A well-known anecdote portrays two leading religious scholars of seventeenth-century Iran, Shaykh Bahā’ī (Bahā’ al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī, d. 1030/1621) and Mīr-i Dāmād (Muḥammad Bāqir al-Astarābādī, d. 1040/1631), riding on an outing with the cavalcade of the Safavid Shah Abbas I (996–1038/1587–1629). In order to test them, the Shah points out to each the clumsy riding of the other, caused by the tremendous weight of Mīr-i Dāmād on the one hand and the slight frame of Shaykh Bahā’ī on the other. Rather than chiming in with mean-spirited criticisms, each scholar defends his peer to the Shah, Shaykh Bahā’ī claiming that the plodding of Mīr-i Dāmād's horse was due to his tremendous learning, and Mīr-i Dāmād suggesting that the flightiness of Shaykh Bahā’ī's mount was due to its joy at carrying such a distinguished rider. The reaction of the two is surprising, and Shah Abbas was particularly pleased, taking time to thank the Lord for blessing his realm with such unusually wise and pleasant learned men.Footnote ¹ The anecdote reveals something important about the religious hierarchy in Safavid Iran: the natural or expected relationship between two such members of the scholarly elite would be jealous rivalry. Given that the resources of the Empire and the patronage of the Shah were both limited, competition among the scholars of the realm, and particularly among those in the upper echelons, was often fierce. They would rarely have passed up an opportunity to undermine the favour rivals enjoyed with the Shah in an attempt to secure their own positions.Footnote ²

There may be more behind this anecdote, however, than meets the eye: Shaykh Bahā’ī and Mīr-i Dāmād were not simply leading jurists at Shah Abbas’ court, but belonged to two distinct lineages of scholars, both of which had originated in Lebanon, established important ties to the Safavid government, promoted the legitimacy of the Shiite dynasty and helped conduct ideological warfare against the Ottomans. They had also opposed each other, engaging in a bitter rivalry in the mid-sixteenth century. Bahā’ al-Dīn's father, Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad (918–84/1512–76), and his father's teacher, Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī (911–65/1506–58), had publicly opposed Mīr-i Dāmād's maternal grandfather, ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-ʿĀl al-Karakī (d. 940/1534), his uncle ʿAbd al-ʿĀl al-Karakī (926–93/1522–85), and his cousin Sayyid Ḥusayn al-Karakī (d. 1001/1591–92) on a variety of Islamic legal issues. Newman observed that Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī and Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad criticized the views of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī regarding the determination of the qibla, interpreting it as a rejection of al-Karakī and Safavid Shiism in general.Footnote ³ The present author suggested that their criticisms were part of a long rivalry evident in writings on such important public religious issues as the qibla and Friday prayer.Footnote ⁴ Abisaab also discussed the competition between these two groups, adding new information and calling attention to the activities of a fourth Karakī, Ḥasan, a second son of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Thānī. She emphasizes in particular Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad's criticisms of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī's views with regard to the qibla, Friday prayer, the distribution of the Imam's share of khums funds, and the cleansing of prayer mats exposed to urine.Footnote ⁵ Against this background, the mutual support of Bahā’ al-Dīn and Mīr-i Dāmād in the anecdote represents a reconciliation between the most prominent living representatives of these two scholarly lines, symbolizing the cordial end of a long and intense rivalry. This study examines one phase at the height of the rivalry between these two groups of Shiite scholars, demonstrating that several polemical treatises devoted to the controversial issue of the legal status of Friday prayer and penned in the middle of the long reign of Shah Tahmasb (930–84/1524–76) were intended as salvos in a battle over the top position of religious authority in the Safavid Empire, that of the shaykh al-islām or chief jurist of Qazvin, the Safavid capital between 962/1555 and 1006/1597.Footnote ⁶ This competition was of great significance when one takes into account, as Echraqi has noted, Shah Tahmasb's considerable efforts to propagate the Shiite faith as the official religion of the Empire and to assemble the top religious scholars at Qazvin and support them generously.Footnote ⁷

Competition among the learned for lucrative posts and limited resources was widespread and intense in many Islamic societies, and became more regular after the spread of endowed institutions such as the madrasa or college of law and the khāniqāh or Sufi lodge with their associated stipends in the twelfth and later centuries. Chamberlain, focusing on Damascus between 1190 and 1350, analyses the competition for endowed positions (manāṣib) among the scholarly class in some detail, comparing it insightfully with the competition among military commanders for iqṭāʿs or military fiefs. Leading scholarly families endeavoured to amass and preserve wealth by controlling these endowed positions, holding many posts simultaneously, farming out the responsibilities they entailed to deputies, wresting them from rivals, defending them from seizure, paying bribes to acquire or keep them, passing them on to sons and relatives, and so on. Support of those in power, including the Sultan or his viceroy or governors, as well as the chief judge and other prominent members of the judiciary and scholarly establishment, was often crucial for the accession to, and continued control over, endowed positions.Footnote ⁸ The situation Chamberlain describes existed in many other Islamic contexts, including both the Ottoman and Safavid empires. He addresses some of the strategies scholars used to gain positions, including petitioning rulers, getting powerful figures to intercede, making gifts and payoffs, and accusing the incumbents of vice, impiety or unbelief.Footnote ⁹ A point that Chamberlain omits in his analysis is the role that books and treatises played in such competition. In order to enlist the intercession of a powerful figure to acquire a position, scholars dedicated books to him, most often in the field required for that post. As a rule such works flattered the ruler or high official and demonstrated the author's competence and qualifications. In addition, they often criticized peers, including the current incumbent, portraying them not only as wrong on specific issues but also as inferior or incompetent scholars, thus attempting to undermine their rival claims to the position.

The status of Friday prayer according to Islamic law of the Twelver Shiite tradition was a hotly debated issue throughout the history of the Safavid Empire, for it impinged directly on questions of authority and on public ritual. The traditional Shiite view had been that only the Imam or a designated representative could legitimately convene Friday prayer. For this reason, while for centuries Shiites lived under Sunni domination in most areas of the Islamic world, jurists held that Friday prayer was in abeyance, on the grounds that obtaining the Hidden Imam's permission was impossible, and even when it was possible, the Sunni regimes would not allow it to be held, instead appointing their own prayer leaders. Shiites were therefore often in the position of Catholic Recusants in Reformation England, loath to attend services – though the Shiite doctrine of taqīya (dissimulation) encouraged them to do so, praying with the Sunni majority and in the Sunni manner. The situation changed, however, under Shiite rule, but the issue remained problematic. On the one hand, by promoting the performance of Friday prayer the Safavid Shahs risked being perceived as claiming authority that belonged properly to the Twelfth Imam. On the other hand, presiding over the revival of Friday prayer in the Shiite manner was a point of pride for the dynasty, particularly in their ideological conflict with the Sunni Ottomans. Moreover, many Shiite jurists wanted to provide ideological support for the legitimacy of the officially Shiite dynasty that had done so much to support the current resurgence of Shiite doctrine, literature and religious culture, but without undermining their own authority by promoting views seen as heretical innovations. Scores of treatises devoted to Friday prayer were composed during the Safavid period. There are about 200 such treatises extant in the Twelver tradition; about half of these are from the Safavid period, most from the seventeenth century and from Isfahan in particular.Footnote ¹⁰ The authors generally championed one of three competing views on Friday prayer's legal status. One group held that Friday prayer was prohibited in the absence of the Imam or his direct representative. A second group held that Friday prayer could be held if a mujtahid presided or granted his permission, on the theory that the mujtahid was the “general representative” of Imam. A third position was that Friday prayer was obligatory in a general sense. The permission of a mujtahid was not required.Footnote ¹¹

Safavid practice regarding Friday prayer during the reigns of Shah Ismaʿil I and Tahmasb I, that is, between 1501 and 1576, was related to the publication of a limited number of treatises.Footnote ¹² The main theoretical underpinnings for early Safavid practice were provided by al-Jaʿfarīya fī al-ṣalāt (The Jaʿfarī Treatise on Prayer), which al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī completed in Mashhad on 10 Jumādā I 917/5 August 1511. There, he argued that Friday prayer was only allowed on the condition that a representative of the Imam designate someone to conduct it.Footnote ¹³ In al-Karakī's view, since the Imam's permission to hold Friday prayer was required during the time of their presence and a suitable deputy (nā’ib) had to be designated by the Imam in order to do so, it similarly had to be authorized during the occultation by a living mujtahid, on the grounds that he was the general representative (al-nā’ib al-ʿāmm) of the Twelfth Imam. Friday prayer was therefore held in the Safavid realm during the lifetime of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Thānī himself, as he was recognized as a mujtahid and gave his permission for others to lead the prayer. When he died in 940/1534, though, Friday prayer fell into abeyance in the realm, either since no living jurist was generally recognized as a mujtahid, or because qualified jurists, out of circumspection or a show of humility, refrained from granting their permission. Just over two decades later, in 962/1555, Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī, who resided in Jabal ʿĀmil, composed his Risāla fī ṣalāt al-jumʿa (Treatise on Friday Prayer), which triggered an intense debate over the next decade. He argued, against al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī, that Friday prayer was obligatory in a general sense, and was not restricted by permission of a mujtahid.Footnote ¹⁴ This opinion found support in Iran, particularly through Zayn al-Dīn's student Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad, who had immigrated to Safavid territory and settled in Isfahan in 961/1554. In about 963/1556, Ḥusayn wrote Risāla fī wujūb ṣalāt al-jumʿa (Treatise on the Obligatory Status of Friday Prayer), which closely resembled the work of his master Zayn al-Dīn and upheld the same opinion. In 966/1559, less than a year after Zayn al-Dīn's death in Istanbul at the hands of the Ottomans, two refutations of Zayn al-Dīn's treatise were penned by al-Muḥaqqiq's son Ḥasan and his grandson Sayyid Ḥusayn b. Ḥasan b. Jaʿfar al-Karakī, both upholding al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī's original opinion that the permission of a mujtahid was required. Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad completed a rebuttal entitled al-ʿIqd al-ḥusaynī (The Husaynid Necklace) in 970/1563, defending Zayn al-Dīn's position and criticizing the views upheld by the Karakīs.

Table 1. Twelver treatises on the legal status of Friday prayer, 1555–1563

In an earlier study I analysed Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad's work al-ʿIqd al-Ḥusaynī, linking it with competition in the Shiite religious establishment over the leading position of religious authority in the realm, the shaykh al-islām-ate of the capital, Qazvin. A close reading of the work, which was dedicated to Shah Tahmasb and ostensibly devoted to legal issues such as prostration to the Safavid monarch, obsessive doubt in Islamic ritual worship, and Friday prayer, suggests that it was actually a disguised petition to the Shah. Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad wrote it as a protest after being dismissed from his position of shaykh al-islām of the Safavid capital Qazvin, complaining of ill treatment by the Shah and his courtiers and asking to be reinstated or given some other suitable position to redress the wrong he has suffered. The treatise contains oblique messages to the Shah, suggesting that Ḥusayn's rival was not as qualified as he appears, that the Shah was mistaken in replacing him, and that he should grant Ḥusayn an audience, after having rebuffed him on numerous occasions, to address his grievances if not return him to his rightful position. I argued that he was replaced as shaykh al-islām of Qazvin at this juncture, in 970/1563, by Sayyid Ḥusayn b. Ḥasan al-Karakī, a claim that must be revised in light of additional evidence.Footnote ¹⁵ The present essay attempts to shed some light on the controversy which led up to the composition of al-ʿIqd al-Ḥusaynī over the preceding decade, focusing on four earlier works devoted to the legal status of Friday prayer: al-Risāla fī ṣalāt al-jumʿa by Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī; al-Risāla fī wujūb ṣalāt al-jumʿa by Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad; al-Bulgha fī bayān iʿtibār idhn al-imām fī sharʿīyat ṣalāt al-jumʿa (The Object of Desire, Showing That the Imam's Permission Must Be Taken into Account in Establishing the Legality of Friday Prayer), by Ḥasan al-Karakī; and al-Lumʿa fī taḥqīq amr al-jumʿa (The Gleam, Addressing the Matter of Friday Prayer in the Correct Manner), by Sayyid Ḥusayn b. Ḥasan al-Karakī. These works were not merely expressions of ideological positions on points of Twelver Shiite law. All four were intimately related to Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad's career in Iran, and all were penned as part of ongoing competition over the Shah's patronage among the leading Shiite scholars of the day. All represented attempts to establish or upset the existing relational hierarchy among religious authorities within the Safavid polity.

I. Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī's Treatise on Friday Prayer

Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī remains something of an enigmatic figure among leading Shiite jurists of the sixteenth century, for his execution by the Ottomans in 965/1558, which earned him the title al-Shahīd al-Thānī, “the Second Martyr”, in Twelver Shiite lore, seems to have been entirely avoidable. Zayn al-Dīn lived in the first half of the sixteenth century, after the foundation of the explicitly Twelver Shiite Safavid state. Other scholars from his native region, most notably Zayn al-Dīn's older contemporary, ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-ʿĀl al-Karakī, had sought association with the Safavids and had reaped tremendous benefits thereby, not only in terms of wealth but also in terms of academic opportunity and religious authority. Zayn al-Dīn must have been fully aware of these opportunities, yet he chose not to leave Ottoman territory and associate with the Safavids. It is difficult to understand why did he not seek refuge in Iran when he must have known that he would find not only safety from the clear dangers that he faced, but also substantial rewards and recognition, particularly when statements of Zayn al-Dīn addressing either the Ottomans or the Safavids directly are lacking.Footnote ¹⁶ His treatise on Friday prayer, however, may reveal something concerning his ideological and practical views towards the Safavids.

Zayn al-Dīn was the first jurist in the history of Shiite law to profess the third of the opinions on the issue of the legality of Friday prayer mentioned above. In this, he contradicted, and in doing so criticized, the opinion of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Thānī, who had played such an important role as a religious authority during the reign of Shah Ismaʿil I and the early reign of Shah Tahmasb. Zayn al-Dīn probably intended his treatise for a Safavid audience, something that is not stated explicitly in the text but which may be deduced from circumstantial evidence, and many points suggest that the motives behind it had to do with Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad's career in Iran. The date of the treatise is suggestive, for Zayn al-Dīn composed the work not long after Ḥusayn had arrived in Iran yet before he had received an appointment from the Shah. Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad had left southern Iraq and entered Iran in the winter of 961/1553–54, settling in Isfahan by April 1554.Footnote ¹⁷ From safety in Iran, Ḥusayn communicated regularly with Zayn al-Dīn, who remained in Jabal ʿĀmil; the sources mention two letters that he sent very soon after his arrival, one of which, a travel account of his journey from Iraq to Iran, has been preserved.Footnote ¹⁸ In Mashhad, not long after his arrival in Iran, Ḥusayn composed a work on hadith criticism, Wuṣūl al-akhyār ilā uṣūl al-akhbār, which he dedicated to Shah Tahmasb. Since he mentions that he completed the work shortly after escaping from Ottoman territory, it may be dated tentatively to 961/1554. Ḥusayn probably travelled from Isfahan to Mashhad in the summer of 1554 in the company of his Isfahani patron Mīr Asad Allāh Khalīfa (d. 971/1564), who had been appointed supervisor of the Eighth Imam's shrine and shaykh al-islām of Mashhad between March and June of that year by Shah Tahmasb. By writing such a work, Ḥusayn was seeking the sovereign's patronage, either in the form of a stipend or a judicial position.Footnote ¹⁹

Ḥusayn eventually succeeded in gaining Shah Tahmasb's attention and favour. Introduced at court by the shaykh al-islām of Isfahan, al-Shaykh ʿAlī al-Minshār al-Karakī (d. 984/1576), Ḥusayn was appointed shaykh al-islām of the capital, Qazvin. He was thereby recognized as the leading legal authority in Safavid Iran, being catapulted from outsider status to the position of the most powerful jurist in the realm. He held this position in c. 963–970/1555–63.Footnote ²⁰ A man who had entered Iran just a few years earlier, who had little experience at court and probably spoke Persian haltingly and with a strong Arab accent, suddenly became the supreme Islamic legal authority in the Empire. He had apparently out-manoeuvred ʿAbd al-ʿĀl al-Karakī and his nephew Ḥusayn b. al-Ḥasan al-Karakī, descendants of the great legal authority ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-ʿĀl al-Karakī, who had been in Iran longer and undoubtedly had stronger ties to prominent figures at court.

Back in Jabal ʿĀmil, Zayn al-Dīn had received letters from Ḥusayn and presumably written letters in response in 961/1554. He completed his treatise on Friday prayer on 1 Rabīʿ I 962/24 January 1555, that is, between Ḥusayn's arrival in Iran and his appointment as shaykh al-islām of Qazvin. What is more, Zayn al-Dīn's student-servitor, Bahā’ al-Dīn Muḥammad Ibn al-ʿAwdī, left Zayn al-Dīn in Jabal ʿĀmil and set out for Iran on 10 Dhū al-Qaʿda 962/26 September 1555, later that same year. The conjunction of dates may be more than coincidental. Zayn al-Dīn may have written the treatise at this particular juncture in answer to a request by Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad, and he may have intended for Ibn al-ʿAwdī to deliver it to Ḥusayn in Iran.Footnote ²¹

Ḥusayn's special relationship with Zayn al-Dīn also suggests that the treatise may have been concerned at least in part with Ḥusayn's career in Iran. According to Ibn al-ʿAwdī, Zayn al-Dīn's hagiographer, Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad was Zayn al-Dīn's first and most senior student.Footnote ²² He spent nearly twenty years with him as a constant companion. Ḥusayn was therefore Zayn al-Dīn's leading protégé and the main scholar promoting his ideological positions. Particularly after he had immigrated to Iran, his own reputation depended to a large extent on the fact that he was the star student of Zayn al-Dīn and representative of his scholarly legacy. Yūsuf Ṭabāja has argued that Zayn al-Dīn sent Ḥusayn to Iran purposefully in order to spread his own influence.Footnote ²³ While this claim may be too strong, for there is no direct evidence that Zayn al-Dīn encouraged him to do so, once Ḥusayn was in Iran, Zayn al-Dīn may not have been averse to helping further Ḥusayn's career there, spreading his own influence at the same time. It is worth noting that another student of Zayn al-Dīn also became prominent at Qazvin during this period and was also associated with the performance of Friday prayer. Sayyid Raḥmat Allāh Najafī was the prayer leader at the court of Shah Tahmasb during his later reign. His reputation rested, in part, on the fact that he was a direct student of Zayn al-Dīn.Footnote ²⁴ He had probably received an ijāza from the martyred master on one of Zayn al-Dīn's visits to Iraq, in 946/1539 or 952/1545–46.Footnote ²⁵ He may have become prayer leader in connection with Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad's tenure as shaykh al-islām of Qazvin c. 963–70/1555–63, and he was presumably instrumental in applying the new ruling on Friday prayer.

Additional circumstantial evidence is provided by the work's content. The legal status of Friday prayer was not a pressing issue for Shiites living under Ottoman rule. Holding such a prayer according to Shiite ritual law would have been seen as a direct threat to Ottoman sovereignty, as the Ottomans did not recognize Shiism as part of orthodox Islam, and Shiites would have avoided doing so for fear of the government's reaction. In addition, Shiite Islamic law and tradition supported them in not holding the prayer, for it was widely known that Shiites were allowed and encouraged to dissimulate and to pray according to the Sunni rites under such circumstances.Footnote ²⁶ Zayn al-Dīn must therefore have had in mind a Safavid audience in particular, especially when one takes into account his position on the topic, that it was obligatory to hold Friday prayer. Under Sunni rule, this ruling would have little effect since it would be subject to the dispensation of taqīya, and so Friday prayer would not have taken place anyway.

The targets of Zayn al-Dīn's criticisms in the treatise, which is mainly a rebuttal of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī's treatise on Friday prayer, al-Jaʿfarīya, also suggest a concern with academic disputes in Iran. Mīrzā Makhdūm al-Shīrāzī (d. 995/1587) states unequivocally in his anti-Shiite, anti-Safavid polemic that Zayn al-Dīn's main target was al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī, and he claims that Zayn al-Dīn condemned al-Karakī surreptitiously by quoting the quranic verse a-ra’ayta lladhī yanhā ʿabdan idhā ṣallā “Have you seen the one who prohibits a worshipper when he prays?” (Q 96:9–10) in a clever allusion (ishāra laṭīfa) to al-Karakī and the pernicious influence of his opinion on this issue.Footnote ²⁷ According to Mīrzā Makhdūm, Zayn al-Dīn, who was a clever and accomplished scholar, sought to refute al-Karakī's position because he realized that it led to the abandonment of Friday prayer by Shiites, thereby creating disgust with their doctrine on the part of Sunnis.Footnote ²⁸ However, al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī had died in 940/1534, over two decades before Zayn al-Dīn composed his treatise. Zayn al-Dīn's immediate opponents must have been contemporary scholars living within the Safavid Empire who upheld al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī's position on Friday prayer. In 962/1555, the main proponents of this view were presumably al-Karakī's sons, ʿAbd al-ʿĀl and Ḥasan, and his grandson Mīr Sayyid Ḥusayn. For all these reasons, it seems clear that the work is directed at a Safavid audience, despite the fact that neither Shah Tahmasb nor the Safavid state is mentioned explicitly in the text.

The treatise contains one passage that suggests that Zayn al-Dīn has the Safavid state in mind in particular, though he avoids saying so explicitly. There, he makes a historical argument about the Twelver positions on the legal status of Friday prayer, stating that the Twelver Shiites have not paid sufficient attention to the issue since they often lived under tyrannical Sunni regimes and did not accept the prayer leaders appointed by the Sunni rulers. This continuing situation caused a habit to develop among the Shiites which they did not shake off easily when Shiite rule was established.

When Zayn al-Dīn states that it is possible to hold Friday prayer in the proper manner in many regions of faith in the present time, he must be referring to the Safavid state first and foremost. Though he does not mention the Safavid Shahs in particular, his text contrasts those regions in which prayer leaders are appointed by tyrannical rulers and are doctrinal opponents of the Imamis – obviously Sunnis – to regions where this is not the case, which must mean regions under Shiite rule. In the example of the two brothers ʿAbd al-Malik and Zurāra b. Aʿyan, well-known Shiite scholars and transmitters of hadith of the Imams Muḥammad Bāqir and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, the rulers in question are obviously the Umayyads, who exercised especially tight control over Kufa as one of the most prominent centres of Shiite rebellion. One may take this as evidence that Zayn al-Dīn both recognized the prayer leaders of Iran as respectable Shiites and the Safavid Shahs as legitimate rulers, or at least not as oppressive tyrants. This hypothesis is corroborated by Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad's treatise on Friday prayer, one passage of which matches Zayn al-Dīn's remarks here very closely and refers to Safavid rule explicitly in the corresponding spot.

Zayn al-Dīn's views on the Safavids remain something of a mystery. Newman has claimed that Zayn al-Dīn and other ʿĀmilī scholars exhibited a clear repudiation of both al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī and Safavid Shiism. I have argued that to link the two so explicitly is not warranted by the evidence; other scholars, and especially Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad, shared Zayn al-Dīn's opposition to al-Karakī and his ideological successors while at the same time seeking out and accepting the patronage of the Safavid Shahs and writing works to support the legitimacy of their rule. Zayn al-Dīn did, it seems, have a low opinion of Persian scholars’ accomplishments in the religious sciences and probably viewed them as having lax morals as well.Footnote ³⁰ His omission of an explicit reference to the Safavid Shahs suggests either that he was concerned for his own safety while in Ottoman territory and wanted to avoid being denounced as a supporter of the Safavids, or that he genuinely felt that explicit recognition of their rule as legitimate would lead to a direct invitation to come to Safavid court, something he wished to avoid.

The opinion Zayn al-Dīn defended in his treatise on Friday prayer contradicts discussions in his earlier legal works, Rawḍ al-jinān, Masālik al-afhām, and al-Rawḍa al-bahīya.Footnote ³¹ It was thus the result of some reconsideration of the matter or new ijtihād on his part, and was presumably provoked by Ḥusayn's presence in Iran and his description of the situation that obtained under the Safavids. Zayn al-Dīn completed the first volume of Masālik al-afhām, his commentary on al-Muḥaqqiq al-Ḥillī's (d. 676/1277) Sharā’iʿ al-islām, on 3 Ramaḍān 951/18 November 1544; this volume includes the section on Friday prayer.Footnote ³² In the original work, Sharā’iʿ al-islām, al-Ḥillī holds that the first condition for Friday prayer is either the just ruler, generally understood by Twelver jurists to mean the current Imam or his representative. Zayn al-Dīn makes no significant comment on this particular requirement, but lets the text stand as it is.Footnote ³³ In the other two works, both al-Rawḍa al-bahīya and Rawḍ al-jinān, Zayn al-Dīn presents some critique of previous legal scholarship on the issue but stops short of a forceful and direct statement that Friday prayer is itself obligatory during the occultation. He completed al-Rawḍa al-bahīya (The Bright Meadow), a commentary on al-Shahīd al-Awwal's al-Lumʿa al-dimashqīya (The Gleam from Damascus), on 21 Jumādā I 957/7 June 1550.Footnote ³⁴ He had completed the first volume of Rawḍ al-jinān (Meadows of Gardens), up to the end of the book on prayer, on 25 Dhū al-Qaʿda 949/2 March 1543,Footnote ³⁵ but it is possible that he revised this section on Friday prayer at a later date, for it seems to be a fuller version of the discussion in al-Rawḍa. In both texts, he rejects the opinion that Friday prayer is prohibited during the occultation, and seems to agree with the wājib takhyīrī position that the believer is faced with an option (mukhayyar) between noon prayer and Friday prayer; that is, one must perform one of the two but not both. He remarks that the status of Friday prayer is thus equivalent in a sense to “preferred” or “recommended” (mustaḥabb), not because Friday prayer is mustaḥabb on its own, but since it is considered the more meritorious of the two options that are collectively obligatory. However, he adds a critique, stating in al-Rawḍa al-bahīya that the evidence for the wājib ʿaynī position is just as strong as that of the wājib takhyīrī position, were it not for earlier jurists’ claim of a consensus against it. He states in Rawḍ al-jinān, “Were it not for the consensus that Friday prayer was not in itself obligatory, then we would not deviate from [that position]”.Footnote ³⁶ He also suggests that many scholars have required a jurist to hold Friday prayer during the Occultation because of a confusion: they begin with a consensus on the requirement of the permission of the Imam or his representative to hold Friday prayer during the time of the Imams’ presence, then claim a consensus on its application to the Occultation, and conclude that Friday prayer is impermissible without the permission of the jurist. Zayn al-Dīn has grave doubts about this, and sees that the first consensus does not apply to the Occultation and that the permission of the jurist is not required for Friday prayer to be permissible. That view, he argues, is weakened by the general scope of the scriptural texts that impose the obligation of Friday prayer.Footnote ³⁷ The passage in Rawḍ al-jinān mentions that al-Muḥaqqiq al-Shaykh ʿAlī – i.e. al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī – went to extremes in his insistence on the position that the jurist must be present for Friday prayer to be permissible in the Occultation, apparently referring to al-Jaʿfarīya, but the passage in al-Rawḍa al-bahīya does not mention him.Footnote ³⁸

In his treatise on Friday prayer, Zayn al-Dīn goes further than in his earlier works, championing the wājib ʿaynī position and arguing that Friday prayer is obligatory in itself. One is not free to choose between it and regular noon prayer. He also attacks the claim that the permission of a fully qualified jurist is required on the grounds that he is the representative of the Imam. In his view, the requirement of the Imam's representative does not hold during the Occultation, whereas the general obligation to perform Friday prayer found in the Quran and the hadith reports of the Imams does.Footnote ³⁹

Zayn al-Dīn wrote two other short works related to Friday prayer, al-Ḥathth ʿalā ṣalāt al-jumʿa (Incitement to Friday Prayer) and a treatise enumerating the special qualities (khaṣā’iṣ) of Friday. Neither is noteworthy for its legal argument, but both suggest Zayn al-Dīn's strong commitment to the wujūb ʿaynī position with regard to Friday prayer and the great effort he expended to support it. It is likely that these treatises date from the same period – neither is dated, but the Khaṣā’iṣ predates Risāla fī ṣalāt al-jumʿāh for it is mentioned in the latter – and that he wrote them as well to support his student Ḥusayn in Iran.Footnote ⁴⁰

II. Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad's Treatise on the Obligatory Status of Friday Prayer

Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad is credited with reviving the performance of Friday prayer in Safavid Iran during the middle of Shah Tahmasb's reign. His efforts to establish Friday prayer are mentioned by both the Safavid court chronicler Iskandar Beg Munshī and Mullā Muẓaffar al-Dīn ʿAlī in the biography of his teacher Bahā’ al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī, the son of Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad, and they appear to be connected with his tenure as shaykh al-islām of Qazvin.Footnote ⁴¹ It has been known for some time that in addition to al-ʿIqd al-ḥusaynī, which treated Friday prayer along with several other issues, Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad wrote a treatise devoted to Friday prayer exclusively, entitled Risāla fī wujūb ṣalāt al-jumʿa.Footnote ⁴² The work has now been edited and published by Rasūl Jaʿfarīyān along with a brief analysis.Footnote ⁴³ He does not assign it a date, but implies that it was written after 966/1559, for he presents it as an answer to Ḥasan al-Karakī's Bulgha, dated in that year, itself a refutation of Zayn al-Dīn's treatise on Friday prayer.Footnote ⁴⁴ Jaʿfarīyān rightly recognizes that Ḥusayn was influential in spreading the ideas of Zayn al-Dīn in Safavid Iran and in introducing his theory on Friday prayer to that environment.Footnote ⁴⁵ He also observes that Ḥusayn's treatise follows Zayn al-Dīn's treatise quite closely, defending his position and refuting the takhyīrī position, particularly the condition that a mujtahid's permission is a necessary condition for Friday prayer.Footnote ⁴⁶

A close reading of the treatise in conjunction with other information about the authors involved makes it possible to add to Jaʿfariyān's remarks in several respects. First, the date of this treatise may be determined within a narrow range. Ḥusayn quotes Zayn al-Dīn's treatise directly, so his own treatise must date to after Zayn al-Dīn had completed his treatise on 1 Rabīʿ I 962/24 January 1555. If Ibn al-ʿAwdī indeed carried the treatise to Ḥusayn in Iran, this would push the terminus post quem back later, for Ibn al-ʿAwdī left Jabal ʿĀmil on 10 Dhū ‘l-Qaʿda 962/26 September 1555 and would have arrived in Iran in early 963/late 1555. It is also clear that Ḥusayn wrote the treatise before Zayn al-Dīn's death in Shaʿbān 965/May 1558, for the cognate blessing he voices after mention of his teacher's name al-Zaynī (=Zayn al-Dīn), zayyana llāhu l-wujūda bi-wujūdih “may God adorn existence with his presence!” indicates that he was still alive at the time.Footnote ⁴⁷ The treatise therefore dates to between 963/1555 and 965/1558, and most likely to 963/1555–56, shortly after Zayn al-Dīn's work arrived in Iran. Zayn al-Dīn probably wrote his treatise and sent it to Iran specifically to support Ḥusayn in his debate on Friday prayer with the supporters of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī's position. It seems likely that Ḥusayn wrote his treatise before he was appointed the shaykh al-islām of Qazvin c. 964/1557 in the course of his initial attempts to gain the patronage of Shah Tahmasb.

Ḥusayn, like Zayn al-Dīn, is chiefly concerned with refuting al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī's position on Friday prayer. An example of his criticism is the following passage, which addresses the opinion that a mujtahid's permission is a necessary condition for holding Friday prayer.

Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad argues that al-Karakī misinterpreted and over-generalized statements found in the works of prominent earlier jurists. He was especially mistaken in claiming a consensus to the effect that the permission of a mujtahid is required for Friday prayer to be held. The following passage calls into question the scholarly status of anyone who upholds al-Karakī's opinion.

This passage may be seen as a grave insult to al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī, whom he calls Master ʿAlī, and his contemporary followers, for Ḥusayn suggests that no muwaffaq, literally “one assisted or favoured by God” and here equivalent to any passable or competent scholar of the law, would adopt such an opinion. The implication is, at the very least, that al-Karakī's opinion is based on flimsy evidence, and at worst, that both he and his followers are utterly inept.

In a statement very similar to the passage of his teacher Zayn al-Dīn, discussed above, Ḥusayn suggests that the reason why Twelver Shiites have ignored Friday prayer has to do with the historical dominance of tyrannical Sunni regimes and not with Shiite doctrine concerning prayer itself.

Ḥusayn argues, following Zayn al-Dīn, that Shiites paid little attention to Friday prayer because they were living under tyrannical Sunni rule and did not accept the prayer leaders appointed by them as legitimate. In the absence of an oppressive regime, however, the dispensation for omission of a key obligation that is stressed in scripture no longer exists. Unlike Zayn al-Dīn, he mentions the Safavid state and Shah Tahmasb explicitly; the parallelism between the passages suggests that Zayn al-Dīn was indeed referring to the Safavids, but avoided doing so out of fear that he would be denounced to the Ottoman authorities or some similar motive.

Ḥusayn ends the treatise with a statement that may hint at a humble request from Shah Tahmasb.

This statement, together with the quranic quotation and its placement at the very end of the treatise, indicates that Ḥusayn is referring to himself and adopting a modest posture, claiming that he is not seeking wealth, power, or stature, but merely intends to play his part in God's design. It seems that such a statement would only be necessary here if Ḥusayn happens to be doing just that, and thereby setting himself up for potential criticism. In other words, the denial of material motives suggests that with this treatise, Ḥusayn is indeed seeking a position of some importance from Shah Tahmasb. This corroborates the hypothesis that he wrote the work before being appointed shaykh al-islām of Qazvin.

III. Ḥasan b. ʿAlī al-Karakī's Object of Desire

In addition to his well-known son ʿAbd al-ʿĀl, al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī had another son, Ḥasan, who was both a trained jurist and an active author, although the sources from the period are mysteriously reticent about him.Footnote ⁵³ Neither his date of birth nor his date of death is known. Al-Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī does not include a biographical notice on him in Amal al-āmil, and Mīrzā ʿAbd Allāh al-Iṣfahānī expresses surprise at this, as he belonged to a well-known family of scholars from what is now Lebanon and so would ordinarily merit prominent mention in that work. Nor does he appear in the available Safavid chronicles that cover Shah Tahmasb's reign. The state of the sources has led Abisaab to speculate that Shah Tahmasb may have intentionally avoided promoting al-Karakī's descendants lest they gain too much power or become firmly entrenched in their positions.Footnote ⁵⁴Riyāḍ al-ʿulamā’ gives the most informative notice on him, and that provides only limited information – the dates of completion of two of his works. In 964/1556–57, at the shrine of the Eighth Imam in Mashhad, he completed al-Manhaj al-qawīm fī mas’alat al-taslīm (The Straight Path, on the Issue of Greeting), which treats a specific issue related to ritual prayer. In 972/1564–65, also in Mashhad, he completed ʿUmdat al-maqāl fī takfīr ahl al-ḍalāl (The Principal Statement, Declaring the People of Error Unbelievers), which argues that both Sunnis and Sufis are heretics.Footnote ⁵⁵ Not noted by al-Iṣfahānī is a work he composed on family ties, Aṭāyib al-kalim fī bayān ṣilat al-raḥim (Fragrant Words, Explaining Familial Bonds), which has now been published.Footnote ⁵⁶ He completed this work, of which a single autograph copy exists in the Marʿashī Library in Qum, in Rabīʿ II 976/23 September–21 October 1568.Footnote ⁵⁷ These three works suggest that Ḥasan spent a considerable portion of his life and career in Iran and that he may have resided in Mashhad for many years, including the period 964–976/1556–1568.

Several other works by Ḥasan are known, and, given the lack of early biographical notices, any historical portrait of him constructed in the future will apparently have to be based exclusively on these. Modarressi notes an extant text by him entitled al-Amr bi’l-maʿrūf wa’l-nahy ʿan al-munkar (Enjoining the Good and Forbidding the Evil).Footnote ⁵⁸ Of primary concern here is his work on Friday prayer, al-Bulgha fī bayān iʿtibār idhn al-imām fī sharʿīyat ṣalāt al-jumʿa, which has recently been edited by Rasūl Jaʿfariyān.Footnote ⁵⁹Al-Bulgha is dated 1 Shaʿbān 966/9 May 1559; no place is mentioned, but Ḥasan may have completed it in Mashhad. It is essentially a refutation of Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī's treatise on Friday prayer, arguing that Friday prayer is not simply obligatory and that its permissibility depends on the condition that the Imam's representative permit it. During the occultation, this means that a fully qualified jurist, a mujtahid, must endorse the performance of the prayer and designate an agent or representative to lead it. In the text, Ḥasan defends the position of his father, ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-ʿĀl al-Karakī, whom he terms al-muḥaqqiq wālidī qaddasa llāhu rūḥahu “the precise formulator of questions, my father – may God sanctify his soul”.Footnote ⁶⁰ The treatise is directed mainly against Zayn al-Dīn, whose name is not given, but who is termed baʿḍ [al-muta’akhkhirīn] al-fā’izīn bi-darajat al-shahāda “one of those [recent scholars] who have won the distinction of martyrdom”.Footnote ⁶¹ The emphasis on the work of Zayn al-Dīn is clear; after setting forth his own position, Ḥasan al-Karakī presents a concluding section in which he shows the error of Zayn al-Dīn's argument in detail.Footnote ⁶² The oblique reference to Zayn al-Dīn and the omission of his name are typical of medieval Islamic polemical discourse. It was considered more elegant to criticize in an indirect manner than to do so bluntly. Mention of Zayn al-Dīn's martyrdom indicates a measure of respect, yet one senses that the author is angry about Zayn al-Dīn's criticisms of his father's work, in addition to feeling it necessary to defend the correct position on this issue.

Jaʿfariyān's short analysis of al-Bulgha points out that the three Karakīs, al-Muḥaqqiq al-Thānī's sons ʿAbd al-ʿĀl and Ḥasan, and his grandson through a daughter, Sayyid Ḥusayn b. Ḥasan b. Jaʿfar al-Karakī, all wrote treatises on the topic of Friday prayer. The unnamed sovereign mentioned in the dedication at the beginning of the work is certainly Shah Tahmasb. Jaʿfariyān also rightly recognized that al-Bulgha is a refutation of Zayn al-Dīn's treatise, in defence of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī's position. He comments that when Zayn al-Dīn's treatise arrived in Iran, Ḥasan was moved by its criticisms of his father and immediately wrote a rebuttal. Jaʿfariyān thus seems to suggest that this is an instance of the rapid pace of long-distance scholarly exchanges in the world of pre-modern Shiite scholarship. A work that Zayn al-Dīn had written a few years before his death in Lebanon provoked a refutation in Iran just four years later.Footnote ⁶³

Jaʿfariyān's analysis of al-Bulgha misses several important points. The timing of the work raises questions. As mentioned, Ḥasan completed the work on 1 Shaʿbān 966/9 May 1559,Footnote ⁶⁴ about one year after the martyrdom of al-Shahīd al-Thānī at the hands of the Ottomans in Istanbul in Shaʿbān 965/May 1558.Footnote ⁶⁵ The controversial work probably travelled to Iran faster than Jaʿfariyān supposes: Zayn al-Dīn's treatise must have arrived in Iran not long after he composed it, by early 963/late 1555. It is more likely that Zayn al-Dīn's death, rather than the arrival of his treatise, convinced Ḥasan to write al-Bulgha at this point. In the religious hierarchy, scholars were reluctant to attack respected figures of higher rank while they were still alive. This seems to have been the case with Zayn al-Dīn himself, who criticized al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī on several legal issues, but only after the latter's death. This may have been done out of respect for elder, senior scholars, but also out of fear of reprisals or ostracism in case they took offence. Ḥasan probably wrote al-Bulgha at this particular time at least in part because Zayn al-Dīn could no longer attack him directly in response.

The other major point that Jaʿfariyān's analysis does not address has to do with the immediate targets of the treatise and the motives behind its composition. These one must gather from the context, because they are not stated outright. Al-Bulgha obviously focuses on Friday prayer in Safavid territory, particularly given the dedication to Shah Tahmasb. Al-Bulgha confirms that Zayn al-Dīn's work was intended to address the situation in Iran. In addition, since Zayn al-Dīn had been martyred before the treatise was composed, he cannot be its main target. The immediate targets of al-Bulgha must be scholars in Iran who uphold Zayn al-Dīn's opinions, chief among whom was Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad, the current shaykh al-islām of Qazvin. As a leading authority by this time, he supported the conduct of Friday prayer held in the capital and elsewhere in the Empire without claiming to be a mujtahid or having the prayer endorsed by a living mujtahid. The fact that his teacher Zayn al-Dīn, who was widely recognized as a mujtahid, had now died made his position even more difficult. In al-ʿIqd al-ḥusaynī, Ḥusayn wrote that the present age apparently lacked a mujtahid, which implies both that he did not himself claim the status and that he did not recognize any of his rivals, including ʿAbd al-ʿĀl al-Karakī and Sayyid Ḥusayn al-Karakī, as mujtahids.Footnote ⁶⁶ Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad would thus appear to be the logical target of al-Bulgha.

One may detect oblique references to Ḥasan al-Karakī's targets at several points in the Bulgha. He refers to having become aware of Zayn al-Dīn's position on Friday prayer in a curious, oblique statement at the outset of the text:

If Ḥasan al-Karakī had access to Zayn al-Dīn's treatise – and it is clear from the text of the refutation that he did, for he responds to its arguments in detail – then one would have expected him to say, “One of our scholars has espoused the opinion X …”. However, his diction seems to deny that any Shiite scholar has actually espoused this opinion. The omission of Zayn al-Dīn's name, the denial that any scholar has upheld this opinion, and the avoidance of applying the term scholar (ʿālim) to Zayn al-Dīn are all intentional slights against the jurist who dared to criticize his father.

The references to Zayn al-Dīn, however, are not the only slights contained in the Bulgha. It is obvious, as mentioned above, that Zayn al-Dīn had already been executed before al-Bulgha was composed and so could not be the immediate target of Ḥasan al-Karakī's argument. In the same opening statement he refers to the contemporaries who must be the more immediate targets in an even more oblique fashion, reporting that he has heard of Zayn al-Dīn's position on Friday prayer “from a group of believers”. Again, it appears that this phrase was chosen intentionally to avoid characterizing the group who transmitted Zayn al-Dīn's opinion to Ḥasan al-Karakī as scholars. Given that Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad was the leading Islamic legal authority in Iran at the time, that he propagated the opinions of his revered teacher Zayn al-Dīn and that he himself was applying Zayn al-Dīn's ruling regarding Friday prayer, and had written at least one major treatise on the topic, this “group of believers” whom al-Karakī does not dignify by granting them the rank of scholars must include him first and foremost.

Overall, al-Karakī's explicit criticisms of Zayn al-Dīn are not extremely harsh, but his presentation conveys a certain deprecation of the martyred jurist. Moreover, the context in which the text was produced suggests that the refutation as a whole is meant as an attack on Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad and his espousal of Zayn al-Dīn's position on Friday prayer in particular. There is no indication in the text that Ḥasan al-Karakī was seeking the position of shaykh al-islām of Qazvin, but he was impugning Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad's credentials, suggesting that he was not even a recognized scholar, let alone a mujtahid. The treatise also suggests that he himself was superior in legal scholarship to Ḥusayn. The dedication to Shah Tahmasb, stating that he is writing the work not only to defend the true, correct position but also “serve” the Shah, is perhaps a veiled reference, suggesting that the Shah should accept his advice about whom to appoint. He has written this work, he explains,

Besides serving as an effusive expression of support for the Safavid dynasty, Ḥasan makes it clear that he is writing this treatise as a service to the crown. In doing so, he reminds the Shah of the important royal role he plays as an upholder of the faith and custodian of Islamic rites. In this context, the reference to “decreasing the suppression of the evident truth” (al-naqṣ min kitmān al-ḥaqq) hints at the role the scholars who have argued for wujūb ʿaynī, and especially Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad, have played in debate on this issue, “suppressing” the correct opinion.

IV. Sayyid Ḥusayn b. Ḥasan al-Karakī's Gleaming Light

Sayyid Ḥusayn b. Ḥasan al-Karakī became the most influential member of the Safavid religious establishment in the late sixteenth century, acting as the leading religious authority in the empire for over two decades and beginning a dynasty of leading officials in the realm.Footnote ⁶⁹ Sayyid Ḥusayn's birth date is not known. His father Sayyid Ḥasan b. Jaʿfar al-Karakī had died on 6 Ramaḍān 936/4 May 1530, presumably in Karak Nūḥ, his hometown in Lebanon.Footnote ⁷⁰ Sayyid Ḥusayn could not have been much over twenty at the time, and most likely studied with his father as a youth. He settled in Safavid Iran in the middle of Shah Tahmasb's reign, and was certainly there by Rabīʿ I 959/late February–March 1552, when he completed Dafʿ al-munāwāt ʿan al-tafḍīl wa’l-musāwāt (The Removal of Hostility, on the Superiority or Equality [of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and the First Three Caliphs]). Some manuscript copies of this book are dedicated to the ruler of Gilan, Sultan Ahmad Khan (d. 1005/1596–97), while others are dedicated to Shah Tahmasb.Footnote ⁷¹ Iskandar Beg Munshī reports that Sayyid Ḥusayn held the position of shaykh al-islām in Ardabil, the ancestral seat of the Safavid Sufi order, before coming to court in Qazvin. In Ardabil in Ramaḍān 966/June 1559, Ḥusayn completed a work on the legal status of Friday prayer, entitled al-Lumʿa fī amr ṣalāt al-jumʿa (The Gleaming Light, on the Issue of Friday Prayer) and dedicated to Shah Tahmasb.Footnote ⁷²

In a 1996 study, I argued that Sayyid Ḥusayn al-Karakī came to the capital, Qazvin, claimed the status of a mujtahid, and successfully replaced Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad as shaykh al-islām of the capital c. 970/1563. After being ousted from his position, Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad petitioned the Shah in al-ʿIqd al- Ḥusaynī for redress and was subsequently appointed shaykh al-islām in Mashhad and Herat.Footnote ⁷³ Abisaab has criticized this interpretation on the grounds that Ḥusayn's appointment to Mashhad and especially to Herat was not actually a demotion, for Herat was equivalent to or even more prestigious than Qazvin; that the interpretation of al-ʿIqd al-Ḥusaynī is strained; and that the paths of the two Ḥusayns cannot be shown to have crossed, writing: “… to date, no data suggest any overlap between the careers of Husayn [b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad] and Mir Husayn [al-Karakī]”.Footnote ⁷⁴ Doubt about the relative prestige of the posts of shaykh al-islām of Qazvin and Herat may be dismissed, in my view; it is clear from the chronicles in this and later periods that the shaykh al-islām of the capital was in a pre-eminent position, undertaking important tasks on behalf of the Shah, participating in the Shahs’ coronations, washing the bodies of deceased members of the royal family, and so on. Moreover, the shaykh al-islām of the capital not only ranked higher than provincial shaykh al-islāms in a relational hierarchy of the Empire's jurists but also influenced their appointment and supervision, though appointments to positions, distribution of stipends, and control of endowments were technically the responsibility of the ṣadr.

The question concerning the overlap of the careers of Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad and Sayyid Ḥusayn al-Karakī is more important, for while the career of the former may be described with some precision, information regarding the career of the latter is less complete. Abisaab considers it inconceivable that Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad could have been designated shaykh al-islām of Qazvin before 968/1561,Footnote ⁷⁵ but this must be wrong. The data currently available suggest that he served as shaykh al-islām of Qazvin c. 964–70/1557–63, shaykh al-islām of Mashhad c. 971–74/1563–67, and shaykh al-islām of Herat c. 975–83/1568–75. Dating the appointment of Sayyid Ḥusayn al-Karakī to the office of shaykh al-islām of Qazvin is more difficult, for none of the available sources mention the appointment. Sayyid Ḥusayn was certainly a leading figure of religious authority at the very end of Shah Tahmasb's reign. Abisaab has stated that Sayyid Ḥusayn was favoured by Shah Tahmasb at the capital by 979/1571–72 at the latest.Footnote ⁷⁶ My earlier claim that Sayyid Ḥusayn was appointed in 970/1563, however, cannot be correct; his appointment must have occurred at a later date. The Safavid chronicle Khulāṣat al-tawārīkh mentions Sayyid Ḥusayn while telling of the murder of Sām Mīrzā, one of Shah Tahmasb's brothers who had been imprisoned in the fortress of Qahqaha for rebelling against Tahmasb. In Jumādā II 975/December 1567, he was killed in the fortress prison along with his two sons and the two sons of the rebel prince Alqāṣ Mīrzā, another brother of Shah Tahmasb who had defected to the Ottomans in 955/1548. Just then, the Shiite Imams informed a dervish in Ardabil through a dream that something terrible had befallen their descendants, and he asked Sayyid Ḥusayn to interpret his dream. Several days later, news of the princes’ deaths arrived, confirming the dream's message. In the anecdote, the chronicler describes Sayyid Ḥusayn as shaykh al-islām of Ardabil.Footnote ⁷⁷ This suggests that he was still away from the capital and serving as shaykh al-islām of Ardabil in Jumādā II 975/December 1567. He must have come to Qazvin and acceded to the position of shaykh al-islām there only at a later date, between 975/1567 and 984/1576.

A recently published source nevertheless confirms the conjecture that Sayyid Ḥusayn al-Karakī in fact served as shaykh al-islām of Qazvin. In the late seventeenth century Sayyid Ḥusayn's descendant Muḥammad Shafīʿ wrote Maḥāfil al-mu’minīn, a sequel to Nūr Allāh al-Shushtarī's (d. 1019/1610) biographical work Majālis al-mu’minīn. This work includes a fairly extensive notice on Sayyid Ḥusayn that mentions a number of his descendants as well. Muḥammad Shafīʿ reports that Sayyid Ḥusayn served as shaykh al-islām of Ardabil, a fact also reported by Iskandar Beg Munshī. However, he adds that Mīr Ḥusayn was charged with supervision of the shrine of the Safavid Sufi shaykhs at Ardabil (tawliyat-i mazār) and the office of the marshal of the sayyids (niqābat), and he states explicitly that Mīr Ḥusayn served as shaykh al-islām of Qazvin.Footnote ⁷⁸ This statement is corroborated in Maḥāfil al-mu’minīn by indications that this last office remained the privilege of Sayyid Ḥusayn's descendants. When he died in 1001/1592–93, his son Mīrzā Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥusayn became shaykh al-islām of Qazvin. After the death of Kamāl al-Dīn, Mīrzā Bahā’ al-Dīn Muḥammad inherited the post, then Mīrzā Muḥammad Shafīʿ, and then Mīrzā Bahā’ al-Dīn Muḥammad [II], the author's father.Footnote ⁷⁹ It is no longer a matter of doubt whether Sayyīd Ḥusayn actually served as shaykh al-islām of Qazvin; he certainly held that office. It remains unclear, though, when he was first appointed.

Sayyid Ḥusayn remained shaykh al-islām of Qazvin for about three decades, surviving Shah Tahmasb, Shah Ismaʿil II (r. 984–85/1576–77) and Shah Muhammad Khudabanda (r. 985–96/1577–87), and serving for several years at the beginning of Shah Abbas I's reign. Events reported in the chronicles indicate that he was the leading religious authority at the Safavid capital by the end of Shah Tahmasb's reign, in 984/1576. He prepared the corpse of Shah Tahmasb for burial when the king died in 984/1576.Footnote ⁸⁰ He remained in Qazvin throughout Shah Ismaʿil II's short reign and led opposition to the Shah's pro-Sunni policies. At one point, the Shah imprisoned him and confiscated his books.Footnote ⁸¹ He was also charged with preparing Shah Ismaʿil II's corpse for burial in Ramaḍān 985/November 1577.Footnote ⁸² In 994/1586, during the Takkalū and Turkman rebellion, the loyalist Shāmlū commander Ismāʿīl-Qulī Khan sent Sayyid Ḥusayn, together with Mīr Ṣadr-i Jahān, outside Qazvin to pay his respects to Tahmasb Mīrzā, whom the rebels had abducted and proclaimed Shah. Naṭanzī refers to Sayyid Ḥusayn in this context as janāb-i mujtahid al-zamānī Shaykh Ḥusayn Ardabīlī. Footnote ⁸³ This must have occurred shortly before 12 Rabīʿ I 994/3 March 1586, when the rebels, led by Muḥammad Khan Takkalū, entered Qazvin and installed Prince Tahmasb in the palace, Ismāʿīl-Qulī Khān having abandoned the capital with his troops.Footnote ⁸⁴ The next year, in Dhū al-Qaʿda 995/October 1587, Sayyid Ḥusayn led the delegation to meet the supporters of Abbas I outside Qazvin as they approached the capital, intending to place him on the throne.Footnote ⁸⁵ Murshid-Qulī Khan sent him outside Qazvin to negotiate with the chiefs of the rival Qizilbash faction the next month, in Dhū al-Ḥijja 995/November 1587.Footnote ⁸⁶ In 999/1591, Sayyid Ḥusayn led a delegation including Bahā’ al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī and Abū al-Walī Injū-i Shīrāzī to Gilan. After convincing the hereditary ruler of the province, Khan Aḥmad, to marry his daughter to Shah Abbas’ son Ṣafī Mīrzā, they returned to Qazvin on 27 Shaʿbān 999/20 June 1591.Footnote ⁸⁷ Two years later, in 1001/1592–93, Sayyid Ḥusayn died in Qazvin after succumbing to the plague or cholera.Footnote ⁸⁸

Al-Lumʿa has not been published, despite the fact, suggested by its prominent use in later treatises on Friday prayer, such as Risāla dar namāz-i jumʿa by ʿAlī Riḍā b. Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥusayn al-Ardakānī al-Shīrāzī, known as Tajallī (d. 1085/1674–75), that it was one of the more influential works on the topic.Footnote ⁸⁹ The date of the original work, Ramaḍān 966/June 1559, is known from a note in Riyāḍ al-ʿulamā’; it apparently derives from the colophon of a manuscript at Mīrzā ʿAbd Allāh al-Iṣfahānī's disposal.Footnote ⁹⁰ The MS I used includes a long dedication to Shah Tahmasb (fol. 3v-5v). The fact that some copies are dedicated to Aḥmad Khān, the ruler of Gilan, suggests that Mīr Ḥusayn was in Ardabil when he composed the work, and not in Qazvin.

Al-Lumʿa is in fact quite similar to al-Bulgha, the work on Friday prayer by Ḥusayn's uncle Ḥasan al-Karakī, except that it is more critical, even sarcastic, and much longer. Like al-Bulgha, it is essentially a defence of the al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī's position and a refutation of Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī's treatise on the legal status of Friday prayer. Mīrzā ʿAbd Allāh al-Iṣfahānī reports that the main target of the treatise is Zayn al-Dīn, adding that Sayyid Ḥusayn's harsh criticisms of Zayn al-Dīn's arguments border on vituperation. He writes, “In that treatise he undertook to refute the Master the Second Martyr in his treatise that he had composed about the absolute obligation of Friday prayer, and he refuted all of his pieces of evidence utterly. Indeed, he discussed them in the rudest manner (bal takallama alayhā bi-aqbaḥ wajh)”.Footnote ⁹¹ The book's date demands attention, for it was written just one month after al-Bulgha, and presumably for the same immediate reason, that Zayn al-Dīn's death had become known, so that it was now safe to criticize him without fear of a reprisal on the part of Zayn al-Dīn himself. As argued above with regard to al-Bulgha, the attack on Zayn al-Dīn, who had been executed by the Ottomans the year before and so could not be a direct opponent, must have actually been directed against Zayn al-Dīn's student Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad.

Al-Lumʿa is much longer than al-Bulgha, and the style is more hyperbolic. Mīr Ḥusayn begins by announcing boldly that he is going to argue against an opinion that is preposterous and has not been held by any serious scholar in the history of Shiite law. He will then present the correct opinion (fol. 2b–3b). He complains in hyperbolic terms of the deplorable state of the times, revealing that he is very upset at the horrid circumstances of the world with regard to the performance of religious obligations (fol. 6b). This passage condemns the present state of affairs somewhat more than would be necessary if the issue were merely a debate over Friday prayer, and one suspects that it is a reaction to a perceived injustice and a condemnation of the current division of positions of religious authority in the Safavid Empire. Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad, an inferior scholar, has been granted a position higher than his own, and this goes against the proper order of things. Mīr Ḥusayn refers to al-Muḥaqqiq al-Thānī using the grand title raʿīs al-muḥaqqiqīn jaddī (the chief of the verifiers, my grandfather), which would ostensibly assign him a rank above that of the first Muḥaqqiq, the famous earlier jurist Najm al-Dīn Jaʿfar b. Ḥasan al-Ḥillī (d. 676/1277).

In a fashion similar to that found in al-Bulgha, Mīr Ḥusayn's references to Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī suggest deprecation. He avoids mentioning Zayn al-Dīn's name, but terms him “one of the learned men of this age” (baʿḍ al-afāḍil min ahl al-ʿaṣr) (fol. 19b–20a). His claim that the opinion Zayn al-Dīn espoused has not been held by any serious scholar implies that Zayn al-Dīn is not to be considered a serious scholar. Also similar are veiled references to Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad. At the outset of the treatise, where he introduces the topic of debate, he writes, “The absolute obligation of Friday prayer has become well known on the tongues of students of the religious sciences in this age”. (fa-qad ishtahara ʿalā alsinat al-ṭalaba fī hādhā al-ʿaṣr wujūb ṣalāt al-jumʿa ḥatman …) (fol. 2b). This suggests that the proponents of this opinion are not in fact mature jurists, but merely students (ṭalaba). Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad is characterized as a mere student, in effect, and not a fully qualified scholar in his own right; he is only an underling or pupil of Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī who does not present his own opinions but only parrots those of his teacher. In a similar statement, he writes that one of Zayn al-Dīn's arguments would cause “the (junior) law student to rejoice” (yafraḥ bihi al-mutafaqqih) (fol. 20a). Again, this appears to be an oblique reference to Ḥusayn, suggesting that he is still a mere student, a pupil of Zayn al-Dīn. It is even more insulting than the term ṭalaba, for mutafaqqih refers specifically to a beginning law student, as opposed to a faqīh, an advanced law student.Footnote ⁹² The passages of al-Lumʿa cited above suggest a sustained argument just below the surface of the text against Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad, portraying him as a mere pupil of Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī who cannot stand on his own as a scholar. It is particularly effective at this juncture; the master has died so that the student is left without his support.

In an important passage, Mīr Ḥusayn seems to suggest to Shah Tahmasb that a careful reading of this treatise will cause him to redress injustices with regard to the rewards he has accorded the scholars in his realm. Referring to his own argument regarding the correct position on Friday prayer, he writes:

This passage has the air of a petition to the Shah couched in oblique terms. The references to rising up to a higher plane challenge the audience to interpret the text at a level beyond that of the prima facie or obvious reading, thus reaching a higher meaning, one that may be hidden to the less perspicacious reader. The reference to taḥqīq, arriving at the truth, in opposition to taqlīd, blind imitation, suggests that the Shah should depend on his own investigation of the issue and not be swayed by others. The reference to right or desert (ḥaqq, mustaḥaqq) and to rank (rutba) is of particular interest here, for these concepts appear frequently in discussions of entitlement to official positions and the competition over them.Footnote ⁹⁵ This text reminds the Shah of his obligation to reward the scholars of the Empire appropriately, each according to his actual rank; it is an elliptical complaint that he has failed to do so in this instance. In order to rectify the situation, he should remove Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad from his position and replace him with a more deserving candidate, presumably the author of this treatise, Sayyid Ḥusayn himself.

The treatise al-Lumʿa fi taḥqīq amr al-jumʿa by Sayyid Ḥusayn al-Karakī, like al-ʿIqd al-Ḥusaynī, serves as a petition to Shah Tahmasb in addition to presenting a particular position on the issue of Friday prayer. In the work al-Karakī refutes the opinion of Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī, but the immediate target is Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad. The work claims that the legal rulings he espoused were wrong, and that therefore he was an incompetent jurist, whereas Sayyid Ḥusayn was superior in standing. Sayyid Ḥusayn seeks to undermine the authority of Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad and perhaps to get Shah Tahmasb to replace him as shaykh al-islām of Qazvin, appointing instead al-Karakī himself, now recognized as the leading jurist of the realm.