Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā, Hussein b. Muhammad

Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā, Hussein b. Muhammad, an Imāmī jurist of the 17^th/11^th century and grand vizier during the Safavid period.¹

His honorific was ‛Alāʾ al-Dīn, and he was commonly known as Khalīfa Sulṭān and Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā. In historical sources, various genealogical attributions are recorded for him, such as Ḥusaynī, Mar‛ashī, Āmulī, Māzandarānī, and Eṣfahānī—reflecting a distinguished lineage. His paternal ancestors belonged to the Mar‛ashī sayyeds from Māzandarān, whose genealogical line traces back to Imam Ali b. al-Hussein, the Shiite forth Imam. Some of them were notable religious and political figures of their time. One of his ancestors was Mīr Qavām al-Dīn Muhammad Mar‛ashī, known as Mīr-e Buzurg (governor of Māzandarān; d. 1379/781). Later ancestors of Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā were also among the prominent and influential sayyeds of Isfahan, known as Sayyeds of Māzandarān and Sādāt-e Khalīfa (or Sādāt-e Khulafā), although it is not precisely known in which generation his forebears migrated to Isfahan.²

His grandfather, Mīr Shujā‛ al-Dīn Maḥmūd, was a scholar and teacher of his time, especially in the rational sciences. His father, Mīrzā Rafi‛ al-Dīn Muhammad, who was well-versed in both rational and transmitted sciences and known for his piety and devoutness, was appointed to the office as a chief religious administrator in 1617/1026 during the reign of Shah ‛Abbās I*. He came to be known as Ṣadr-e Khalīfa and Ṣadr-e Kabīr. Mīrzā Rafi‛ al-Dīn passed away in early 1625/1034, and his body was buried in Karbala. He is described as being pure of heart, benevolent, and of a cheerful temperament.³ Some sources mention his marginal notes on certain sections of al-Rawḍa al-Bahīyya fī Sharḥ al-Lum‛a al-Damashqīyya, a work written by Shahīd al-Thānī, as well as his refutation of Sher‛at al-Tasmīyya—a treatise on the prohibition of explicitly naming the twelfth Shiite Imam during the Occultation—written by his contemporary, the renowned philosopher and scholar Mīr Dāmād*.⁴ A number of sources have confused him with Mīrzā Rafi‛ al-Dīn Muhammad Shahrestānī (a nephew of Mīrzā Raḍī Shahrestānī),⁵ who was appointed to the same office jointly with him and later succeeded him individually after his death. These accounts mistakenly attribute to him the continuation of his tenure as a chief religious administrator until the end of Shah ‛Abbās I’s reign, his removal from office under Shah Ṣafī* (r. 1629-1642), and his death after dismissal.⁶

Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā was born in 1001/1593 in Isfahan. He received most of his religious education under the supervision of his father, and later studied with other scholars such as Mullā Maḥmūd Renānī, Mullā Hussein Yazdī Nadūshanī, and Sheikh Bahāʾī*. He studied Islamic sciences and attended hadith sessions, and received permission to transmit hadith (ejāzat al-rewāya) from Sheikh Bahāʾī.⁷ He was regarded as a prominent scholar in jurisprudence and in certain rational and transmitted sciences. Many sources describe him as a scholar versed in multiple disciplines and assert that he was proficient in nearly all branches of knowledge, with particular expertise in arithmetic.⁸ According to Waḥīd Qazvīnī,⁹ he had a strong interest in reading books on the Prophet’s biography (sīra) and in researching the works of earlier scholars.

Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā, particularly during the interval between his two terms of office as vizier,¹⁰ devoted himself to teaching and other scholarly pursuits.¹¹ According to Shahāb al-Dīn Mar‛ashī Najafī, one of his descendants, Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā was among the most renowned teachers of his time, and a large number of students attended his lessons. In addition to his four sons—Muhammad, Ali, Ebrāhīm, and Hasan—figures such as Āqā Hussein Kh^wānsārī*, Mīrzā ‛Abdul-Razzāq Kāshānī, Mīrzā ‛Īsā Afandī (father of ‛Abdullāh Afandī*, author of Rīyāḍ al-‛Ulamā), Mullā Abū al-Khayr Muhammad Taqī Fārsī, Mullā Muḥammad-Bāqer Majlesī*, and Khalīl b. Ghāzī Qazvīnī were either his students or narrators of hadith from him. However, biographical accounts of most of them—including Kh^wānsārī and Majlesī—do not explicitly mention that they studied directly under Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā. Muhammad Taqī Fārsī is among those reported to have received an authorization to transmit hadith from him.¹² Shah ʿAbbās I arranged the marriage of his third daughter, Khān-Āghā Begum/Beygum, to Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā.¹³ The date of this marriage has been variously reported: by E‛temād al-Salṭane as 1607/1016,¹⁴ by Naṣrallāh Falsafī as 1608/1017,¹⁵ and by Khātūnābādī*¹⁶ as 1609/1018.¹⁷ In 1624/1033, while his father was still serving as the chief religious administrator and following the death of Salmān Khān, grand vizier to Shah ‛Abbās I, he was appointed vizier to the imperial council (dīvān-e a‛lā), and assumed the title of grand vizier and e‛temād al-dawla. According to sources, while his father was still alive, both would jointly receive public petitions at the same residence. After Shah Ṣafī ascended the throne, Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā remained in office as grand vizier.¹⁸

According to Eskandar Munshī*, Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā had accepted the post of vizier not out of personal ambition but in obedience to Shah ‛Abbās’s command. Under Shah Ṣafī, however, he persistently sought to resign from office. The young king, still insecure in his position and reliant on experienced statesmen like Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā, interpreted this insistence as a sign of disloyalty or even conspiracy. Consequently, in February 1632/Rajab 1041, three years after his accession, Shah Ṣafī—seeking to secure himself against potential claimants to the throne—undertook a series of purges, including dismissals and appointments, as well as the execution or blinding of several male descendants of Shah ‛Abbās. It was during this campaign that Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā was removed from office, and four of his young sons—who were maternal grandsons of Shah ‛Abbās—were blinded. Shah Ṣafī ordered to blind his son-in-law, Abū al-Qāsem Mīrzā (son of Mīrzā Muḥsen Raḍavī), along with two of his grandsons (the sons of Abū al-Qāsem Mīrzā).¹⁹ Afandī,²⁰ while noting the generally accepted this account based on various sources, also suggests the possibility that Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s sons were blinded during the reign of Shah ‛Abbās I; however, no evidence of this appears in earlier sources.

According to Eskandar Munshī,²¹ the incitement, slander, false accusations, and intrigues of certain courtiers—particularly Cherāgh Khān Zāhedī, who served for about six months as qūrchī-bāshī (commander of the royal guard) during the reign of Shah Ṣafī and was killed in July 1632/Muḥarram 1042—played a significant role in these events.²² After serving as grand vizier for nearly eight years, Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā lived in seclusion for more than a decade—until the end of Shah Ṣafī’s reign—devoting himself to reading, teaching, and writing.²³

There are differing reports in the sources regarding Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s place of residence during his period of seclusion. Eskandar Munshī refers to his political and administrative withdrawal and scholarly preoccupations, while Muhammad Ma‛ṣūm merely notes his removal from government affairs. According to Naṣrābādī*,²⁴ however, he took up residence in Qum after his dismissal. Most later sources explicitly state that he was exiled to Qum. Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī²⁵ describes the matter in such a way as to suggest that Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā resided in Qum until the end of Shah Ṣafī’s reign. In contrast, according to the account of Afandī²⁶—followed by many subsequent authors²⁷—he was later summoned back to Isfahan and settled there. Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s translation of a book at the order of Shah Ṣafī in 1640/1050, and his dedication of another work to the monarch, lend weight to this latter view. During this period, he also performed the ḥajj pilgrimage, and his return coincided with the death of Shah Ṣafī.

After the death of Shah Ṣafī and the accession of Shah ‛Abbās II* (r. 1642–1666/1052–1077), Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā emerged from seclusion and became one of the king’s close confidants. In September 1645/Sha‛bān 1055, approximately three years into the new reign and following the assassination of Mīrzā Muḥammad-Taqī E‛temād al-Dawla—better known as Sārū Taqī*— Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā was once again appointed grand vizier, despite his insistence on avoiding non-scholarly affairs.²⁸ Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā remained in this position until the end of his life, serving for about nine years during his second term, and totaling approximately seventeen years as grand vizier. In this second tenure, he wielded even greater moral authority and executive power. In addition to implementing the king’s orders, he frequently took the initiative in policymaking and decision-making, while Shah ‛Abbās II, who held Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s religious standing in great esteem, would simply give his approval to the decisions already made. During this period, a kind of balance of power was effectively established between the king and his vizier.²⁹ A dream attributed to Shah ‛Abbās II, in which Imam Ali, through Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā, commands the king to conquer Qandahar in order to save the Shīʽa population there,³⁰ vividly illustrates the depth of Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s spiritual influence over the monarch. Several actions taken by Shah ‛Abbās II in 1645/1055—such as the dismissal of Mīrzā Qāḍī from the post of senior religious authority (sheikh al-eslām) of Isfahan, the removal of Mullā Ḥasan-Ali (son of Mullā ‛Abdullāh Shūshtarī) from his position as instructor and superintendent of the Mullā ‛Abdullāh Seminary* (both of whom had worked against Khalīfa Sulṭān), the appointment of Ali-Naqī Kamareʾī Shīrāzī as the senior religious authority of Isfahan, and the selection of Muḥaqqeq Sabzewārī—who was particularly favored by Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā—as instructor at the same seminary,³¹ further strengthened Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s standing at court.

Holding the office of grand vizier for a relatively long period during the reigns of three Safavid monarchs granted Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā an unparalleled role in forging close ties between the political structure and religious institutions of the Safavid state. His presence—grounded in a religious background—at the head of Iran’s administrative system, his support for Imāmī scholars and jurists, and his efforts towards enacting certain social reforms in accordance with Islamic law, especially during his second term as grand vizier, contributed significantly to the growing strength and institutional flourishing of the religious establishment based on Shīʿī teachings. These actions also enhanced the public presence and social authority of religious scholars and consolidated their position in society.³² The main measures attributed to Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā in combating corruption and immorality—with the approval of Shah ‛Abbās*—are as follows: 1- The suppression of immoral activity in coffee-houses through the continuation and intensification of relevant regulations and laws; 2- Combating the phenomenon of prostitution by preventing the public activity of prostitutes and refraining from the collection of official taxes from bayt al-luṭaf (brothels), so that such activities would not gain a semblance of legitimacy. 3- Imposing severe punishments for wine production and sale, and waging a determined campaign against the consumption of alcohol by banning it in coffee-houses and other public places—despite its widespread use at court and in society, and the difficulty of eradicating it. Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā regarded wine drinking as the root cause of all other immoral acts.³³ Some courtiers attempted to obtain royal decrees that would override these prohibitions. Although they reportedly succeeded on at least one occasion—likely due to the shah’s inebriation—Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā promptly caused the king to regret the decree and prevented its implementation.³⁴ Nevertheless, Naṣrābādī³⁵ notes that during Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s second vizierate, he himself engaged in “habitual drinking” (shurb-e mudām), allegedly “by order of” Shah ‛Abbās II. Contemporary sources do not confirm this claim. Kh^wānsārī³⁶ also refers—without citing any sources—to reports doubting Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s complete abstinence from certain improper behaviors, as well as expressing skepticism regarding the authenticity of his ejtehād (scholarly legal authority).

Amīn, citing a letter he received from Najafī Marʿashī, contemporary biographer, concerning the biography of Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā, mentions several of his travels, although without specifying their dates. These include a journey to Egypt, during which he reportedly met and engaged in scholarly discussions with the scholars of Cairo and other regions; a trip to Yemen and a meeting with the leader of the Zaydīs; and two visits to Constantinople aimed at regulating relations between Iran and the Ottoman Empire.³⁷ According to Najafī Marʿashī,³⁸ Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā engaged in debate and scholarly exchange in Constantinople with Abū al-Su‛ūd Afandī (d. 1574/982), the Sheikh al-eslām and chief muftī of the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Sulaymān the Magnificent and author of the Tafsīr Abū al-Su‛ūd. It is said that Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s son, Mīrzā Ali, compiled and recorded these debates in a question-and-answer format. However, given that Abū al-Su‛ūd died approximately nineteen years before the birth of Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā, this report cannot be considered accurate.

Sayyed Ali Khān Madanī³⁹ records the year of Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s death as ca. 1656/1066⁴⁰ a date which Afandī⁴¹ suggests may be erroneous, and, based on the date of the conquest of Qandehār—during the return from which Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā reportedly passed away—he estimates the year of his death as around 1056/1646.⁴² Nevertheless, most sources report that he died in Ashraf Māzandarān (present-day Behshahr) in 1064/1654, while returning from the Qandahar campaign alongside Shah ‛Abbās II.⁴³ His body, in accordance with his will, was buried in the shoe deposit area (kafshdārī) of the shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf.⁴⁴ Eskandar Munshī⁴⁵ lists numerous virtues for him, including competence, benevolence, admirable conduct with people, moral integrity, noble character, and eloquent speech.⁴⁶ He is also credited with charitable works, such as the founding of several seminary schools and clinics in Isfahan,⁴⁷ and the construction of the most prominent school in Qazvīn. He maintained a large and well-stocked library, which was used by scholars and other visitors.⁴⁸ Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā and his family also left behind many endowments,⁴⁹ the deeds (waqfnāma) of which have been published by Dāneshpazhūh.⁵⁰

One of Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s most significant theoretical contributions—one that exerted a lasting influence on scholars specialized in legal theory after him—was his position on the non-metaphorical nature of using a term in its restricted (muqayyad) sense. Earlier scholars of legal theory maintained that qualifying an absolute (muṭlaq) term results in the figurative (majāzī) use of the word, since the designated meaning (mawḍūʿun lah) of a general expression is the unrestricted (unqualified) sense, and any qualification (taqyīd) distances the term from its original (ḥaqīqī) meaning, thereby making the user of the term guilty of employing it figuratively. Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā, however, argued that the qualification of an absolute term does not necessarily entail figurative usage, whether the qualifier is attached (muttaṣel) or separate (munfaṣel). This view was widely accepted by the majority of jurists and scholars of legal theory after him.⁵¹

Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā authored numerous works, most of which take the form of marginal commentaries on the writings of earlier scholars.⁵² In theology, he composed two such commentaries: one on the marginal commentary of Shams al-Dīn Muhammad b. Aḥmad Khafrī on the metaphysics section of Ali b. Muhammad Qūshjī’s well-known commentary (al-sharḥ al-jadīd) on Tajrīd al-e‛tiqād by Kh^wāja Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī; and the other, a set of marginal notes (ta‛līqāt) on the earliest commentary by Jalāl al-Dīn Muhammad Dawānī—known as al-ḥāshīya al-qadīma—on Qūshjī’s al-sharḥ al-jadīd.⁵³ In the field of legal theory, his works include three marginal commentaries: 1- A marginal commentary on Ma‛ālem al-uṣūl by Hasan b. Zayn al-Dīn ‛Āmelī, which received considerable attention from later scholars. It was first printed in Tehran in 1857/1274, alongside the marginal commentary by Mullā Ṣāleḥ Māzandarānī*.⁵⁴ 2- A detailed, argument-based marginal commentary on ‛Aḍud al-Dīn Ījī’s commentary on al-Mukhtaṣar Ebn Ḥājeb,⁵⁵ which Afandī⁵⁶ regarded as one of the most accurate and refined works of its kind. Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā composed this commentary for his son, Mīr Sayyed Ali, as a supplement to the marginal commentary of Mīr Sayyed Sharīf Jurjānī.⁵⁷ 3- A marginal commentary on Zubdat al-uṣūl, authored by his teacher, Sheikh Bahāʾī.⁵⁸

Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā also authored marginal commentaries on several major hadith and jurisprudential works. These include: al-Kāfī by Muhammad b. Ya‛qūb Kulaynī; Tahdhīb al-aḥkām and al-Estebṣār, both written by Sheikh Ṭūsī; Sharāyeʾ al-Eslām written by al-Muḥaqqeq al-Ḥellī; Qawā‛ed al-aḥkām fī masāʾel al-ḥalāl wa al-ḥarām and Mukhtalef al-Shī‛a fī aḥkām al-sharī‛a, both written by ‛Allāma Ḥellī; and al-Rawḍa al-bahīyya fī sharḥ al-Lum‛a al-Dameshqīyya written by al-Shahīd al-Thānī. Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s marginal commentary on Sharḥ al-Lum‛a, which is apparently one of the earliest marginal commentaries on this work, appears to have been limited to the section on ṭahāra (ritual purity) and has been published.⁵⁹ Afandī⁶⁰ described this marginal commentary on Sharḥ al-Lum‛a as unstructured or non-systematic. Ali b. Muhammad b. Hasan b. Zayn al-Dīn ‛Āmelī (a grandson of the author of Ma‛ālem) composed a marginal commentary on Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s commentary,⁶¹ in which he attempted to respond to Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s objections to Sharḥ al-Lum‛a.⁶² Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā also wrote marginal commentaries on al-Muqne‛ and selected sections of Man lā yaḥḍuruhu al-faqīh by Ebn Bābawayh (al-Ṣadūq), as well as on Sharḥ arba‛īn ḥadīth by Sheikh Bahāʾī. He also authored a Persian treatise on the rituals of ḥajj.⁶³

Other well-known works on which Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā wrote marginal commentaries include: al-Kashshāf ‛an ḥaqāʾeq al-tanzīl by Jārullāh al-Zamakhsharī; Anwār al-tanzīl wa asrār al-taʾwīl by al-Bayḍāwī; the commentaries on al-Shamsīyya and al-Maṭāle‛—both works in the field of logic; as well as Khulāṣat al-ḥesāb and Meftāḥ al-falāḥ, both written by Sheikh Bahāʾī.⁶⁴ He also composed a treatise titled Unmūdhaj al-‛ulūm (or Namādhej al-‛ulūm), which includes discussions on various disciplines, such as logic and legal theory. In this work, he analyzed twenty issues that had previously been addressed by other scholars.⁶⁵ He translated the geographical work Taqwīm al-buldān written by Esmā‛īl b. Ali Abū al-Fadā into Persian at the order of Shah Ṣafī, completing the translation in 1640/1050.⁶⁶

He also composed a Persian treatise titled Tawḍīḥ al-akhlāq, which is a summary of Akhlāq-e Nāṣerī written by Kh^wāja Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī. This work was written in 1641/1051 at the order of Shah Ṣafī, using the literary style common at the time.⁶⁷He was also regarded as a poet, and a Persian dīvān containing approximately ten thousand verses has been attributed to him.⁶⁸ Naṣrābādī cites several examples of Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s quatrains.⁶⁹

Several years after the death of Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā, his brother Mīrzā Qavām al-Dīn Muhammad was appointed grand vizier in 1659/1070.⁷⁰ According to E‛temād al-Salṭana,⁷¹ he was dismissed from office in 1664/1075 following complaints by the arbāb-e waẓāʾef (recipients of government stipends).

Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā had four sons who, despite having been blinded by order of Shah Ṣafī, pursued their studies and became religious scholars. As maternal grandsons of Shah ‛Abbās I, they were honored with the title Nawwāb (“the Nobles”). These were: Nawwāb Mīrzā Rafi‛ al-Dīn Muhammad; Nawwāb Mīr Sayyed Ali (ancestor of many of the Mar‛ashī sayyeds in Tabriz, Tehran, Kerman, and Isfahan, including Sayyed Shahāb al-Dīn Najafī Mar‛ashī); Nawwāb Mīrzā Ebrāhīm; and Nawwāb Mīr Sayyed Hasan.⁷²The most renowned among them was Mīrzā Ebrāhīm, who was born in 1628/1038 and was only three years old at the time of his blinding. He later became a learned, skilled, and multidisciplinary scholar, writing marginal commentaries on various works across different fields such as jurisprudence, legal theory, and theology. Among these is his marginal commentary on Madārek al-aḥkām, which reflects his thorough research and precision, as well as his commentary on Sharḥ al-Lum‛a. One volume of this extensive commentary, covering the section on ritual purity (ṭahāra) up to the end of ritual dust (tayammum), is extant. In this work, he occasionally cites and critiques the opinions of his father. Following his father’s death, Mīrzā Ebrāhīm assumed the supervision of his endowments and succeeded him in religious affairs. He died in 1687/1098.⁷³ It is worth noting that Mīrzā Muhammad-Bāqer Ḥusaynī (a grandson of Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā and son of Mīr Sayyed Hasan) was also a religious scholar and author of marginal notes on Sharḥ al-Lum‛a. He was among the most prominent ṣadrs during the reign of Shah Sulṭān Hussein of the Safavid dynasty. Mīr Sayyed Murtaḍā, son of Mīr Sayyed Ali, likewise held the office of ṣadr towards the end of Shah Sulṭān Hussein’s reign.⁷⁴

Many of Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā’s descendants resided in cities such as Isfahan, Tehran, Tabriz, Qum, and Karbala.⁷⁵ Kh^wānsārī, writing in his own time, described the descendants of Sulṭān al-‛Ulamā—known as the Sādāt-e Banī Khalīfa—as well known, but noted that they “possess neither virtue nor excellence, let alone status or wealth.”⁷⁶

/Mohammad Raeiszadeh/

Bibliography

Afandī, ‛Abdullāh b. ‛Īsā, Rīyāḍ al-‛Ulamāʾ wa Ḥayāḍ al-Fuḍalāʾ, ed. Aḥmad Ḥusaynī, Qum: Maṭba‛at al-Khayyām, 1981/1401- 1994/1415.

Afandī, ‛Abdullāh b. ‛Īsā, Ta‛līqat Amal al-Āmel, ed. Aḥmad Ḥusaynī, Qum: Maktabat Ayatollah al-Mar‛ashī al-Najafī, 1990/1410.

Afshār, Īraj and Dāneshpazhūh, Muhammad-Taqī, Fehrest-e Ketābhā-ye Khaṭṭī-ye Ketābkhāna-ye Mellī-ye Malek, vol. 2, Tehran: Āstān-e Quds-e Raḍavī, 1975/1354.

Amīn, Muḥsen, A‛yān al-Shī‛a, ed. Hasan Amīn, Beirut: Dār al-Ta‛āruf le-l-Maṭbū‛āt, 1983/1403.

Anṣārī, Murtaḍā b. Muhammad-Amīn, Farāʾed al-Uṣūl, Qum: Majma‛ al-Fekr al-Eslāmī, 1419.

Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, Muhammad-Muḥsen, al-Dharī‛a elā Taṣānīf al-Shī‛a, ed. Ali-Naqī Munzavī and Aḥmad Munzavī, Beirut: Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, 1983/1403.

Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, Muhammad-Muḥsen, Ṭabaqāt A‛lām al-Shī‛a: al-Rawḍa al-Naḍera fī ‛Ulamāʾ al-Meʾat al-Ḥādīya ‛Ashara, Beirut, 1990/1411.

Ardabīlī, Muhammad b. Ali, Jāme‛ al-Ruwāt wa Ezāḥat al-Eshtebahāt ‛an al-Ṭuruq wa al-Esnād, Beirut: Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, 1983/1403.

Chardin, Jean, Sīyāḥatnāma-ye Chardin, trans. Muhammad ‛Abbāsī, Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, vol. 2 (1956/1335 Sh), vol. 4 (1957/1336).

Dāneshpazhūh, Muhammad-Taqī, “Asnād-e Waqf-e Khāndān-e Khalīfe Sulṭān”, Nāme-ye Āstān-e Quds, vol. 9, nos. 1–2, Spring 1971/1350.

E‛temād al-Salṭana, Muhammad-Hasan b. Ali, Tārīkh-e Muntaẓam-e Nāṣerī, ed. Muhammad Esmāʿīl Reḍvānī, Tehran: Dunyā-ye Ketāb, 1984–1988/1363–1367.

Eskandar Munshī, Dheyl-e Tārīkh-e ‛Ālam-Ārā-ye ‛Abbāsī, ed. Suheylī Kh^wānsārī, Tehran: Ketābfurūshī-ye Eslāmīyye, 1938/1317.

Eskandar Munshī, Tārīkh-e ‛Ālam-Ārā-ye ‛Abbāsī, Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1971/1350.

Fāḍel Javād, Javād b. Sa‛īd, Masālek al-Afrām elā Āyāt al-Aḥkām, vol. 1, ed. Muhammad-Taqī Kashfī, Tehran: Murtaḍavī, 1986/1365.

Falsafī, Naṣrullāh, Zendegānī-ye Shah ‛Abbās-e Avval, Tehran: ‛Elmī, 1985/1364.

Fekrat, Muhammad-Āṣef, Fehrest-e Alefbāʾī-ye Kutub-e Khaṭṭī-ye Ketābkhāne-ye Markazī-ye Āstān-e Quds-e Raḍavī, Mashhad: Ketābkhāne-ye Markazī-ye Āstān-e Quds-e Raḍavī, 1990/1369.

Ḥāʾerī, ‛Abdul-Hussein, Fehrest-e Ketābkhāna-ye Majles-e Shūrā-ye Mellī, vol. 21, Tehran: Majles-e Shūrā-ye Mellī, 1978/1357.

Hedāyat, Reḍāqulī b. Muhammad-Hādī, Tadhkere-ye Rīyāḍ al-‛Ārefīn, ed. Mehr-Ali Garkānī, Tehran: Ketābfurūshī-ye Maḥmūdī, [1965/1344].

Ḥurr ‛Āmelī, Muhammad b. Hasan, Amal al-Āmel, ed. Aḥmad Ḥusaynī, Baghdad: Maktabat al-Andalus, [1965? /1385]; offset reprint, Qum: Dār al-Ketāb al-Eslāmī, 1983/1362.

Ḥusaynī Eshkevarī, Aḥmad, Fehrest-e Nuskhe-hā-ye Khaṭṭī-ye Ketābkhāna-ye ‛Umūmī-ye Ḥaḍrat Ayatollah Mar‛ashī Najafī, vols. 1–27, Qum: Ketābkhāna-ye Ayatollah Mar‛ashī Najafī, 1975–1997/1354–1376.

Ja‛farīyān, Rasūl, Siyāsat va Farhang-e Rūzgār-e Ṣafavī, Tehran: ʿIlm, 2009/1388.

Jāberī Anṣārī, Muhammad-Hasan, Tārīkh-e Eṣfahān va Rey va Hame-ye Jahān, [Isfahan]: Hussein ‛Emādzāde, [1943/1322].

Karīmī, Ali-Reza, “Khalīfe Sulṭān (Sultān al-‛Ulamāʾ): Faqīh va Vazīr-e A‛ẓam-e ‛Aṣr-e Ṣafavī”, Ḥukūmat-e Eslāmī, vol. 2, no. 4, Winter 1997/1376.

Kashshī, Muhammad b. ‛Umar, Ekhtīyār Ma‛refat al-Rejāl, al-Ma‛rūf be Rejāl al-Kashshī, abridged by Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭūsī, with marginal notes by Muhammad-Bāqer b. Muhammad Mīrdāmād, ed. Mahdī Rajāʾī, Qum: Āl al-Bayt, 1984/1404.

Khātūnābādī, ‛Abd al-Hussein b. Muhammad-Bāqer, Waqāye‛ al-Senīn wa al-A‛wām, yā, Guzāresh-hā-ye Sālīyāne az Ebtedā-ye Khelqat tā Sāl-e 1195 hejrī, ed. Muḥammad-Bāqer Behbūdī, Tehran: Eslāmīyye, 1973/1352.

Kh^wānsārī, Muhammad-Bāqer b. Zayn al-‛Ābedīn, Rawḍāt al-Jannāt fī Aḥwāl al-‛Ulamā wa al-Sādāt, ed. Asadullāh Esmā‛īlīyān, Qum: Esmā‛īlīyān, 1970–1972/1390–1392.

Ma‛ṣūm-‛Alīshāh, Muhammad-Ma‛ṣūm b. Zayn al-‛Ābedīn, Ṭarāʾeq al-Ḥaqāʾeq, ed. Muhammad-Ja‛far Maḥjūb, Tehran: Ketābkhāna-ye Bārānī, [ca.1939/1318].

Mudarres Tabrīzī, Muhammad-Ali, Rayḥānat al-Adab, Tehran: Khayyām, 1990/1369.

Muhammad Ma‛ṣūm, Khulāṣat al-Seyar: Tārīkh-e Rūzgār-e Shah Ṣafī-ye Ṣafavī, Tehran: ‛Elmī, 1989/1368.

Mullā Kamāl Munajjem, Tārīkh-e Mullā Kamāl: az Madārek-e Avvalīye-ye Tārīkh-e Ṣafavīyān, ed. Ebrāhīm Dehqān, Arak: Farvardīn, [ca.1955/1334].

Munzavī, Aḥmad, Fehrest-e Nuskhehā-ye Khaṭṭī-ye Fārsī, Tehran: Muʾassase-ye Farhangī-ye Manṭaqeʾī, 1969–1974/1348–1353.

Mushār, Khānbābā, Fehrest-e Ketābhā-ye Chāpī-ye ‛Arabī, Tehran: Bunyād-e Tarjume va Nashr-e Ketāb, 1965/1344.

Muẓaffar, Muhammad-Reza, Uṣūl al-Feqh, Qum: Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-Eslāmī, [n.d.].

Naṣrābādī, Muhammad-Ṭāher, Tadhkere-ye Naṣrābādī, ed. Vaḥīd Dastgerdī, Tehran: Furūghī, 1982/1361.

Nūrī, Hussein b. Muhammad-Taqī, Mustadrak al-Wasāʾel wa Mustanbaṭ al-Masāʾel, Qum: Muʾassasat Āl al-Bayt le-Eḥyāʾ al-Turāth, 1987–1988/1407–1408.

Qazvīnī, ‛Abd al-Nabī b. Muhammad-Taqī, Tatmīm A‛yān al-Shī‛a, ed. Aḥmad Ḥusaynī, Qum: Maktabat Ayatollah al-Mar‛ashī al-Najafī, 1986/1407.

Qazvīnī, Abū al-Hasan b. Ebrāhīm, Favāʾed al-Ṣafavīyya: Tārīkh-e Salāṭīn va Umarā-ye Ṣafavīyya pas az Suqūṭ-e Dulat-e Ṣafavīyya, ed. Maryam Mīr-āḥmadī, Tehran: Muʾassase-ye Muṭāle‛āt va Taḥqīqāt-e Farhangī, 1988/1367.

Qumī, ‛Abbās, Favāʾed al-Raḍavīyya: Zendegānī-ye ‛Ulamā-ye Madhhab-e Shī‛a, Tehran: Markazī, [c.1948/1327].

Qumī, ‛Abbās, Hadīyyat al-Aḥbāb fī Dhekr, al-Ma‛rūf be-l-Kunā wa-l-Alqāb wa-l-Ansāb, Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1984/1363.

Ranjbar, Muhammad-Ali, “Khalīfe Sulṭān”, Keyhān Andīsheh, no. 57, Dec.–Jan. 1994/1373.

Sayyed Ali Khān Madanī, Salāfat al-‛Aṣr fī Maḥāsen al-Shu‛arāʾ be-Kull Meṣren, Cairo 1906/1324, offset reprint, Tehran: al-Maktaba al-Murtaḍawīyya, [n.d.].

Ṣefatgul, Manṣūr, Sākhtār-e Nahād va Andīshe-ye Dīnī dar ‛Aṣr-e Ṣafavī: Tārīkh-e Tahavvulāt-e Dīnī-ye Iran dar Sade-hā-ye Dahum tā Davāzdahum-e Hejrī Qamarī, Tehran: Muʾassase-ye Khadamāt-e Farhangī-ye Rasā, 2002/1381.

Shāmlū, Valī-Qulī b. Dāvūdqulī, Qaṣaṣ al-Khāqānī, ed. Hasan Sādāt Nāṣerī, Tehran: Vezārat Farhang va Ershād-e Eslāmī, 1992–1995/1371–1374.

Sultān al-‛Ulamā, Hussein b. Muhammad, [al-Ḥāshīya ‛alā Ma‛ālem al-Dīn], in Muhammad Ṣāleḥ b. Aḥmad Māzandarānī, Sharḥ Ma‛ālem al-Dīn, lithograph Tehran 1278/1861, offset reprint, Qum: Maktabat al-Dāwarī, [n.d.].

Tehrānī, Abū al-Qāsem b. Muhammad-Ali, Maṭāreḥ al-Anẓār: Taqrīrāt-e Dars-e Sheikh Anṣārī, vol. 2, lithograph print, Tehran, 1890; offset reprint, Qum: Āl al-Bayt, 1984/1404.

Theqat al-Eslām Tabrīzī, Ali b. Mūsā, Merʾāt al-Kutub, ed. Muhammad-Ali Ḥāʾerī, vol. 2, Qum: Maktabat Ayatollah al-Mar‛ashī al-Najafī, 1997/1376.

Vaḥīd Qazvīnī, Muhammad-Ṭāher b. Hussein, ‛Abbāsnāme: yā Sharḥ-e Zendegānī-ye 22 Sāle-ye Shah ‛Abbās-e Thānī (1052–1073), ed. Ebrāhīm Dehqān, Arak: Ketābfurūshī-ye Dāvūdī, 1950/1329.

Vāleh Dāghestānī, Ali-Qulī b. Muhammad-Ali, Tadhkere-ye Rīyāḍ al-Shu‛arāʾ, eds. Abū al-Qāsem Rādfar and Gītā Ashīdarī, Tehran: Pazhūheshgāh-e ‛Ulūm-e Ensānī va Mutāle‛āt-e Farhangī, 2012/1391.

Vāleh Esfahānī, Muhammad-Yūsuf, Khuld-e Barīn: Ḥadīqe-ye Sheshum va Haftum az Rawḍe-ye Hashtum (Iran dar Zamān-e Shah Ṣafī va Shāh ‛Abbās-e Duvvum), ed. Muhammad-Reza Naṣīrī, Tehran: Anjuman-e Āthār va Mafākher-e Farhangī, 2001/1380.

1. This article was previously printed in The Encyclopaedia of the World of Islam, vol. 24, pp. 216-222, and has been published in The Encyclopaedia Isfahanica with slight modifications[↩]
2. Eskandar Munshī, 1971/1350, vol. 1, pp. 147–148; vol. 2, pp. 928, 1013; Afandī, 1990/1410, p. 134; Hedāyat, p. 319; Kh^wānsārī, vol. 2, p. 346; Eʿtemād al-Salṭana, vol. 2, pp. 652–653; for his genealogical line, see: Afandī, 1981–1995/1401–1415, vol. 2, p. 51; cf. idem, 1990/1410, p. 135; for the origin of his and some of his ancestors’ title “Khalīfa Sulṭān”, see: Afandī, 1990/1410, p. 134.[↩]
3. Eskandar Munshī, vol. 1, pp. 147–148; vol. 2, pp. 928, 1040–1041, 1090; Afandī, vol. 2, pp. 51–52; cf. Mudarres Tabrīzī, vol. 3, p. 56, who mistakenly refers to the vizierate of Mīrzā Rafi‛ al-Dīn; also Ṣefatgul, p. 195, who dates his appointment to 1607/1015.[↩]
4. Kh^wānsārī, vol. 2, p. 348, n. 1; Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, 1990/1411, p. 227; idem, 1990/1411, vol. 10, p. 202; for the attribution of a work on Āyāt al-Aḥkām to him, see: Fāḍel Javād, vol. 1, Introduction by Mar‛ashī Najafī, pp. 10–11.[↩]
5. See: Eskandar Munshī, 1971/1350, vol. 2, pp. 929, 1041, 1089–1090; idem, 1938/1317, pp. 90, 265; Falsafī, vol. 2, p. 560.[↩]
6. For examples, see: Ranjbar, pp. 140–141; Karīmī, pp. 225–226; Ṣefatgul, pp. 440–441, notes, pp. 480–481, no. 188.[↩]
7. Afandī, 1981–1995/1401–1415, vol. 2, p. 53; Kh^wānsārī, vol. 2, p. 348; cf. Theqat al-Eslām Tabrīzī, vol. 2, p. 246; Amīn, vol. 6, p. 165, whose name was recorded respectively as Vafāʾī and Rafāṭī; for his discipleship under Mīrdāmād and receiving permission from him, see: Kashshī, vol. 1, Introduction by Rajāʾī, pp. 24–25.[↩]
8. See: Eskandar Munshī, 1971/1350, vol. 2, pp. 1013, 1091; Naṣrābādī, p. 15; Ḥurr ʿĀmelī, part 2, p. 92; Afandī, 1981–1995/1401–1415, vol. 2, p. 52.[↩]
9. Waḥīd Qazvīnī, p. 8.[↩]
10. See: continuation of the article.[↩]
11. Eskandar Munshī, 1938/1317, p. 260; Waḥīd Qazvīnī, p. 66; Vāle Eṣfahānī, p. 415.[↩]
12. See: Amīn, vol. 6, p. 165; cf. Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, 1990/1411, p. 169, who mistakenly or due to a lapsus calls him a student of Āqā Hussein Kh^wānsārī.[↩]
13. Afandī, 1981–1995/1401–1415, vol. 2, p. 52; Mudarres Tabrīzī, vol. 3, p. 56; see also: Falsafī, vol. 2, p. 559.[↩]
14. See: Eʿtemād al-Salṭana, vol. 2, p. 902.[↩]
15. See: Eʿtemād al-Salṭana, vol. 2, p. 902. See: Falsafī, vol. 2, p. 559.[↩]
16. Khātūnābādī, p. 501.[↩]
17. Cf. Qumī, 1948/1327, vol. 1, p. 159; idem, 1984/1363, p. 170, whose wording suggests the marriage occurred after his vizierate.[↩]
18. Eskandar Munshī, 1971/1350, vol. 2, pp. 1013, 1022, 1091–1092; Afandī, 1981–1995/1401–1415, vol. 2, pp. 52, 55.[↩]
19. Eskandar Munshī, 1938/1317, pp. 89–90; see also: Vāleh Eṣfahānī, pp. 106, 108–109; Muhammad Ma‛ṣūm, p. 126; Falsafī, vol. 2, pp. 555, 559; cf. Afandī, 1981–1995/1401–1415, vol. 2, p. 52; Kh^wānsārī, vol. 2, p. 347; Qummī, 1948/1327, vol. 1, p. 159; Mudarres Tabrīzī, vol. 3, p. 56; Karīmī, p. 228, who mistakenly mentions a two-year vizierate under Shah Ṣafī; and Jāberī Anṣārī, p. 197, who erroneously states that the sons of Sulṭān al-‛Ulamāʾ were killed.[↩]
20. See: Afandī, 1981–1995/1401–1415, vol. 2, p. 53.[↩]
21. Eskandar Munshī, 1938/1317, pp. 87–90, 259–260.[↩]
22. See also: Vāleh Eṣfahānī, pp. 106, 317–318; Abū al-Hasan Qazvīnī, p. 52.[↩]
23. See: Eskandar Munshī, 1938/1317, p. 260; Afandī, 1981–1995/1401–1415, vol. 2, p. 53; Kh^wānsārī, vol. 2, p. 347.[↩]
24. Naṣrābādī, p. 15.[↩]
25. Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, 1990/1411, p. 169.[↩]
26. See: Afandī, 1981–1995/1401–1415, vol. 2, pp. 52–53.[↩]
27. For example, see: Kh^wānsārī, vol. 2, p. 347; Ma‛ṣūm-ʿAlīshāh, vol. 3, pp. 163–164; Qumī, 1948/1327, vol. 1, p. 159.[↩]
28. Waḥīd Qazvīnī, pp. 65–66; Vāla Eṣfahānī, pp. 415–416; Khātūn-Ābādī, p. 515; Kh^wānsārī, vol. 2, p. 347.[↩]
29. Karīmī, pp. 235–236.[↩]
30. See: Waḥīd Qazvīnī, pp. 88–89.[↩]
31. See: Shāmlū, vol. 1, pp. 295–296; Ranjbar, pp. 141–142; Ṣefatgul, pp. 199–200, 226–227.[↩]
32. See: Ṣefatgul, pp. 199–202.[↩]
33. Mullā Kamāl Munajjem, p. 102; Waḥīd Qazvīnī, pp. 70–72; Chardin, vol. 2, pp. 332–333; vol. 4, p. 278; see also: Karīmī, pp. 236–237; Ja‛farīyān, vol. 1, pp. 560–567.[↩]
34. See: Ḥāʾerī, vol. 21, p. 18; Karīmī, pp. 236–237.[↩]
35. Naṣrābādī, p. 15.[↩]
36. Kh^wānsārī, vol. 2, p. 349.[↩]
37. See: Amīn, vol. 6, p. 165.[↩]
38. See: Amīn, Ibid.[↩]
39. Sayyed Ali Khān Madanī, p. 491.[↩]
40. Cf. Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, 1990/1411, p. 169, who erroneously attributes the year 1065/1654–55 to Sayyed Ali Khān Madanī; see also: Theqat al-Eslām Tabrīzī, vol. 2, pp. 246–247.[↩]
41. See: Afandī, vol. 2, p. 54.[↩]
42. Cf. Karīmī, p. 231, who mistakenly cites the year 1066/1655–56 as Afandī’s claim and considers it more accurate.[↩]
43. See: Waḥīd Qazvīnī, p. 170; Naṣrābādī, p. 15; Ardabīlī, vol. 1, p. 544; Vāle Dāghestānī, vol. 1, p. 513; Abū al-Hasan Qazvīnī, p. 68; cf. Karīmī, pp. 231, 245, n. 49, who erroneously attributes the year 1063/1652–53 to Abū al-Hasan Qazvīnī.[↩]
44. Khātūnābādī, Tatmīm, p. 584.[↩]
45. See: Eskandar Munshī, 1971/1350, vol. 2, p. 1013; idem, 1938/1317, pp. 89, 259–260.[↩]
46. See also: Waḥīd Qazvīnī, pp. 65–66, 170; Vāleh Eṣfahānī, p. 319.[↩]
47. See: Amīn, vol. 6, p. 165.[↩]
48. See: Amīn, Ibid.[↩]
49. See: Ṣefatgul, pp. 324–325.[↩]
50. See: Dāneshpazhūh, pp. 97–117.[↩]
51. See: Sulṭān al-ʿUlamāʾ, pp. 305–306; Anṣārī, vol. 4, pp. 97–98; Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, vol. 2, p. 216; for details see: Muẓaffar, vol. 1, pp. 227–237.[↩]
52. For a categorized list of these works by field, see: Amīn, vol. 6, pp. 165–166.[↩]
53. Afandī, vol. 2, p. 55; Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, 1983/1403, vol. 6, pp. 65–68; Amīn, vol. 6, p. 165; Ḥusaynī Eshkevarī, vol. 1, p. 46; vol. 13, p. 371. [↩]
54. Ḥurr ʿĀmelī, part 2, p. 92; Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, 1983/1403, vol. 6, p. 206; see also: Mushār, cols. 296–297; Fekrat, pp. 211, 639.[↩]
55. Ardabīlī, vol. 1, p. 544; Ḥusaynī Ashkevarī, vol. 13, pp. 370–372; vol. 16, p. 97; Fekrat, p. 201.[↩]
56. Afandī, vol. 2, p. 55.[↩]
57. Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, 1983/1403, vol. 6, pp. 130–131.[↩]
58. Kh^wānsārī, vol. 2, p. 348. [↩]
59. Ḥurr ‛Āmelī, part 2, p. 92; Afandī, vol. 2, p. 55; Amīn, vol. 6, p. 166; Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, 1983/1403, vol. 6, p. 94.[↩]
60. Afandī, 1980–1995/1401–1415, vol. 2, p. 55.[↩]
61. Completion date: 1664/1075.[↩]
62. See: Ḥusaynī Eshkevarī, vol. 9, p. 60.[↩]
63. Afandī, 1980–1995/1401–1415, vol. 2, p. 55; Nūrī, vol. 4, p. 10; Amīn, vol. 6, p. 166.[↩]
64. Ardabīlī, vol. 1, p. 544; Amīn, vol. 6, p. 166.[↩]
65. Afandī, 1990/1410, p. 134; Amīn, vol. 6, p. 166; see also: Karīmī, pp. 239–240.[↩]
66. See: Afshār and Dāneshpazhūh, vol. 2, p. 129.[↩]
67. Afandī, vol. 2, p. 55; Kh^wānsārī, vol. 2, p. 348; Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, 1983/1403, vol. 4, p. 490; for different copies of the work, see: Munzavī, vol. 2, pp. 1586–1587.[↩]
68. Sayyed Ali Khān Madanī, p. 491; Amīn, vol. 6, p. 166.[↩]
69. See: Naṣrābādī, p. 15.[↩]
70. Vāleh Eṣfahānī, p. 655; Abū al-Hasan Qazvīnī, p. 73; see also: Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, 1990/1411, p. 525; cf. Waḥīd Qazvīnī, p. 300, who places his appointment to the vizierate among the events of the year 1660/1071.[↩]
71. See: Eʿtemād al-Salṭana, vol. 2, p. 970.[↩]
72. Khātūnābādī, p. 519; Tatmīm, p. 584; Mudarres Tabrīzī, vol. 3, p. 57; Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, 1990/1411, p. 169.[↩]
73. Ardabīlī, vol. 1, p. 28; ‛Abd al-Nabī Qazvīnī, p. 50; Afandī, 1981–1995/1401–1415, vol. 2, p. 53; Kh^wānsārī, vol. 2, p. 349; Amīn, vol. 2, pp. 135–136; vol. 6, p. 165; Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, 1983/1403, vol. 6, pp. 90–91.[↩]
74. ‛Abd al-Nabī Qazvīnī, p. 79; Ṣefatgul, p. 447.[↩]
75. See: Theqat al-Eslām Tabrīzī, vol. 2, p. 247; Amīn, vol. 6, p. 165.[↩]
76. See: Kh^wānsārī, vol. 2, pp. 348–349.[↩]