Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan: Shiʿite Feqh Meeting Social Reality

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 ASPS brill.com/jps

Thou Shalt Not Enter the Bazaar on Rainy Days! Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan: Shiʿite Feqh Meeting Social Reality

Sarah Kiyanrad University of Heidelberg [email protected]

Abstract

Many Muslim and non-Muslim merchants from East and West were attracted to Safavid Isfahan, the new “center of the world,” a city that also played host to its own mercantile communities, among them many zemmi traders—Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. As representatives of the newly-established Twelver Shiʿite theology, Safavid religious scholars felt the need to offer commentary on evolving issues on a theoretical level, sometimes writing not in Arabic but in New Persian. How did they regard the activities of zemmi merchants? Were zemmi traders subject to religiously-motivated restrictions? Or did they, on the other hand, enjoy exclusive rights? While my paper focusses on these questions, it will also compare the legal opinions of selected Safavid foqahāʾ on the social reality as reflected in travelogues and through historiography.

Keywords

Safavids – Isfahan – Shiʿite feqh – trade – non-Muslim merchants – zemmis

Isfahan, the Safavid capital from 1598 until its fall in 1722, was a melting pot of people, cultures, and religions. In addition to foreign travelers who had been attracted to the city, Iran was home to its own religious minorities, prominently

* I am greatly indebted to Professor Rudolph P. Matthee, who read an earlier draft of the manu- script and offered many valuable comments. He furthermore provided me with his unpublished, very helpful article about the “Confessions of an Armenian convert.” Of course, all remaining errors are mine.

Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, all of whom were considered zemmis. The Christian Armenians made their living primarily as merchants and, to a lesser extent, this was also true of the Jews and Zoroastrians. This paper will examine and limit itself to these groups of zemmis.1 In the following paper, I will investigate selected works of Safavid feqh con- taining rules for and views of zemmis, focusing especially on those regulations which possibly affected zemmi merchants. These authors should be considered as prominent and influential Shiʿite scholars in the Safavid era: Bahāʾ al‐Din Mohammad b. Hoseyn al‐ʿĀmeli, better known as Sheykh Bahāʾi (1547–1621) who wrote the Jāmeʿ-e ʿAbbāsi, Mohammad-Taqi Majlesi (1594/95–1659/60), renowned for his Ahkām-e ahl-e zemma, and his son Mohammad-Bāqer Majlesi (1627–1699) with his Savāʾeq al-yahud. The questions I will consider include: what were the most important points regarding trading with zemmis? Do the authors share a common view on this issue, even though it is well known that, for example, Mohammad-Bāqer Majlesi harshly criticized Sheykh Bahāʾi, calling him a Sufi (considered an af- front)? Were zemmi traders subject to restrictions in terms of their commodities, their trading partners, or their trading places and times? On the other hand, did zemmi merchants enjoy exclusive rights? As feqh does not necessarily mirror social reality,2 the findings will then be compared to the social reality experienced by zemmi merchants in Isfahan every day (as reflected in travelogues and Safavid historiography). More than two centuries of Safavid rule cannot be regarded as a monolithic bloc. As such, I will specifically focus on the second half of Safavid rule from Shah ʿAbbās I (r. 1587–1629) onwards, when Isfahan was Iran’s capital and a new generation of foqahāʾ, often trained by immigrant scholars, started gain- ing power. Admittedly, even within this generation, diverging opinions can be observed. Majlesi the father, for example, should be considered as a traditional- ist Akhbāri ʿālem, but with a certain sympathy for Sufism, unlike the divergent opinions of his rationalist Osuli collegues.3 Sheykh Bahāʾi represents a rather

1 As non-Muslim Indian merchants in Isfahan were also obliged to pay a form of jezya (usually translated as “poll-tax”), one may argue that they could also be regarded as zemmi merchants. I decided to not include them in my investigation and provide instead references for further reading: Das Gupta 1979; Dale 1994; Levi 1999; idem 2002; idem 2007; Markovits 2000; Matthee 2000a, 246–248. In addition to Armenians, there were also other zemmi Christians (Georgians, Syrians, Chaldeans) which I will not treat here. 2 While many researchers are skeptical of the correspondence between Islamic law and practice in the medieval Islamic world, Udovitch (1970, 254), for example, argues that Hanafi law also mirrors customary practice. 3 “Akhbāri” refers to those Shiʿite ʿolemā who only accept the Qurʾan and the sunna as a source of law; they especially reject the possibility that certain ʿolemā (mojtaheds) can reach answers

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:11:28PM via free access 160 Kiyanrad

“unorthodox” point of view, his legacy being influenced by what is referred to as Sufi thought. Majlesi the son, being a strong opponent of Sufism and Sunnis, obviously tried to avoid siding too much with either Akhbāris or Osulis. While any encompassing study of opinions on zemmis/zemmi merchants in Safavid feqh would have to consider an enormous number of sources (see Moreen 1992, 178), the three selected olemāʾ and the samples of their works treated here can be regarded as a small, though not unimportant, part of a complex puzzle.

Armenian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Merchants in Safavid Isfahan

While the Armenian merchant community of Isfahan and its activities are quite well studied,4 the lack of (edited) sources and the modest information available in sources might be due to the fact that information on Jewish and Zoroastrian merchants in Isfahan is scarce. The rather low involvement, at least in comparison to the Armenians, of Jews and Zoroastrians in trade might be another factor. Armenians had established themselves as skilled silk merchants during the 15th and 16th centuries, exporting Iranian silk to the Mediterranean (Herzig 1996, 308). Their trade network soon expanded and Armenians could be found dwelling in all of the important trade centers across the world. Safavid shahs soon understood the importance of the Armenian merchants, especially for the trade of Iranian silk; both Tahmāsp I (r. 1514–1576) and Mohammad Khodābanda (r. 1532–1595) made use of them, granting freedom of trade and other privileges to some Armenian merchants (Eskandar Beg Monshi, I, 217; Herzig 1996, 315; Gregorian, 660). The same applies for Shāh ʿAbbās I who, in 1604, ultimately ordered the Armenian community of Julfa to be resettled to Isfahan—economic considerations apparently being the main reason for this. The resettlement of the Armenians, not only those from Julfa, was carried out in several stages; it seems that about 3,000 families were transferred to Isfahan (Jonābādi, 776; Eskandar Beg Monshi, II, 666, 680; Carmelites 1939, I, 99–100). Before the construction of their new quarter, later known as New Julfa, was

to religious questions and thus new prescriptions by reasoning (ejtehād), while Osulis favor this option. On the distinction between Akhbāris and Osulis, see Newman 1992a; idem, 1992b. Newman also offers numerous further bibliographical references. 4 See, for example, Herzig 1991; idem 1993; idem 1996; Aslanian 2007; idem 2008; idem 2011; Aghassian and Kévonian; Matthee 1999; Baghdiantz McCabe. For are detailed study of “Minority Religions in Medieval and Early Modern Iran,” see Khanbaghi.

Journal of persianateDownloaded studies from 10 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 158–185 01:11:28PM via free access Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan 161 completed, the Isfahani Armenians dwelled in the gach-kunān caravansary (Tēr Hovhaneantsʿ, 44). Probably only rich Armenian merchants were transferred permanently to New Julfa, while others were dispersed between different caravansaries and quarters of Isfahan (Pereira de Lacerda, 119; Bournoutian 1994, II, 30). The Armenians of New Julfa enjoyed religious freedom and were allowed to build their own churches. In 1619, New Julfa was granted to some rich Armenian merchants. It should be added that ʿAbbās II (r. 1642–1666) had settled another wave of Armenians from Yerevan and Nakhchivan in New Julfa (more precisely, close to it) (Aslanian 2011, 39); they were apparently not as rich as their counterparts originating from Julfa (Chardin, VIII, 102–103). After this measure, New Julfa hosted around 20,000 inhabitants. Of the other settlements of Armenian merchants in Isfahan, the Nakhjavāniyān caravansary, the Jolfā caravansary, the Jedda caravansary, and the neighborhoods Sheykh Bannā, Shamsābād, and ʿAbbāsābād are worth mentioning (Homāʾi, 338; Chardin, VII, 326, 367; “Kārvānsarāy-e Esfahān,” 276–277; Falsafi 1963–1985, III, 207; Blow, 200). Armenian merchants traded their goods either in these caravansaries, at home, or in stores located in New Julfa or the city center (Abgar, 114; Tavernier, I, 445; “Kārvānsarāy-e Esfahān,” 276–277; Tēr Hovhaneantsʿ, 124). The range of products they sold encompassed European goods, such as clothes and fabrics, glass, telescopes, and watches (Tavernier, I, 467; Falsafi 1963–1985, III, 216; Aslanian 2004, 2). As Tavernier reports (I, 426), some Armenians would even sell turkeys from Venice. Apart from this, the cash they brought back with them was of great importance for the Safavid economy (Matthee 2000a, 233; see also Floor and Clawson). The history of Isfahan is inextricably linked to the history of Iranian Jewry. Originally consisting of two close cities, i.e. Jay (or Shahr/Shahrestān) and Yahudiyya (in the north-east of the old meydān), from the fourth century on these two settlements merged into one city which then grew. The legend goes that Jews from Jerusalem exiled from their homeland by Nebuchadnezzar II came to Iran, where they founded Yahudiyya in a space climatically resem- bling Jerusalem (Bāfqi, 81). According to some sources, the city was still called dār al-yahud during the rule of the Safavids (Nāji, 127), but given the persecutions, the population must have decreased. There is no doubt that Jews experienced hard times in Safavid Iran. Iranian foreign commerce, in which Jews had played an important role for centuries, was almost completely seized from them (Loeb, 81).5 Instead, they engaged in small-scale trade, mostly on a local

5 In 1636, Olearius (374) reports on a Jewish merchant engaged in long-distance trade between India and the Ottoman Empire.

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:11:28PM via free access 162 Kiyanrad level (according to Tavernier [I, 670], domestic trade was largely controlled by Muslim and Jewish Iranians)6 and money-lending. Some Isfahani Jews grew rich from the latter occupation, as Fryer reports (263), but it seems that, over time, Indian merchants increasingly replaced them as money-lenders (Sherley, Sherley, and Sherley, 95; Chardin, VI, 134; Blow, 202).7 In general, the Jewish population of Safavid Isfahan was rather poor (Chardin, VII, 442).8 They lived in the city center, in a neighborhood called Jobārā, which hosted three synagogues (Quiring-Zoche, 207). Since the time of ʿAbbās I, non-Isfahani Jewish merchants (many of them from Shirāz) coming to the city had been obliged to settle in the Jārchi caravansary, located in the royal bazaar, opposite the caravansary of the merchants from Qazvin. Among the goods they offered were cinnamon, coffee, pepper, and gems (“Kārvānsarāy-e Esfahān,” 268–269; Keyvani, 129; Blake, 123). Information on Zoroastrians in general, and Zoroastrian merchants in Isfahan in particular, is scarce. It appears they were impoverished; living mostly in Hasanābād, south of Zāyandarud, and in Najafābād; very few worked as merchants (Valeh Esfahāni, 632; Fryer, 265; Chardin, III, 337; Awshidari, 85; Blow, 200; Quiring-Zoche, 207).9 However, we are aware of a caravansary located within the central bazaar called “kārvānsarā-ye gabrhā (the caravansary of the Zoroastrians)” (Homāʾi, 338). In short, one can find (zemmi) merchants among all three groups, Armenians, Jews, and Zoroastrians, but the range of their activities, their social struc- ture, social standing and scope of action was markedly differed. This had, as we will see, a remarkable impact on the possibilities of (collective) self-defense against religiously or politically motivated restrictions and pressure.

6 It also seems that Jews were active in the trade of goods between the Persian Gulf and Isfahan. Thanks to a chronicle (Bābāi b. Farhād, 160) we are aware of some names of late- Safavid Hamadāni Jewish merchants. 7 However, Moreen (1987, 151) states that “We have no evidence to proof that Jews were large- scale moneylenders in Iran before the Bāniāns took over that profession.” 8 This does not necessarily apply to Jews in other Iranian cities; as Matthee has shown (2000b, 242–245), Jewish merchants did quite prosperous trade in other cities and sometimes even participated in long-distance trade. 9 Ghereghlou (46) recently argues that “the maltreatment of Zoroastrians had little to do with religious bigotry but was rather because, under the Safavids, the administration of their fiscal affairs had become a major bone of contention between those at the helm of Safavid bureau- crats.” He also points to the historical value of the hitherto neglected revāyats which “could broaden our understanding of the status of Zoroastrians in Safavid Iran” (ibid., 47–48).

Journal of persianateDownloaded studies from 10 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 158–185 01:11:28PM via free access Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan 163

The Three foqahāʾ

Bahāʾ al-Din ʿĀmeli (Sheykh Bahāʾi, 1546/7–1621) It may suffice here to give only some brief information on the three well- known foqahāʾ.10 Firstly, Sheykh Bahāʾi who was born near Baalbek in 1546/7. Like his father, who had already served as chief jurist, sheykh al-eslām, in different cities under Shāh Tahmāsp I, Sheykh Bahāʾi was acquainted with Iran from childhood and he became sheykh al-eslām of Isfahan under Shāh ʿAbbās I in 1600. Sheykh Bahāʾi should be considered one of the most important Safavid clerics, esteemed in both Shiʿite and Sunni circles. His work is full of mystical allusions. Among his most important writings, one may note the Kashkul and the Jāmeʿ-e ʿAbbāsi. Sheykh Bahāʾi died in Isfahan in 1621 and was buried in Tus. His Jāmeʿ-e ʿAbbāsi is an outstanding example of Safavid feqh. He com- menced its writing during the reign of Shāh ʿAbbās I—the king himself com- missioned this religious manual—composing it in New Persian, thus making it understandable to a far wider audience (which, of course, was still limited to a small literate elite; however, one may argue that, by means of oral distribu- tion, its contents may have spread). Thus, the Jāmeʿ-e ʿAbbāsi is embedded in a broader context, i.e. the religio-political program of the king; it was written for practical use and this may have been the main reason why it was composed in New Persian. It should be noted that Sheykh Bahāʾi did not see the completion of the Jāmeʿ-e ʿAbbāsi, because he died after having written five of the twenty bābs or chapters. It was one of his pupils, Mollā Mohammad, better known as Nezām b. Hoseyni Sāvaji, who was to finish the work after the shaikkh’s death, at the demand of Shāh Safi (r. 1629–1642).

Mohammad-Taqi Majlesi (d. 1659/60) Not much is known about Mohammad-Taqi Majlesi’s life; born in Ardastān and, in his later life a renowned Akhbāri jurist, one of his teachers was Sheykh Bahāʾi, which could explain Majlesi’s inclination to Sufi thought—and to dreams and visions, for which he is famous. After Sheykh Bahāʾi’s death, Mohammad-Taqi Majlesi succeeded him in the position of the emām-e jomʿa in the Friday mosque of Isfahan. Like his predecessor, Shāh Safi was apparently also interested in New Persian feqh and asked Mohammad-Taqi Majlesi for a translation of his commentary on a Shiʿite hadith compilation. His Ahkām-e ahl-e zemma, a short treatise which was edited in 1996 by Motallabi, presents

10 For detailed information on the three foqahāʾ and their work, see the corresponding EIr. articles with encompassing bibliographical references: Kohlberg; Brunner 2002; idem 2011.

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:11:28PM via free access 164 Kiyanrad his interesting opinion on ahl-e ketāb and shows to what degree the son was influenced by the father’s thought. Mohammad-Taqi Majlesi passed away in Isfahan in 1659/60. His son was to become the most eminent representative of the Majlesi clan.

Mohammad-Bāqer Majlesi (ʿAllāma Majlesi, 1627–1699/1700) Born in 1627, shortly before or after the death of Sheykh Bahāʾi and Mohammad- Taqi Majlesi’s ascent to the emām-e jomʿa of Isfahan, Mohammad-Bāqer b. Mohammad-Taqi Majlesi, later known as ʿAllāma Majlesi or Majlesi II (dov- vom) as opposed to his father, Majlesi I (avval), was raised in a highly-esteemed family. Majlesi II was a productive writer and he authored and translated around ninety books over the course of his lifetime, the majority of them in Persian. The influence of these New Persian books on the spread of Twelver Shiʿism amongst the Iranians cannot be overestimated. His major work (written in Arabic), the Bahār al-anvār, comprises of no less than the entire corpus of Twelver Shiʿite traditions. Majlesi II apparently succeeded his father in the positon of the emām-e jomʿa in the Friday mosque of Isfahan, and in 1686/7 he became sheykh al-eslām of Isfahan.11 From the time of Soleymān until his death—and beyond—he would remain an influential figure, in both religious and political terms. In 1983, Moreen translated a hitherto unpublished four-and-a-half-page-long Persian treatise named Savāʾeq al-yahud. Contrary to the title, it is not restricted to Jews, but deals with regulations for all zemmis, especially regarding the jezya. In 1991, this treatise was republished within a collection of 25 New Persian treatises of Mohammad-Bāqer Majlesi, Bist o panj resāla-ye fārsi. Majlesi II’s line of thought might have been close to the Akhbāris’, but he mainly managed to rise above the Akhbāri-Osuli conflict and address himself to his major concerns: the conversion of Iran, and the opposition to Sunnism and Sufism.

Zemmis as Merchants

Safavid feqh usually lacks separate chapters on zemmis as merchants; respective regulations and opinions would be included in general chapters on trade or regulations on certain topics, such as tahāra, religious purity. The subject of trade, however, is a more common aspect of Safavid feqh, and frequently treated either under the name tejāra, motājer, or mokāseb. In view of the biography of the Islamic prophet, it comes as no surprise that the general

11 And not mollā-bāshi; see Arjomand.

Journal of persianateDownloaded studies from 10 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 158–185 01:11:28PM via free access Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan 165 attitude of foqahāʾ towards trade and merchants is very positive.12 Majlesi I, for example, in one of his books (1986, VII, 5–6), writes that trade makes one smart, while abandoning trade makes one stupid. However, in order to be legal from an Islamic point of view, there were several rules that had to be obeyed. As usual, the foqahāʾ listed five categories: vājeb (“obligatory”), mostahabb/ mandub (“recommended”), halāl/mobāh (“permitted”), makruh (“disapproved”), and harām (“forbidden”). Islam distinguishes ahl-e ketāb (“people of the book”), i.e. religious communities with a “valid” divine revelation—originally only Jews and Christians— from koffār (“infidels”), namely polytheists (moshrekun). Ahl-e ketāb living in Muslim lands are considered zemmis and, being obliged to pay the jezya, enjoyed certain rights and security (amān). Zoroastrians were only considered as ahl-e ketāb from the time of caliph ʿOmar (r. 634–644). However, as a result of—to borrow Abisaab’s term—“converting Persia” to Twelver Shiʿism during the age of the Safavids, it seems that the distinction between ahl-e ketāb and moshrekun became somewhat blurred in favor of nejāsat, religious purity— Savory called it (441) the Shiʿite “added touch”—which in Shiʿism was often extended to all non-Muslims,13 though the Qurʾan (9:28) only attributes impurity to polytheists. Sheykh Bahāʾi (89), for example, lists koffār among eleven things that are najes and defines them as follows: “whether a zemmi or a harbi, whether belonging to the ahl-e ketāb or not. A few mojtaheds believe that Jews and Christians are pure (tāher). This opinion is weak.” Thus, zemmis were considered najes and therefore could, from a religious point of view, be subjected to certain trade restrictions caused by nejāsat. Even inadvertent contact with a zemmi could render a Muslim najes—Sheykh Bahāʾi goes so far as to state that conducting the ritual prayer in clothes sewn by a zemmi is “disapproved (makruh)” (ibid., 103). The one and only thing capable of rendering a kāfer pure is, according to him, Islam (ibid., 86). When it comes to trade, Sheykh Bahāʾi regards commercial partnership (moʿāmala)14 with the ahl-e ketāb as “makruh” (Bahāʾ al-Din ʿĀmeli, 477). Majlesi II writes, referring to the Shiʿite Imams, that trading with Kurds, people

12 Sheykh Lotf-Allāh (d. 1622/3) is a striking exception; due to the struggle evolving from the relocation of the city center, which affected merchants and craftsmen from the old center, he referred to merchants as ignorant commoners in one of his treatises; see Abisaab, 82–87. 13 Soroudi (eadem) suggested a Jewish origin of this concept. Lewis (34) argues that it may be linked with Zoroastrian concepts. 14 Goitein (I, 169) defined moʿāmela as an informal “relationship […], not based on a legal instrument.”

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:11:28PM via free access 166 Kiyanrad suffering from contagious diseases, newly-converted Muslims, and caitiff persons is “disapproved” (idem, n.d., 293–294). Elsewhere he states that a Muslim should not collaborate with Jews (idem, 1991, 521). The fact that newly- converted Muslims are explicitly enumerated shows that they were regarded with distrust. This may be connected to the fact that many zemmis converted to Islam during Safavid rule, either under direct duress, for financial reasons, or out of personal conviction. On the other hand, the reason for mentioning Kurds could possibly arise from the fact that many of them remained Sunnis.15 Majlesi II’s father, Mohammad-Taqi Majlesi, had already written that trade with zemmis had to be regarded as “makruh” (idem 1980, 80). How did these legal opinions affect cooperation between Muslims and zemmi merchants? In general, government and Muslim merchants had a much more pragmatic approach towards zemmi traders. The kings themselves can be regarded as the main trading partners of many zemmi merchants in Safavid Iran (Sefatgol, 559), the most famous example being the silk export trade, which lay predomi- nantly in Armenian hands. There were, however, other aspects of economic cooperation between Safavid kings and zemmis. In the first instance, the important office of the malek al-tojjār (or tājer-bāshi) (Rostam al-Hokamāʾ, 88), a kind of economic adviser to the shah and his main court merchant, was held by an Armenian gholām named Molāyem Beg (who served, at the same time, as master of the mint) in the days of ʿAbbās I (Afshār, 14; Matthee 1999, 89). In his position as malek al-tojjār, Molāyem Beg was responsible for settling disputes (Chardin, V, 262) between mostly Muslim Isfahani merchants (the Armenian community had its own malek al-tojjār) (Tēr Hovhaneantsʿ, 65). It is still disputed as to whether the malek al-tojjār was directly elected by the Isfahani merchant community (which would be an interesting point for us), as Minorsky suggests (149), or whether he was appointed by the king. Zemmis, again mostly Armenians, also served as tājer-e khāssa (royal merchant) for the shahs. It appears that Safavid kings actually preferred non-Iranian, or rather non-Muslim tojjār-e khāssa; an obvious reason being that ʿAbbās I had bad experiences with Muslim ones,16 another one being the simple fact that

15 It may be interesting to note that Sheykh Bahāʾi’s father, the faqih Hoseyn b. ʿAbd al- Samad al-ʿĀmeli, had been robbed by Kurdish bandits on his way to Iran. He writes: “The Kurds stole our belongings—and what will convey to you who the Kurds are? They are the offspring of sin, the rascals of mankind, baseness embodied, ill-fated by the stars. Their stock is meager, and their minds are small. In short, they are more ugly than ghouls, and ruder than extremist heretics;” Stewart, 502. 16 Chingiz Beg, a Muslim Iranian tājer-e khāssa, was sent to Spain during the days of ʿAbbās I to sell silk. He spent half of the silk on his way for his personal pleasure and gave the rest as a present to the Spanish king; Carmelites, I, 201.

Journal of persianateDownloaded studies from 10 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 158–185 01:11:28PM via free access Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan 167 non-Muslim merchants could maintain relations with Christian merchants and European nations more easily. Even, speaking in legal terms, a kāfer-e harbi could act as tājer-e khāssa: when ʿAbbās I sent the Englishman Antony Sherley to Europe, he was also to buy goods for the king in Italy (Carmelites, I, 78), and one of Sherley’s main duties was to conclude trade agreements for the shah. Among many tojjār-e khāssa, one may point out the Armenians Khvāja Safar, Khvāja Rajabu, Khvāja Sāsvār (under ʿAbbās I) and the brothers Girāgus and Āved Khāchikiyān (under Safi I) (Ferrier, 77, 79; Rota, 16, 19). During the days of Soleymān, an Armenian ambassador, Grigur Gusigiyān, went together with an Armenian merchant to St Petersburg in order to conclude a trade agreement (Tēr Hovhaneantsʿ, 127). Surviving documents attest that Safavid shahs had sent Armenian merchants from Isfahan to Venice in order to buy weapons (Schimkoreit, 209– 213). In 1659, ʿAbbās II had sent the Armenian Isfahani merchant Zakāriyā to the court of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich (1629–1676); this Zakāriyā might be Zakāriyā Shahrimāniyān, who later became the tājir-e khāssa of both Shāh Soleymān and the sadr-e aʿzam (Bournourtian 2001, 9–10; Aslanian 2011, 150; Arabihashemi 2005, 42).17 It even appears that some Armenian merchants from Isfahan traded with Safavid royal permission on behalf of European royal families (Schimkoreit, 291). Sometimes presents between kings were also transported via merchants; in 1714, an Armenian merchant from Isfahan conveyed an elephant, a present from Shāh Soltān Hoseyn (1668–1726), to the Russian tsar (Nouveaux memoires, I, 15). And Shāh Safi sold jewels to the Armenian merchant community in Isfahan, which they had to pay for in eighteen monthly installments (Chardin, III, 221–222). Furthermore, the moʿayyer al-mamālek, the assayer of the mint, who also controlled the exchange and trade of money, was often an Armenian (Matthee, Floor, and Clawson, 13–15). Interestingly, he earned some extra money with the sale of gold powder (khāka-ye zar), a by-product of minting coins; the moʿayyer al-mamālek sold (according to an official manual of administration) each mann-e shāhi (about 5.6 kilograms) of powder for 1600 dinars to Jewish merchants and artisans from Isfahan (Nasiri 2008, 50). Finally, as Matthee notes (2000b, 259), merchants acted as economic advisers: “In the reign of Shah Sulayman and Shah Sultan Husayn, too, the grand vizier often called a council to discuss trade and money matters, in which prominent Muslim and Armenian merchants participated.” At the same time, zemmi merchants, like other parts of society, depended to a great degree on the configuration of power in the never-ending play between

17 He was also identified as Zakāriyā Sārhādiyān; see Tēr Hovhaneantsʿ, 120. For more information on the Armenians’ role in trade agreements with Russia, see Matthee 1994.

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:11:28PM via free access 168 Kiyanrad different groups struggling for influence, the foqahāʾ being one of them. While a strong and relatively independent king might have understood the importance of zemmi merchants for the Safavid economy and thus behaved accordingly,18 non-Muslim merchants could temporarily be sacrificed in times of struggle, when kings were weak, and for symbolic political reasons, either religiously motivated or not. Esmāʿil II (r. 1537–1577) and the debate over the name Allāh on coins which might become najes in the hands of “infidel” merchants might be a good example of this kind of symbolic politics (Eskandar Beg Monshi, I, 217; Abisaab, 48). It has to be added that zemmi merchants were not always powerlessly exposed to the arbitrariness of politics, depending on their financial abilities. While rich (Muslim?) Iranian merchants engaged in long-distant trade were held in esteem by Safavid society (Chardin, IV, 157–159), according to some reports, the people of Isfahan held some prejudices towards the city’s Armenian population (which applied both to merchants and non-merchants); thus, they were not much esteemed and considered rather like slaves than fellow “citizens” (Baladouni and Makepeace, 63). According to the Chronicle of the Carmelites (I, 157), this could be connected to the notion of nejāsat, which may, in the meantime, have spread among the common people, while Shāh ʿAbbās, for example, no longer observed it. In any case, Muslim Isfahanis borrowed money from Armenians (and Indians—and probably also Jews), which may have contributed to envy and the negative sentiments towards them. In 1646, for example, the rich Armenian merchant Khvāja Sarafrāz had lent money to (Muslim) Iranians; when he did not receive his money back, he complained to Shāh ʿAbbās II (Arabihashemi 2000, 23). It is furthermore reported that in India, an Armenian merchant from Isfahan, named Aqā Nur, helped an Iranian Muslim colleague with money to return to Isfahan (Nasrābādi, I, 408). Further evidence for economic cooperation between Muslim and zemmi merchants in Isfahan is scarce. However, there are several examples of cooperation between Muslim (and Christian) Iranian merchants and European merchants, which may be an indication that a pragmatic approach was chosen. In 1653, a merchant from Lār, Sheykh Ahmad, bought the entire stock of coffee that Dutch traders had brought to Iran (Matthee 2000b, 253) and eventually resold it, mostly in Isfahan. Sometimes Muslim and non-Muslim merchants shared a caravan (Le Gouz de la Boullaye, 95). Under Shāh ʿAbbās I, Iranian merchants (mainly Armenians) had their goods transported on English ships (Falsafi 1937, 160). Similar treaties were concluded with France (Schimkoreit,

18 This does not mean that such a king treated non-Muslim merchants well; the forced de- portation of Armenians from Julfa is one example to the contrary.

Journal of persianateDownloaded studies from 10 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 158–185 01:11:28PM via free access Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan 169

393). Armenian merchants played a crucial role in the trade between Iran and the world. They thus bought great amounts of Iranian goods and resold them, for example, in India and Europe. It is also clear that they resold European goods in Isfahan—one may suppose that they sometimes made use of Muslim intermediaries, but this remains open to further investigation.

Goods: The Meydān, a mey-dān

For reasons of nejāsat and other religious rules, there were several goods that, according to feqh, non-Muslims were not to sell to Muslims. Amongst them, Majlesi I mentions leather and wine. Another thing zemmis were not to sell to Muslims was their holy books, that is “the Torah, the Bible, the Zand, and the Pazand;” on the other hand, it was harām for Muslims to sell the Qurʾan to koffār (idem 1996; cf. Sefatgol, 588; see also Bahāʾ al-Din ʿĀmeli, 472). Majlesi II elaborates that, in addition to leather, Muslims were not allowed to purchase hides, things made from leather and liquids stored inside skins (e.g. oils, fruit juices, grape syrup) from Jews (idem 1991, 521; Moreen 1992, 195, 192). Furthermore, Muslims were not to accept victuals (for example, distillates and oil) from zemmis, as they could not be purified; as to goods that could be purified, such as cloths with moisture, they should be “rinsed with water after being obtained” (Moreen 1992, 195, 192; see also Abisaab, 67). It is interesting to note that Sheykh Bahāʾi, in a treatise on meat slaughtered by the people of the book, had already “prohibited the use of clothes, gold, silver and other items which ‘infidels’ make or work with because they were ‘impure’ ” (Abisaab, 64). As Abisaab further states: “In comparison with their Sunnite counterparts in the Ottoman Empire, Baha‌ʾi’s rulings promoted the exclusion of Christian and Jewish craftwork, foods and meats from the larger market dominated by Muslims” (ibid., 84). Muslims, on the other hand, were, according to feqh, not allowed to sell goods classified as harām, such as wine and tools for winemaking (even by means of a zemmi vakil, as Sheykh Bahāʾi explicitly states [579])—which meant that zemmis usually still enjoyed the right to consume and sell wine (at least to each other). Chardin argued (IV, 161–162; VI, 319) that nejāsat and other religious rules ultimately affected even Muslim merchants. Because of religious prescriptions for food, ritual slaughter (zebh), places of prayer, physical contact with non- Muslims, and interest-taking (rebā-khvāri), it was hard for some of them to travel to non-Muslim lands. Furthermore, for some Shiʿites, it was obviously a problem to touch a commodity that came from the hand of a non-Muslim, as

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:11:28PM via free access 170 Kiyanrad they considered it najes. As a result, they would first, if possible, ritually purify the commodity by submerging it in water before taking it (ibid., VI, 319).19 Although the occasional threat of harsh penalties both for seller and pur- chaser—of course, only if one of them was Muslim (Bahāʾ al-Din ʿĀmeli, 423; Della Valle, V, 135–136)—was omnipresent, we know that wine was much con- sumed in Safavid Iran—not only by Europeans, courtiers, upper-class people, and the Safavid kings themselves, but also by some ʿolemā (Chardin, IV, 69–70; IX, 360–361; Tavernier, I, 115). Still, there were, for several reasons, temporary bans. From 1620 onwards, wine was generally banned (Della Valle, V, 135–136), maybe under the influence of Sheykh Bahāʾi—a law which ʿAbbās I would re- peal shortly afterwards, as he had already done with the prohibition of 1603 (Matthee 2005b, 81). The same procedure of an initial ban followed by its re- traction applies to all of his successors, such as ʿAbbās II, who also banned alcohol when he came to power (Vāleh Esfahāni, 421). As a result, one may find examples for the application of punishments—in 1620, the belly of a Muslim merchant in Isfahan who had sold wine was slit open in public on the meydān; in 1645, an Armenian wine seller was accused of having sold wine and, as a result, almost all wine shops in Isfahan were closed; and this is what Shāh Soltān Hoseyn actually did when he had transformed the meydān into a mey-dān (“wine pot”) after having confiscated the whole city’s wine, which was then emptied out there (Della Valle, V, 136–137; Carmelites, I, 47; Matthee 2005b, 88). In general, though, the kings’ (and courtiers’) love of wine were reason enough to make these cruel instances more the exception than the rule. Matthee even suggests that bans can also be regarded as a source of revenue in times of a shortage of money, since especially Armenians would pay a lot of money for the bans to be lifted (Matthee 2005b, 88). As Muslims were essentially forbidden to sell wine, Armenian and Jewish merchants supplied it to the king and the court (ibid., 46)—thus obviously vio- lating the above-mentioned religious rules (see also Herzig 1991, 70). Safavid contemporaries were quite aware of this problem. According to Chardin, those special merchants selling wine to the court were called ahl-e jezya, which means nothing more than zemmis; selling wine to the court was (pragmati- cally) not considered harām for them (Chardin, IV, 70) and they were not inter- rogated (Nasiri 1994, 39). Jewish merchants from Shiraz who brought wine to Isfahan seem to have had an important role within this trade (von Mandelslo,

19 The story of Shāh Tahmāsp and the sand purifying Anthony Jenkinson’s footmarks is well known; though Shāh Tahmāsp was surely a special case with regard to purity (he suffered from ablutomania), but it is interesting to see that already in this relatively early phase, techniques of purifying were being carried out quite naturally.

Journal of persianateDownloaded studies from 10 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 158–185 01:11:28PM via free access Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan 171

16). The shirachi-bāshi (royal sommelier) was the official supervisor of winemaking and wine-selling. Thus, he was not only able to extort fines from wine- producing and wine-selling zemmis by (baselessly) accusing them of having sold wine to Muslims (Chardin, IX, 359–360), but he could also, for high bribes, allow “Muslims to produce and to consume alcohol” (Matthee 2005b, 58). Leather and leather products were, obviously, usually sold by non-Muslims to Muslims, though some travelers report that, on the meydān, there were separate leather shops for Christians and Muslims, as Muslims regarded leather from Christians as najes. In the days of ʿAbbās II, there existed a law forbid- ding Armenians both to engage in sewing and selling of leather (Vahid Qazvini, 72); this may actually show that Muslims were still purchasing leather from them. Under the grand vizier Khalifa Soltān (1645–1654), it was prohibited for Armenians to sell furs in the meydān (Matthee 1991, 27). Under Sheykh ʿAli Khān Zangāna, who served as vizier during the reign of Shāh Soleymān, Armenian fur-makers were forbidden to work on the meydān (Matthee 2012, 67). Tobacco is a similar case; prohibited by ʿAbbās I, with merchants still selling it being harshly punished (Floor, 50), the ban was lifted after a while— maybe the important tobacco tax being one reason.20 Regarding the sale of other “problematic” products to Muslims, one can also observe certain temporary restrictions. During the reign of ʿAbbās II, selling commodities to Muslims that did not conform to the rules of the Shariʿa was prohibited for Armenians (Vāleh Esfahāni, 422). This could be connected to his extremist sadr-e aʿzam, Mohammad Beg.21

Rainy Days

In his Ahkām-e ahl-e zemma, Majlesi I writes (1996, 713, 715) that non-Muslims should not leave their houses on rainy days, as they would walk in the bazaars and render Muslims najes. The same prescription can be observed in the work of Majlesi II; writing that Jews shall not go out on rainy and snowy days, he adds that the same is true for “other koffār,” such as Indians. Majlesi II states: “It would also be better if the ruler of the Muslims would establish that all infidels

20 On the tax revenue, see Sanson, 99. 21 However, Matthee (1991, 28) argues that those measures were “probably more than a mat- ter of a fanatical grand vizier who bore a grudge against a specific religious minority” and concludes that “there are good reasons to suspect that Mohammad Beg authorized the measures that he did in part as a way of pacifying clerical claims and Muslim sentiments.”

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:11:28PM via free access 172 Kiyanrad could not move out of their homes on days when it rains or snows, because they would make Muslims impure” (Moreen, 1992, 195, 192). It is not completely clear to what extent this was obeyed.22 However, since other restrictions based on nejāsat were followed, one may assume that non- Muslims to some extent did have to behave accordingly. If we believe Chardin, non-Muslims tried not to enter Muslims’ houses and even avoided walking in Muslim-inhabited streets, so that they could not be accused of rendering Muslims najes (Chardin, VI, 320). In 1664, Jean de Thévenot reports (II, 372, 374) that non-Muslims were not allowed to enter, inter alia, mosques and cof- feehouses; several of the latter were located near the entrance to the Qeysariyya and probably also served as meeting points for merchants. Shāh Soltān Hoseyn commanded that Armenians neither had the right to enter a bazaar mounted, nor to enter the bazaar and shops on rainy days, because the drops from their clothes and shoes could render Muslims najes (Tēr Hovhaneantsʿ, 147; Matthee forthcoming, 9).23 Could this mean that the respective religious proscription was no longer strictly adhered to in his time? However, things were more complicated for Jews, who, depending on the religio-political circumstances, even on “sunny” days would sometimes be molested (Bābāi b. Farhād, 129). Further, it is interesting to note that Armenians were occasionally forbidden to enter the city mounted or to have with them a servant holding a water- pipe (qalyān-dār, chupuq-dār, āb-dār) (Chardin, III, 306; Matthee 2005b, 133); according to Fryer, ʿAbbās I had commanded that they had to enter the city dressed only in merchant clothes, perhaps so as not to display their wealth (Fryer, 268–269).24

22 This actually depended on the respective officials in charge and their zeal. As Matthee states (2005a, 32), the mentioned prohibition “clearly did not work, for in 1708 it was reissued.” 23 It may be interesting to note that “rainy days” were still being discussed in the early twen- tieth century; in 1907, a shaikh in Kermānshāh was successful in prohibiting Jews from leaving their houses on rainy days; see Lewis, 198. 24 Clothing regulations is another important topic that I cannot treat of here in detail. Sheykh Bahāʾi, Majlesi I, and Majlesi II agree that zemmis have to wear clothes distin- guishing them from Muslims; see Bahāʾ al-Din ʿĀmeli, 154, 155; Mohammad Taqi Majlesi 1996, 414–415, 715; Moreen 1992, 194, 191. According to the Jāmeʿ-e ʿAbbāsi (parts of which were in force until 1925), Jews were obliged to wear special clothes and a yellow or red badge; furthermore, they were to walk down the streets quickly, not to walk in the middle of the street, and not to ride upon horses (Loeb, 292). See also Moreen 1981a, 124; eadem 1987, 81–84.

Journal of persianateDownloaded studies from 10 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 158–185 01:11:28PM via free access Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan 173

Interest and Usury

Taking interest and usury are prohibited according to Islamic law—at least among Muslims. However, Muslims are, according to Sheykh Bahāʾi (492), allowed to practice usury (rebā) with koffār (but not vice-versa), implying Jews, which might mean zemmis in general. Armenian, European, Indian, and Jewish merchants lent money—and usually charged high interest for it. Most information on money lending refers to Indians, but one may suppose that other money lenders behaved similarly. Apparently Indian merchants, who specialized in money-lending after having made a lot of money selling cloth, sometimes took the same amount of interest as the sum they had lent (Chardin, VI, 164). However, Tavernier reports (I, 471) on seventeen percent interest being charged by Indian money-lenders; according to him, they had to do this in secret, due to the Shariʿa law and the fear of punishment. It furthermore seems that they tried to avoid the notion of rebā in their contracts for the same reasons (Levi 1999, 498). Though Hindu Indian merchants and money lenders were, at least in the strict sense not zemmis (see n. 2), it is interesting to see that they were one of the least-persecuted minorities, while most other zemmi groups, and even Sunnis, sometimes faced problems—which shows that the importance of Indian merchants and money-lenders was so great for the Safavid economy that they had a higher standing than Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian zemmis (Moreen 1981b, 134),25 but this does not mean that they were not harassed at all. A similar observa- tion can be made with regard to Jewish money-lenders in the Ottoman Empire (Braude, 532). It may further be noted that Muslim merchants found ways to bypass religious law and charge interest as well.

Conversions

Religiously-motivated persecutions and forced conversions of non-Muslims during the Safavid era are a rather complex topic, which has been investigated in detail by Moreen (1981a; 1986) for the case of Iranian Jewry.26 It shall suffice here to point to some events in which zemmi merchants were especially affected or involved. Unlike most of the above-mentioned issues, persecution and forced conversions of zemmis clearly violated Islamic law, given the fact

25 This needs to be further investigated; it probably also depended on time, place, and officials in charge. 26 On conversions in seventeenth-century Iran, see also Matthee forthcoming, esp. 4–12.

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:11:28PM via free access 174 Kiyanrad that zemmis still enjoyed the amān. As Matthee has clarified, there are two different episodes of persecutions during the reign of ʿAbbās II: firstly, under the grand vizier Khalifa Soltān (1645–1654), and secondly, under the grand vizier Mohammad Beg (Matthee 1991, 27).27 According to Matthee (ibid.), Khalifa Soltān’s campaign, which started shortly after he came to power, “contains all the elements of a ritual cleansing.” When Mohammad Beg launched a wave of persecutions, the sadr, the state official in charge of religious affairs, seems to have admonished him, pointing out that forced conversions were not com- patible with Islamic law (Abisaab, 104). This again shows the ambivalent relationship between religious rules and social reality in Safavid Iran. In general, there are three main reasons for conversions in Safavid Iran: “(1) a conviction of the truth of another revelation; (2) an attraction to the material benefits conversion might provide; and (3) a fear of actual or threatened persecution” (Moreen 1986, 216). According to Matthee (forthcoming, 9), “in late Safavid Iran conviction was not the primary motive for most of those who adopted Islam. Indeed, the great majority of conversions seem to have been less than voluntary and rather caused by intimidation and fear or motivated by oppor- tunism or venality.” Of course, persecution and forced conversion concerned not only merchants, but all non-Muslims.28 However, as (wealthy) zemmi merchants usually enjoyed a relatively better financial position than their brothers and sisters in faith, they had more options in how to react to such. Non-Muslim merchants may thus in some instances even have been able to protect their fellow believers. On the other hand, economic considerations and jealousy could also lead to persecutions, thus directly affecting trading minorities. In October 1613, for example, Shāh ʿAbbās I suddenly demanded the repayment of 4,000 tumāns that he had lent to the Armenian community in New Julfa many years prior; only converts would be released from their debts. In this case, many family heads were on business journeys, leaving the remaining members in Isfahan with no knowledge of what to do. For every three unpaid tumāns, they were expected to deliver a boy, and a girl for every two unpaid tumāns. Many Armenians thus converted (Carmelites, I, 202).

27 For a detailed investigation of the persecutions of Jews during the reign of ʿAbbās II, see Spicehandler; Moreen 1981a. 28 One should not forget that there were also zemmi merchants converting to Islam out of personal conviction, one famous example being Abgar; as Matthee shows (forthcoming, 14), we should “assume that ʿAli Akbar adopted Islam” during the days of the last Safavid king “out of conviction.” Matthee also offers a translation of parts of Abgar’s Eʿterāf-nāma (ibid., 15ff.).

Journal of persianateDownloaded studies from 10 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 158–185 01:11:28PM via free access Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan 175

Abisaab, writing about the forced conversions of Christians (the reasons for which are not entirely clear yet) following the re-conquest of Hurmuz in 1622, states (80):

Following this expedition, Shah ʿAbbas initiated a wave of conversion from Christianity to Islam among the inhabitants of the island. During the same year, following the expulsion of the Portuguese, the Shah also seemed inclined to convert Armenian Christians to Shiʿism, mostly to prevent their wealthy elites from threatening his power in Isfahan, and to ensure the community’s overall loyalty to the empire. It is possible that some women and children were eager to embrace Islam in return for certain privileges and protection, but most of the population was coerced.

However, as Savory states (449), Armenian merchants from Isfahan actively opposed the Chahār Mahall persecutions in 1621/2 (Carmelites, I, 255–257), putting economic pressure on the shah:

An interesting footnote to this whole episode is the use by the Armenian merchants of Julfa of what we would today call “strike action” in order to bring pressure to bear on the Shah. They halted their caravans of mer- chandise on the roads and, since the shah personally profited from the silk trade, this weapon proved effective.

Some contemporaries actually suspected Sheykh Bahāʾi of being the instigator of the persecutions (Carmelites, I, 255–257). Although some have argued that, during the time of ʿAbbās II, economic considerations could have played a decisive role in persecutions (of Jews)— maybe even more than religious considerations—Moreen, pointing to the bad financial situation of the Jews, rejects this (1981b, 124). While most researchers hold Mohammad Beg to be solely responsible for these persecutions, Matthee states (1991, 28) that “there are good reasons to suspect that Mohammad Beg authorized the measures that he did in part as a way of pacifying clerical claims and Muslim sentiments.” In any case, as a result, the whole Jewish population of Iran, around 100,000 persons, had to convert to Islam (Carmelites, I, 364). Thus, in 1656, Jews had to make public profession of their conversions or leave their homeland. The Isfahani Jews obviously did what they could to resist. One of their measures was to appeal to the sadr, but without result. In the end, they were forced to convert—receiving a small reward for it. Finally, ʿAbbās II allowed them to return to their religion, the money offered by Jewish merchants

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:11:28PM via free access 176 Kiyanrad apparently being the main reason for it (Matthee 1991, 28–29). However, it was partly a result of these persecutions that Jews lost their preeminence in money- lending (Chardin, VI, 134) and these persecutions may ultimately have also affected the Safavid economy. We are furthermore aware that there were cases of Jewish merchants who converted to Islam (Nasrābādi, I, 441), some maybe for financial incentives (Moreen 1986, 220), but mostly because of these kinds of harsh pressure. Moreen has also shown that, by the eighteenth century, conversion had become for Jews a “means to try to insure the economic survival” (ibid., 223). Perhaps the Jewish merchants whom Tavernier and Fryer encoun- tered were actually newly-converted Muslims? In 1678, under Shāh Soleymān, Jews and Armenians were again persecuted— this time, some ʿolemā, among them Majlesi II, had convinced the shah that they had harmed Islam; although several Jews were killed, others, together with some Armenians, were able to bribe the authorities in order to stay alive (Carmelites, I, 408). In 1673, government officials prevented Armenian merchants from entering Isfahan, or more specifically New Julfa; one year later, more than twenty of New Julfa’s leading merchants were forced to convert to Islam (ibid., I, 407). Sometimes the forced conversion of Armenian merchants on business journeys was attempted. It seems that the Armenians were successful in asking Shāh Soleymān in 1669 for an edict ( farmān) prohibiting the forcible conversion of Armenian merchants (Kostikyan, III, 292–294). However, as the above-mentioned incident shows, one may doubt whether the authorities always behaved accordingly. And, under the rule of the same shah, who was sick for a while, the Armenians and Jews, being deemed responsible for his disease, were persecuted and could only withstand the pressure by pay- ing a large sum of money (Carmelites, I, 408). Besides these methods of harsh pressure, there are also examples of financial incentives. Shortly before his death, Shāh ʿAbbās I ordered that a Christian convert to Islam inherit his whole family’s wealth from seven generations back (ibid., I, 288). This partly corresponds to Shiʿite feqh—according to which a Muslim could inherit from a kāfer but not vice-versa (Bahāʾ al-Din ʿĀmeli, 872– 873; cf. Ghougassian, 211–212). Raphaël du Mans called (II, 35) this command, which was renewed under ʿAbbās’ successors, a Machiavellian one; it actually persuaded several Armenians from New Julfa to convert to Islam (Carmelites, I, 366). One could further argue that the command had a substantial impact on the family firm system of the Armenians in Isfahan, because according to the tradition of the family firm, the eldest son took over the business after the father’s death. But now, converted younger brothers or even distant relatives possibly could place demands on the family business—and they did, of course (Raphaël du Mans, II, 142; Kaempfer, 181; Carmelites, I, 303; Baladouni and

Journal of persianateDownloaded studies from 10 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 158–185 01:11:28PM via free access Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan 177

Makepeace, 142). For example, by the end of the seventeenth century, a mem- ber of the Armenian Shahrimāniyān merchant family29 converted to Islam. The Shahrimāniyāns were naturally afraid that they would lose everything; they employed one hundred employees and fifty domestics (in Isfahan alone) and possessed several houses and much money. All of this, they feared, would fall into the hands of the convert after the father’s death. This could be one reason for their decision to transfer money to Venice and several members of the family actually emigrated to Europe (Carmelites, I, 485).30 Given these circumstances, for Armenian families who could not or did not want to emigrate, there were only two possibilities: they either remained Christians (and thus possibly lost their wealth) or converted to Islam (and thus, in their belief, lost eternal life) (Carmelites, I, 486). Taking the first choice often meant social decline (ibid., I, 502). However, for some Armenian families, by- passing the law was another choice—occasionally with help from (bribed) Muslim authorities. In 1638, Egāzā (Elias?), a son of the wealthy Armenian Sarafrāz merchant family, converted to Islam, planning to deprive his elder brother Vārtān of his inheritance. As a reaction, the Sarafrāz entered into a contract with the grand vizier, who then bought all of the family property and then, after a while, sold it to Vārtān again. In this way, the Sarafrāz thwarted Egāzā’s plan (Chardin, IX, 43–44). This solution seems to have spread (Raphaël du Mans, II, 35). Raphaël du Mans describes the procedure as follows (ibid., II, 329): first, the related Armenian family sold its belongings to a Muslim at a very low price. Then, a qāzi would approve the contract.31 Afterwards, the Muslim buyer would sell the belongings to the son of the Armenian who had sold them to him. The qāzi again approved the contract. By this means, no Armenian convert could place demands on the son, because the son had bought his belongings from a Muslim. During the reign of ʿAbbās II, this law was even extended to transactions between Armenians. As a result, the above-mentioned trick could now even be carried out within the Christian Armenian community, without the involvement of a Muslim. The related fatvā explicitly mentions its connection

29 For more information about this family, see Aslanian 2007, 151–157. 30 Aslanian offers (2007, 153–154) a diverging explanation: from 1646 onwards, several family members converted to Catholicism and supported the Vatican; “when tensions between Catholic missionaries in Julfa and the Armenian Church came to a head, the Shahrimans bore the brunt of anti-Catholic fervor in Isfahan, fuelled by increasing pressure by Shah Sultan Hussein.” Accordingly, the emigration to Venice has to be seen as a result of these deteriorating circumstances. 31 Zemmis often made use of Muslim jurists and courts as notaries; see Braude, 530.

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:11:28PM via free access 178 Kiyanrad to the issue of inheritance and was renewed under the rule of Shāh Soltān Hoseyn (Kostikyan, III, 247–248, 367). The fact that it had been issued under ʿAbbās II is especially interesting. Another farmān from the time of Soleymān said that newly-converted Muslims having no consanguinity with a deceased Armenian cannot claim inheritance at all (ibid., III, 266–268). It appears that edicts and fatvās of this kind could be the result of Armenian efforts and sometimes bribes, which shows that at least the rich elements of religious minorities were, to a certain degree, able to counterbalance the pressure put on them. Furthermore, they provide evidence that Armenians in particular tried to achieve a certain legal certainty regulating their own issues within the (Muslim) juridical framework. Some converts showed an especially strict behavior to their previous core- ligionists. One example is Āved, the kalāntar (“mayor”) of New Julfa, who converted to Islam during the days of Shāh Soltān Hoseyn and was therefater called Mohammad-Hoseyn Beg (Tēr Hovhaneantsʿ, 148). The vizier Mohammad Beg, who came from an Armenian gholām family that had converted to Islam, is another example (Matthee 1991, 20). On the other hand, it is reported that even converted Armenians stayed true to their former fellow believers (see Morison, 17). Of course, there were also Armenians who wanted to become Muslim for reasons of personal conviction. One example is the merchant Āqā Piri Qalandariyān; because he feared that his Armenian agents in Europe would immediately return to New Julfa upon hearing this news, he did not dare to convert to Islam. Thus, he asked the king for a written command to become Muslim, so that he could pretend to have been converted forcibly and so avoid trouble (Chardin, III, 142–144).32

Conclusion

The three foqahāʾs opinions on zemmis in general and zemmi merchants in particular appear to be in basic agreement. They regard all non-Muslims,

32 It is interesting to note that, for European trade companies, conversion to Islam was an issue as well. It seems that the Dutch were confronted with converting colleagues at an early stage; according to a treaty dating to 1623, the head of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) came to the agreement with the Safavid king that he was allowed to confiscate all the belongings of converted Dutchmen working for the VOC. The next Dutch-Iranian treaty from 1642 even states that Dutchmen were not allowed to convert to Islam(!); Bayani, 140, 149.

Journal of persianateDownloaded studies from 10 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 158–185 01:11:28PM via free access Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan 179 including zemmis, as najes, whether explicitly, as with Sheykh Bahāʾi, or between the lines, as with Majlesi I. Trading with them is not considered harām, but “disapproved.” This in no way prevented the Safavid shahs from making use of skilled zemmi merchants—either to keep the silk trade afloat (Armenians), to take advantage of their economic expertise, or for personal profit (tojjār-e khāssa). Thus, for zemmi merchants, pleasure and pain (or “rainy days”) went hand in hand—as the forced resettlement of the Armenians to Isfahan shows. Ordinary Isfahanis, doubtless also influenced by the notion of nejāsat, probably did not have much contact with zemmi merchants, except for the money- lenders. Presumably, there was not much cooperation between Muslim and zemmi merchants from Isfahan, but we must await the publication of further sources to be able to come to a final conclusion. While feqh prohibited zemmis from selling special commodities (such as wine and leather) to Muslims, it did allow them to produce these goods. This proscription, leading as it did to a natural monopoly on growing (and selling) of wine by zemmis, seems to have been relatively strictly observed, although not amongst the upper classes. As a result, the kings, the courtiers and even some religious scholars actually needed zemmis to violate the Islamic law for their own violation of Islamic law. This whole construction resembled a high-wire act—but in general only for the zemmis, who could be harshly punished. Furthermore, alcohol bans could also be a source of income for the government, which received bribes for lifting them (often from wealthy zemmi merchants). This double incentive—concessions to olemāʾ by executing the religious law on the one hand and economic considerations on the other—seems to be a central theme in many of the other restrictions and methods of pressure, as well. This also makes the policy of banning and removing bans understandable—though it would be too simple to reduce this phenomenon to these aspects alone, as the underlying reasons for such bans could be mani- fold. This explanation does not mean that there were no purely religiously- motivated actions—economic considerations may have played no role at all in times of religious extremism. It should be further noted that the observable repressions are never completely independent of legal opinions mirrored in feqh. Except for forced conversions, one can trace all implemented commands in writings of Safavid olemāʾ. To conclude: the legal prescriptions and proscriptions did not always mirror reality, but they acted as a pool for (mostly temporary) laws, which, when applied to reality, had drastic results—whether merely for religious reasons or also for economic ones.

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:11:28PM via free access 180 Kiyanrad

Bibliography

Abgar (ʿAli Akbar), Ruznāma-ye khāterāt-e Abgar-e (ʿAli Akbar) armani, az jadid al- eslām-e ʿahd-e shāh Soleymān va shāh Soltān Hoseyn-e Safavi, ed. M. Sefatgol, Tehran, 2009/1388. R. J. Abisaab, Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire, New York City, 2004. I. Afshār, “Hokmhā-ye pādishāhān-e Safavi barāy-e bāzargānān-e engelisi,” in I. Afshār, ed., Daftar-e tārikh, vol. I, 2001/1380, pp. 5–51. M. Aghassian and K. Kévonian, “Le commerce arménien dans l’océan Indien aux 17e et 18e siècles,” in D. Lombard and J. Aubin, eds., Marchands et hommes d’affaires asiatiques dans l’océan Indien et la mer de Chine, Paris, 1988. S. Arabihashemi, “ʿEllal-e pishraft-e tejāri-ye arāmena-ye Jolfā-ye now dar ʿasr-e Safavi (bar mabnāy-e asnād-e kelesāy-e vānk),” Ganjina-ye asnād 39–40 (2000/1379), pp. 16–27. S. Arabihashemi, “Naqsh-e arāmana dar tejārat-e khāreji-ye Safavi,” in M. ʿA. Sādeqi, ed., Irān zamin dar gostara-ye tārikh-e Safaviyya, Tabriz, 2005/1384, pp. 31–43. S. A. Arjomand, “The Office of mulla-bashi in Shiʿite Iran,” Studia Islamica 57 (1983), pp. 135–146. S. D. Aslanian, “Trade Diaspora versus Colonial State: Armenian Merchants, the English East India Company, and the High Court of Admiralty in London, 1748– 1752,” Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies 13.1 (Spring 2004), pp. 37–100. S. D. Aslanian, “The Circulation of Men and Credit: The Role of the Commenda and the Family Firm in Julfan Society,” JESHO 50.2–3 (2007), pp. 124–171. S. D. Aslanian, “ ‘The Salt in a Merchant’s Letter’: The Culture of Julfan Correspondence in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean,” Journal of World History 19.2 (June 2008), pp. 127–188. S. D. Aslanian, From the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean: The Global Trade Networks of Armenian Merchants from New Julfa, Berkeley/New York City/London, 2011. J. Awshidari, “Eṣfahān va zartoshtiyān,” in F.-A. Salavāti, ed., Majmūʿa-ye maqālāt-e kongra-ye jahāni-ye bozorgdāsht-e Esfahān, Tehran, 2006/1385, pp. 74–91. Bābāʾi b. Farhād, Iranian Jewry during the Afghan Invasion: The Kitāb-i sar guzasht-i Kāshān of Bābāi b. Farhād, ed. V. B. Moreen, Stuttgart, 1990. Mohammad Mofid Mostowfi Bāfqi, Mokhtasar-e Mofid ( joghrāfiyā-ye Irān-zamin dar ʿasr-e Safavi), ed. I. Afshār, Tehran, 2011/1390. I. Baghdiantz McCabe, The Shah’s Silk for Europe’s Silver: The Eurasian Trade of the Julfa Armenians in Safavid Iran and India (1530–1750), Atlanta, 1999. Bahāʾ al-Din ʿĀmeli (and Mohammad b. Hoseyn Nezām b. Hoseyn Sāvaji), Jāmeʿ-ye ʿAbbāsi va takmil-e ān, Qom, 2008/1429.

Journal of persianateDownloaded studies from 10 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 158–185 01:11:28PM via free access Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan 181

V. Baladouni and M. Makepeace, eds., Armenian Merchants of the Seventeenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries: English East India Company Sources, Philadelphia, 1998. K. Bayani, Les relations de l’Iran avec l’Europe occidentale à l’époque Safavide, Paris, 1937. S. Blake, Half the World: The Social Architecture of Safavid Isfahan, 1590–1722, Costa Mesa, 1999. D. Blow, Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King who became an Iranian Legend, London/New York City, 2009. G. A. Bournoutian, A History of the Armenian People, 2 vols., Costa Mesa, 1994. G. A. Bournoutian, Armenians and Russia, 1626–1796: A Documentary Record, Costa Mesa, 2001. B. Braude, “Venture and Faith in the Commercial Life of the Ottoman Balkans, 1500– 1650,” International History Review 7.4 (November 1985), pp. 519–542. R. Brunner, “Moḥammad-Taqi Majlesi,” in EIr., London/New York City, 2002; online: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/majlesi-molla-mohammad-taqi-b-maqsud- ali-esfahani (accessed 17 July 2015). R. Brunner, “Moḥammad-Bāqer Majlesi,” in EIr., London/New York City, 2011; online: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/majlesi-mohammad-baqer (accessed 17 July 2015). A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia and the Papal Mission of the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries, ed. H. Chick, 2 vols., London, 1939. Jean Chardin, Voyages du Chevalier Chardin en Perse et autres lieux de l’Orient, 10 vols., ed. L. Langlès, Paris, 1811. S. F. Dale, Indian Merchants and Eurasian Trade, 1600–1750, Cambridge, 1994. A. Das Gupta, Indian Merchants and the Decline of Surat: c. 1700–1750, Wiesbaden, 1979. Pietro Della Valle, Voyages de Pietro della Vallé, gentilhomme romain dans la Turquie, l’Égypt, la Palestine, la Perse, les Indes orientales, et autres Lieux, 8 vols., Rouen, 1745. Eskandar Beg Monshi, Tārikh-e ʿālam ārā-ye ʿAbbāsi, ed. I. Afshār, 2 vols., Tehran, 2008/1387. N.-A. Falsafi, Tārikh-e ravābeṭ-e Irān va Orūpā dar dowra-ye Safavi, Tehran, 1937/1316. N.-A. Falsafi, Zendegāni-ye shāh ʿAbbās-e avval, 5 vols., Tehran, 1963/1342–1985/1364. R. W. Ferrier, “The European Diplomacy of Shāh ʿAbbās I and the First Persian Embassy to England,” Iran 11 (1973), pp. 75–92. W. Floor, “The Art of Smoking in Iran and Other Uses of Tobacco,” Iranian Studies 35.1– 3 (Winter–Summer 2002), pp. 47–85. W. Floor and P. Clawson, “Safavid Iran’s Search for Silver and Gold,” IJMES 32.3 (August 2000), pp. 345–368. J. Fryer, A New Account of East India and Persia, being Nine Years’ Travels, begun 1672 and finished 1681, London, 1698.

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:11:28PM via free access 182 Kiyanrad

K. Ghereghlou, “On the Margins of Minority Life: Zoroastrians and the State in Safavid Iran,” BSOAS 80.1 (February 2017), pp. 45–71. V. S. Ghougassian, The Emergence of the Armenian Diocese of New Julfa in the Seventeenth Century, Atlanta, 1998. S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza, 6 vols., Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1967–1988. François Le Gouz de la Boullaye, Les voyages et observations du sieur de la Boullaye-le- Gouz gentil-homme angevin, Paris, 1653. V. Gregorian, “Minorities of Isfahan: The Armenian Community of Isfahan 1587–1722,” Iranian Studies 7.3–4 (Summer–Autumn 1974), pp. 652–680. E. Herzig, The Armenian Merchants of New Julfa, Isfahan: A Study in Pre-Modern Asian Trade, unpub. PhD diss., University of Oxford, 1991. E. Herzig, “The Family Firm in the Commercial Organization of the Julfa Armenians,” in L. Calmard, ed., Études safavides, Paris/Tehran, 1993. E. Herzig, “The Rise of the Julfa Merchants in the Late Sixteenth Century,” Pembroke Papers 4 (1996), pp. 305–322. J.-D. Homāʾi, Ketāb-e tārikh-e Esfahān (mojallad-e abniya va ʿemārāt va āthār-e bāstāni), Tehran, 2005/1384. Mirzā Beg Jonābādi, Rowzat al-Safaviyya, ed. Gh.-R. Tabātabāʾi Majd, Tehran, 1999/1378. Engelbert Kaempfer, Am Hofe des persischen Großkönigs, 1684–1685, ed. W. Hinz, Tübingen, 1977. “Dar dānestan-e kārvānsarāy-e Esfahān” (MS British Library, Sloane 4094), ed. and tr. H. Gaube and M. H. Madani as “Das safavidenzeitliche Vademecum für nach Isfahan kommende Fernkaufleute,” in H. Gaube and E. Wirth, Der Bazar von Isfahan, Wiesbaden, 1978. M. Keyvani, Artisans and Guild Life in the later Safavid Period: Contributions to the Social-Economic History of Persia, Berlin, 1982. A. Khanbaghi, The Fire, the Star, and the Cross: Minority Religions in Medieval and Early Modern Iran, London, 2006. E. Kohlberg, “Bahāʾ-al-Dīn ʿĀmelī,” in EIr., vol. 3, fasc. 4, London/New York City, 1988, pp. 429–430; online: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baha-al-din-ameli -shaikh-mohammad-b. K. P. Kostikyan, ed., Matenadarani parskeren vaveragrerě (Persian Documents of the Matenadaran), vol. 3, Hrovartakner (1652–1731) (Decrees [1652–1731]), Yerevan, 2005. S. C. Levi, “The Indian Merchant Diaspora in Early Modern Central Asia and Iran,” Iranian Studies 32.4 (Autumn 1999), pp. 483–512. S. C. Levi, The Indian Diaspora in Central Asia and its trade, 1550–1900, Leiden/ Boston, 2002.

Journal of persianateDownloaded studies from 10 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 158–185 01:11:28PM via free access Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan 183

S. C. Levi, ed., India and Central Asia: Commerce and Culture, 1500–1800, New Delhi, 2007. B. Lewis, The Jews of Islam, Princeton, 1984. L. D. Loeb, Outcast: Jewish Life in Southern Iran, New York City, 1977. Mohammad-Bāqer Majlesi, Ketāb Helyat al-mottaqin, Tehran, n.d. Mohammad-Bāqer Majlesi, Bist o panj resāla-ye fārsi: Eʿteqādi, feqh, hadith, hayʾat, motafarreqāt, Qum, 1991/1412. Mohammad-Taqi Majlesi, Yek dowra-ye feqh-e kāmel-e fārsi, Tehran, 1980/1400. Mohammad-Taqi Majlesi, Rowzat al-mottaqin fi sharh man lā yahzaroho al-faqih, ed. H. Musavi Kermāni, ʿA. P. Eshtehārdi, and F.-A. Tabātabāʾi, 14 vols., Qum, 1986–1993/1406–1413. Mohammad-Taqi Majlesi, “Ahkam al-zemma,” ed. A.-H. Motallabi, in R. Jaʿfariyān, ed., Mirāth-e tārikh-e eslāmi, 3rd ed., Qum, 1996/1375. Johann Albrecht von Mandelslo, Des fuertrefflichen wolversuchten Meckelburgischen von Adel Herrn Johan Albrecht von Mandelslo Morgenländische Reise-Beschreibung, ed. A. Olearius, Schleswig, 1668. C. Markovits, The Global World of Indian Merchants, 1750–1947: Traders of Sind from Bukhara to Panama, New York City, 2000. R. Matthee, “The Career of Mohammad Beg, Grand Vizier of Shah ʿAbbas II (r. 1642– 1666),” Iranian Studies 24.1–4 (1991), pp. 17–36. R. Matthee, “Anti-Ottoman Politics and Transit Rights: The Seventeenth-Century Trade in Silk between Safavid Iran and Muscovy,” Cahiers du Monde russe 35.4 (October– December 1994), pp. 739–761. R. Matthee, The Politics of Trade in Safavid Iran: Silk for Silver, 1600–1730, Cambridge, 1999. R. Matthee, “Between Venice and Surat: The Trade in Gold in Safavid Iran,” Modern Asian Studies 34.1 (January 2000a), pp. 223–255. R. Matthee, “Merchants in Safavid Iran: Participants and Perceptions,” Journal of Early Modern History 4.4 (2000b), pp. 233–268. R. Matthee, “Christians in Safavid Iran: Hospitality and Harassment,” Studies on Persianate Societies 3 (2005a), pp. 3–43. R. Matthee, The Pursuit of Pleasure: Drugs and Stimulants in Iranian History, 1500–1900, Princeton/Oxford, 2005b. R. Matthee, Persia in Crisis: Safavid Decline and the Fall of Isfahan, London/New York City, 2012. R. Matthee, “Confessions of an Armenian Convert: The Iʿtirafnama of Abkar (ʿAli Akbar) Armani,” in H. Khafipour, ed., Empires of the Near East and India: Source Studies of the Safavid, Ottoman, and Mughal Literate Communities, New York City, forthcoming.

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:11:28PM via free access 184 Kiyanrad

R. Matthee, W. Floor and P. Clawson, The Monetary History of Iran: From the Safavids to the Qajars, London/New York City, 2013. V. Minorsky, ed., Tadhkirat al-mulūk: A Manual of Ṣafavid Administration (circa 1137/1725): Persian text in facsimile (B. M. Or. 9496), Cambridge, 1980. V. B. Moreen, “The Persecution of Iranian Jews during the Reign of Shah ʿAbbās II (1642–1666),” Hebrew Union College Annual 52 (1981a), pp. 275–309. V. B. Moreen, “The Status of Religious Minorities in Safavid Iran 1617–61,” JNES 40.2 (April 1981b), pp. 119–134. V. B. Moreen, “The Problems of Conversion among Iranian Jews in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” Iranian Studies 19.3–4 (Summer–Autumn 1986), pp. 215–228. V. B. Moreen, “Risāla-yi ṣawāʿiq al-Yahūd [The Treatise Lightning Bolts against the Jews] by Muḥammad Bāqir b. Muḥammad Taqi al-Majlisi (d. 1699),” Die Welt des Islams 32.2 (1992), pp. 177–195. T. Morison, “Minute by M. Bernier upon the Establishment of Trade in the Indies, dated 10th March, 1668,” JRAS 65.1 (January 1933), pp. 1–21. Mohammad Yusof Nāji, Resāla dar pādeshāhi-ye Safavi, ed. R. Jaʿfariyān and F. Kushki, Tehran, 2008/1387. ʿAli Naqi Nasiri, Alqāb va mavājeb-e dowra-ye salātin-e Safaviyya, tr. W. Floor as Titles & Emoluments in Safavid Iran: A Third Manual of Safavid Administration, Washington, DC, 2008. Mohammad Ebrāhim b. Zeyn al-ʿĀbedin Nasiri, Dastūr-e shahriyārān, ed. M. N. Nasiri Moqaddam, Tehran, 1994/1373. Mohammad Tāher Nasrābādi, Tazkera-ye Nasrābādi, ed. M. Nāji Nasrābādi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1999/1378. A. J. Newman, “The Nature of the Akhbārī/Uṣūlī Dispute in Late Ṣafawid Iran: Part 1: ʿAbdallāh al-Samāhijī’s Munyat al-Mumārisīn,” BSOAS 55.1 (1992a), pp. 22–51. A. J. Newman, “The Nature of the Akhbārī/Uṣūlī Dispute in Late Ṣafawid Iran: Part 2: The Conflict Reassessed,” BSOAS 55.2 (1992b), pp. 250–261. Nouveaux mémoires sur l’état présent de la Grande Russie ou Moskovie, vol. I, Amsterdam, 1725. Adam Olearius, Moskowitische und persische Reise, Darmstadt, 1959. Luís Pereira de Lacerda, L’ambassade en Perse de Luís Pereira de Lacerda et des pères portugais de l’Ordre de Saint-Augustin, Belchior dos Anjos et Guilherme de Santo Agostinho, 1604–1605, ed. R. Gulbenkian, Lisbon, 1972. R. Quiring-Zoche, Isfahan im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert: ein Beitrag zur persischen Stadtgeschichte, Freiburg, 1980. Raphaël du Mans, Raphaël du Mans, missionaire en Perse au XVIIe siècle, 2 vols., ed. F. Richard, Paris, 1995. G. Rota, Under Two Lions: On the Knowledge of Persia in the Republic of Venice (ca. 1450– 1797), Vienna, 2009.

Journal of persianateDownloaded studies from 10 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 158–185 01:11:28PM via free access Zemmi Merchants in Safavid Isfahan 185

Rostam al-Hokamāʾ (Mohammad Hāshem Āsef), Rostam al-tavārikh (Havādeth-e ayyām-e soltanat-e shāh Soltān Hoseyn-e Safavi tā pādeshāhi-ye Fath-ʿAli shāh Qājār), ed. ʿA-A. ʿAlizāda, Tehran, 2000/1379. François Sanson, Voyage ou relation de l’etat present du royaume de Perse, Paris, 1695. R. Savory, “Relations between the Safavid State and its non-Muslim Minorities,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 14.4 (October 2003), pp. 435–458. R. Schimkoreit, ed., Regesten publizierter safawidischer Herrscherurkunden: Erlasse und Staatsschreiben der frühen Neuzeit Irans, Berlin, 1982. M. Sefatgol, Sākhtār-e nehād va andisha-ye dini dar Irān-e ʿasr-e Safavi (Tārikh-e tahavvolāt-e dini Irān dar sadahā-ye dahom tā davāzdahom-e hejri qamari), Tehran, 2010/1389. Anthony Sherley, Robert Sherley and Thomas Sherley, The Three Brothers, or: The Travels and adventures of Sir Anthony, Sir Robert and Sir Thomas Sherley in Persia, Russia, Turkey, Spain, etc., London, 1825. S. S. Soroudi, “The Concept of Jewish Impurity and its Reflection in Persian and Judeo-Persian Tradition,” in S. Shaked, ed., Irano-Judaica, vol. 3, Jerusalem, 1994, pp. 142–170. E. Spicehandler, “The Persecution of the Jews of Isfahan under Shāh ʿAbbās II (1642– 1666),” Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975), pp. 331–347. D. J. Stewart, “An Episode in the ʿAmili Migration to Safavid Iran: Husayn b. ʿAbd al-Sa- mad al-ʿAmili’s Travel Account,” Iranian Studies 39.4 (December 2006), pp. 481–508. Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Les six voyages de Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, ecuyer baron d’Aubonne, qu’il a fait en Turquie, en Perse, et aux Indes, 2 vols., Utrecht, 1712. Harutʿiwn Tēr Hovhaneantsʿ Tēr Hovhaneantsʿ, Patmutʿiwn nor Jughayu or yAspa- han (History of New Julfa at Isfahan), tr. and ed. L. G. Minasean and M. ʿA. Musavi Faridani as Tārikh-e Jolfā-ye Esfahān, Isfahan, 2000/1379. Jean de Thévenot, Suite du voyage de Mr. de Thévenot au Levant, vol. 2, Paris, 1689. A. L. Udovitch, Partnership and Profit in Medieval Islam, Princeton, 1970. Mohammad Yusof Vāleh Esfahāni, Irān dar zamān-e shāh Safi va shāh ʿAbbās-e dov- vom, ed. M. R. Nasiri, 2nd ed., Tehran, 2003/1382. Mohammad Tāher Vahid Qazvini, ʿAbbāsnāma, yā sharh-e zendegāni-ye 22 sāla-ye shāh ʿAbbās thāni, ed. I. Dehgān, Arāk, 1950/1329.

Journal of persianate studies 10 (2017) 158–185 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:11:28PM via free access