrīzī acting perhaps as the transmitter of the tradition.

Bibliography: Qāżī Aḥmad, pp. 22, 24; tr., pp. 61-63. Dūst Moḥammad, A Treatise on Calligraphists and Miniaturists, ed. M. Abdullah Chagtai, Lahore, 1936, p. 7. Ḥosayn Karbalāʾī, Rawżāt al-ǰenān va ǰannāt al-ǰenān I, ed. Jaʿfar Solṭān-al-qorrāʾī, Tehran, 1344 Š./1965, pp. 175, 369-71. Moḥammad Javād Maškūr, Tārīḵ-e Tabrīz tā pāyān-e qarn-e nohom-e heǰrī, Tehran, 1352 Š./1973, pp. 118, 579-80, 757, 782, 816-17, 850. (P. P. Soucek) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 203-205 Cite this entry: P. P. Soucek, “Abdallah Sayrafi,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 203-205; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-sayrafi-calligrapher (accessed on 21 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ʿABDALLĀH ŠĪRĀZĪ P. P. SOUCEK Qāżī Aḥmad praises ʿAbdallāh’s skill in lacquer painting (rang o rowḡan). This technique was widely used in the decoration of bookbindings during the 16th century, and the examination of surviving bindings may lead to the discovery of further works by ʿAbdallāh. This Article Has Images/Tables.

ABDALLĀH ŠĪRĀZĪ Qāżī Aḥmad praises ʿAbdallāh’s skill in lacquer painting (rang o rowḡan). This technique was widely used in the decoration of bookbindings during the 16th century, and the examination of surviving bindings may lead to the discovery of further works by ʿAbdallāh.

ʿABDALLĀH ŠĪRĀZĪ, painter and illuminator of the late 10th/16th century. According to Qāżī Aḥmad (p. 146; tr., pp. 189-90) he was a member of the manuscript atelier of Abu’l-Fatḥ Ebrāhīm b. Bahrām b. Esmāʿīl for twenty years. This would suggest that ʿAbdallāh was connected with Ebrāhīm from the time of the latter’s appointment as ḥākem of Mašhad and nāẓer of the shrine of Emām Reżā in 964/1556-57 until his assassination at Qazvīn on 6 Ḏu’l-ḥeǰǰa 984/24 February 1577. Eskandar Beg Monšī describes ʿAbdallāh as a witty conversationalist and an intimate companion of Ebrāhīm Mīrzā, adding that after the latter’s death he joined the atelier of Esmāʿīl II (Eskandar Beg, I, p. 177). This appointment must have been brief, since Esmāʿīl died on 15 Ramażān 985/24 November 1577. According to Qāżī Aḥmad (loc. cit.), ʿAbdallāh returned to Mašhad after the death of Ebrāhīm. There he became attached to the shrine and watched over the grave of his former master. It is thus probable that ʿAbdallāh returned to Mašhad shortly after Ramażān, 985/November, 1577. One of the most impressive manuscripts produced by the workshop of Ebrāhīm Mīrzā is a copy of Jāmī’s Haft owrang now in the Freer Gallery in Washington (46.12; S. C. Welsh in bibliog., pp. 23-27, 98-127). Its colophons range from Šawwāl, 972/May, 1565. The illuminated heading of Yūsof o Zolayḵā contains an inscription,ḏahhabah ʿAbdallāh al-Šīrāzī, “gilded by ʿAbdallāh Šīrāzī” (Plate X; Freer Gallery of Art, no. 46.12, fol. 84b). The marginal decorations and details, such as architectural ornament within the paintings, may be his work as well. None of the manuscript’s twenty-eight miniatures is signed, but some of them may have been painted by ʿAbdallāh: There are similarities between one of the illustrations to Sobḥat al-abrār, “A city dweller desecrates a garden,” and a later painting signed by ʿAbdallāh. A copy (finished in 990/1582) of Helālī’s Ṣefat al-ʿāšeqīn copied for a certain Salīm Anāmī contains a frontispiece signed by ʿAbdallāh and dated to 989/1581; Persian and Mughal Art, no. 24i, pp. 50, 126-27; Persian Painting, pp. 116-17. According to Qāżī Aḥmad, ʿAbdallāh apparently was living in Mašhad when this manuscript was produced. The painting shows a princely entertainment set in a garden. On the right is a polygonal pavilion with a delicately ornamented roof in which are three figures. Two of them have their arms wrapped around the supporting poles of the pavilion. The area in front of the pavilion is occupied by various seated and standing attendants. The left-hand page has two rows of standing courtiers and the royal horse, half hidden by a rocky outcropping and attended by a seated groom. The Sobḥat al-abrār illustration of “A city dweller in a garden” has a polygonal pavilion in its center which is virtually identical with the one in the 989/1581 painting except that the two youths with their arms wound around the poles are the mirror image of those in the later work. The similarities between these two paintings extend to nearly all details of the style, except that the earlier painting appears to have a more pronounced sense of internal rhythm. The careful placing of landscape elements against a background of a strongly contrasting color and the use of undulating silhouettes may reflect ʿAbdallāh’s experience in producing marginal designs in gold. A careful examination of the Freer Haft owrang and other manuscripts produced by Ebrāhīm Mīrzā may make possible a clearer understanding of ʿAbdallāh’s work for this patron. It has been suggested that ʿAbdallāh was responsible for the marginal decoration of a copy of Helālī’s poetry now in the Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon. Dated to 976/1568, the manuscript may have been produced for Ebrāhīm Mīrzā, although apparently it is not dedicated to him (Arte do Oriente Islâmico, no. 127; Arte da Pérsia, fig. 16). One of its paintings does bear an attribution to Morād Daylamī, a painter in the employ of Ebrāhīm Mīrzā. Although a connection between ʿAbdallāh and this manuscript is plausible, there seem to be no inscriptions bearing his name in either the illustrations or the illumination. Another signed painting by ʿAbdallāh is executed in a style closely analogous to those discussed above. Now in the Kunstgewerbemuseum, Leipzig, it depicts a youthful musician seated in a garden under a flowering tree (Miniaturmalerei, fig. 70a). The inscription appears to include a date (illegible in the published reproductions). The page seems to be the upper left corner of a larger work, for on two sides it retains an illuminated border, which is very similar to that on the 1581 painting. From these few samples of ʿAbdallāh’s work it can be seen that, in spite of his connection with Shiraz, he must have been trained in Tabrīz. His style is closely linked to that of painters from the atelier of Shah Ṭahmāsp. The recent suggestion that he might have executed a painting in a Shiraz style found in a Šāhnāmatentatively connected with Esmāʿīl II no longer appears likely (B. Robinson in bibliog., p. 7, pl. VIIIb). Qāżī Aḥmad praises ʿAbdallāh’s skill in lacquer painting (rang o rowḡan). This technique was widely used in the decoration of bookbindings during the 16th century, and the examination of surviving bindings may lead to the discovery of further works by ʿAbdallāh. Bibliography: Arte do Oriente Islâmico: Colecção da Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisboa, 1963. E. Kühnel, Miniaturmalerei im Islamischen Orient, Berlin, 1922. Persian and Mughal Art, London, 1976. B. W. Robinson, “Ismāʿīl II’s Copy of the Shāhnāma,” Iran 14, 1976. S. C. Welch, Persian Painting, New York, 1976. Other references given in the text. (P. P. Soucek) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 205-207 Cite this entry: P. P. Soucek, “Abdallah Sirazi,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 205-207; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-sirazi-16th-century-painter- and-illuminator (accessed on 21 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ʿABDALLĀH, MĪRZĀ M. CATON (ca. 1843-1918), court musician and master of the setār and tār.

ʿABDALLĀH, MĪRZĀ (ca. 1843-1918), court musician and master of the setār and tār.

ʿABDALLĀH, MĪRZĀ (ca. 1259-1337/1843-1918), a well-known court musician and master of the setār and tār (plucked long-necked lutes). His musical repertoire (radīf) is considered to be the main source of contemporary Persian classical music as taught in conservatories and universities in Iran. Mīrzā ʿAbdallāh was part of a family of musicians. His father, ʿAlī-Akbar Farāhānī of Arāk, came to Tehran and became a prominent court musician and performer on the tār during the reign of Moḥammad Shah and Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah (J. During, p. 142). Gobineau during his visit to Tehran about 1855-58 witnessed ʿAlī-Akbar’s performance and counted him among the great artists of the world (Gobineau, p. 441). After the early death of ʿAlī-Akbar, his nephew and student Āqā Ḡolām-Ḥosayn became his successor as a tār performer in the court. Āqā Ḡolām- Ḥosayn also became the stepfather to ʿAbdallāh and Ḥosayn-qolī, the two younger sons of ʿAlī-Akbar. ʿAbdallāh studied the tār first with his older brother Ḥasan (Ḵāleqī, I, p. 102). He and his younger brother Ḥosayn-qolī eventually studied with Ḡolām-Ḥosayn and became successful court musicians. The students of Mīrzā ʿAbdallāh include Mahdī-qolī Hedāyat, who transcribed theradīf of another student, Mahdī Ṣolḥī. This radīf, known as “Radīf-e Montaẓam-al-ḥokamāʾ” is one of the major sources of the published Maʿrūfī radīf (Ḵāleqī, I, pp. 106-07; idem in Maǰalla, p. 19). The radīf of another student, Ebrāhīm Qahramānī, has been recorded by Nūr-ʿAlī Borūmand and used for music instruction in Tehran University. Other influential students include Sayyed Ḥosayn Ḵalīfa, Abu’l-Ḥasan Ṣabā, and Ḥāǰǰ Āqā Moḥammad Īrānī Moǰarrad. Of Mīrzā ʿAbdallāh’s four children, Aḥmad ʿEbādī is known as a master performer on setār. Mīrzā ʿAbdallāh collected and organized the melodies of his contemporaries and added them to the radīf of his father. Colonel ʿAlī- Naqī Vazīrī transcribed this radīf, working with Mīrzā ʿAbdallāh over a period of one and a half years (Ḵāleqī, II, pp. 44-46). He freely taught this radīf to all his students, regardless of their ability. He did this in reaction to the guarded attitude of musicians toward teaching others, an attitude which he felt was endangering the Persian music tradition. The music tradition that is taught in the National Conservatory and Tehran University has been attributed to Mīrzā ʿAbdallāh (Ḵāleqī, I, pp. 102, 442; Khatschi, p. 1; Zonis, pp. 39, 190); and also to ʿAlī-Akbar (During, p. 142; Ney-Dāvūd, interview, 1976). Mīrzā ʿAbdallāh’s radīf is the oldest documented version of the seven dastgāh system. This system, developed in the nineteenth century, is thought to be a rearrangement of the older twelve maqām system. The tradition is known by Mīrzā ʿAbdallāh’s name due to his extensive work in collecting, arranging, and teaching his radīf. The present published version of the tār radīf collected by Mūsā Maʿrūfī is based on the radīf of Mīrzā ʿAbdallāh and Āqā Ḥosayn-qolī and two of their students, Mahdī Ṣolḥī and Darvīš Ḵān (Ḵāleqī, 1340, p. 19). Existing works of Mīrzā ʿAbdallāh include the Vazīrī transcription of the Dastgāh Čahārgāh, the radīf of Montaẓam-al-ḥokamāʾ, and the radīf of Qahramānī. “Rāk-e ʿAbdallāh,” one of the gūšas (pieces) of the Dastgāhs of Māhūr and Rāstpanǰgāh, is found in both the vocal and instrumental radīf and may be attributed to him. In addition, there are a number of recordings of his tār performance listed in the 1906 Catalogue de Disques Persans de la Companie The Gramophone and Typewriter Ltd. (pp. 3, 14, 30). Some of these recordings are still extant.

Bibliography: J. During, “Ēléments spirituels dans la musique traditionelle iranienne contemporaire,” Sophia Perennis 1, no. 2, Autumn 1975, pp. 129-54. J. A. Gobineau, Trois ans en Asie, Paris, 1905. R. Ḵāleqī, “Moḵber-al-salṭana Hedāyat: dānešmand-e mūsīqī- šenās,” Maǰalla-ye Rādīo Īrān 61, Šahrīvar 1340 Š./1961, pp. 18-19, 30. Idem, Sargoḏašt-e mūsīqī-e Īrān I, Tehran, 1333 Š./1954; II, 1335 Š./1956. Kh. Khatschi, Der Dastgah, Regensburg, 1962. M. Maʿrūfī, Radīf-e haft dastgāh-e mūsīqī-e Īrānī, Tehran, 1973. E. Zonis, Classical Persian Music, Cambridge, Mass., 1973. (M. Caton) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 177-178 Cite this entry: M. Caton, “Abdallah, Mirza,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 177-178; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-mirza (accessed on 21 January 2014).>

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ʿABDALLĀH, QAVĀM-AL-DĪN T. KUROYANAGI 14th century theologian and faqīh of Shiraz (d. 772/1370).

ʿABDALLĀH, QAVĀM-AL-DĪN 14th century theologian and faqīh of Shiraz (d. 772/1370).

ʿABDALLĀH, MAWLĀNĀ QAVĀM-AL-DĪN ABU’L-BAQĀʾ B. MAḤMŪD B. ḤASAN ŠĪRĀZĪ, 14th century theologian and faqīh of Shiraz (d. 772/1370). He received his elementary education from his father Mawlānā Naǰm-al-dīn, a famous scholar and Sufi of his time, and later learned the seven readings of the Koran from Moḥebb-al-dīn Mawṣelī, whose daughter he took as wife (Moʿīn-al-dīn Jonayd Šīrāzī, Šadd al- ezār, ed. M. Qazvīnī and ʿA. Eqbāl, Tehran, 1328 Š./1949, pp. 84-87). Besides delivering sermons at the ʿAtīq Mosque of Shiraz, he also held classes which were attended by scholars as well as the famous poet Ḥāfeẓ, according to the compiler of Ḥāfeẓ’ Dīvān (ed. M. Qazvīnī and Q. Ḡanī, Tehran, 1320 Š./1941, pp. cvii, 397). The Mozaffarid king Shah Šoǰāʿ is also said to have occasionally attended his lectures (Ḥabīb al- sīar, Tehran, III, p. 315). Serāǰ-al-dīn Abū Ḥafṣ ʿOmar ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān, one of his pupils who studied Zamaḵšarī’s Kaššāf with him, afterwards collected the master’s lectures and edited them in a book named Kašf al- kaššāf, which was received with much attention and which Ḥāfeẓ makes a passing reference to in one of his ḡazals. Qawām-al-dīn was also the author of al-Basṭ which his blindness forced him to leave unfinished after he had completed the first two volumes in two years. It is also said that the collecting of the Dīvān of Ḥāfeẓ was due to his encouragement. He died in 772/1370 and was buried beside his father in the cemetery of ʿAbdallāh b. Ḵafīf in Shiraz. Bibliography: See also Raḥmatallāh Mehrāz, Bozorgān-e Šīrāz, Tehran, 1348 Š./1969, p. 282. ʿA. Ḥ. Zarrīnkūb, Az kūča-ye rendān, Tehran, 1349 Š./1970, pp. 12, 27, 62. (T. Kuroyanagi) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 177 Cite this entry: T. Kuroyanagi, “Abdallah, Qavam-Al-Din,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 177; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-mawlana-qavam-al-din- 14th-century-theologian-d-1370 (accessed on 21 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ʿABDALLĀH, ŠĀH K. A. NIZAMI (d. 1485), Persian Sufi who introduced the Šaṭṭārī order into India.

ʿABDALLĀH, ŠĀH (d. 1485), Persian Sufi who introduced the Šaṭṭārī order into India.

ʿABDALLĀH, ŠĀH (d. 890/1485), Persian Sufi who introduced the Šaṭṭārī order into India. His family claimed descent from Shaikh Šehāb- al-dīn Sohravardī, while he traced his spiritual genealogy to Shaikh Abū Yazīd Ṭayfūr Besṭāmī. His selselawas known as ʿEšqīya in Iran and Besṭāmīya in Asia Minor (Golzār-e abrār, fol. 101a), but in India as Šaṭṭārī; and ʿAbdallāh is the first saint with whose name the term Šaṭṭārī appears (Maʿāref al-welāya, ms.; Ḵazīnat al-aṣfīāʾ, p. 947). Unlike the many orders named after some outstanding saint, his is named after a spiritual talent—speed in traversing the mystic path (Golzār-e abrār, fol. 102a). According to the saints of this selsela (Laṭāʾef-e ḡaybīya, ms.), there are three types of mystics who strife for maʿrefat “gnosis”— the aḵyār “the good,” the abrār “the pious,” and the šaṭṭār “the swift.” The course followed by the šaṭṭār is said to be the shortest and quickest to true gnosis. ʿAbdallāh traveled extensively, visiting a number of eminent saints in Iraq and Khorasan before reaching India. In Bokhara he heard about the spiritual prowess of Shaikh Moẓaffar Kītānī Ḵalvatī and went to see him at Nīšāpūr. It was from him that ʿAbdallāh learned different types of ḏekr. In Azerbaijan he visited Sayyed ʿAlī Movaḥḥed, who taught him many mystic practices. ʿAbdallāh arrived in India at a time when the minor dynasties that had followed the decline of the centralized Delhi sultanate were coming to an end. There was widespread chaos and instability in northern India. He ultimately settled in Mandu, where he died in 832/1429 (Ḵazīnat al-aṣfīāʾ, p. 949) or, according to others, 890/1485. The Šaṭṭārī teachings centered on asrār-e tawḥīd, secrets of divine unity, in a distinctive manner. Wherever ʿAbdallāh went he sent a message to local saints to come and instruct him about divine unity; if they were unable to do so, they were asked to come and learn it from him. Shaikh Moḥammad ʿAlāʾ (later known as Shaikh Qażen Šaṭṭārī) at first challenged Šāh ʿAbdallāh but subsequently became one of his ardent disciples, popularizing the Šaṭṭārī selsela in Bengal. Thereafter Šaṭṭārī centers came to be established at Jaunpur, Rudawli, Sambhal, Kalpi, Gwalior, Agra, Bhanpur, Baroda, Ahmadabad, and Mandu. Šāh ʿAbdallāh lived with great pomp and panoply, put on royal apparel, and moved from place to place with a band of disciples clad in military uniform, displaying banners and beating drums. They appeared to be a militia, and every ruler initially reacted with suspicion. But when it became evident that the objectives of Šāh ʿAbdallāh were non-political, he was allowed to carry on his propaganda. It is said that before admitting a person to his discipline, the saint gave him a piece of bread with some gravy on it. If the person consumed the bread and the gravy together, he was admitted; if not, he was rejected as one lacking insight and wisdom and therefore unfit for higher spiritual work (Aḵbār al-aḵyār, p. 169). One of Šāh ʿAbdallāh’s claims was the simultaneous attainment of opposite but complementary spiritual states through his meditative discipline—ḥeǰāb“concealment” with enkešāf “exposition,” qabż “depression” with basṭ “expansion,”hast “existence” with nīst “non- existence,” tanhāʾī “solitude” with hamrāhī“company,” and ḵāmūšī “silence” with gūyāʾī “speech” (Golzār-e abrār, fol. 183a). He emphasized the interiorization of religious practices more than other Sufis, and it was partially for this reason that the impact of his teachings remained confined to the selected few around him. Šāh ʿAbdallāh compiled a single work, Laṭāʾef-e ḡaybīya, which he allegedly dedicated to Sultan Ḡīāṯ-al-dīn Ḵalǰī of Malwa (1469-1500). It still exists in manuscript form (e.g., Maner ms. dated 1025/1616), and sets forth the doctrines that remained normative for the Šaṭṭārī selsela.

Bibliography: Moḥammad Ḡawṯī Šaṭṭārī, Golzār-e abrār (ms. in John Rylands Library, fols. 101a-02b) contains an authentic and detailed account of the saint and other Sufis of theselsela. Shaikh ʿAbd-al-Ḥaqq Moḥaddeṯ Dehlavī, Aḵbār al-aḵyār, Delhi, 1280/1863-64, p. 169. Ḡolām Moʿīn-al-dīn ʿAbdallāh Ḵᵛešgī, Maʿāref al-welāya, ms. in private collection. Ḡolām Sarvar Lāhūrī, Ḵazīnat al-aṣfīāʾ, Lahore, 1284/1867, pp. 947-49. Qāżī Moʿīn-al-dīn Aḥmad, “History of the Šaṭṭārī Selsela,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aligarh Muslim University, 1963, pp. 1-16. K. A. Nizami, “Šaṭṭārī Saints and their Attitude towards the State,” MIQ 1/2, pp. 56-70. (K. A. Nizami) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 178 Cite this entry: K. A. Nizami, “Abdallah, Sah,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 178; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-sah-d-1485-persian-sufi- who-introduced-the-sattari-order-into-india (accessed on 21 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ʿABDALLĀH, ṢĀRĪ T. YAZICI (1584-1660), Ottoman scholar, mystic, poet, and commentator of Rūmī.

ʿABDALLĀH, ṢĀRĪ (1584-1660), Ottoman scholar, mystic, poet, and commentator of Rūmī.

ʿABDALLĀH, ṢĀRĪ (922-1071/1584-1660), Ottoman scholar, mystic, poet, and commentator of Rūmī’s Maṯnavī. He was one of the sons of a shaikh who was originally from the Maḡreb. After completing his education with his relative, the grand vizier Ḵalīl Pasha, he became connected with ʿAzīz Maḥmūd Hodāʾī of the shaikhs of the Jelvatīya. ʿAbdallāh subsequently entered government service, set out for war against Iran together with Ḵalīl Pasha, and returned to Istanbul upon the vizier’s dismissal. After a retirement of ten years he took part in the Baghdad campaign as raʾīs al-rekāb in the service of Morād IV. On his return he becameraʾīs al-kottāb and retired from political life in 1065/1655-56. He died on 23 Ṣafar 1071/28 October 1660. Works. 1. Javāher-e bavāher-e Maṯnavī is an unfinished work comprising commentaries on Rūmī’s Maṯnavī (5 vols., Istanbul, 1287/1870-71). 2. Ṯamarāt al-foʾād fi’l-mabdaʾ wa’l-maʿād, in five chapters and an epilogue, gives interesting information on the Iranian Naqšbandīya, Ḵalvatīya, Kobravīya, and Qāderīya Sufi orders. 3. Jawharat al-bedāya wa dorrat al-nehāya concerns Morād IV and his conquest of Baghdad, as well as contemporary men of religion. All three of these works are in Ottoman Turkish. 4. Merʾāt al-aṣfīāʾ fī ṣefat malāmatīyat al-aṣfīāʾ in Arabic, discusses the Malāmīs in Ebn al-ʿArabī’s (d. 638/1240) al- Fotūḥāt al-Makkīya.

Bibliography: Mostaqīmzāda, Solaymān Saʿd-al-dīn, Resāla-ye Malāmīya-ye Bayrāmīya-ye Sattārīya, Süleymaniye Kütüp. Nafiz Paşa, no. 140. Bursali Mehmed Tahîr, Osmanlı müellifleri, Istanbul, 1333/1975, I, pp. 100f. A. Gölpinarli, Melâmîlik ve melâmîler, Istanbul, 1931, pp. 137-42. S. Nüzhet Ergun, Türk şâirleri, Istanbul, n.d., fols. I, 194b-206b. (T. Yazici) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 179 Cite this entry: T. Yazici, “Abdallah, Sari,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 179; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdallah-sari-1584-1660-ottoman- scholar-mystic-poet-and-commentator-of-rumi (accessed on 21 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ʿABDĀN B. AL-RABĪṬ W. MADELUNG early Ismaʿili missionary (dāʿī).

ʿABDĀN B. AL-RABĪṬ early Ismaʿili missionary (dāʿī).

ʿABDĀN B. AL-RABĪṬ, early Ismaʿili missionary (dāʿī) and author active in the rural district (savād) of Kūfa. According to the account of Abu’l- Qāsem Kāšānī (Zobdat al-tawārīḵ, chapter on Esmāʿīlīya, ed. M. T. Dānešpažūh, Tabrīz, 1343 Š./1964, p. 19), he came from a village called D-v-r-vā in the savād. However, in a passage of Maqrīzī’s al-Moqaffā, based on the account of Aḵū Moḥsen, he is called Ahvāzī (Sohayl Zakkār, Taʾrīḵ aḵbār al-Qurāmeṭa, Beirut, 1391/1971, p. 97). Thisnesba is missing in the parallel quotations from Aḵū Moḥsen’s account and could have been added to ʿAbdān’s name owing to a confusion with a well-known Sunnite traditionist ʿAbdān Ahvāzī (q.v.). On the other hand, it is to be noted that, in the account of Aḵū Moḥsen, ʿAbdān is not listed among the dāʿīs of the savād converted by Ḥamdān Qarmaṭ and appears as more a partner and the chief propagandist of the movement than a follower. Such a position would well agree with his having initially been sent from Ahvāz, then the seat of the leadership of the Ismaʿili movement, or his having at least been trained there as an ideological counselor and aid to Ḥamdān Qarmaṭ. ʿAbdān’s closeness to the leadership is also indicated by the fact that his brother Maʾmūn, according to Daylamī, was the dāʿī of Fārs after whom the Ismaʿilis there were called Maʾmūnīya (Bayān maḏhab al-bāṭenīya, ed. R. Strothmann, Istanbul, 1939, p. 21). ʿAbdān trained and appointed many of the dāʿīs in lower Iraq and perhaps also some of the dāʿīs in the Yaman and Baḥrayn, including Abū Saʿīd Jannābī, though the reports are not unanimous in this regard. According to the account of Aḵū Moḥsen, H‚amdān Qarmaṭ later sent ʿAbdān to Salamīya in Syria, where the leadership had moved, in order to investigate some changes in the doctrinal instructions he received from there. When ʿAbdān returned, confirming serious deviations from the previous doctrine, the two decided to break with Salamīya and to discontinue the religious propaganda. ʿAbdān was soon afterwards murdered by the supporters of Zekrūya b. Mehrūya, one of his dāʿīs who was opposed to the discontinuation of the propaganda. This happened about 286/899. After his death, ʿAbdān continued to be recognized by the Ismaʿili (Qarmaṭī) dāʿīs in lower Iraq as their authoritative teacher. They considered Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl b. Jaʿfar as their imam and the Expected Mahdī and repudiated the claim of the Fatimid caliph ʿObaydallāh al-Mahdī to the imamate. A leading role was played among them by ʿAbdān’s nephew, Abu’l-Qāsem ʿĪsā b. Mūsā, who was captured by the ʿAbbasid army during the Qarmaṭī revolt in the savād in 316/928. A few years later he escaped from prison and remained active in Baghdad spreading the doctrine of his uncle. He and other dāʿīs ascribed their own doctrinal writings to ʿAbdān. According to Aḵū Moḥsen, they were trying to create the impression that ʿAbdān had been learned in all branches of philosophy and other sciences and had truthfully predicted later events. The number of works, authentic or spurious, ascribed to ʿAbdān was evidently large; for Ebn al-Nadīm mentions a list containing their titles, of which he names eight as belonging to books generally available in his time. None of these seem to be extant, though his Ketāb al-mīzān (read thus for al-mīdān, Fehrest, p. 267) is still mentioned by a Syrian Ismaʿili author of the early 10th/16th century as one of his sources. Some of the works ascribed to him were evidently esteemed and transmitted among the Ismaʿilis loyal to the Fatimids in spite of their heterodoxy. The Fatimid Qāżī al-Noʿmān quoted with approval from aKetāb al-ebtedāʾ of his (al-Resālat al-moḏheba in Ḵams rasāʾel esmāʿīlīya, ed. ʿĀref Tāmer, Salamīya, 1956, p. 41). A Resālat al-šamʿa, also known as Resālat al-mafātīḥ, of ʿAbdān is listed, according to W. Ivanow, in the Fehrest of Ismaʿili books of the 12th/18th century Bohra author al-Maǰdūʿ. However, in the published edition of this work (Fehrest al-kotob wa’l-rasāʾel, ed. ʿAlī-Naqī Monzavī, Tehran, 1344 Š./1965) there is no mention of it. A Ketāb al-rosūm wa’l-ezdewāǰ of Abū Moḥammad ʿAbdān is quoted by Zāhed-ʿAlī (Hamāre Esmāʿīlī maḏhab kī ḥaqīqat awr os kā neẓām, Hyderabad, 1373/1954, pp. 548, 615) from a manuscript in his possession.

Bibliography: Masʿūdī, Tanbīh, pp. 374, 391. Fehrest, pp. 187-89. Ebn Ḥawqal, p. 295. Ebn al-Davādārī, Kanz al-dorar VI, ed. Ṣ. al-Monaǰǰed, Cairo, 1380/1961, pp. 46-47, 55, 65-68. Maqrīzī, Etteʿāẓ al-ḥonafāʾ, ed. J. al-Šayyāl, Cairo, 1387/1967, I, pp. 155, 160, 166-68, 185. M. J. de Goeje, Mémoire sur les Carmathes du Bahraïn et les Fatimides, 2nd ed., Leiden, 1886, pp. 31, 35, 58-58, 66-69. B. Lewis, The Origins of Ismailism, Cambridge, 1940, pp. 68, 77-78, 86. W. Ivanow, Ismaili Tradition concerning the Rise of the Fatimids, Bombay, 1942, p. 78. Idem, Ismaili Literature, Tehran, 1963, p. 17. W. Madelung, “Fāṭimiden und Baḥrainqarmaṭen,” Der Islam 34, 1958, pp. 38-40, 84-85. I. K. Poonawala, Bibliography of Ismāʿīlī Literature, Malibu, 1977, pp. 31- 33. (W. Madelung) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 207 Cite this entry: W. Madelung, “Abdan B. Al-Rabit,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 207; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdan-b-al-rabit-early-ismaili- missionary-dai (accessed on 21 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ʿABDĪ T. YAZICI pen name of ʿABD-AL-RAḤMĀN PASHA, Ottoman official and historian (d. 1692).

ʿABDĪ pen name of ʿABD-AL-RAḤMĀN PASHA, Ottoman official and historian (d. 1692).

ʿABDĪ, pen name of ʿABD-AL-RAḤMĀN PASHA, Ottoman official and historian, d. Raǰab, 1103/March, 1692. He was educated at the palace school and held various positions. Promoted to the post of kubbe veziri, he served as governor of several Ottoman provinces (lastly of Kandiya). At the request of Mehmet IV, he wrote an account of events in the period 1054-93/1648-82, Tārīḵ-e Nešānǰī ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Pāšā. He also wrote poetry and commentaries on ʿAṭṭār’s Pandnāma and on the poems of ʿOrfī Šīrāzī.

Bibliography: F. Babinger, Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke, Leiden, 1927, I, pp. 227-28. S. N. Ergun, Türk şâirleri I, Istanbul, n.d., p. 179. Milli tetebbular mecmuası I, pp. 497-544. (T. Yazici) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 208 Cite this entry: T. Yazici, “Abdi,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 208; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdi-pen-name- of-abd-al-rahman-pasha-ottoman-official-and-historian-d-1692 (accessed on 21 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABDĪ BOḴĀRĀʾĪ M. ZAND (d. 1921-22), Tajik taḏkeranevīs (biographer) and poet.

ABDĪ BOḴĀRĀʾĪ (d. 1921-22), Tajik taḏkeranevīs (biographer) and poet.

ʿABDĪ BOḴĀRĀʾĪ, ʿABDALLĀH ḴᵛĀJA, (d. 1340/1921-22), Tajik taḏkeranevīs(biographer) and poet. He was born in Bokhara to the family of a modarres(madrasa instructor) in the late 1270s/early 1860s. In one of his qaṣīdas he claims to descend from the Samanids (Afżal Maḵdūm Pīrmastī, Afżal al-teḏkār fī ḏekr al-šoʿarāʾ wa’l-ašʿār, Tashkent, 1336/1917-18, p. 98), a claim neither confirmed nor refuted in contemporary sources. According to the data given in his Taḏkerat al- šoʿarāʾ-ye motaʾaḵḵerīn-e Boḵārā (MS no. 64 of the Collection of Oriental MSS of the Uzbek SSR Academy of Sciences, fols. 134b-35b), he spent his childhood and youth in various outlying regions of the Bokharan emirate, where his father was aqāżī and official for the enforcement of religious and economic regulations (raʾīs). Upon returning to Bokhara at the age of twenty, he became a mollābačča (madrasastudent). In the late 1310s/early 1900s he was appointed modarres of a minor Bokharan madrasa, Kahband-ḵorsand, and held this post for two years. According to a note of Żīāʾ (q.v.) he was for some time, evidently in the late 1320s or early 1330s/early 1910s, a qāżī in an outlying region of the Čārǰōy velāyat (district) of the Bokharan emirate (Ḥāǰǰī Neʿmatallāh Moḥtaram, Taḏkera al-šoʿarāʾ, MS no. 2252/II of the Collection of Oriental MSS of the Uzbek SSR Academy of Sciences, fol. 135b, margins). He died in Bokhara in 1340/1922. Of his main work, the above-mentioned taḏkera, only two MSS are known. One of them, mentioned above, is ʿAbdī’s autograph (See A. A. Semyonov, ed., Sobranie vostochnykh rukopiseĭ Akademii Nauk Uzbekskoĭ SSR I, Tashkent, 1952, no. 142); the second, now in the Collection of Oriental MSS of the Tajik Academy of Sciences, is a copy of the latter, written in the 1350s/1930s (see A. M. Mirzoev and A. N. Boldyrev, eds., Katalog vostochnykh rukopiseĭ Akademii Nauk Tadzhikskoĭ SSR II, Dushanbe, 1968, no. 134). The taḏkera was compiled in 1322/1905. ʿAbdī began to compile it before Afżal ended (in 1322/1904-05) his Afżal al-teḏkār, and finished its composition in three months (see ʿAbdī, Taḏkera, fol. 184b). The introduction (moqaddema) is divided into three sections (amr). The first amr deals with the origin of poetry (šeʿr), the meaning of the term šāʿer (poet), the place of the šāʿer in the society, and the meaning of the terms qāżī, moḥtaseb, moftī, modarres, ʿālem, and motaʿallem, since all who are mentioned in the taḏkera fall under one of these titles. The secondamr deals mainly with the nobility of the descendants of Moḥammad. The third amris dedicated to the nobility of the author himself as a ḵᵛāǰa, his erudition, and his excellence as poet and man of learning. The main body of the taḏkera contains short and sometimes rather vague biographical data on, and specimens of poetry of, 111 Tajik (mainly Bokharan) poets of the second half of the 13th/19th century to the beginning of the 14th/20th century, along with short appraisals of the quality of the poetry of each one. The poets are given in alphabetical order, so the main body of the taḏkera is divided into twenty-eight chapters (maqṣad), each dedicated to poets whose pen names (taḵalloṣ) begin with a particular letter of the Arabic/Persian alphabet. The style of the author is lofty, even bombastic, and the appraisals of poets, even of the minor ones, are usually high and flattering. The taḏkera is one of the main sources of our knowledge of the Tajik poetry (especially in Bokhara) during the period to which it is dedicated. ʿAbdī apparently never collected his poetry into a dīvān. Some of it was collected from his taḏkera and those of Afżal and Moḥtaram in the 1960s (see A. Mirzoev and M. Zand, eds., Katalog vostochnykh rukopiseĭ Akademii Nauk Tadzhikskoĭ SSR IV, Dushanbe, 1970, no. 1473). In these poems ʿAbdī displays fair technical ability and mediocre poetical imagination. In 1323/1905 he versified Aḥmad b. Moḥammad (or b. Maḥmūd) Moʿīn- al-foqarāʾ’sTārīḵ-e Mollāzāda. A good autograph MS of this versification is preserved in the collection of the Uzbek Academy of Sciences (see Semyonov, Sobranie V, 1960, no. 3992). ʿAbdī is to be distinguished from two other Tajik poets (both of them of little significance) of the 13th/19th century, who had the same taḵalloṣ: Mīrzā Ṣafar ʿAbdī (d. 1283/1866-67), one of the court poets of the Bokharan amir Moẓaffar-al-dīn (1277-1303/1860-86); and Mollā ʿAbdallāh ʿAbdī Samarqandī (precise dates not known, early 13th/19th century).

Bibliography: See also Ṣadr-al-dīn ʿAynī, Yāddāšthā III, Stalinabad, 1950, pp. 312-29. R. Khadizade, Istochniki k izucheniyu tadzhikskoĭ literatury vtoroĭ poloviny XIX veka, Stalinabad, 1956, pp. 80-84. Idem, Adabīyāt-e tāǰīk dar nīma-ye dovom-e ʿaṣr-e XIX, Dushanbe, 1968, pp. 53-55. (M. Zand) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 208-209 Cite this entry: M. Zand, “Abdi Bokarai,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 208-209; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdi-bokarai-d-1921-22-tajik- tadkeranevis-biographer-and-poet (accessed on 21 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABDĪ NĪŠĀPŪRĪ P. P. SOUCEK 16th-century calligrapher and poet.

ʿABDĪ NĪŠĀPŪRĪ 16th-century calligrapher and poet.

ʿABDĪ NĪŠĀPŪRĪ, also known as ʿABDĪ QALANDAR and ʿABDĪ ŠĀHĪ, calligrapher and poet active in the first half of the 10th/16th century. Writing ca. 957/1550 Sām Mīrzā Ṣafavī mentions that ʿAbdī had died within the last two years (Toḥfa-ye Sāmī, Tehran, 1314 Š./1935, p. 18). Bayānī has disputed this statement, noting that ʿAbdī b. Ḥasan Qalandar copied a page in 996/1588 (Ḵošnevīsān, pp. 424-25). However, it seems that ʿAbdī b. Ḥasan is not to be identified with ʿAbdī Nīšāpūrī. Said to be “from Nīšāpūr,” ʿAbdī was trained in Herat, where he studied calligraphy with Solṭān ʿAlī Mašhadī (Sām Mīrzā, loc. cit.; Moḥammad Faḵrī Herātī,Laṭāʾefnāma, p. 148). Around 928/1521-22, when Moḥammad Faḵrī Herātī composed his supplement to Maǰāles al-nafāʾes, ʿAbdī Qalandar was recognized as both a poet and nastaʿlīq calligrapher (ibid.). If ʿAbdī was still in Herat during 929/1522-23, he must have left soon afterward for Tabrīz, because he executed calligraphy for Shah Esmāʿīl, Bahrām Mīrzā, and Shah Ṭahmāsp. In calligraphy written for or dedicated to members of the Safavid family, ʿAbdī uses the epithet al- Šāhī (Bayānī, pp. 425-26). Qāżī Aḥmad describes ʿAbdī as an intimate associate of Shah Ṭahmāsp (p. 87; tr., p. 134). As a calligrapher ʿAbdī Nīšāpūrī does not appear to have been prolific. Specimens of his work are known only from albums now in Istanbul libraries. Pages dedicated to Shah Esmāʿīl and Bahrām Mīrzā are found in an album compiled for the latter prince ca. 951/1544-45 (Topkapi Saray Library, Hazine 2154). Poetry and calligraphy dedicated to Shah Ṭahmāsp are found in an album for that ruler (University Library, Istanbul, F. 1422). Further examples are found in albums collected by the calligraphers Aḥmad Mašhadī (d. 976/1568-69) and Mālek Daylamī (d. 969/1561-62; Bayānī, p. 246). The presence of his work in those important albums demonstrates that ʿAbdī was appreciated in his own day. However, he never attained the high esteem accorded to Solṭān ʿAlī Mašhadī’s other pupils, Moḥammad Abrīšamī, Moḥammad Nūr, or Moḥammad Ḵandān. In an essay composed ca. 951/1544-45, Dūst Moḥammad describes ʿAbdī primarily as the teacher of his nephew, Šāh Maḥmūd Nīšāpūrī (Treatise, pp. 29- 30). Sām Mīrzā stresses that Maḥmūd surpassed his uncle in skill (loc. cit.).

Bibliography: Moḥammad Faḵrī Herātī, Laṭāʾefnāma, in Mīr ʿAlī Šīr Navāʾī, Maǰāles al- nafāʾes, ed. Ḥekmat, Tehran, 1323 Š./1954-55, p. 148. Dūst Moḥammad, A Treatise on Calligraphers and Miniaturists, ed. M. A. Chaghtai, Lahore, 1936. (P. P. Soucek) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 209 Cite this entry: P. P. Soucek, “Abdi Nisapuri,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 209; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdi-nisapuri-16th-century- calligrapher-and-poet (accessed on 21 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABDĪ ŠĪRĀZĪ M. DABĪRSĪĀQĪ AND B. FRAGNER (1513-80), poet.

ʿABDĪ ŠĪRĀZĪ (1513-80), poet.

ʿABDĪ ŠĪRĀZĪ, ḴᵛĀJĀ ZAYN-AL-ʿĀBEDĪN ʿALĪ B. ʿABD-AL-MOʾMEN (921-88/1513-80), also known by his taḵalloṣ Novīdī, a poet from a notable family of Shiraz (not Isfahan as is reported in Rūz-e rowšan). He was probably born and raised in Tabrīz, his mother’s hometown, where his father had settled. He worked as a secretary-accountant in the royal chancellery of the Safavid king Shah Ṭahmāsp. As a young poet he wrote only ḡazals and robāʿīs, but following the king’s instruction and encouraged by Qāsemī Gonābādī, he turned to the writing ofmaṯnavīs, which constitute the bulk of his poetry. Little is known of his private life, except that he made trips to Georgia and Armenia and died in Ardabīl in 988/1580. His main poetical works are three Ḵamsas composed in imitation of Neẓāmī Ganǰavī. Each Ḵamsa comprises five independent versified narratives. Of theseṢaḥīfat al-eḵlāṣ, mostly a descriptive account of the palaces, gardens, and artists of Qazvīn (then the capital of the Safavids) is of special interest, but is unpublished. The only poem yet published is his Maǰnūn o Laylā (ed. A. Hashumogly Rahimov, Moscow, 1966). His other maṯnavīs seem to have been lost, except possibly for hisṬarabnāma, which may be the manuscript known as Qeṣaṣ al- anbīāʾ or Ketāb-e naẓm-e sīar va ḡazavāt-e Sayyed al-Bašar and attributed to Bīrūnī. This manuscript is preserved in the Oriental Institute of the Uzbek SSR. He also wrote a history called Takmelat al-aḵbār, which he dedicated to the king’s daughter Parīḵān Ḵānom and which is a significant source for events of the 10th/16th century (see Storey, I/2, p. 1239). His Dīvān has been published (Lucknow, 1267/1851).

Bibliography: Toḥfa-ye Sāmī, p. 59. Sayyed ʿAlī Khan Golšān, Ṣobḥ-e Golšān, 1295/1878, p. 277. Fasāʾī, II, p. 152. Moḥammad Moẓaffar Ḥosayn Ṣabā, Taḏkera-ye rūz-e rowšan, ed. R. Ādamīyat, Tehran, 1343 Š./1964, pp. 856-57. Ātaškada, ed. J. Šahīdī, Tehran, 1337 Š./1958, p. 304. Rahimov’s intro. to his ed. of Maǰnūn o Laylā, pp. 3-30. Monzavī, Nosḵahā III, pp. 1897, 2589-90. Ḵayyāmpūr, Soḵanvarān, p. 621. For a facsimile edition and the Russian translation of the part of Takmelat al-aḵbārconcerning the reign of Esmāʿīl I, see O. A. Efendiev, Obrazovanie azerbaĭdzhanskogo gosudarstva Sefevidov v nachale XVI veka, Baku, 1961, pp. 143-65, 179-99. For additional bibliography concerning his works, see Storey-Bregel, I, pp. 404f.; II, pp. 875, 1085. (M. Dabīrsīāqī and B. Fragner) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 209-210 Cite this entry: Multiple Authors, “Abdi Sirazi,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 209-210; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdi-sirazi-1513-80-poet (accessed on 21 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ABDĪH UD SAHĪGĪH Ī SAGASTĀN A. TAFAŻŻOLĪ (“The wonder and remarkability of Sagastān”), short Pahlavi treatise. ABDĪH UD SAHĪGĪH Ī SAGASTĀN (“The wonder and remarkability of Sagastān”), short Pahlavi treatise.

ABDĪH UD SAHĪGĪH Ī SAGASTĀN (“The wonder and remarkability of Sagastān”), a short (about 300 words) Pahlavi treatise. Its authorship and period of composition are unknown, but it seems to be one of the few Pahlavi works written outside Fārs. The author, presumably a native of Sīstān, briefly mentions various features of the region and its history significant for Zoroastrianism. These are: 1. the Helmand river, the lake Frazdān, the sea Kayānsih, and the mountain Ušdāštār. 2. Birth and upbringing here of the three future saviors, Ōšēdar, Ōšēdarmāh, and Sōšyāns. 3. Sīstān served as a refuge for the descendants of the Kayanian kings after the murder of Ēriz (Pers. Īraǰ). 4. The Zoroastrian religion was first propagated here; it found such ardent adherents as Sēn, son of Ahumstūt, who, together with Burzmihr, son of Zardušt, prepared the Bagān Nask of the Avesta. 5. After Alexander’s conquest, the oral transmission of the Avesta was preserved here. The text does not refer to such profane wonders of Sīstān as are recorded, for instance, in Persian Tārīḵ-e Sīstān.

Bibliography: Pahl. Texts I, pp. 25-26. E. W. West in Geiger and Kuhn, Grundr. Ir. Phil. II, p. 118. Idem, “A Transliteration and Translation of the Pahlavi Treatise " Wonders of Sagastān",” JAOS 36, 1917, pp. 115-21. E. Herzfeld in AMI 2, 1930, pp. 94-95. Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems, p. 161. J. Tavadia, Die mittelpersische Sprache und Literatur der Zarathustrier, Leipzig, 1956, p. 141. M. Boyce in HO I, Bd. IV2, Lfg. 1, Leiden and Köln, 1968, pp. 62-63. (A. Tafażżolī) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 210 Cite this entry: A. Tafazzoli, “Abdih Ud Sahigih I Sagastan,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 210; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abdih-ud-sahigih-i-sagastan-the- wonder-and-remarkability-of-sagastan-short-pahlavi-treatise (accessed on 21 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿĀBEDĪ C. E. BOSWORTH a landowner (dehqān) of Transoxania (12th century).

ĀBEDĪ a landowner (dehqān) of Transoxania (12th century).

ʿĀBEDĪ, ABU’L-RAJĀʾ AḤMAD B. ʿABD-AL-ṢAMAD, a landowner (dehqān) of Transoxania. At Samarqand in 504/1110-11 (during the reign of the Qarakhanid Arslān Khan Moḥammad b. Solaymān, son-in-law of the Saljuq Sultan Sanǰar), he related to Neẓāmī ʿArūżī how the poet Rūdakī had been rewarded by the Samanid Naṣr b. Aḥmad (250-79/864- 92) for a poem praising the amir and Bokhara, his capital. ʿĀbedī had transmitted the story from his grandfather (of the same name).

Bibliography: Čahār maqāla, ed. Qazvīnī and Moʿīn, Tehran, 1333 Š./1954, pp. 53-54; tr. E. G. Browne, London, 1921, p. 36. On the derivation of his nesba from the Companion ʿĀbed b. ʿAmr al- Maḵzūmī, seeAnsāb (Leiden), fol. 377b. (C. E. Bosworth) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 210 Cite this entry:

C. E. Bosworth, “Abedi,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 210; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abedi- a-12th-century-landowner-dehqan-of-transoxania (accessed on 23 August 2012).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ĀBƎRƎT W. W. MALANDRA one of the eight Zoroastrian priests of the yasna ritual.

ĀBƎRƎT one of the eight Zoroastrian priests of the yasna ritual.

ĀBƎRƎT (Phl. ĀBURD, ĀB-BURDĀR), one of the eight Zoroastrian priests (ratu) necessary for the performance of the yasna ritual. As the name indicates, it was his function to bring (bar) the water (āp) for the ritual. The office of the water-bringer also bore the title dānuwāza, “bearing river (water).” According to Nərangistān 79 the ābərət, together with another priest, the sraošāwarəz, had no fixed station within the sacrificial area, but could move about. However, it is elsewhere indicated (Visperad 3.1) that his proper station was the southeast corner of the sacrificial area. Today the ābərət is reckoned as one of the “invisible” priests, his functions having been taken over by the rāspīg (q.v.).

Bibliography: AirWb., cols. 329, 734. Modi, Ceremonies, pp. 316-19. D. D. P. Sanjana, Nirangistan, Bombay, 1894, fols. 156b, lines 3-6; 159b, line 12. (W. W. Malandra) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 210 Cite this entry: W. W. Malandra, “Aberet,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 210; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aberet- one-of-the-eight-zoroastrian-priests-of-the-yasna-ritual (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ĀBEŠ ḴĀTŪN B. SPULER Salghurid ruler of Fārs (1263-84), daughter of Atābeg Saʿd II.

ĀBEŠ ḴĀTŪN Salghurid ruler of Fārs (1263-84), daughter of Atābeg Saʿd II.

ĀBEŠ ḴĀTŪN, Salghurid ruler of Fārs (663-85/1263-84), daughter of Atābeg Saʿd II. While still a child (in Rabīʿ I, 663/December, 1264), she succeeded her cousin Salǰuqšāh b. Salḡūr, whom the Mongols had driven away. Ca. 671/1272 she married the Mongol prince Möngke Temūr (Mangū Tīmūr; d. Moḥarram, 681/April, 1282), fourth son of the Il- khan Hülegu (Hūlāgū), who ruled Fārs in her name from then on. Ābeš Ḵātūn’s name, however, was mentioned in the ḵoṭba and on coins; she also had the right to a court chapel. The true administration of the country lay in the hands of the Mongol governor Suḡunǰaq (Sūnǰāq) Noyon and his basqaqs (tax officials), who are often mentioned in this period. In Ramażān, 683/late 1284, efforts were made in Fārs towards separation from the Il-kans, and Ābeš Ḵātūn apparently was involved. For this reason she was interned by the Mongol general Boḡā, who later led his own revolt against the Il-khans but was captured and executed in January, 1289. Ābeš Ḵātūn was imprisoned and fined. She died, only twenty-six years old, in 685/1286-87 and was buried in Tabrīz.

Bibliography: Spuler, Mongolen3, see index. T. W. Haig in EI1 IV, p. 112. Erdogam Mercil, Fars atabegleri salgurlular, Ankara, 1975, see index. (B. Spuler) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 210 Cite this entry: B. Spuler, “Abes Katun,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 210; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abes- katun-salghurid-ruler-of-fars-1263-84-daughter-of-atabeg-sad-ii (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ABGAR J. B. SEGAL dynasty of Edessa, 2nd century B.C. to 3rd century A.D.

ABGAR dynasty of Edessa, 2nd century B.C. to 3rd century A.D.

ABGAR dynasty of Edessa, 2nd century B.C. to 3rd century A.D. i. General. ii. Historical survey. iii. Administration. iv. Social and cultural life; religion. i. General When the Seleucids withdrew from Mesopotamia in 130-29 B.C., Parthian hegemony there was virtually unchallenged. It was, however, exercised loosely; and a small number of principalities were able to acquire a fair degree of autonomy. The most important of these was Edessa. The list of the kings of the dynasty may be reconstructed as follows (the early names and dates should be regarded with caution): Aryu, 132-127 B.C.; ʿAbdu, son of Maẓʿur, 127-120; Fradašt, son of Gebaṛʿu, 120-115; Bakru I, son of Fradašt, 115-112; Bakru II, son of Bakru, alone, 112-94; Bakru II and Maʿnu I, 94; Bakru II and Abgar I Piqa, 94-92; Abgar I, alone, 92-68; Abgar II, son of Abgar, 68-53; interregnum, 53-52; Maʿnu II, 52-34; Paqor, 34-29; Abgar III, 29-26; Abgar IV Sumaqa, 26-23; Maʿnu III Saflul, 23-4; Abgar V Ukkama, son of Maʿnu, 4 B.C.-A.D. 7; Maʿnu IV, son of Maʿnu, 7-13; Abgar V (second time), 13-50; Maʿnu V, son of Abgar, 50-57; Maʿnu VI, son of Abgar, 57-71; Abgar VI, son of Maʿnu, 71-91; interregnum, 91-109; Abgar VII, son of Ezad, 109-16; interregnum, 116-18; Yalur (or Yalud) and Parthamaspat, 118-22; Parthamaspat alone, 122-23; Maʿnu VII, son of Ezad, 123-39; Maʿnu VIII, son of Maʿnu, 139-63; Waʾel, son of Sahru, 163-65; Maʿnu VIII (second time), 165-77; Abgar VIII the Great, son of Maʿnu, 177-212; Abgar IX Severus, son of Abgar, 212-14; Maʿnu IX, son of Abgar, 214- 40; Abgar X Frahad, son of Maʿnu, 240-42. The term “Abgar dynasty” is justified by the frequency of the name Abgar among the kings and by the special importance of the Abgar of the first and second centuries A.D. Armenian writers claim the rulers of Edessa as the Armenian successors of Abgar, son of Aršam, who transferred his capital to Edessa from Metsbin (Nisibis). There is little onomastic support for this theory. Some of the names are Iranian, others Arab (including Abgar itself; Moses of Xorene’s Armenian etymology asawagayr, “great man,” [tr. Da N. Tomaséo, Storia de Mosè Corenese, Venice, 1841, p. 146] is improbable). But most striking are the names terminating in - u; these are undoubtedly Nabatean. Many of the dynasty were therefore ethnically Arab, speaking a form of Aramaic (like the rulers of Hatra, Singara, and Mesene at this time). ii. Historical Survey The area of the kingdom was perhaps roughly coterminous with that of the Roman province of Osrhoene. The great loop of the Euphrates was a natural frontier to the north and west. In the south Batnae was capital of the semi-autonomous principality of Anthemusia until its annexation by Rome in A.D. 115. The eastern boundary is uncertain; it may have extended to Nisibis or even to Adiabene in the first century A.D. Ḥarrān, however, only 40 km south of Edessa, always maintained its independent status as a Roman colonia. Edessa was a fortress of considerable strength, and a staging post both large and nearest to the Euphrates. It was an important road junction; an ancient highway, along which caravans carried merchandise from China and India to the West, met there a north-south road connecting the Armenian highlands with Antioch. Inevitably Edessa figured prominently on the international stage. The first king of Edessa to appear in historical records was Abgar I, an ally of Tigranes of Armenia when he was defeated by the Roman Sextilius in 69 B.C. In Pompey’s settlement of the east, Abgar II was confirmed as ruler of this city. It was the same Abgar whom Roman historians (e.g., Plutarch Crassus 21-22 and Dio Cassius 40.20-23) denounced for his part in guiding Crassus to one of the most crushing defeats ever suffered by Roman arms—at the hands of the Parthians near Ḥarrān in 53 B.C. Whether Abgar was guilty of treachery may be doubted; according to a Syriac source, in fact, he lost his throne in the same year (Segal, Edessa, p. 12). This victory of the Parthians secured their supremacy in the region, and for the next two centuries the kings of Edessa were to favor the Parthians rather than Rome. Abgar V Ukkama, famous in Christendom as the contemporary of Jesus (see below), was a member of a delegation that went to Zeugma in A.D. 49 to welcome Mehrdād, the Roman nominee to the throne of Parthia. The “dishonest” Abgar, Tacitus relates (Annals 12.12ff.), detained the prince “day after day in the town of Edessa,” evidently pandering to the dissipation of the “inexperienced youth.” Only when winter had set in did Abgar lead Mehrdād by a circuitous route through the mountains of Armenia. And before his protégé could put his challenge to the test of battle, the king of Edessa had abandoned him to certain defeat and capture by Gōdarz. A later king of Edessa, Abgar VII, proved an equally unreliable ally of Rome. His envoys came to Trajan at Antioch in A.D. 114 with gifts and protestations of loyalty; they excused Abgar’s delay on the grounds of his fear of Parthian reprisals (Dio Cassius 68.18f.). Yet only five years earlier, we are told, he had purchased his throne from Parthia for a large sum of money. Trajan was then entertained at Edessa and received from Abgar 250 horses and mailed horsemen, suits of armor and a store of arrows. Not only was Abgar confirmed in his kingdom; but, at his suggestion, the neighboring phylarch of Anthemusia, his rival, was deposed and his territory annexed to Rome. But no sooner had Trajan returned to the west after his capture of Ctesiphon than Edessa joined a general insurrection, massacring or expelling the Roman garrisons. The Romans exacted swift vengeance. Edessa was laid waste by fire and sword, and Abgar seems to have perished in the disorder. Trajan’s conquests in Mesopotamia were renounced by his successor, Hadrian. To the throne of Edessa, vacant for two years, was appointed a Parthian prince, Parthamaspat, whom the Romans had failed to install as ruler of Parthia. But the former dynasty of Edessa was apparently restored in A.D. 123 in the person of Maʿnu VII. A generation later, early in the reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, the Parthians resumed the offensive against Rome. The king of Edessa, Maʿnu VIII, was replaced by Waʾel, son of Sahru, who struck coins with the portrait of the king of Parthia. When a Roman army besieged Edessa in 165, however, its citizens slaughtered the Parthian garrison and admitted the Romans. In the following year Maʿnu was reinstated as king with the epithet of Philorhomaios. In 194, at a time of uncertainty over the succession of power at Rome, Abgar VIII (commonly called “the Great”) took an independent line; in the company of the king of Adiabene, he laid siege to Nisibis. Soon, however, “Abgar, king of the Persians” (Life of Severus 18.1) was worsted by Septimus Severus. The Romans first appointed a procurator in Osrhoene; then Abgar returned to his throne. The position had now changed, though imperceptibly, for Rome had established a firm control of western Mesopotamia. When the Parthians crossed the Tigris and besieged Nisibis, after the return of Severus to the west, Abgar withheld his support. He had adopted Roman names; and he identified himself with the Roman cause, giving his sons as hostages and offering the services of his archers. In return, after the defeat of the Parthians in 197- 98, Osrhoene was declared a client state; and Rome recognized the status of Abgar as “king of kings.” He visited Rome some time after 204 and was accorded the most lavish reception given to a foreign potentate since the days of Nero. For Edessa, however, the end of independence was near. Rome could no longer be content with indirect control of Osrhoene. Abgar Severus, successor of Abgar the Great, was seized and deposed by Caracalla, probably in 214, and Edessa was declared a colonia. Later rulers of the dynasty must have governed only in name; it appears that from 242 there was a Roman resident stationed in the city. The monarchy had ended. The last king of Edessa retired with his wife to Rome. iii. Administration The king of Edessa had certain prerogatives. He alone was entitled to wear a diadem with the tiara worn by noblemen, possibly also by the priests; he also carried a scepter. The local Syriac Chronicle (ed. Guidi, p. 3) describes him as residing in a “great and beautiful palace” (Syr. ʾapadnā; Parth. ap(p)adān, OPers. appadāna) “at the source of the springs” beside the pools of sacred fish (see below). After the flood of A.D. 201 it was rebuilt as a summer palace; a winter palace was then erected on the citadel mount nearby (where two columns still stand). After A.D. 88-89 the kings were buried in a great tomb tower reserved for them. The regnal year of the king provided the official system of dating, side by side with that of Roman emperors. The king maintained personal control of the military force of the state and of taxation. Abgar the Great’s style of government was direct and paternalistic. He seems to have had his own confidants (Syr. šarrīrē), who included his secretary and keeper of the archives. He supervised personally the measures taken at the flood of 201; he forbade the building of booths near the river and ordered that artisans should not pass the night there in winter time. The principal officer of the state after the king, the “second in the kingdom,” had the title of paṣgrībā (Parth. pasāgrīw). From the Syriac inscription on a column we learn that Queen Šalmath, wife of Abgar (the Great?), was daughter of a paṣgrībā(Segal, Edessa, pl. 29a and p. 19; his head possibly appears on a coin). The nobleman who governed the marches east of Edessa occupied by the semi-nomad ʿArab was called, both in Greek and Syriac, “governor of the ʿArab” (arabarchos). The nūhadrā (Parth. naxwadhār, noxadhār) was probably of lower rank. In the time of Abgar the Great, the nūhadrā evidently controlled the city administration. Order was maintained in the city by the gezīrāyē, a term possibly of Iranian origin. City officials included surveyors and other experts. The king himself housed the workmen employed on the upkeep of the royal buildings. In the royal archives were preserved records of private transactions as well as of matters of state; they had a high reputation for accuracy. By Roman historians the term phylarch is applied to members of the Abgar dynasty; the city was divided into districts allocated to phylae or clans, each administered by an archon. The king ruled through a council of elders. A description of Edessan chiefs as “those who sit with bended knees” may reflect the Parthian practice by which nobles squatted at court, but the Syriac text is not certain (G. Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle, London, 1876, p. 5; Syr. text, line 15). The nobles of Edessa —called “great men” or “free men”—lived in mansions in the vicinity of the palace. Artisans formed an important category of the population; there is evidence for slaves in the latest period of the kingdom. Outside the city were villages and farms, dependent economically on the city-dwellers and paying taxes to the royal treasury. In the uncultivated area beyond, like the Tektek mountains east of Edessa, lived the ʿArab governed by the arabarchos. One of his functions was to protect them against the Beduins (Syr. Ṭayyāyē, after the Arab tribe Ṭayy). iv. Social and Cultural Life; Religion Edessa under the monarchy was influenced by the civilizations of both East and West. The titles of officials, like their political sympathies, were Iranian; town planning and architecture were largely Hellenistic. While female costume was similar to that in the West, men’s costume was distinctively Iranian. As in Parthia, elaborate headgear was a sign of rank. Edessan society was highly sophisticated. Clothes were heavily embroidered and gaily colored, and much jewelry was worn. The cave tombs outside the city walls were decorated with reliefs and mosaics. The royal summer palace had statues of the kings, and other statues still survive. There was a hippodrome and a winter bath. The Osrhoenians were celebrated for their archery, and we have a firsthand account of the skill at the sport of the son of Abgar the Great and of the philosopher Bardaiṣan (by Julius Africanus, ed. J. R. Vieillefond, Fragments des Cestes, Paris, 1932, pp. 49-50). The status of women was high, except in legal matters. Edessans of this period were much interested in music and in literature, especially poetry and philosophy. Their language was Syriac, but a few funerary inscriptions survive written in a form of Palmyrene and in Hebrew and Greek. Toward the end of the second century, Greek began to gain ground among the upper class; and children were sent to be educated at Greek academies. The coinage carries legends in Greek. Significantly, however, on the coins of Waʾel, the pro-Parthian usurper (see above), Syriac is used. Bardaiṣan apparently knew no Greek, but his philosophical treatises follow Greek methods of exposition. All the contemporary writings that have reached our time are in Syriac. Under the Abgar dynasty Edessans worshipped principally the sun, moon, and planets; this is reflected in the ritual depicted in reliefs and mosaics and in personal names. The crescent appeared on coins and, accompanied by stars, on the king’s tiara. A central feature of the city were the pools of sacred fish that still survive, probably an emblem of fertility. An anonymous deity, Marilaha (“lord god”), is mentioned in dedicatory inscriptions at Edessa and at Sumatar Harabesi in the Tektek mountains. These inscriptions at Sumatar Harabesi, dated A.D. 165, refer also to a sacral pillar and stool (found too on coins of Waʾel) and a ceremonial meal; the same symbols are alluded to in an Elymaen inscription of the 1st-2nd century A.D. at Tang-e Sarvak (see Bivar and Shaked, “Shimbar,” pp. 287-90). Among members of the Jewish community at Edessa were merchants in silk. They were strongly pro-Parthian and resisted Trajan’s army. The fame of Edessa in history rests, however, mainly on its claim to have been the first kingdom to adopt Christianity as its official religion. According to the legend current for centuries throughout the civilized world, Abgar Ukkama wrote to Jesus, inviting him to visit him at Edessa to heal him from sickness. In return he received the blessing of Jesus and subsequently was converted by the evangelist Addai. There is, however, no factual evidence for Christianity at Edessa before the reign of Abgar the Great, 150 years later. Scholars are generally agreed that the legend has confused the two Abgars. It cannot be proved that Abgar the Great adopted Christianity; but his friend Bardaiṣan was a heterodox Christian, and there was a church at Edessa in 201. It is testimony to the personality of Abgar the Great that he is credited by tradition with a leading role in the evangelization of Edessa.

Bibliography: There are few primary sources for the history of the Abgar dynasty. Firsthand accounts are the Syriac Chronicle of Edessa, ed. I. Guidi et al., in Chronica Minora(CSCO 1-2 = Scriptores syri 1-2), Louvain, 1955. For the work of Julius Africanus, see also H. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantische Chronographie, Leipzig, 1880-98. On contemporary inscriptions and other archeological finds, and on the evangelization of Edessa, see the bibliography under Edessa. Bardaiṣan is treated by H. J. W. Drijvers, Bardaiṣan of Edessa (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 6), Te Assen, 1966. G. F Hill, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia in the British Museum, London, 1922, p. 91-118 should be consulted for numismatic material. The viewpoint of Roman historians will be found in Plutarch Life of Crassus;Tacitus Annals 6.44, 12.12f.; Dio Cassius Roman History 68, 77-78; Scriptores historiae Augistae: Lives of Septimus Severus and Caracalla. The Armenian history of Moses of Khorene should be regarded with caution; see A. Carrière, “La Légende d’Abgar dans l’Histoire d’Arménie de Moïse de Khoren,”Centenaire de l’École des langues vivantes 1795-1895, Paris, 1895, pp. 357-414. For a discussion of Iranian inscriptions and Iranian terms, see W. B. Henning, “The Monuments and Inscriptions of Tang-i Sarvak,” Asia Major N.S. 2, 1951-52, p. 151. Idem, “A New Parthian Inscription,” JRAS 1953, p. 124. A. D. H. Bivar and S. Shaked, “The Inscriptions at Shimbar,” BSOAS 27, 1964, p. 265. For a general treatment of the Abgar dynasty, see R. Duval, Histoire politique, religieuse et littéraire d’Édesse jusqu’à la première croisade (= JA 8e Sér., 18-19, 1891-92), 1892. E. Kirsten, “Edessa,” in T. Klauser, ed., Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum IV, Stuttgart, 1959, cols. 552-97. J. B. Segal, Edessa "The Blessed City", Oxford, 1970. (J. B. Segal) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 210-213 Cite this entry: J. B. Segal, “Abgar,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 210-213; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abgar- dynasty-of-edessa-2nd-century-bc-to-3rd-century-ad (accessed on 25 January 2014). …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ABHAR C. E. BOSWORTH a small town in the Qazvīn district.

ABHAR a small town in the Qazvīn district.

ABHAR (or Awhar in local pronunciation, see Ḥodūd al-ʿālam, tr. Minorsky, pp. 132, 383), a small town in the Qazvīn district, on the highway connecting Ray and later Tehran with Tabrīz and Azerbaijan. The geographers state that it lay 12 farsaḵs west of Qazvīn and that Zanǰān (the town with which it is often coupled in the geographical and historical sources) was 20 farsaḵs farther (thus Ebn Ḥawqal, tr. Kramers, p. 351; but Ebn Rosta, tr. Wiet, p. 196, makes this last journey 15 farsaḵs). The town had a plenteous water supply from the landlocked stream of the Abhar Rūd, which rises in the Kūh-e Sarāhand south of Tabrīz and flows southwest until it loses itself in the desert; Ḥamdallāh Mostawfī compares it, in its utility for towns like Zanǰān, Abhar, and Qazvīn, to the Zāyanda Rūd’s value for Isfahan. It drove numerous water mills, and the irrigated fields produced a wide array of fruits, including grapes, nuts, and a celebrated variety of pear called ʿAbbāsī, as well as cereals. The geographers of the 4th/10th century describe Abhar as a small, fortified town on a hilltop, with walls 5,500 paces in circumference. Local legend attributed the town’s foundation to Kay Ḵosrow, son of Sīāvoš, or to Šāpūr Ḏu’l-aktāf, and the construction of its citadel (which was on a raised platform, following ancient Iranian practice) to Dārāb son of Dārāb. More historically, this citadel was built in the Saljuq period by the atabeg Bahāʾ-al-dīn Ḥaydar, hence called al-qaḷʿat al-Ḥaydarīya; some celebrated gardens outside the town, used as a camping ground for caravans and armies, were likewise laid out by him and called Bahāʾ-al- dīn-ābād. Abhar was conquered by the Arab invaders of Iran in 24/645 under Barāʾ b. ʿAzīb, governor of Ray (Balāḏorī, Fotūḥ, p. 321). In the early years of the 4th/10th century Abhar was in the possession of the Sajid governor of Azerbaijan, Yūsof b. Abu’l-Sāǰ. It then came under Daylamite domination, and in 386/996 the Mosaferid or Kangarid Vahsūdān b. Sallār Moḥammad b. Mosāfer ruled the region south of Azerbaijan and Daylam, including Abhar, Zanǰān, and Sohravard; a coin minted in Abhar in 404/1013-14, either by a Mosaferid or by one of their Rawwadid rivals, is extant (Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History, London, 1953, pp. 160, 165-66; A. Markov, Inventarnyĭ katalog musul’manskikh monet imperatorskago Èrmitazha, St. Petersburg, 1896, p. 884). In 420/1029, however, the Ghaznavid Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin’s troops appeared in the Ray and Qazvīn region and secured the submission of the Mosaferid Ebrāhīm b. Marzbān (M. Nazim, The Life and Times of Sulṭān Maḥmūd of Ghazna, Cambridge, 1931, pp. 83-84). A notable figure from the town was Kamāl-al-dīn Abū ʿAmr Abharī, who was vizier to the last two Great Saljuq sultans in Iran, Arslan and his son Toḡrı l but who ended his life as an ascetic in Jerusalem and Syria (d. 590/1194; Nāṣer-al-dīn Monšī Kermānī, Nasāʾem al-asḥār, ed. Jalāl-al- dīn Moḥaddeṯ Ormavī, Tehran, 1338 Š./1959, pp. 90-91; Sayf-al-dīn ʿOqaylī, Āṯār al-wozarāʾ, ed. Jalāl-al-dīn ʿOrmavī, Tehran, 1337 Š./1959, p. 265). One of the best-known scholars produced by Abhar was the philosopher Aṯīr-al-dīn Mofażżal b. ʿOmar (d. 663/1265; see s.v. Abharī) the author of two esteemed philosophical works, who worked at the court of the atabegs of Mosul (see Brockelmann, GAL I1, pp. 608-11; S. I, pp. 839-44). Samʿānī names a considerable number of theologians and traditionists who came from Abhar, including a well-known Malikite traditionist, Abū Bakr Moḥammad b. ʿAbdallāh; but by Mostawfī’s time (740/1340) the inhabitants of Abhar were predominantly Shafiʿites. When this same author wrote, the administrative district of Abhar comprised twenty-five villages, yielding a total revenue of 14,000 dinars per annum. He also mentions as still venerated in his time the tomb and rebāṭ of the celebrated Sufi shaikh ʿAbdallāh b. Ṭāher Ṭayyār Abharī (d. 330/942). At the present day, Abhar is administratively in the first ostān of Iran, and is the center of the baḵš of Abhar Rūd in the šahrestān of Zanǰān; the population is about 12,000, and their mother tongue is Turkish, though most are bilingual in Turkish and Persian.

Bibliography: See also: Ebn Ḥawqal, tr. Kramers, pp. 349, 367, 370. Moqaddasī, p. 392. Samʿānī, Ansāb (Hyderabad) I, pp. 103-07. Yāqūt, Moʿǰam al-boldān, Tehran, 1965, I, pp. 104-06. Nozhat al-qolūb, pp. 65, 214. Qazvīnī, Āṯār al-belād, Beirut, 1380/1960, pp. 287-88. Le Strange, Lands, pp. 221-22. Schwarz, Iran, pp. 726-28. Survey of Persian Art II, p. 1392. E. von Zambaur, Die Münzprägungen des Islams, zeitlich und örtlich geordnet I, Wiesbaden, 1968, p. 37. Razmārā, Farhang II, p. 3. (C. E. Bosworth) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 213-214 Cite this entry: C. E. Bosworth, “Abhar,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 213-214; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abhar-a-small-town-in-the-qazvin- district (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ʿABHAR AL-ʿĀŠEQĪN H. CORBIN work of the Persian mystic Rūzbehān Baqlī Šīrāzī (1128-1209).

ABHAR AL-ʿĀŠEQĪN work of the Persian mystic Rūzbehān Baqlī Šīrāzī (1128-1209).

ʿABHAR AL-ʿĀŠEQĪN, one of the most characteristic works of the great Persian mystic Rūzbehān Baqlī Šīrāzī (522-606/1128-1209). The word ʿabhar is generally considered to be the Arabic equivalent of Persian narges, itself a loanword from Greek narkissos (“narcissus”). Without enumerating the difficulties of comparative floral nomenclature, one may say that ʿabhar designates a variety of narcissus corresponding to what we call jasmine. The term ʿāšeqīn “lovers,” bears mystical implications, in contrast to the Western term. We have translated the title as “Jasmin des fidèles d’amour” to evoke something in common between Rūzbehān and the Fedeli d’amore grouped around Dante. The book of Rūzbehān is written throughout in an ecstatic Persian: unusual terms, Arabic-Persian compounds, a wealth of images determining in themselves the dialectic of the visionary. This extraordinary book is the breviary of a religion of transfigured love. Its conception of love is in the same vein as that of Aḥmad Ḡazālī and of Sohravardī. Rūzbehān detaches himself from the conceptions of those whom he calls pious devotees (zohhād), the Sufi ascetics, for whom human love was an obstacle to divine love. In the prologue, he has a feminine person to whom he dedicates the book pose a preliminary question: Is it permissible to use the word love (ʿešq “eros”) with regard to God? How may one claim to love the God of love, and to speak of love of God, by God, in God? Rūzbehān recalls the serious conflict this question aroused among the Sufi shaikhs. He counts himself among those who approve such a use of this word, but understood within the total context of his doctrine of love. “In effect,” he says, “it is only a question of one and the same love; and it is in the book of human love that one must learn the rule of divine love.” It is not in the object of love that the transition takes place; this transition consists of the interior metamorphosis of the subject, the mystical lover. Love is then humano-divine. One and the same text, but it is necessary to learn how to read this text. One must be initiated into a spiritual hermeneutics, a taʾvīl of love; because love is also a prophetic text. It has a double sense and is amphibological. These two meanings appear essentially in the theophanic function of beauty. This is the aspect that one must perceive in a human visage; because beauty is the theophany par excellence. It is to this that the word love aspires when it is a question of God. From this concept comes the mystical religion of beauty (ǰamāl-parastī), practiced by so many Iranian spiritualists, which should not be confused with “estheticism.” The perception of beauty as the source of theophanies (taǰallīyāt-e elāhī) is a prophetic function which makes the mystical lover a partner of the prophet (nabī), because the souls of one and the other are the mirrors in which the theophanies take place. This concept of beauty provides the great themes under which the thirty-two chapters of the “Jasmin des fidèles d’amour” are successively presented: theophany in beauty, the prophet of beauty, the prophetic sense of beauty, the pre-eternal source of love, the esoteric tawḥīd, etc. We have given elsewhere a very detailed analysis of the work. This book is, in some fashion, the recital of the interior pilgrimage of Rūzbehān which should be read side by side with his spiritual diary (Kašf al-asrār) and with his great work entitled “The paradoxes of the Sufis.” The difference between the pure ʿoḏrī love of Ebn Dāvūd Eṣfahānī (d. 297/909) and Rūzbehān’s doctrine of divine initiation through human love is immediately apparent. Both sides have occasion to evoke and record many Platonist reminiscences; but the prophetic sense of beauty, which transfigures love according to Rūzbehān, remains alien to the externalist (ẓāher) doctrine professed by Ebn Dāvūd. In Islam, there are two positions possible (comparable to a Platonist ambivalence) with regard to prophetic religion.

Bibliography: Rūzbehān Baqlī Šīrāzī, Le Jasmin des Fidèles d’amour (Ketāb ʿabhar al- ʿāšeqīn), published with two introductions and a translation of the first chapter by Henry Corbin and Moḥammad Moʿīn (Bibliothèque Iranienne, Vol. 8), Tehran and Paris, 1958. A complete analysis and commentary have been given by H. Corbin in Islam iranien: aspects spirituels et philosophiques III, Paris, 1972. Rūzbehān Baqlī Šīrāzī, Commentaire sur les paradoxes Soufis (Šarḥ-e šaṭḥīyāt), Persian text published with a French introduction and an index by H. Corbin (Bibliothèque Iranienne, Vol. 12), Tehran and Paris, 1966. H. Corbin, Histoire de la philosophie islamique (2 e partie): depuis la mort d’Averroes jusqu’à nos jours, Paris, 1974. (H. Corbin) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 214-215 Cite this entry: H. Corbin, “Abhar Al-Aseqin,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 214-215; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abhar-al-aseqin-work-of-the-persian- mystic-ruzbehan-baqli-sirazi-1128-1209 (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ABHARĪ, ABŪ BAKR B. REINERT Sufi of Persian ʿErāq (d. 941-42).

ABHARĪ, ABŪ BAKR Sufi of Persian ʿErāq (d. 941-42).

ABHARĪ, ABŪ BAKR ʿABDALLĀH B. ṬĀHER B. ḤĀTEM, Sufi of Persian ʿErāq (Solamī, Ṭabaqāt, p. 391.3) where he lived and apparently had received his Sufi training. He was born in Abhar and died in 330/941-42 (ibid., p. 391.9; Qošayrī,Resāla, p. 29.6). He is reckoned a disciple of Yūsof b. Ḥosayn of Ray and was a companion of Moẓaffar Qermīsīnī, a leading shaikh of Persian ʿErāq (Solamī, p. 396.2). Solamī also counts him among the aqrān (colleagues) of Šeblī; hence Abharī must have had close contacts with the Baghdadis at times. He was once in Mecca (Solamī, p. 394.13), presumably on pilgrimage. Those who transmitted from him directly appear to have known him in Persian ʿErāq. It is difficult to judge how far Abharī’s reputation extended during his lifetime. Abū Moḥammad Mohallab b. Aḥmad b. Marzūq Meṣrī confessed that no shaikh profited him as much as did Abharī (Solamī, p. 391.7; Anṣārī, Ṭabaqāt, p. 392.-2); but little is known of Meṣrī except that he stayed in Baghdad in 328/940 (cf. Solamī, p. 391.7 and Sarrāǰ, Lomaʿ, p. 266.2); he could scarcely have met Abharī there. Probably before his death, and certainly soon after, Abharī was cited as an authoritative source. For example, Bondār b. Ḥosayn (d. 353/964) refers to Abharī in his controversy with Ebn Ḵafīf (Sobkī, Ṭabaqāt al-šāfeʿīya, Cairo, 1965, p. 3 ,224.-3; Solamī, p. 393.5), and Sarrāǰ (d. 378/988) took up and developed Abharī’s doctrine of union and separation (ǰamʿ and tafreqa) in his own system (Lomaʿ, p. 212.11). Abharī is not said to have written any works, and so it is not known whether the nearly ninety comments on Koran verses recorded by Solamī derive from a systematic tafsīr or are scattered observations. In any case Abharī’s character and teaching must be reconstructed on the basis of these comments and two dozen other surviving sayings. The biographers especially praise his religious knowledge (ʿelm) and pious abstinence (varaʿ; Solamī, p. 391.4; Qošayrī, p. 29.-7). He himself held study, knowledge, and teaching in high esteem (Solamī, p. 393.13; idem, Ḥaqāʾeq, fol. 185a.-5). Unlike some Sufis he stressed that there was no contradiction between knowledge and mystical experience (Solamī, Ṭabaqāt, p. 394.11; Sarrāǰ, Lomaʿ, p. 216.1; Anṣārī, p. 393.1), and he credited miracles (karāmāt) only if their performers adhered strictly to the šarīʿa (Solamī, Ḥaqāʾeq, fol. 22a.-4). He urged the greatest possible abstinence from material things (Solamī, Ṭabaqāt, p. 394.1) as a prudent restraint, not as a destructive total rejection of the world (see Solamī, Ḥaqāʾeq, fol. 155b.-10). These attitudes toward knowledge and abstinence follow those of his teacher (cf., for Yūsof b. Ḥosayn and Qermīsīnī, Solamī, Ṭabaqāt, pp. 189.5-9, 397.2). The exegetical fragments quoted by Solamī do not define the scope of Abharī’s learning. Given his adherence to Moslem learning, the absence of philological and, even more, of legal notes is surprising. There are few theological deductions (an example below) or any others which are not tied to a specifically Sufi mentality (e.g., Solamī, Ḥaqāʾeq, fol. 178a.-9). But this feature may be due to Solamī’s criterion for selecting his examples. The latter was concerned with elucidating the deep, true meaning of the Koran’s words (see P. Nwyia, Trois oeuvres inédites de mystiques musulmans, Beirut, 1972, p. 33.- 2 ), and Abharī’s exegesis overall may have carried an emphasis different from that of the preserved fragments. It appears that he rather seldom applied a noticeably esoteric hermeneutic to the Koran’s words; an example is his comment on Koran 30:41, “Corruption appears on land and sea”: “By the land is meant the tongue, by the sea the heart” (Solamī, Ḥaqāʾeq, fol. 188b.11). Abharī’s comment on Koran 76:31 (“He allows to enter into His mercy whom He will”) provides a glimpse of his theological dialectic. He argues that salvation is attained by God’s grace alone: “The [divine] will, not [pious] action, occasions [God’s] mercy on men. For this is his attribute, and his attributes have no deficiency, while men’s actions are encumbered with deficiencies. Man can not, with blemished deeds, occasion something of those attributes that are without deficiency” (Solamī, Ḥaqāʾeq, fol. 278a.-10). This conviction of the negligible worth of people’s deeds (those of the good as well as those of the wicked) compared with God’s mercy and generosity is central to Abharī’s experience of God (see also in Abū Noʿaym, Ḥelya X, p. 352.11). On this point again he seems dependent on Yūsof b. Ḥosayn, who yearned to assume the sins of the whole world in order to be the object of God’s mercy (Solamī, Ṭabaqāt, p. 190.9). This attitude had been formulated by Yaḥyā b. Moʿāḏ of Ray (d. 258/871-72), who lost his fear of God’s punishment by stressing hope in his mercy and came to a position which Abharī’s resembles (cf. F. Meier, Abū Saʿīd i Abū l-Hǰair, Leiden, 1976, pp. 148ff., 177). Abharī, like Yaḥyā, abhorred pride in religious works (Abū Noʿaym, Ḥelya X, p. 177), and his connection with Yaḥyā may well have been through Yūsof b. Ḥosayn (cf. ibid., X, p. 240.2, and Solamī, Ṭabaqāt, pp. 188.9, 190.4). This complex of religious thought apparently exemplifies a tradition distinctive for Persian ʿErāq. A marked characteristic of Abharī’s ethics is its social aspect. He distinguishes the faithful (moʾmen), not by any special relationship with God, but by his security (amn) from his own soul (nafs) and other people’s security from him; thus “everyone who sees him is fond of him; every troubled person rejoices when he sees him; every lonely person feels at home with him; and every perplexed person seeks refuge with him” (Solamī, Ḥaqāʾeq, fol. 153.-9). Abharī also taught courageous exertion without regard for danger and trouble (Abū Noʿaym, X, p. 352.- 4; Solamī,Ṭabaqāt, p. 394.15). Stress on the exercise of courage recalls the early ascetics andmotavakkelūn scorning danger (see B. Reinert, Die Lehre vom tawakkul, Berlin, 1968, pp. 162ff.). Abharī understood by tavakkul (“trust in God”) the practice of “being equal to the demands of the moment” (Solamī, Ṭabaqāt, p. 395.1). He apparently gave the term a rather general significance, but he at least illustrates the concept of the exigencies of the moment which lies at the basis of Yūsof b. Ḥosayn’s, and especially Qermīsīnī’s, ethics (Solamī, Ṭabaqāt, pp. 188.13, 398.5). The trace influences on Abharī by the Baghdad mystics are too slight to confirm Solamī’s assertion of a connection with Šeblī and may derive from Yūsof b. Ḥosayn, who was a pupil of Ḵarrāz and corresponded with Jonayd (Solamī, Ṭabaqāt, p. 185.5; Abū Noʿaym, X, p. 240.8). In fact a short letter of Abharī (ibid., X, p. 351.-6f.) recalls both Jonayd’s thought and his language, terminology, idiom, and style. It comments on Koran 37:40 using Ḵarrāz’s concepts of baqāʾ and fanāʾ (continuance and passing away; Solamī, Ḥaqāʾeq, fol. 209.6; cf. Anṣārī, Ṭabaqāt, p. 133.- 1). Abharī’s discussion of ǰamʿ and tafreqa (ibid., p. 393.1) is not certainly of Baghdadi origin; his use of the terms in an apparent play on Koran 7:171 struck Sarrāǰ as original (Lomaʿ, p. 212.11). The Baghdadis applied this verse in different fashions (for Jonayd in Ketāb al-fanāʾ, see Abdel-Kader, The Life, Personality, and Writings of al-Junayd, London, 1962, p. 33). In sum, Abharī well represents a local Sufi tradition, but he was not sufficiently original to significantly enrich the development of Sufism. Later Sufi biographical works may refer to Abharī if they are directly or indirectly dependent on Solamī, while e.g., Hoǰvīrī and ʿAṭṭār are unaware of him.

Bibliography: Solamī, Ḥaqāʾeq (Koran commentary), MS, Istanbul, Fatih 262. ʿAbd-al-Karīm b. Havāzen Qošayrī, Resāla, Cairo, 1359/1940. Sarrāǰ, al-Lomaʿ fi’l-taṣawwof, ed. R. A. Nicholson, Leiden and London, 1914. ʿAbdallāh Anṣārī, Ṭabaqāt al-ṣūfīyā, ed. Qandahārī, Kabul, 1340 Š./1961. Abū Noʿaym Eṣfahānī, Ḥelyat al-awlīāʾ, Cairo, 1357/1938. (B. Reinert) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 215-216 Cite this entry: B. Reinert, “Abhari, Abu Bakr,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 215-216; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abhari-abu-bakr-sufi-of-persian- eraq-d-941-42 (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ABHARĪ, AMĪN-AL-DĪN D. PINGREE mathematician, said to have died in 1332-33.

ABHARĪ, AMĪN-AL-DĪN mathematician, said to have died in 1332-33.

ABHARĪ, AMĪN-AL-DĪN, mathematician, said to have died in 733/1332- 33. He is the author of an extant text, Foṣūl kāfīa fī ḥesāb al-taḵt wa’l- mīl (“Sufficient chapters concerning computation with a pegboard”). Bibliography: Brockelmann, GAL II2, p. 273. Suter, Mathematiker, p. 160, no. 393. (D. Pingree) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 216 Cite this entry: David Pingree, “Abhari, Amin-Al-Din,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 216; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abhari-amin-al-din-mathematician- said-to-have-died-in-1332-33 (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ABHARĪ, AṮĪR-AL-DĪN G. C. ANAWATI (d. 1264), logician, mathematician, and astronomer.

ABHARĪ, AṮĪR-AL-DĪN (d. 1264), logician, mathematician, and astronomer.

ABHARĪ SAMARQANDĪ, AṮĪR-AL-DĪN AL-MOFAŻŻAL B. ʿOMAR B. AL-MOFAŻŻAL (d. 663/1264), logician, mathematician, and astronomer. The only facts known about his life are that he was born and educated in Mosul but moved to Erbel (Arbela) in 625/1228. He was the disciple of Kamāl-al-dīn b. Yūnos and the teacher of Ebn Ḵallekān. His Arabic works include the following: 1. Hedāyat al-ḥekma, philosophical work divided into sections on logic (al-manṭeq), physics (al- ṭabīʿīyāt), and metaphysics (al-elāhīyāt). There are many commentaries on this text (see list in Brockelmann,GAL S. I, pp. 839-44). The most famous commentaries are by Mīr Ḥosayn b. Moʿīn-al-dīn Maybodī (several editions; see Brockelmann, GAL S. I, p. 840) and by Ṣadr-al-dīn Moḥammad Šīrāzī. 2. Ketāb al-Īsāḡūǰī, or Resāla al-Aṯīrīya fi’l-manṭeq, one of the most popular Arabic elaborations of Porphyry’s Isagogues. Among the numerous commentaries, and commentaries on commentaries, of this work are one by Moḥammad b. Ḥamza Fanārī (d. 834/1430-31) and one by Zakarīyāʾ b. Moḥammad al-Anṣārī (d. 927/1520). Ṣadr b. ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān al-Aḵżarī summarized the work in 94 lines of raǰaz poetry under the title al-Sollam al-morawnaq fi’l- manṭeq (Cairo, 1318/1900, and other editions). This resāla was first published in Rome in 1625 by P. Thomas Novariensis with a Latin translation, entitled Isagoge, i.e. breve introductorium arabum in scientiam logicae cum versione latina. E. Calverly has given an English version of it in the D. B. Macdonald Memorial Volume, Princeton, 1933, pp. 75-85; see also C. F. Seybold, “Al-Abharī’s Īsaghūjī und al-Fanārī’s Kommentar dazu,” Der Islam 92, 1919, pp. 112-15. Other works on logic include Tanzīl al-afkār fī taʿdīl al-asrār and Jāmeʿ al-daqāʾeq fī kašf al-ḥaqāʾeq. Among his works on astronomy are: Moḵtaṣar fī ʿelm al-hayʾa; Resālat al-asṭorlāb; Derāyat al-aflāk; al-Zīǰ al-šāmel, and al-Zīǰ al-eḵtīārī, known as al-Zīǰ al-Aṯīrī.

Bibliography: Brockelmann, GAL I, p. 608. Suter, Mathematiker, pp. 145-46. G. Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, Washington, D.C., 1927- 48 , II, p. 69. Y. E. Sarkīs, Moʿǰam al-maṭbūʿāt al-ʿarabīya wa’l-moʿarraba I, Cairo, 1346/1928, cols. 290-91. Zereklī, Aʿlām2 VIII, p. 203. N. Rescher, The Development of Arabic Logic, Pittsburgh, 1964, pp. 196-97. (G. C. Anawati) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 216-217 Cite this entry: G. C. Anawati, “Abhari, Atir-Al-Din,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 216- 217; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abhari-samarqandi-air-al-din-d-1264- logician-mathematician-and-astronomer (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ABHARĪ, KAMĀL-AL-DĪN C. E. BOSWORTH vizier of the last two Great Saljuq sultans in western Persia.

ABHARĪ, KAMĀL-AL-DĪN vizier of the last two Great Saljuq sultans in western Persia.

ABHARĪ, ḴᵛĀJA KAMĀL-AL-DĪN ABŪ ʿAmr, vizier of the last two Great Saljuq sultans in western Persia, Arslan b. Ṭoḡ rı l II (556-71/1161-76) and his son Ṭoḡrıl III (579-90/1176-94). After a secretarial career, he first became minister to Arslan. When Ṭoḡrıl III became restive under the tutelage of the Eldiguzid atabegs of Azerbaijan and endeavored to escape from them, he ended up by being imprisoned by the atabeg Qı zıl Arslan at Dezmār. Kamāl-al-dīn was active in securing his escape, but he then relinquished his professional career and ended his life as an ascetic, wandering through Ḥeǰāz and Syria. He died in Jerusalem in 590/1194.

Bibliography: Nāṣer-al-dīn Monšī Kermānī, Nasāʾem al-asḥār, ed. Jalāl-al-dīn Moḥaddeṯ Ormav ī, Tehran, 1338 Š./1959, pp. 90-91. Sayf-al-dīn ʿOqaylī, Āṯār al-wozarāʾ, ed. Ormav ī, Tehran, 1337 Š./1959. Ḵᵛāndamīr, Dastūr al-wozarāʾ, ed. Saʿīd Nafīsī, Tehran, 1317 Š./1938, p. 230. (C. E. Bosworth) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 217 Cite this entry: C. E. Bosworth, “Abhari, Kamal-Al-Din,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 217; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abhari-kamal-al-din-vizier-of-the-last- two-great-saljuq-sultans-in-western-persia (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ABHARĪ, MAḴDŪM HAMEED UD-DIN 16th-century traditionist.

ABHARĪ, MAḴDŪM 16th-century traditionist.

ABHARĪ, MAḴDŪM ʿABD-AL-ʿAZĪZ MOḤADDEṮ, traditionist. A native of Herat, he migrated to Sind ca. 918/1512 to escape Safavid persecution of Sunnite scholars. He and his sons, Mawlānā Aṯīr-al-dīn and Mawlānā Yār Moḥammad (both reputable scholars), settled at Kāhān/Gāhān (Gāhā), about 21 miles northwest of Sehvān. This place had become a center of learning after the vizier of Sind, Daryā Khan, had been compelled to retire to his estate there by Jām Fīrūz, the last ruler of the Jamid dynasty. Maḵdūm Abharī was noted for his skill in the rational sciences and wrote a wide variety of works. His commentary on the Meškāt remained unfinished, though in popularity it exceeded the numerous ḥavāšī (marginal notes) he wrote on other books. He died at Kāhān. His tradition of learning was carried on by such pupils as Qāżī ʿAbdallāh of Darbela and the latter’s illustrious sons, Raḥmatallāh and Ḥamīd, of whom the former also studied with Shaikh ʿAlī Mottaqī.

Bibliography: Mīr Moḥammad Maʿṣūm, Tārīḵ-e Send or (Tārīḵ-e Maʿṣūmī), Poona, 1938, pp. 76-77. Mīr ʿAlī Šēr Qāneʿ Tattavī, Toḥfat al-kerām, Urdu tr., Karachi, 1959, pp. 171-77, 442-44. Muhammad Ishaq, India’s Contribution to the Study of Hadith Literature, Dacca, 1955, pp. 234-35. (Hameed ud-Din) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 217 Cite this entry: Hameed ud-Din, “Abhari, Makdum,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 217; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abhari-makdum-16th-century- traditionist (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ĀBĪ E. EHLERS Persian term for those agricultural lands which are irrigated.

ĀBĪ Persian term for those agricultural lands which are irrigated.

ĀBĪ, Persian term for those agricultural lands which are irrigated; unirrigated (i.e., rain-fed) fields are called daymī (see discussion s.v. Agriculture). Cf. also the more specialized term fāyrāb/pāyrāb, applied to lands irrigated by diversion of river water. The two traditional forms of irrigation are diversion of stream water and use of the qanāt; both can be traced to pre-Achaemenid times and may be seen as causes of the early development of strong political institutions and state formation in the Middle East (See K. Wittfogel, “Hydraulic Civilizations,” in W. J. Thomas, Jr., ed., Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, Chicago, 1956, pp. 152-64). Both techniques have persisted despite setbacks and destruction (as at the hands of the invading Mongols in the 13th century A.D.) and are still important. In recent years Iran’s ābī lands have been expanded remarkably through new technology. The traditional techniques have been changed, particularly through the development of large irrigation projects linked to the construction of dams and drilling of deep wells. According to recent statistics, the total area of ābī lands can be estimated at 3.6 million hectares, of which 1.5 million ha may be considered as fully irrigated. Wells and qanāts each irrigate 800,000 ha totally or partially; diversion of river water and canal systems irrigate the rest. Bibliography: O. T. W. Price, Towards a Comprehensive Iranian Agricultural Policy, Tehran, 1975. (E. Ehlers) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 217 Cite this entry: E. Ehlers, “Abi,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 217; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bi-term-for- irrigated-agricultural-landsi (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ĀBĪ, ABŪ ʿABDALLĀH ABU’L-QĀSEM GORJI 8th-century traditionist.

ĀBĪ, ABŪ ʿABDALLĀH 8th-century traditionist.

ĀBĪ, ABŪ ʿABDALLĀH JARĪR B. ʿABD-AL-ḤAMĪD B. QORṬ ẒABĪ RĀZĪ, traditionist. His nesba, or surname, refers to Āba (or Āva), one of the villages dependent on Sāva (Yāqūt [Beirut] I, p. 50; Zabīdī, Tāǰ al- ʿarūs, Cairo, 1306/1888-89, s.v. ʾwb). He was born in 107/725-26 or 110/728-29 and settled in Ray, and is styled as the traditionist of Ray (moḥaddeṯ-e Ray). Ebn Saʿd, however, gives Kūfa as his residence and place of birth (Beirut, 1377/1957-58, VII, p. 371). The wide range of his information and his reliability attracted many students and collectors of tradition. Ābī transmitted from such personages as ʿAbd-al-Malek b. ʿOmayr and Manṣūr b. al-Moʿtamer; Esḥāq b. Rāhūya, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, and ʿOṯmān b. Abū Šayba related traditions on his authority. He died in Ray in 188/803-04.

Bibliography: Taʾrīḵ Baḡdād VII, no. 253. Ebn al-Aṯīr (repr.), VI, p. 190. Ḏahabī, Ḥoffāẓ I, p. 271. Idem, al-ʿEbar fī ḵabar man ḡabar I, Kuwait, 1960, p. 50. Ebn Ḥaǰar al-ʿAsqalānī, Tahḏīb al-tahḏīb II, Hyderabad, 1325/1907-08, p. 75. (Abu’l-Qāsem Gorjǰ) (Abu’l-Qāsem Gorji) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 217 Cite this entry: Abu'l-Qasem Gorji, “Abi, Abu Abdallah,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 217; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abi-abu-abdallah-jarir-8th-century- traditionist (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ĀBĪ, ABŪ SAʿĪD M. M. MAZZAOUI 11th-century vizier and man of letters.

ĀBĪ, ABŪ SAʿĪD 11th-century vizier and man of letters.

ĀBĪ, ABŪ SAʿĪD (so Ṯaʿālebī, Tatemmat al-yatīma, ed. ʿA. Eqbāl, Tehran, 1353/1934, p. 100; the konya is given as ABŪ SAʿĪD in Brockelmann, GAL I, p. 429; S. I., p. 593) MANṢŪR B. ḤOSAYN (cf. B. AL-ḤASAN in Bāḵarzī, Domyat al-qaṣr, ed. ʿAbd-al-Fattāḥ Moḥammad al-Ḥolv, Cairo, 1968, pp. 467-69), vizier and man of letters of the late Buyid period. He served in Ray under Maǰd-al-dawla Rostam b. Faḵr-al- dawla b. Rokn-al-dawla, ruler of Ray, Hamadān, and Isfahan, 387- 420/997-1029. He died in 421/1030 (see several variant dates in Zekerlī, Aʿlām2 VIII, p. 237). Yāqūt (I, p. 57) describes Ābī as a protégé of the major Buyid vizier and man of letters Ṣāḥeb b. ʿAbbād (936-95 A.D.). This connection no doubt opened doors to Ābī in the administration of the lesser Buyid courts. (His brother, Abū Manṣūr Moḥammad, was a well-known scribe [kāteb] and junior minister at the court of the kings of Ṭabarestān.) Ābī’s contemporary, Ṯaʿālebī (d. 429/1037-38) refers to him as vizier of Ray “now” and gives his titles as al-wazīr al-kabīr, ḏu’l-maʿālī, and zayn al- kofāt. He praises Ābī as a compiler of anecdotes. Qommī states that Ābī studied with the leading Eṯnāʿašarī scholar Abū Jaʿfar Ṭūsī and read religious texts with the celebrated Eṯnāʿašarī theologian Shaikh Mofīd (Safīnat al-beḥār, Naǰaf, 1352-55/1933-36, II, p. 592). Zereklī (loc. cit.) was thus led to refer to Ābī as Imami in religious persuasion. Ābī was known for his poetic ability. His major surviving work, however, is a collection of anecdotes, Ketāb naṯr al-dorr (or dorar). Its four parts deal with (a) the Koran, Moḥammad, and ʿAlī; (b) several early caliphs; (c) sayings and jokes ascribed to various Muslim rulers; (d) stories of eminent people, including sayings of women. For an example see C. A. Owen, “Arabian Wit and Wisdom from Abū Saʿīd’s Ketāb Nathr al- durar,” JAOS 54, p. 263. Ābī also wrote Ketāb al-taʾrīḵ (of Ray), now lost. Bibliography: See also al-Ḏarīʿa III, p. 254. Brockelmann, GAL S. I., p. 593 for mss. of Naṯr al-dorr. (M. M. Mazzaoui) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 217-218 Cite this entry: M. M. Mazzaoui, “Abi, Abu Said,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 217-218; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abi-abu-said-11th-century-vizier- and-man-of-letters (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ĀBĪ, ʿEZZ-AL-DĪN ABU’L-QĀSEM GORJI Imami faqīh (jurist) of the 13th century.

ĀBĪ, ʿEZZ-AL-DĪN Imami faqīh (jurist) of the 13th century.

ĀBĪ, ʿEZZ-AL-DĪN ḤASAN B. ABŪ ṬĀLEB YŪSOFĪ, Imami faqīh (jurist) of the 7th/13th century, well-known under the nicknames of Fāżel-e Ābī and Ebn al-Zaynab. He was a pupil of Moḥaqqeq Ḥellī, with whom he held disputations on topics of Shiʿite law. He wrote a commentary on his master’s Moḵtaṣar-e nāfeʿentitled Kašf al-romūz; its colophon bears the date 672/1273-74. He is credited with a certain individuality in his interpretation of canon law (feqh). Among the positions ascribed to him is a condemnation of the practice of having more than canonical four wives, even if this was done by recourse to moṭʿa (i.e., temporary or term marriage, or, more generally, concubinage).

Bibliography: Shaikh Asadallāh Tostarī, Maqābes al-anwār, lith. ed., Tabrīz, 1322/1904-05, p. 17. Shaikh ʿAbbās Qommī, Hadīyat al-aḥbāb, Naǰaf, 1349/1930-31, p. 96. Idem, Safīnat al-beḥār I, Tehran, 1355/1936-37, p. 55. Idem, al-Konā wa’l-alqāb II, Naǰaf, 1376/1956-57, p. 2. Modarres Tabrīzī, Rayḥānāt al-adab I, Tabrīz, 1346 Š./1967, p. 14. (Abu’l-Qāsem Gorj ī) (Abu’l-Qāsem Gorji) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 218 Cite this entry: Abu’l-Qāsem Gorji, “Abi, Ezz-Al-Din,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 218; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abi-ezz-al-din-imami-faqih-jurist-of- the-13th-century (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ABIRĀDŪŠ M. DANDAMAYEV a village in Elam.

ABIRĀDŪŠ a village in Elam.

ABIRĀDŪŠ, a village in Elam. According to the inscriptions DSf and DSz of Darius I, the stone pillars used on the building of his palace in Susa were brought from there. In the Elamite versions of the same inscriptions the village is called Hapiraduš. Bibliography: Old Persian, pp. 142-44. F. Vallat, “Deux inscriptions élamites de Darius I,” Stud. Ir. I, 1972, pp. 8- 13. (M. Dandamayev) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 218 Cite this entry: M. Dandamayev, “Abiradus,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 218; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abiradus-a-village-in-elam (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ABIRATTA(Š) M. MAYRHOFER ancient Near Eastern proper name said to be of (Indo-)Aryan origin, by comparison with Vedic ratha, Avestan raθa “chariot.” This analysis, however, remains uncertain.

ABIRATTA(Š) ancient Near Eastern proper name said to be of (Indo-)Aryan origin, by comparison with Vedic ratha, Avestan raθa “chariot.” This analysis, however, remains uncertain.

ABIRATTA(Š), a proper name said to be of (Indo-) Aryan origin, by comparison with Vedic ratha, Avestan raθa. This analysis, however, remains uncertain. The name was borne by the following (Kammenhuber, Arier, pp. 54-55): 1. the fifth king of the third (“Kassite”) dynasty in Babylon; 2. a Kassite nobleman (a-bi-ra-taš, a-bi-rat-taš, a-bi- r [u-ut-taš?], AD-rat-taš); 3. a prince of Pár-ga in northern Syria (a-pi-rat!- ta, a-pi-rad!-da, a-pi-rat!-ta-aš); 4. a person in the Alalakh tablets (a-bi-ra- at-ta). Bibliography: E. Laroche, Les noms des Hittites, Paris, 1966, p. 36. A. Kammenhuber, Die Arier im Vorderen Orient, Heidelberg, 1968, pp. 54-55. M. Mayrhofer, Die Indo-Arier im Alten Vorderasien, Wiesbaden, 1966, p. 140a; andDie Arier im Vorderen Orient—ein Mythos?, Vienna, 1974, pp. 69, 78. Cf. W. Wüst, on Vedic abhí . . . ráthaḥ, in Die Sprache 20, 1974, pp. 145ff. (M. Mayrhofer) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 218 Cite this entry: M. Mayrhofer, “Abiratta(s),” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 218; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abirattas-proper-name-said-to-be-of- indo-aryan-origin (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ABĪVARD C. E. BOSWORTH a town in medieval northern Khorasan.

ABĪVARD a town in medieval northern Khorasan.

ABĪVARD, a town in medieval Iran situated in northern Khorasan, in the northern foothills of the Hazār Masǰed range where these mountains slope down in the Qara Qum desert. It is important historically as part of the protective chain of frontier defense posts established by the ancient Iranian kings against the irruption of barbarians from the steppes of Inner Asia. Its site (now called Kohna Abīvard) lies within the Turkmenistan SSR; its extensive ruins, marked by various kurgans or settlement mounds, is some 8 km west of Kahka station on the Ashkhabad-Merv section of the Trans-Caspian railway. The whole of this district, including Nesā and Saraḵs, is known by the Turkish name of Ätäk, “the foothills.” Only a few of the medieval Islamic geographers mention Abīvard. Moqaddasī (pp. 321, 333-34), placing it at two days’ journey from Nesā, comments favorably that its provisions were cheaper and its market brisker than at Nesā. The Ḥodūd al-ʿālam(tr. Minorsky, p. 103) remarks on its extensive cultivation and salubrious climate, and also on the warlike character of its inhabitants, understandable in a frontier town. Yāqūt, however, adverts to the bad water supply and the unhealthiness of the place (Beirut, I, pp. 86-87). Abīvard came within the administrative district of Ḵābarān/Ḵāvarān (“the western land,” as opposed to Khorasan, “the eastern land”?), whose chef-lieu was Mahana or Mayhana, home in the 5th/11th century of the famous Sufi shaikh Abū Saʿīd b. Abu’l-Ḵayr Mayhanī (q.v.). The whole of this foothills region facing the desert was sprinkled with defensive rebāṭs in early Islamic times. Six farsaḵs from Abīvard was the rebāṭ of Kūfan, built in the 3rd/9th century by the governor of Khorasan, ʿAbdallāh b. Ṭāher; this had four gates and its own mosque within the walls. A legend recounted by Yāqūt says that the town was named after Kay Kāvus’s feudatory, Bāvard b. Gūdarz, to whom the place was granted. Its history certainly goes back to Parthian times, and it seems to be identifiable with the town of Apauarktikē mentioned by Isidore of Charax at the beginning of the Christian era. In Sasanian times there was a significant Christian community in the town, for present at the Nestorian Church’s synod under Catholicos Joseph in 553 was a bishop for Abīvard and the nearby fortress town of Šahr-e Fīrūz built by the king Pērōz against the Turks of the Qara Qum steppes (see Markwart, Ērānšahr, pp. 61, 73). At the time of the Arab conquests, we hear of a marzbān or kanārī of Nīšāpūr, Ṭūs, Nesā, and Abīvard. The Arab leader ʿAbdallāh b. ʿĀmer b. Korayz appeared at Abīvard in 31/651-52, and its chief (ʿaẓīm) promised to pay a tribute of 400,000 dirhams (Balāḏorī, Fotūḥ, pp. 404-05; Ṭabarī, I, pp. 2884, 2887). The town and district no doubt continued under the general administration of the local magnate or dehqān, although there was an Arab garrison within Abīvard; Qotayba b. Moslem had to assemble troops at Marv from Abīvard and other places for his expedition in the winter of 90/708-09 against the Hephthalite ruler Tarḵān Nīzak in Ṭoḵārestān. In ʿAbbasid times, Abīvard continued to fall within the governorship of Khorasan and the East; during Hārūn al-Rašīd’s caliphate, for instance, we hear of a revolt there of one Abu’l-Ḵaṣīb against the governor ʿAlī b. ʿĪsā b. Māhān (Yaʿqūbī,Boldān, p. 278; tr. Wiet, p. 83). After the fall of the Taherids and the expulsion from Khorasan of the early Saffarids, Abīvard passed to the Samanid rulers of Transoxania and Khorasan. One of the last Samanid amirs, Nūḥ II b. Manṣūr, granted the town to the Afrighid Ḵᵛārazmšāh of Kaṯ in return for aid given against the Turkish Qarakhanid occupiers of Bokhara in 382/992; but Abū ʿAlī Sīmǰūrī, governor of Khorasan, refused to relinquish it. In 394/1004 Nūḥ’s son Ebrāhīm al-Montaṣer, the last of the dynasty, endeavored to make a stand at Abīvard with help from the Oḡuz Turks, but was defeated by a Khwarazmian force (Barthold,Turkestan3, p. 270). With the fall of the Samanids, the defenses of northeastern Iran against pressure from the steppe nomads began to crumble. In the reign of Maḥmūd of Ḡazna, shortly after 416/1025, the sultan was compelled to admit 4,000 Turkmen families to pasture grounds in the Saraḵs, Abīvard, and Farāva districts; but already by 418/1027 the people of Nesā and Abīvard were complaining to the sultan of the Turkmens’ violence (M. Nazim, The Life and Times of Sultān Maḥmūd of Ghazna, Cambridge, 1931, pp. 63-64). In this way there began the process of turkicization, both ethnic and linguistic, of these desert fringes. In the period when the Il-khanid state of the Mongols in Iran began to break up, Abīvard passed under the control of the Mongol Čun Ḡurbānī chiefs under Arḡūn Shah and his successors, who built up a confederation based on Ṭūs, Marv, and the other oasis towns of these steppe fringes (see Barthold, “A History of the Turkman People”, in Four Studies on the History of Central Asia ..., Leiden, 1962, p. 130). In Safavid times, the Ätäk district was under Uzbek control; but in the 18th century it became the starting point for the meteoric rise of Nāder Shah Afšar, who was a native of the region. In 1732 Nāder exiled the leaders and a considerable number of families of the northern Zagros tribe of Zand to Abīvard and Darra-gaz. Here they remained for the next fifteen years, together with others of Nāder’s tribal exiles, to repulse or absorb Turkmen raids on the Ätäk (Nāmī, Tārīḵ-e Gītīgošā, ed. Saʿīd Nafīsī, Tehran, 1317 Š./1938, pp. 4-5). Economically, Abīvard and the whole of Ätäk suffered considerably from the Perso-Turkmen warfare and raiding. Not until after 1885, when the Perso-Russian frontier was delimited and Ätäk incorporated into Russian Central Asia, did a measure of agricultural prosperity belatedly return to the district. In medieval times, Abīvard produced a certain number of scholars and literary men; Samʿānī lists various foqahāʾ and traditionists (Hyderabad, I, pp. 107-08; II, pp. 68-70; s.vv. al-Abīvardī and al-Bāvardī). Especially notable in the literary sphere were the blind poet of the Samanid period, Abū ʿAbdallāh al-Żarīr (Ṯaʿālebī, Yatīma[Cairo] IV, pp. 90-91), and the poet in Arabic of the Saljuq period, Abu’l-Moẓaffar Moḥammad b. Aḥmad Moʿāwī Kūfanī Abīvardī (q.v.; d. 507/1113). The latter was also author of a history of Abīvard, now lost (see Brockelmann, GAL I2, pp. 293-94; S. I, p. 447). Another figure of interest, but of whom unfortunately nothing is known, is Abū Hāšem Bāvardī, mentioned as one of the greatest masters of archery in the technical literature on this topic; see J. D. Latham and W. F. Paterson,Saracen Archery, an English Version and Exposition of a Mamluke Work on Archery (ca. A.D. 1368), London, 1970, p. 39 and passim.

Bibliography: See also: Le Strange, Lands, pp. 394-95. On the antiquities of Abīvard, see A. A. Semenov et al., “Drevnosti Abiverdskogo raĭona,” Acta Universitatis Asiae Mediae, Ser. II. Orientalia, fasc. 3, Tashkent, 1931. (C. E. Bosworth) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 218-219 Cite this entry: C. E. Bosworth, “Abivard,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 218-219; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abivard-a-town-in-medieval- northern-khorasan (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ABĪVARDĪ, ABU’L-MOẒAFFAR L. A. GIFFEN poet, historian, and writer on genealogy (d. 1113). ABĪVARDĪ, ABU’L-MOẒAFFAR poet, historian, and writer on genealogy (d. 1113).

ABĪVARDĪ, ABUʾL-MOẒAFFAR MOḤAMMAD B. ABU’L-ʿABBĀS AḤMAD B. MOḤAMMAD AL-MOʿĀWĪ AL-KŪFANĪ, poet, historian, and writer on genealogy, died from poison at Isfahan, 507/1113. Abīvardī, as he was usually known, was born into a distinguished family of Kūfan, a small town near Abīvard in Khorasan (not “Kawfan” as in EI2 I, s.v. Abīwardī; see Yāqūt (Beirut) IV, pp. 321-22, s.v. Kūfan, where the vowels are spelled). Abīvardī was a descendant of ʿAnbasa b. Abū Sofyān through the line of Moʿāvīa II. From the preface to one of his qaṣīdas we learn that an uncle in Kūfan was the ḵaṭīb of the mosque, with all the implied status, and that one of their forefathers erected the third menbar there (see Dīvān al-Abīwardī, ed. ʿOmar al-Asʿad, Damascus, 1394/1974, I, pp. 12, 545). In his youth Abīvardī left for Baghdad, where he succeeded in meeting some of the most powerful or prominent persons of the time and gained their patronage with his gifts as a poet. Among them were the caliph al- Moqtadī (r. 467-87/1075-94), his son the caliph al-Mostaẓher (r. 487- 512/1094-1118), the Saljuq vizier Neẓām-al-molk (408-85/1018-92), his sons the viziers ʿObaydallāh and Aḥmad, and the Saljuq sultans Malekšāh and his son Moḥammad. He became quite wealthy in the service of the vizier Moʾayyed-al-molk b. Neẓām-al-molk. After an incident which caused him to flee the capital to Hamadān, in danger for his life, he returned in favor to the capital. There he was appointed to succeed Qāżī Abū Yūsof Yaʿqūb Esfarāyenī (d. 498/1104-05) as head of the Neẓāmīya Library at Baghdad. Near the end of his life he settled in Isfahan, where he was vālī al-ešrāf. Sultan Moḥammad b. Malekšāh, for what motives it is not known, poisoned him in Isfahan as he stood in his presence, according to Yāqūt (Odabāʾ VII, Cairo, 1936, p. 238), who derived the information from ʿEmād Eṣfahānī. Evidence dating his earliest poems leads to the conclusion that he had been born about 457/1064-65 and therefore was only about fifty when he died on 20 Rabīʿ I 507/9 May 1113 (Dīvān al-Abīwardī I, pp. 12-14). The published editions of Ebn Ḵallekān give his death date as 557/1161- 62. Since this is the death date of another Abīvardī whose name is similar in several of its components, Abu’l-Moẓaffar Ṣadr-al-dīn Moḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Esḥāq al-Omavī, a Shafeʿite faqīh, modern bibliographers remarked that Ebn Ḵallekān had confused them. Now there is evidence that the date 557 in Ebn Ḵallekān was a copyist’s error and not original, since Ebn al-ʿEmād (Šaḏarāt al-ḏahab IV, Cairo, 1350- 51, p. 20), whose information comes from Ebn Ḵallekān, gives the year as 507. In addition, brief biographical notices on Abīvardī found in British Museum and Leiden MSS of Abīvardī’s ʿErāqīyāt poems, said also to derive from Ebn Ḵallekān, give his death date as 507 (Dīvān al- Abīvardī I, pp. 20-21). The statement in Ebn Ḵallekān, repeated by others, which asserts that “he divided the dīvān of his poetry into several parts, among which are the Naǰdīyāt, theʿErāqīyāt, the Waǰdīyāt, and others” has been accepted at face value (as in EI2, loc. cit.). However, a study and comparison of numerous manuscripts of his poetry found in Cairo, Istanbul, Paris, the Escurial, London, Leiden, Oxford, Tübingen, and Hyderabad made during the preparation of an edition of his dīvān by ʿOmar al-Asʿad (2 vols., Damascus, 1394-95/1974-75, published with extensive introduction,apparatus criticus, and voweled text) reveals that the entirety of Abīvardī’s poetry is encompassed by the collections entitled al- ʿErāqīyāt and al-Naǰdīyāt. A dīvānarranged according to the alphabetical order of the rhyming letter was published in Lebanon in 1317/1899-1900; it erroneously included poems by al Ḡazzī. These have been eliminated in the al-Asʿad edition which is intended to be definitive. Among the philological and historical-genealogical work attributed to Abīvardī is aTaʾrīḵ Abīward wa Nesā and three treatises on genealogy which may be one and the same work, al-Moḵtalef wa’l-moʾtalef, Mā eḵtalaf wa eʾtalaf men ansāb al-ʿarab, and al-Ansāb. All were thought to be lost (see EI2), but a work said to be by Abīvardī entitled al-Moḵtalef wa’l-moʾtalef has been published together with a book of the same title by Ebn al-Ṣābūnī, both edited by Moṣṭafā Javād, Baghdad, 1957. The work Zād al-refaq fi’l-moḥāżarāt has been attributed to the other Abīvardī (see above) by Baḡdatlī Ismail Paşa (Īżāḥ al-maknūn [Keşf-el-zunun zeyli] I, Istanbul, 1945, p. 606) but may be the work of this Abīvardī. Within this work its author mentions two otherwise unknown works of his, Tolūw al-ḥamāsa and Boḡyat al-šādī men ʿelal al-ʿarūż (Dīvān al- Abīwardī I, pp. 16, n. 5; 17, ns. 3, 4).

Bibliography: Samʿānī, Ansāb (Leiden), “al-Moʿāwī,” p. 535. Ebn al-Jawzī, Montaẓam IX, Hyderabad, 1359/1940, pp. 176-77. ʿEmād Eṣfahānī, Ḵarīdat al-qaṣr I, Baghdad, 1955, pp. 106-07. Yāqūt, Odabāʾ VI, pp. 341-58. Ebn Aṯīr, X, Beirut, 1386/1966, pp. 284-85, 500. Idem, Lobāb III, Cairo, 1357-69/1938-49, pp. 154-55. Qefṭī, Enbāh al-rowāt III, Cairo, 1950-55, pp. 49-52. Idem, Aḵbār al-Moḥammadīn men al-šoʿarāʾ, Riyadh, 1390/1970, pp. 46- 48. Sebṭ b. al-Jawzī, Merʾāt al-zamān VII, Hyderabad, 1951, p. 47 (not seen). Ebn al-Sāʿī Baḡdādī, Moḵtaṣar aḵbār al-ḵolafāʾ, Cairo, 1309/1891-92, pp. 93-94 (not seen). Ebn Ḵallekān (Beirut), IV, pp. 444-49, no. 674. Abu’l-Fedāʾ, Moḵtaṣar II, Cairo, 1905, repr. Baghdad, 1968(?), p. 227. Ḏahabī, ʿEbar IV, Kuwait, 1963, p. 14. Ebn al-Vardī, Taʾrīḵ II, Naǰaf, 1389/1969, p. 31. Ṣafadī, Wāfī II, Istanbul, 1949, pp. 91-93, no. 409. Yāfeʿī, Merʾāt al-Jenān III, Hyderabad, 1338/1919-20, repr. Beirut, 1390/1970, p. 196 (cited by al-Asʿad, Dīvān I, p. 8). Sobkī, Ṭabaqāt2 IV, pp. 62-63. Ebn Kaṯīr, Bedāya XII, Cairo, 1932-39, p. 176. Ebn Taḡrīberdī, V, pp. 206-07. Soyūṭī, Taʾrīḵ al-ḵolafāʾ, Cairo, 1964, pp. 427-28. Idem, Boḡya I, Cairo, 1964-65, pp. 40-41, no. 65. Ebn al-ʿEmād, Šaḏarāt al-ḏahab IV, Cairo, 1350-51, pp. 18-20. Ḵᵛānsārī, Rawżat al-ǰannāt, lith., Tehran, 1947, pp. 694-95. Bağdatli Ismail Paşa, Hadīyat al-ʿārefīn II, Istanbul, 1955, pp. 81-82. ʿĀmelī, Aʿyān al-šīʿa XLIII, Damascus, 1938, pp. 261-62 (cited by al- Asʿad, Dīvān I, p. 9). Āḡā Bozorg Tehrānī, Moṣaffaʾ l-maqāl, Tehran(?), 1959, pp. 389-90. ʿAbd-al-Vahhāb ʿAẓẓām, Maǰallat al-resālāt, Cairo, IX, pp. 859-61, 888- 90 (cited by al-Asʿad, Dīvān I, p. 9). Brockelmann, GAL I, p. 253; S. I, p. 447. Ali Al Tahir, “La Poésie sous les Seljoukides,” Sorbonne thesis, 1953 (contains a critical study of Abīvardī’s poetry). (L. A. Giffen) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 219-221 Cite this entry: L. A. Giffen, “Abivardi, Abu'l-Mozaffar,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 219-221; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abivardi-abul-mozaffar-poet- historian-and-writer-on-genealogy-d-1113 (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………..

* ABĪVARDĪ, ḤOSĀM-AL-DĪN L. A. GIFFEN jurisconsult, mathematician and logician (d. 1413).

ABĪVARDĪ, ḤOSĀM-AL-DĪN jurisconsult, mathematician and logician (d. 1413).

ABĪVARDĪ, ABŪ MOḤAMMAD ḤOSĀM-AL-DĪN ḤASAN B. ʿALĪ B. ḤASAN, much traveled Shafeʿite jurisconsult, mathematician and logician, born 761/1360, died 816/1413. Ḥosām-al-dīn was born and reared in Abīvard in Khorasan, where his grandfather had come to settle from Saraḵs. Both Ḥosām-al-dīn and his father had reputations as eloquent preachers and were nicknamed al- Ḵaṭībī. His father forbade him to study rational sciences, but later relented, and Ḥosām-al-dīn became a disciple of Saʿd-al-dīn Masʿūd b. ʿOmar al-Taftāzānī (q.v., b. 722/1322), the celebrated authority on rhetoric, logic, metaphysics, theology, and law. Ḥosām-al-dīn is one of only two disciples of Taftāzānī mentioned by Ḵᵛānsārī (Rawżāt al-ǰannāt, Tehran, 1947, p. 309). When he was about twenty-two, in 783/1381-82, he traveled to Baghdad, where he studied Islamic law and went on pilgrimage. In 793/1391 he again headed for the holy cities but was unable to complete the journey and stayed in Baghdad to study with certain scholars. He returned to Khorasan in 797/1394-95 and then journeyed to Qazvīn to study, spending time also with Shaikh al-Nūr al-Šālakānī, a Sufi who is known for kašf (unveiling). He studied mathematics and astronomy in Isfahan, and, according to Saḵāvī, also traveled to Bokhara, Samarqand, and Turkestan, and other places. (He may have visited Taftāzānī, who was in Samarqand about 781-812/1379-1409 and died there.) In 814/1411-12, after a pilgrimage, he journeyed south to Zabīd in the Yemen, where the Rasulid Sultan al-Nāṣer received him well and entrusted to him several schools in Taʿezz. (Zabīd had a long tradition as a center of Shafeʿite tradition which has cared for the needs of the Sunni communities continuing among the Zaidis of the Yemen; see EI1 s.v. “Zabīd.”) The newly appointed shaikh had scarcely reached his post in Taʿezz, however, in Jomādā II, 816/1413, when he fell ill and died in a matter of days. Abīvardī wrote a commentary on the commentary by Qoṭb-al-dīn Rāzī (d. 766/1364; Brockelmann, GAL II, p. 209, S. II, p. 293) on Ormavī’s Maṭāleʿ al-anwār fi’l-manṭeq (GAL I, p. 467; S. I, p. 848), a treatise on logic as the title indicates. He was also author of a work entitled Rabīʿ al-ǰenān fi’l-maʿānī wa’l-bayān and other works unnamed.

Bibliography: Saḵāvī, Żawʾ III, Cairo, 1354/1935, pp. 109-10. Soyūṭī, Boḡya I, Cairo, 1964, p. 514 (no. 1010). Ebn al-ʿEmād, Šaḏarāt al-da²hab VII, Cairo, 1351/1932, p. 120. Kašf al-ẓonūn (Istanbul), pp. 833, 1716. (L. A. Giffen) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 221 Cite this entry: L. A. Giffen, “Abivardi, Hosam-Al-Din,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 221; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abivardi-hosam-al-din-jurisconsult- mathematician-and-logician-d-1413 (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………… ..

* ABJAD G. KROTKOFF “alphabet,” a word formed from the first four letters of the Semitic alphabet. This Article Has Images/Tables.

ABJAD “alphabet,” a word formed from the first four letters of the Semitic alphabet.

ABJAD “alphabet,” a word formed from the first four letters of the Semitic alphabet. In particular, it refers to the use of letters as numbers (ḥesāb-e abīad), the numerical values of the letters following the original letter sequence found in the older Semitic alphabets. This sequence, with minor variations, is remarkably stable from the earliest known listings in Ugaritic and Phoenician to Hebrew and Aramaic. Arabic script was developed from the Nabatean variety of Aramaic script; but, due to the coincidence in shape of several letters and their subsequent differentiation by means of diacritical points, the traditional order was replaced by a new one, in which letters with the same basic design were grouped together. The numerical values are shown in Table 1. For the sake of memorization the letters are grouped together in pronounceable, but meaningless, words: abīad havvaz ḥoṭṭ kalaman saʿfaṣ qarašat ṯaḵḵaḏ żaẓaḡ. Because the origin of this order of letters had been forgotten in medieval times, fantastic explanations have since been offered by certain authors (see, e.g., Fehrest, tr. Dodge, I, pp. 6f.). The additional letters of the Persian alphabet (p, č, ž, and g) have no numerical value. Numbers are combined in descending order from right to left: ʾyẓḡ, “1911,” blq “132.” To distinguish numbers from ordinary words a line is often put above the former. With the introduction of Indian numerals, use of the letters gradually declined; it persisted mainly in astronomical tables (zīǰ), in astrological horoscopes, and in death, composition, or regnal chronograms (see below) till the beginning of the modern age. The present use of letters in the abīad sequence for numbering pages in the introductions to books is analogous to the use of Roman numerals in the West. The numerical value of letters is also important in magic squares, talismans and other forms of letter magic (sīmīāʾ; see, e.g., Ebn Ḵaldūn, The Muqaddimah, tr. F. Rosenthal, New York, 1958, III, pp. 171f.). Of symbolic significance may be the numerical value of proper names, as shown by I. Mélikoff, JA 250, 1962, pp. 435-45. As a means to interpret the Word of God and to construct a mystical cosmology, the numerical values of letters were exploited in extreme fashion by the Ḥorūfī sect, which owes its name to the Arabic word for letter (ḥarf, pl. ḥorūf). In the post-classical period it became fashionable to date major events in poetic chronograms (tārīḵ, pl. tavārīḵ); great ingenuity was used to match the value of the letters of part of the last line of a poem (mostly the last hemistich) with the required date. The following examples are taken from an extract of Haft qolzom by Ḡāzī-al-dīn Ḥaydar (given in Rückert, Grammatik, pp. 238, 268). On the death of the Mughal emperor Akbar: Fawt-e Akbar šah az qażā-ye Elāh gašt tārīḵ-e fawt-e Akbar šāh. “The death of Akbar Shah,” through divine decree, became the date of the death of Akbar Shah. The value of the letters of the first three words gives the correct date, 1014/1605. Note that, to achieve this numerical total, šah must be written in shortened form without an alef. As an added difficulty, the date may be given in the form of a riddle (moʿammā). Thus we read on the death of a vizier: Faryād bar ār o gūy tārīḵ faḵr-e vozarāʾ az-īn ǰahān šod. Raise a lament and speak the date: the glory of ministers has gone from this world. Since “raise” also means “take out,” the reader is thus directed to subtract the value of “lament” from the numerical total of the second hemistich: 1525 - 295 = the date 1230. For further examples of chronograms, see Browne, Lit. Hist. Persia III, p 512; D. C. Phillott, Higher Persian Grammar, Calcutta, 1919, p 32-33; and Q. Ahmad, “A Note on the Art of Composing Chronograms,” Islamic Culture 46, 1972, pp. 163-69. The numerical valuation of letters also made it possible to establish numerical equations between terms and entities, e.g., a person’s name and his epithet. For an example in verse, see Browne, Lit. Hist. Persia III, p. 47. See also Ḥesāb-e ǰommal and Mādda tārīḵ.

Bibliography: See also EI2 I, pp. 97-98; and Dehḵoda, s.v. Ḥesāb-e ǰommal, pp. 526-27 and the references given there. (G. Krotkoff) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 221-222 Cite this entry: G. Krotkoff, “Abjad,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 221-222; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abjad (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ABJADĪ M. BAQIR Poetical name of MĪR MOḤAMMAD ESMĀʿĪL KHAN, 18th century south- Indian poet of Persian and Urdu.

ABJADĪ Poetical name of MĪR MOḤAMMAD ESMĀʿĪL KHAN, 18th century south- Indian poet of Persian and Urdu.

ABJADĪ, poetical name of MĪR MOḤAMMAD ESMĀʿĪL KHAN, 18th century south-Indian poet of Persian and Urdu. His was born in Chingleput in Carnatic Payanghat. His father was a resident of Bijapur and the brother-in-law of the famous historian Ferešta (d. ca. 1033/1624). In Chingleput Abīadī received a traditional education in Arabic and Persian. The French had gained a degree of power in south India, and the British also ventured to encroach upon the emperor Awrangzēb’s territories. Abīadī was employed by Navvāb Vālāǰāh (ʿOmdat-al-molk Moḥammad ʿAlī), governor of Arcot (1163-1210/1749- 95), as tutor to his son, Navvāb ʿOmdat-al-omarāʾ (1210-16/1795-1801). Vālāǰāh was the son of the former Arcot governor, Navvāb Anvār-al-dīn Khan Gopamvī, who had been put to death by the French in 1161/1749. Consequently Vālāǰāh allied with the British military forces against the French. Abīadī composed numerous works, including two maṯnavīs which relate to the events of this period: 1. Anvārnāma (Ethé, Cat. Ind. Off., no. 1716), details the life of Navvāb Anvār-al-dīn Khan and summarizes the events of the following reign. The work, completed in 1174/1760-61, pleased Vālāǰāh, who rewarded Abīadī with 6,700 rupees. While the Anvārnāma was in progress, the French and Reżā ʿAlī Khan, the son of Ḥosayn Dōst Khan, a rival of Vālāǰāh, besieged Chennapatan. Vālāǰāh had to leave Trichinopoly by sea to seek reinforcements from the British. On account of the siege, Abīadī experienced great hardships, and it was only after he left Madras in disguise and returned to Trichinopoly that he was able to finish the Anvārnāma. 2.Moʿaẓẓamnāma (Panjab Univ. Lib., Pakistan, Ms. no. pi vi 289; ed. Bošrā Ḵātūn, Panjab Univ. Lib., Ms. thesis no. pe ii 4), commemorates the battle between Prince Moʿaẓẓam and his younger brother, Prince Aʿẓam. After Awrangzēb’s death (1118/1707), Aʿẓam proclaimed himself sovereign of India at Delhi, while Moʿaẓẓam assumed the crown at Kabul. Both brothers resolved to assert their pretension by force of arms. They fought a bloody battle between Dhaulpur and Agra on 8 June 1707; Aʿẓam and his two grown sons, Bīdārbaḵt and Vālāǰāh, were killed. Thus Moʿaẓẓam, surnamed Qoṭb-al- dīn Shah ʿĀlam, succeeded his father with the title of Bahādor Shah I. In the Moʿaẓẓamnāma Abīadī has given an impassioned account of this battle. Vālāǰāh awarded him the title malek-al-šoʿarāʾ in 1189/1775-76, and a few years later, in 1192/1778-79, Abīadī died; he was buried in the courtyard of the Mīlāpūr Maḥalla mosque in Madras. His other works, which have survived in scattered manuscripts are: 3. Dīvān-e rēḵta, his Urdu verses (A. Sprenger, A Catalogue of the . . . Manuscripts of the Libraries of the King of Oudh I, Calcutta, 1854, pp. 307-08; Ind. Off., Hindustani Ms. no. 137). 4. Dīvān-e fārsī (Āṣafīya Library, Hyderabad, Persian Ms. no. 482). 5. Toḥfa le-ṣebyān (see Garcin de Tassy, Histoire de la litterature hindouie et hindoustanie, Paris, 1870-71, pp. 98-99). 6. Zobdat al-afkār. 7. Rāḡeb va marḡūb. 8. Haft ǰawhar. 9. Mavaddatnāma. 10. Maǰmūʿa-ye qaṣāʾed. 11. Šarḥ-e toḥfat al- ʿerāqayn.

Bibliography: Storey, I/1, p. 778. Ethé, Cat. Ind. Off., nos. 501, 2904. Elliot, History of India VIII, pp. 392-93. Sri Ram, Ḵomḵāna-ye ǰāvīd, Lahore, 1908, I, pp. 120-21. Monšī Borhān Khan, Tūzok-e Vālāǰāhī, Ind. Off. Ms. no. 501, fols. 14-17. Muhammad Husayn Nainar, Tūzok-i Wālāǰāhī of Burhān Ibn Ḥasan, Madras, 1934, pp. xxviii-xxxii. Moḥammad Ḡolām Ḡawṯ Khan Aʿẓam, Sobḥ-e vaṭan, Madras, 1258/1842, pp. 27-31. Naṣīr-al-dīn Hāšemī, Madras meñ Ordū, Hyderabad (Deccan), 1938, pp. 29-30. (M. Baqir) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, p. 222 Cite this entry: M. Baqir, “Abjadi,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, p. 222; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abjadi-18th- century-south-indian-poet-of-persian-and-urdu (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ABḴĀZ DZH. GIUNASHVILI (also APSUA, APSNI), ethnic group of the Caucasus.

ABḴĀZ (also APSUA, APSNI), ethnic group of the Caucasus.

ABḴĀZ (also APSUA, APSNI), ethnic group of the Caucasus. The Abkhazian Autonomous Soviet Republic is federated with the Georgian SSR. It comprises 86,000 square km and has a population of 486,900. Its capital city is Sukhumi, the former Sxumi. Abkhazia lies in the western Caucasus by the coast of the Black Sea. Magnificent beaches, subtropical vegetation, tea plantations, tobacco, citrus groves, deep forests, and the peaks of the great Caucasian range serve to give this land great picturesqueness. Development is energetically pursued; there is both mining and a food processing industry. Abkhazia is settled by several peoples. According to the census of 1970, the Abkhazis proper number 77,200; Georgians 199,500; Russians 98,200; the Armenians 74,800. In addition there are Ukrainians, White Russians, Jews, Ossetes, and others. In 1969 the urban population made up 42 percent of the total. Abkhazis are also found in Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and the Kuban. The Abkhazi language is part of the so-called Abkhazi/Adigi or northwest group of languages of the northern Caucasus. Abkhazi is divided into two dialects, Abzhui and Bzib, the former dialect providing the basis for the literary language. The phonetics of Abkhazi is characterized by a paucity of vowels (there being only two, with variations) and a large number of consonants (about seventy). Stress plays a phonological role. Morphologically the language is agglutinative, with a highly developed system of prefixes. Along with a notably simple nominal system Abkhazi presents a particularly complex verbal system. There are two noun cases, a direct (nominative) and an oblique case, fulfilling the functions of the Russian ergative, genitive, dative, and instrumental cases. The verb has person, number, tense, mood, and potential, probable, correlative, and causative categories. Especially complicated is the system of preverbal affixes. The Abkhazi alphabet was first established by the renowned Caucasian linguist P. Uslar in 1862 on the basis of Russian orthography. The first Abkhazi reader came out in 1865 in Tiflis. The Abkhazi people have a rich folklore, consisting of several genres: heroic epic narratives, heroic historical traditions, tales, myths, legends, lyric songs, and aphorisms. The father of Abkhazi written literature is Dmitri Guliya (1874-1960). Folk music is polyphonic; the premier place in Abkhazi musical folklore is taken up by the heroic historical epic. Toward the end of the first century A.D., Abkhazia witnessed the coalescence of several ethno-political groups: the Abazgi, Apsil, and Sanig. Pliny (1st century A.D.) records the existence of Absili, while Arrian (2nd century A.D.) speaks of the Abaschoi. An anonymous Armenian geographer of the 12th century names the Aosil and the Apkhaz. According to Procopius (6th century A.D.), these tribes were dominated by the Laz (Gk. Lazoi). Through most of the six century, the Caucasian coast of the Black Sea was the scene of energetic rivalry between Byzantium and Sasanian Iran. According to the exigencies of the situation, the Laz oscillated between the two powerful opponents. From the 4th century Christianity had began its expansion through Abkhazia, and became the official religion in the first half of the 6th century. This development tended to swing the Laz toward the Byzantines. In the 6th and 7th centuries Abkhazia emerged as a political entity, partially dependent on Byzantium; while the Apsil and the Mismimin were vassals of Lazica (q.v.). In 532 Byzantium and Iran concluded a “permanent peace,” by whose terms Lazica was defined as a Byzantine dependency; east Georgia remained under Iranian rule. By a new treaty in 562 Iran abandoned all claims on Lazica. In the 7th and 8th centuries, the Arabs made persistent and unsuccessful attempts to conquer the coast of the Black Sea. Christian chronicles of the 780s record how the ruler of Abkhazia, Leo II, whose mother was a Khazar princess, united western Georgia and liberated the country from Byzantine rule. In this task he availed himself of aid from the Khazars. Thus there arose in western Georgia a state known as the kingdom of Abkhazia, with its capital first in Anakopia, then in Kutaisi (Kutatisi), which was closer to central Georgia. From this time on, the term Abkhaz came to denote all the territory of western Georgia. “The kings of Abkhazia” in west Georgian and Armenian sources must be understood to mean the rulers of all western Georgia. The 9th and 10th centuries saw the Abkhazi kingdom reach its zenith. The kingdom took an active part in the struggle for the unification of Georgia. In the 10th century, too, Georgian became the dominant language in place of Greek, which had been the language of the west Georgian church in the preceding period. At the end of the 10th century, according to Christian chronicles, the Georgian dynasty of the Bagratids came to power. Although the Abkhazi kingdom continued its formal existence as an independent political entity, in fact it became entirely subordinated to the concept of a united Georgian state, a process of formation which was basically completed by the year 1008. Oriental sources make frequent mention of the Abkhazis. According to Masʿūdī (II, p. 65) the Abkhazis were neighbors of the Alans. Ebn Rosta (al-Aʿlāq al-nafīsa, Leiden, 1892, p. 139) on the other hand defines the location of the Awḡaz as bordering the domains of the Khazars. Abkhazia often comes to denote the whole land of Georgia. Ebn al-Azraq al-Fāreqī (“Caucasia in the History of the Mayyafariqin,” BSOAS 42, 1949, p. 31) calls the Georgian King David (“the Founder,” 482- 519/1089-1125) “king of Abkhaz and the Georgians.” Ebn Esfandīār (pp. 132, 152) calls Tāmār (580-608/1184-1212) both “queen of Tiflis and Abkhazia” and “queen of Abkhazia.” A letter from Queen Tāmār to one of the Muslim monarchs (ed. M. Yūnesī, Rawżat al-kottāb, Tabrīz, 1970, p. XVII), written in either 1185 or 1190, bears the name “Abkhazi book of oaths.” According to Yāqūt (I, p. 78) Abkhazia was a land settled by Christian folk who called themselves al-Korǰ. Neẓāmī Ganǰavī relates that Abkhazia and Darband were the scenes of the atabeg Eldigüz’s hunting expeditions. Ḵāqānī explains how, “out of love for a lovely and fair-haired one I settled in Abkhazia and spoke the Georgian language.” In Iran the prowess of the Abkhazi warriors was highly regarded, and they were considered as equals to both the soldiers of Daylam and Khorasan (Sīāsatnāma, Tehran, 1340 Š./1961, chap. 24). In this connection the testimony of Asadī Ṭūsī is interesting: “Tamūk,” he reports, “is an arrow which was originally Abkhazi and is now produced everywhere” (Loḡat-e fors, ed. Dabīrsīāqi, p. 102). Cf. Faḵr-al-dīn Gorgānī’s Vīs o Rāmūn, Tehran, 1350 Š./1971, p. 326), who, speaking of the virtues of the beautiful Gol, says: “She affects an archer of Abkhazia in her eyes, and a scorpion of Ahvāz in her tresses.” In the reign of Queen Tāmār the feudal clan of the Shervashidze rose to the leadership of the Sukhum aristocracy; and by the beginning of the 14th century, the Christian chronicles report, they ruled the feudal kingdom of Abkhazia. In 637/1240 the Mongols conquered all of eastern Georgia, and from this period there began the long process of the breakdown of Georgian unity, first into two states, and then into more numerous, smaller entities. The Christian chronicles relate that, in the course of the 16th century, Abkhazia had fallen into vassal dependency on the Megrel princedom. From the first half of the 16th century the Abkhazi princedom, along with all of western Georgia, became a dependency of the Ottoman Turks. The legal basis of this situation was reflected in the treaty, concluded in 1555 between the Ottomans and the Iranians, by which western Georgia and all its feudal dependencies (Megrelia, Guria, Abkhazia) fell into the hands of the Turks. Eastern Georgia remained under the influence of Safavid Iran. Turkish authority entailed a retaining of jurisdiction at the lowest levels, a breaking up of historically evolved, independent entities and restraints on the material and religious life of the people, especially with a view towards strengthening the position of Islam. Resistance to the political status quo often took the form of armed revolts, as in 1725, 1728, 1733, 1771, and 1806. Political fragmentation, feudal internecine disorders, the slave trade, and Turkish expansionism brought the Abkhazi people to the brink of national destruction. Under these conditions the only realistic possibility of relief from the threat of full ethnic disintegration seemed to be in union with the Russian state. This possibility coincided with the interests and intentions of Russia. In 1770 Prince Levan Shervashidze (Chachva) initiated discussions with General Totleben, the representative of Empress Catherine II to Georgia, concerning Abkhazia’s acceptance of a Russian protectorate. These discussions concluded without result. In the summer of 1218/1803 the ruler of Abkhazia, Kelesh Bey Shervashidze (Chachba), asked to be taken into Russian service. Russian diplomacy, surveying the international situation of this time, had to exercise great caution in its relations with the ruler of Abkhazia, since he was considered a vassal of the Ottoman sultan. The sultan, for his part, organized a conspiracy of disaffected feudal chiefs against the prince; and he was assassinated in 1808. The instigator of the deed was Kelesh Bey’s own son, Aslan Bey. Kelesh Bey was succeeded by Georgiĭ (Safar Bey), who entered into close contact with Russia; in 1810 his request for a protectorate was granted. Czar Alexander I gave him a charter by which Georgiĭ entered into the perpetual protection of the Russian empire, while retaining the right to rule his princedom in accordance with local laws and customs. However, in terms of the goals of providing a unified administrative government for the whole of the Caucasus, the difficulties of indirect rule soon became obvious. Direct Russian rule in Abkhazia was finally introduced at the end of the Caucasian campaign of 1281/1864. Union of Abkhazia with Russia brought the agriculture of the region into a new burst of economic development; Abkhazia gradually entered the inter-Russian agricultural system and the world-wide commodity markets. In the 1830s and 1840s the Christian chronicles report how the Abkhazis were attempting various industrial undertakings, the building of roads, a wider distribution of village agricultural products, especially wine and corn, and experiments with tobacco cultivation. But, in partnership with the local feudal lords, Czarist colonial power aroused the dissatisfaction of the masses. Peasant uprisings often tried to exploit the hostility against Russian nationals among some of the local population dominated by the pro-Turkish faction. The most severe revolt occurred in 1866, the most direct cause of which was the attempts by the government to force the peasants to buy their own land from the landlords. The revolt was brutally suppressed. In 1870 peasant rights were promulgated. A number of survivors of the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 were expelled to Turkey. In 1921 Abkhazia came under Soviet control.

Bibliography: I. G. Antelava, Ocherki po istorii Abkhazii XVII-XVIII vekov, Sukhumi, 1951. V. Z. Ancabadze, Iz istorii srednevekovoĭ Abkhazii (VI-XVII vv.), Sukhumi, 1959. Idem, Istoriya i kul’tura drevneĭ Abkhazii, Moscow, 1964. V. V. Bartol’d, “Abkhazy,” Sochineniya II/1, 1963, pp. 861-65. G. A. Dzidzariya, Vosstanie 1866 goda v Abkhazii, Sukhumi, 1955. Idem, Narodnoe khozyaĭstvo i sotsial’nye otnosheniya v Abkhazii v XIX veke, Sukhumi, 1958. Idem, Prisoedinenie Abkhazii k Rossii i ego istoricheskoe znachenie, Sukhumi, 1960. Idem, Ocherki istorii Abkhazii (1910-1921), Tbilisi, 1963. S. D. Inal-Ipa, Abkhazy (istoriko-etnograficheskie ocherki), Sukhumi, 1965. Idem, Stranitsy istoricheskoĭ etnografii abkhazov, Sukhumi, 1971. D. I. Kobidze, “Znachenie termina ʿabkhazʾ po persidskim istochnikam,” Mnatobi, 1957, pp. 126-28 (in Georgian). EI2 I, pp. 100-02. (Dzh. Giunashvili) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 15, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2, pp. 222-224 Cite this entry: Dzh. Giunashvili, “Abkaz,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 222-224; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abkaz (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. * ABLUTION, ISLAMIC I. K. POONAWALA (vożūʾ), the minor ritual purification performed before prayers.

ABLUTION, ISLAMIC (vożūʾ), the minor ritual purification performed before prayers.

ABLUTION, ISLAMIC (vożūʾ), the minor ritual purification performed before prayers, circumambulation of the Kaʿba, recitation of the Koran, and the prostration expressing gratitude after reciting the Koran. According to the Koranic injunction which states “O you who believe! When you stand up for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet up to the ankles. And if you are unclean, purify yourselves” (Koran 5:6), ablution is a prerequisite to performing the prayers. Its importance is also stressed in the Traditions (aḥādīṯ). A Tradition states that being purified is half of faith. Another says that prayer without purification will not be accepted. Although details vary with different schools of jurisprudence, the ablution is generally performed in the following order: The worshipper first washes his hands three times before dipping them in the vessel placed on his right side. He then rinses his mouth three times, pouring the water into it with his right hand. Preferably, he cleans his teeth with a tooth- stick or brush with the index finger and the thumb. Then he brings water to his nostrils with the left hand, snuffing it up and blowing it out three times. Then, holding water in both hands, he washes his face from the top of the forehead to the chin and as far as each ear three times. If he has a beard, he combs it with the wet fingers. Next, he washes his right hand and the forearm up to the elbow three times, causing water to run along his arm from the palm of the hand to the elbow. In the same way he washes the left. Then he draws his moistened fingers over the top of his head, proceeding from the center to the front and from the center to the back. He puts the tips of his forefingers into his ears and twists them round, passing his thumbs at the same time round the back of the ears from the bottom upwards. Next he wipes his neck with the fingers of both hands, making the ends of his fingers meet behind his neck and then drawing them forward. Lastly he either wipes or washes (thrice) his feet, starting with the right, from the toes up to the ankles. During the ceremony he recites certain formulae with each act. Before beginning the ablution he must formulate the intention (nīya) of performing it, and must follow the exact order mentioned above. According to the Koranic command, the essential elements of ablution are four: washing the face, washing the hands and the forearms up to the elbows, rubbing the wet hands on the head, and either rubbing (if one reads arǰolekum) or washing (if one reads arǰolakum) the feet up to the ankles. The Sunnites, Kharijites, and Zaydīs wash their feet, whereas both the Emāmī and the Ismaʿili Shiʿites rub them, which seems closer to the literal meaning of the Koran. For cleanliness the Ismaʿilis and the Emāmīs recommend washing the feet either before or after the ablution, but they insist that it is neither obligatory nor part of the ablution. All acts in addition to the four requisite elements of ablution are considered recommended by the sunna (custom). Rubbing is done once, but washing is done more than once. A single washing is obligatory. The Sunnites and the Ismaʿilis regard washing thrice as the sunna. The Emāmīs , on the other hand, regard washing twice as the sunna. Moreover, the Emāmīs consider wiping the ears an innovation (beḍʿa). The sunna recommends that the ablution be performed thoroughly, with plentiful water. For each washing of the face and the hands, a handful of fresh water is used; but for rubbing, new water is not necessary. The ritual must be performed without interruption. If one is interrupted long enough for the water of the last washed limb to dry, one should start from the beginning. Wiping dry with a cloth after completing the ablution is allowed, but it is recommended that the skin be left to air-dry. When suitable water cannot be procured, or washing with the water might be injurious because of illness or injury, it is permitted to perform the tayammom(q.v.), rubbing the face and hands with fine clean dust or sand. Washing of the whole body, known as ḡosl, is necessary after major ritual pollution. The water used for ablution must conform to rules regarding its purity. The details are discussed s.v. Āb “water.” The Koranic text, taken literally, prescribes ablution before each prayer. The Ẓāherī school maintained this to be obligatory, whereas all the four Sunnite schools of jurisprudence maintain that the ablution need not be performed before each prayer if the person has avoided every kind of impurity since the last ablution. Thus a single ablution alone is obligatory, and it is valid for all five prescribed daily prayers so long as the state of ritual purity is not invalidated by an action which requires ablution. The Shiʿites concur with the Sunnite position, but advocate that performing ablution before every prayer is indeed commendable. The Sunnites and the Shiʿites disagree over the practice of wiping of the shoes (masḥ ʿala’l-ḵoffayn). According to all the Sunnite schools and the Ẓāherīs, a man at his permanent abode is permitted, once a day (and if he is on journey, thrice in three days), to rub his foot-covering instead of washing the feet during the ablution, if the feet when covered were washed properly and the shoes are clean, impermeable, and fit tightly. This wiping of the foot-covering is not permitted by the Shiʿites and the Kharijites. The Emāmīs allow it only under duress (i.e. by taqīya), and in circumstances where there is a threat to life from an enemy, wild beasts, or extreme cold. The Ismaʿilis, on the other hand, permit it, not under duress, but only under the following two conditions: when a person has a valid reason preventing him from washing his feet with water, as when he wipes over splints and bandages; and when a person renews the ablution out of devotion without invalidating the state of purity acquired by a previous ablution. The state of ceremonial purity attained by the ablution is annulled by minor impurities (ḥadaṯ). Opinions vary widely as to what causes minor impurity. In general, relieving nature (breaking wind, urination, and excretion), loss of consciousness, and sleep (apart from dosing while sitting) produce minor impurities, making ablution indispensable. According to the Shiʿites and the Hanafites, kissing and touching of the other sex does not invalidate the ablution, but according to the Shafeʿites touching the skin of the other sex, unless the worshippers are related in a way that prohibits marriage, does invalidate it. The Malikites and the Hanbalites maintain that only passionate and sensuous touching invalidates the ablution. The Ẓāherīs, on the other hand, maintain that any contact of a man with a strange female, even a baby girl an hour old, invalidates the ablution. The performance of ablution is highly extolled in the Traditions. The Prophet is reported as saying, “He who performs the ablution thoroughly will extract all sin from his body, even though it may be lurking under his fingernails.” Another Tradition says, “The key of paradise is prayer, and the key of prayer is being purified.” The Messenger of God is also reported as saying, “My people will be summoned on the Day of Resurrection with white faces and hands and feet from the marks of ablution. If any of you can extend his brightness, let him do so.”

Bibliography: Šaybānī, Ketāb al-aṣl, ed. Afḡānī, Hyderabad, 1966, I, pp. 2-78, 88-103. Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, ed. M. Šāker, Cairo, 1957, X, pp. 7-81. Qāżī Noʿmān, Daʿāʾem al-eslām, ed. Fyzee, Cairo, 1963, I, pp. 99-110. Ṭūsī, Tahḏīb al-aḥkām, ed. S. H. al-Mūsavī al-Ḵorsān, I, Naǰaf, 1378/1959, pp. 5-23, 52-103. Idem, al-Nehāya fī moǰarrad al-feqh wa’l-fatāwā, Beirut, 1970, pp. 9-19. Ṭabresī, Maǰmaʿ al-bayān, ed. Maḥallātī and Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Tehran, 1379/1959-60, III, pp. 163-67. Šaʿrānī, Ketāb al-mīzān, Cairo, 1932, I, pp. 109-20, 126-28. Ḥellī, Šarāʾeʿ al-eslām, ed. ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn, Naǰaf, 1969, pp. 17-25. Idem, al-Moḵtaṣar al-nāfeʿ, Naǰaf, 1964, pp. 29-32. Tabrīzī, Meškāt al-maṣābīḥ, ed. M. Albānī, Damascus, 1961-62, I, pp. 93-163; tr. James Robson, Lahore, 1963, I, pp. 64-104. M. Maḡnīya, al-Feqh ʿalā al-maḏāheb al-ḵamsa, Beirut, 1967, pp. 32-45. S. Sābeq, Feqh al-sonna, Beirut, 1969, pp. 41-64. EI1, s.v. Wuḍūʾ. (I. K. Poonawala) Originally Published: December 15, 1982 Last Updated: July 19, 2011 This article is available in print. Vol. I, Fasc. 2-3, pp. 224-226 Cite this entry: I. K. Poonawala, “Ablution, Islamic,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/2, pp. 224- 226; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ablution-islamic-vozu-the-minor- ritual-purification-performed-before-prayers (accessed on 25 January 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….

* ABLUTION, ZOROASTRIAN CROSS-REFERENCE See PADYĀB.

ABLUTION, ZOROASTRIAN See PADYĀB.

(Cross-Reference) Originally Published: December 15, 1983 …………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………