The Empires of the Near East and India: Source Studies of the Safavid, Ottoman, and Mughal Literate Communities

III. The Night Debates at Jahangir’s Court

CORINNE LEFÈVRE

Composed between 1608 and 1611, the Majalis-i Jahangiri differ substantially from the other known literary works of the scholar and courtier ʿAbd al-Sattar ibn Qasim Lahauri (d. after 1619). These productions consist of a series of translations that were intimately connected with the role of cultural broker their author assumed at the Mughal court during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. They may be roughly divided into two groups: (1) translations from Latin, cowritten with Jerónimo Xavier (d. 1617), the head of the third Jesuit mission to the Mughal empire (1595–1615), aimed at familiarizing the royal elite with the Greco-Roman and Christian foundations of contemporary European culture;¹ and (2) adaptation or translation of works written in Arabic (al-Hikmat al-Khalida by Ibn Miskawayh, 986–992) or in a highly Arabicized Persian (Zafar Nama by Sharaf al-Din ʿAli Yazdi, 1427–1428).² If the Majalis-i Jahangiri also bear the imprint of the cultural dialogue the Mughals promoted with the West as well as with different regions of Asia,³ their composition followed an altogether different logic because it was triggered by ʿAbd al-Sattar’s recent initiation into the imperial Sufi order.

On first reading, however, the text may simply be described as a record of the night sessions of the court of Emperor Jahangir (r. 1605–1627) held in the diwan-i khass (hall of private audience) between the fourth and sixth year of his reign. Here we find written down—in indirect speech or, most often, in dialogues reported in direct speech—contemporary imperial discussions on a vast variety of topics, to the almost complete exclusion of the major political events of the reign. It is thus a highly oral work, which gives pride of place to literary (especially poetic), religious, historical, and scientific subjects, in accordance with the emperor’s well-known multifaceted curiosity.4 Jahangir’s interlocutors, for their part, reflect the cosmopolitanism of the Mughal court: besides members of the composite imperial elite, the sessions included ambassadors, poets, and dignitaries who had recently arrived from Iran and Central Asia, as well as a range of religious specialists, from Brahmins and Muslim ʿulamaʾ to Jesuit and Jewish scholars. In other words, ʿAbd al-Sattar offers us a window onto one of the key institutions of intellectual life in early modern Islamic societies, that is, the majlis—a place of meeting and the sessions held there, under the patronage of members of the elite, first among them the sultan.⁵ In Islamic court culture, these majalis were conceived of as an essential attribute of sovereignty and functioned simultaneously as a channel and stage for royal patronage, as an instrument for the acquisition of knowledge, and as entertainment. More specifically, ʿAbd al-Sattar presents us with some selections from the favorite “pastime” of the participants in these exclusive salons—debates (sing., jadal) and disputations (sing., munazara) in a wide range of fields. As shown by the extracts translated below and by treatises written from the eighth century on, detailing the rules according to which debates should be conducted (adab al-jadal), these discussions were highly codified dialogues: the audience was not supposed to intervene, except when requested to do so by the monarch, who acted as the ultimate arbiter of the majlis.⁶

Even though the courtly tradition of the majlis and the literary genre of the munazara had a tremendous impact on both the structure and substance of the Majalis-i Jahangiri, another possible influence is that of the catechistical dialogues with which ʿAbd al-Sattar had become familiar through his association with the Jesuits and their missionary literature. Attractive as this hypothesis may appear to the proponents of transcultural encounters, it is not one that the author would willingly have endorsed. As hinted above, ʿAbd al-Sattar makes it clear at several points in the Majalis-i Jahangiri that his text was to be read as the malfuzat of Jahangir,7 which literally means “utterances”; the word refers more specifically to a genre of Sufi literature that recorded the teachings of pirs (spiritual masters). Although malfuzat were already popular in thirteenth-century North India, it was Amir Hasan Sijzi who really established a reputation for the genre, with the composition in 1322 of his Favaʾid al-Fuʾad, an account of the conversations of his own pir, the renowned Chishti shaykh Nizam al-Din Auliyaʾ (d. 1325).⁸ Interestingly enough, it is precisely the same Favaʾid al-fuʾad that ʿAbd al-Sattar explicitly acknowledges as a model for his own Majalis-i Jahangiri, which he considered a spiritual handbook (dastur al-ʿamal) for the newly enrolled disciples of the emperor.⁹ Although a parallel reading of the Majalis and the Favaʾid does not reveal any significant concordance between the texts, the affiliation between the Majalis and the genre of malfuzat is crucial in at least three respects: at the level of literary form it lies at the root of the dialogical structure and modus operandi of the text; ideologically, it propels Jahangir to the forefront of spirituality as the ultimate pir;¹⁰ and third, it means that the audience of the Majalis-i Jahangiri, a work designed by ʿAbd al-Sattar specifically for the use of the emperor’s disciples, must have been restricted to a small circle, as otherwise revealed by the one extant manuscript.

As a malfuzat, the main function of the Majalis was to unveil the saintly and messianic nature of the monarch who called himself a “universal manifestation” (mazhar-i kull) of God¹¹—something ʿAbd al-Sattar skillfully managed to do through the narration of Jahangir’s oneiric encounters with the divine,¹² the miracles he performed thanks to his capacities as a seer,¹³ and, most important for the purpose of this chapter, the discussions he conducted with a large spectrum of religious scholars. As has been repeatedly pointed out by a number of historians, the interreligious debates of the Mongol era were a precedent, in both general policy and courtly practice, for those held in Mughal times.¹⁴ The Mongol tradition had been reintroduced by Akbar (r. 1556–1605) as a part of the emperor’s patronage of multiple religions, an ambitious political project aimed at rallying behind his banner subordinates of all persuasions that included funding non-Muslim religious institutions and figures as well as the translation of Hindu, Christian, and Jewish scriptures into Persian. However, the best-known and most emblematic aspect of his policy was certainly the theological disputations organized in the ʿibadat khana (hall of prayer) of the newly built capital of Fatehpur Sikri between 1575 and 1581. After an initial phase during which the discussions were limited to Muslim participants, representatives of a wide variety of faiths (Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians) and sects were invited to take part in the debates when they were resumed in 1578. If a number of accounts of the ʿibadat khana disputations are available today, it is worth emphasizing that none of their authors—be it Jesuit missionaries, the subversive ʿAbd al-Qadir Badaʾuni, or Brahmin and Jain scholars—seems to have been much interested in conveying to their respective audience the full breadth of the interreligious dialogues that were taking place at the Mughal court, most of them depicting the reception of their community leaders by the emperor under the best possible light whereas others, such as Badaʾuni, were openly critical of Akbar’s spiritual peregrinations and claims.¹⁵ In other words, these accounts all bear the imprint of a sectarian bias that tends to obscure the imperial ideology underlying the organization of such interfaith debates and, more generally, the Mughal religious pluralism most famously epitomized by the motto of sulh-i kull (universal peace).

Composed under the close supervision (if not at the instigation) of Akbar’s eldest son and successor Jahangir, ʿAbd al-Sattar’s Majalis-i Jahangiri are no doubt equally biased but their bias has the advantage of providing a more comprehensive overview of the theological disputations presided over by the emperor. In contrast to Jesuit or Jain accounts, the work does not reduce the religious polyphony at work at the Mughal court to a series of face-to-face encounters between Islam and Christianity or Islam and Jainism from which adherents to other religions were (almost completely) excluded. On the contrary, one of the most interesting aspects of the text is that it discusses Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and—although to a much more limited extent—Judaism in the same breath. Such an inclusiveness was a direct reflection of the religious ideology Jahangir had inherited from his father Akbar, a form of ecumenism that should not, however, be mistaken for a spirit of tolerance. Its overarching principle was the Mughal’s spiritual hegemony: every religion had a place in the empire as long as its adherents recognized the monarch as the saint of the age and abided by his laws, both temporal and spiritual.

As a matter of fact, another striking feature of the theological debates recorded in the Majalis-i Jahangiri is their common focus on the legal dimension of the religious traditions represented at court with, however, the exception of the exchanges with the Jesuits, which were primarily concerned with scriptural and doctrinal questions—the authenticity of the Gospel, the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of Trinity—and various episodes of the life of the holy family, as is illustrated in the first extract translated below. In contrast to the Jesuits’ version of their dealings at the Mughal court, ʿAbd al-Sattar gives a far more sophisticated account of the arguments used by both sides, highlighting by the same token their shared mastery of Aristotelian logic. He also conveys a very different picture of Jahangir’s position vis-à-vis Christianity: according to Jerónimo Xavier’s reports, monogamy was the only true obstacle standing in the way of the emperor’s conversion, but the Mughal is here depicted as fully participating in the critic of the Christian tenets conducted by Muslim ʿulamaʾ.16 If, then, the Majalis-i Jahangiri provide a formidable counterpoint to the long-prevailing Jesuit vision of the Mughals’ reception of Christian ideas, the text also sheds a new light on the monarch’s involvement in the sphere of religious law and on the imperial management of the legal aspects of religious pluralism.

Most of the theological disputations recorded by ʿAbd al-Sattar bear the imprint of Jahangir’s willingness to gain knowledge of the socioreligious norms that regulated the daily life of his subjects. As shown by the last three extracts translated below, questions of jurisprudence largely dominated the monarch’s debates with Muslim ʿulamaʾ¹⁷ as well as his fewer discussions with Hindu figures.¹⁸ Likewise, the recent translation into Persian by one “Yusuf the Jew” of the Suhuf-i Ibrahim (Scrolls or Book of Abraham) led to two successive discussions of Judaism’s prescriptions for marital life.¹⁹ A fainter echo of the emperor’s keen interest in religious norms is even to be found in his exchanges with the Jesuits, who were ordered during the very first majlis to clarify the provisions of canon law regarding remarriage.²⁰ Jahangir’s interventions in all such discussions consistently illustrate his determination to follow in the steps of his predecessor Akbar as chief mujtahid or juris consultus of the empire and of the various communities it included, be they Muslim or not.²¹ By positioning himself along such lines, the monarch meant to be recognized by these communities as the supreme legal authority of the time, and beyond that to demonstrate his messianic ability to act as a renewer (mujaddid) of the “world of religion” through the exercise of his intellectual faculties (ʿaql), which he considered a direct source of knowledge.

There is little doubt that, for Jahangir, presiding over the new order ushered in by the passing of the first Islamic millennium involved implementation of Akbar’s messianic program through his own continued efforts to reform religious law and to go beyond existent normative frameworks—missions that were traditionally described as the hallmarks of the Mahdi or Messiah. Under Jahangir’s dispensation, ʿAbd al-Sattar writes unequivocally, “the ancient laws were destroyed and the foundations of justice renewed.”22 Such a deconstructionist approach to law did not, however, equally influence the various socioreligious norms at work in the empire. If the snapshots provided by the Majalis-i Jahangiri are any indication of a larger trend, it seems that, with regard to non-Muslim legal traditions at least, the emperor’s interventions ultimately resulted in the legitimation of existing rules. An altogether different image emerges from the much more numerous jurisprudential debates pertaining to the shariʿa, whose provisions the monarch considered either inadequate or contradictory.

Despite the universal idiom in which the spiritual pretensions of the ruler were formulated and the presence, in the night sessions of the diwan-i khass, of representatives of Hinduism, Christianity, and Judaism, there is little doubt that Jahangir’s efforts to renovate and reform the “world of religion” were primarily directed at Islam and at those ʿulamaʾ who, in his eyes, were trapped in the formalism of the shariʿa and satisfied with legal conformism (taqlid). It comes out particularly clearly from the last two extracts translated below. During the ninety-sixth majlis, shariʿa is depicted as ultimately coming up against the reason of state. The long debate that occurred in the course of the forty-ninth and fiftieth sessions indicates that the Mughal’s ambitions in matters of religious law went far beyond the sphere of fiqh (jurisprudence) and touched upon its very sources or usul—first among them the Qurʾanic revelation that Jahangir seems to have had no qualms about expurgating.

TRANSLATION

Jesuits and Christianity at the Mughal Court (Majlis 29, Rabiʿ II, 1019 AH, Fifth Regnal Year, Thursday Night, pp. 70–75)²³

Gifts from the grandees of the port of Goa were paraded before the most sacred gaze [of Jahangir]. Among all the wise Frankish people, one—who was well-known for his bigotry, his harsh speech and his hot temper24—stood in attendance and proceeded to praise his own faith and criticize the religion of Islam. Mahabat Khan²⁵ had noticed his bigotry—which veils justice and is [a form of] ungratefulness—and teased him [about it] but he, because of his extreme prejudice, persisted in his agitation and in talking nonsense. Because the blessed eyes [of Jahangir] were continually turned toward excellence and caviling was not part of his most holy nature, he approved of his [the Jesuit’s] firmness and steadfastness, and said: “A thief had been hanged. One of the doctors of the [Christian] religion passed before him and, being deeply impressed by the sight, he said: ‘May I be the ransom of such steadfastness. He [the thief] remained firm in whatever he was and died [for it].’”

The Frank suddenly said: “Whoever has a sound mind and a clear-sighted eye will not chose the religion of Muhammad.” As it had come to the holiest mind of this enlightened emperor that this most humble disciple [ʿAbd al-Sattar] was well versed in the fundamental articles of the Christian faith and in the other circumstances of the apostles of this great man [Jesus] and was well informed of the degrees of falsity of this invented religion—which they attribute to the Lord Jesus, [the following] came on the blessed tongue [of Jahangir]: “Come forward, ʿAbd al-Sattar!” I placed my head on the ground and then stepped forward. I was ordered [by the emperor]: “Listen and speak!” I saw that this cross-worshipper, taking advantage of His Majesty’s generous disposition and kindness to strangers, had overstepped the circle of etiquette and was saying whatever he wanted in order to refute the faith of Muhammad and to criticize the religion of Islam. It came to the mind of this most humble disciple that, although [the practice of] undermining one’s argument had disappeared from the world in the blessed time of this just emperor, today it had become appropriate in the debate. [ʿAbd al-Sattar thought so] because it is very imprudent to be responsible for the argument and the burden of proof in every case, but particularly in this matter [of Muhammad’s prophethood] at this time and place. This is why he [the Jesuit] was asked [by ʿAbd al-Sattar]: “Padre! First, tell [us]: do you believe in prophethood as such? Do you reject the prophethood of Muhammad in particular or prophethood in general?” He was apparently aware of this most humble disciple’s intention, because he answered: “Why do you ask? What I am saying is that Muhammad is not a prophet. It is your job to prove his prophethood.” At this point, the blessed gaze [of Jahangir] fell upon this most humble disciple, as if to say: “Answer to that.” I presented that: “Peace be upon the qibla²⁶ of religion and the world [Jahangir]! What I meant by this question is this: whatever he affirms must be properly debated with him. In other words: if he is among the spokesmen of prophethood, then we must debate with him about the proof [existing] on this particular question [Muhammad’s prophethood], in the same way as those who believe in prophethood discuss with each other. And if he does not believe in prophethood at all, then we must consider [the possibility of] a debate between a spokesman of prophecy and a complete unbeliever.” These words pleased [Jahangir]. The inveterate Padre said: “I do not know the proper Muslim vocabulary. What I am saying is that I am a Christian and that my religion is that of the Gospel.” I said: “I do not believe this book [of yours] to be the Gospel, nor this religion of yours to be the religion of the Lord Jesus and of the Gospel.” Having thus cornered him, I shifted the burden of proof unto him. The task became difficult for him. At this point, the most sacred attention [of Jahangir] was diverted and the debate was suspended.

After half an hour, he [the Jesuit] again requested that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! We pray that God gives ʿAbd al-Sattar to us and that our religion becomes his good fortune. We hope that he will become a Christian by [Jahangir’s] sublime command.” Mahabat Khan told him jokingly: “We have complete trust in ʿAbd al-Sattar’s understanding and comprehension. God knows that if he adopts your religion, we will immediately make the choice of your religion as well.” [The following] came on the most sacred tongue [of Jahangir]: “ʿAbd al-Sattar! Come forward.” Having kissed the ground of good conduct, I moved forward and offered prayers [to the emperor]. [Jahangir] said that: “We are the universal manifestation [of God] and, if you wish to become a Christian, it would not displease us. While we dislike someone becoming a [missing word], we do not mind it if you wish to become a Christian.” I presented that: “Peace be upon the qibla of religion and the world! Am I to become a Christian on [your order] or on the supposition that [Christianity] is true and reasonable?” [Jahangir] said that: “This is not a command. What we are saying is that if the truth and reasonableness [of Christianity] have become manifest to you, do not consider us in your choice.” I said: “If it is on the supposition that [Christianity] is reasonable, then my opinion is that their religion is the most false, the most impure and the filthiest of all religions; in my eyes, even the religion of the Hindus is better than theirs!” [The following] came on the most sacred tongue [of Jahangir]: “That the religion of the Hindus might be better than theirs is not reasonable to [our] holiest mind.” I presented that: “Peace be upon the qibla of religion and the world! I said so because the Hindus do not claim that God has been killed and crucified.” [Jahangir] said that: “Hindus do not claim that God has been crucified, but they claim that God has united with twelve thousand women in a single day and has impregnated them [all].” I presented: “Putting aside these [last] words, now that [the belief that] the Frankish religion is superior to the faith of the Hindus has entered the heart of His Majesty, it is certain that it is [actually] so [and] that their religion is better than the faith of the Hindus. Peace be upon His Majesty! Does the just emperor [Jahangir] approve [the fact] that I believe in a God who has been crucified naked, received five thousand lashes, on whose face people have spat [so much] that blood came out of his pores, whose head has been clad in a crown of thorns, and who has been mocked from all sides? And this [account] is narrated in their religion and their Gospel.” This false belief of theirs weighed upon the truth-loving mind of the emperor, and the Padre was ordered to answer. He said: “We do not say that God was killed. This is a calumny made up by ʿAbd al-Sattar. We say that Jesus has both divinity and humanity [within himself], and these things—mentioned by this [ʿAbd al-Sattar]—have befallen his humanity and not his divinity.” I bent head to the ground and exposed that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! Through such premises, the Padre wants His Majesty to ask how it happened, his intention being to waste time by a lengthy account of such incomprehensible premises and [thus] to use up the day. But I hope that it will soon become clear to the most sacred attention [of the emperor] that what he does not want to say, he should be forced to say it, willy-nilly, so that the truth will flow off his tongue without him realizing it.” The Padre was asked the following: “According to your faith, has Lord Jesus been killed?”

THE PADRE: “Yes, he has been killed.”

ʿABD AL-SATTAR: “Has he received five thousand and five hundred lashes?”

THE PADRE: “Yes, he has.”

ʿABD AL-SATTAR: “Has his head been clad in a crown of thorns?”

THE PADRE: “Yes, it has.”

ʿABD AL-SATTAR: “Have people spat on his face?”

THE PADRE: “Yes, they have.”

ʿABD AL-SATTAR: “Now, tell [us]: is Lord Jesus God or isn’t he?”

THE PADRE: “He is.”

I then presented that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! It comes out clearly from these premises that, according to their faith, God has been crucified and suffered such injustice and abasement.”

I also exposed that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! I have had long conversations with them on this matter. The account of their wise men is the following: ‘He [Jesus] has both divinity and humanity [within himself]. Because he possesses humanity, we call him man. And because he possesses divinity, we call him God. Just as we call white whatever has [elements of] white, and black whatever has [elements of] black. Therefore, because he possesses divinity and has endured these travails, we necessarily believe that God has been killed and crucified and suffered such abasement and hardships because of us.’” In short, by the divine assistance and the favor of the Holy Spirit, these words stupefied and bewildered the Padre, who exposed with anxiety that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! What he [ʿAbd al-Sattar] says about [Jesus] having died in dishonor and humiliation is spoken ignorantly. For instance, if His Majesty were to send one of his choice slaves—such as Khan Jahan27—to [another] land and the people of this land became hostile toward him and treated him badly, this would not be [the mark of] his abasement and humiliation but of his glory.” I said: “Peace be upon His Majesty! What he did not want to say [explicitly], God—may He be exalted—has placed it on his tongue and made him unwittingly utter the truth, [that is] he compares Lord Jesus—whom they call God—to one of the slaves sent by His Majesty. And the truth, in this [comparison] as well, is that he [Jesus] has been sent and that his sender is [a] different [person].” [The following] came on the most sacred tongue [of Jahangir]: “Yes, [he has been] sent, [he has been] sent.” I further said: “Peace be upon His Majesty! The entire Gospel says: ‘He has sent me. Believe in the one who has been sent by Him.’” [The Padre] started to explain his religious tenets and, when he mentioned that Lord Jesus had not taught the Gospel for thirty years, I presented that, “Peace be upon the qibla of religion and the world! Now, I would like to ask the Padre [the following question]: After these thirty years, when he started to teach the Gospel, what did he say? To order the Gospel to be offered to the most sacred view [of Jahangir] would be a very good thing. Peace be upon the qibla of religion and the world! Their Gospel is kept in the imperial treasury. And this most humble disciple has also [a copy of] it. If he [the Padre] does not give an account thereof, let it be ordered that [this] slave do so. Their Gospel starts as follows: the Messiah is the son of so-and-so, son of so-and-so, up to Ibrahim [Abraham]—peace be upon him! [The genealogy goes back] to Daʾud [David] through fourteen intermediaries, from Daʾud to the Babylonian exile through fourteen intermediaries, and from him to Ibrahim through another fourteen. It is then said that there was a girl [Mary], born in such and such way, who married a carpenter by the name of Yusuf [Joseph]. When she was thirteen years old, an angel of God [Gabriel] appeared to her and she became pregnant. By the Cesar’s order, which concerned everybody, she left for Bethlehem, in the country of Daʾud, alongside with Yusuf; there, in an isolated house, she gave birth to a boy. Three astrologer-kings [the Magi] came from the West under the guidance of a star and worshipped the boy. Afterward, Yusuf, following the order of the angel, took him and fled to Egypt. When Herod, who was looking for the boy, failed to find him, he ordered the children of this city—between two and four years old—to be killed so that he [Jesus] be killed in their midst. Yusuf stayed there for four years. On the instructions of the angel, he then brought the boy back to Nazareth, where he grew up. Until he was thirty years old, he remained amongst this people, performed spiritual exercises while belonging to the faith of Musa [Moses]. Thereupon, he fasted for forty days and began to preach the religion of the Gospel in the city.

“Such and such people started to believe in him. He resided in a certain village for a few days, and some time passed. This is how his story is told [in the Gospel]. Peace be upon His Majesty! What new information did he bring after thirty years? These things [he preached], his own mother and relatives knew them better than him because they had happened before their eyes. What was the point of repeating them? Besides, peace be upon His Majesty, they [the Franks] say, and it is also [written] in their Gospel, that on the day when he [Jesus] came forth to the people, his first words were as follows: ‘Repent, the kingdom of heaven is near, believe in my Gospel!’ Now, I want to ask the Padre: Was this Gospel [mentioned by Jesus] the same as the Gospel in which the events of his life and death are described and which was written fifteen or twenty years after his death? If so, what is the signification of his words ‘believe in my Gospel’? For it is evident from these words that there was a Gospel, different from the Gospel [of the Franks], in which he [Jesus] wanted people to believe. What happened to this [first] Gospel? Marqus [Mark]—one of the writers of the Gospel—says: ‘We write down what we have heard, the story of [Jesus’s] actions [as given] by the ancients who were there from the start, and what we have seen.’ His apostles and the writers of this book call it the “story” of Jesus, while they [the Franks] call it the Gospel and book of God. Peace be upon His Majesty! There is no connection between them and the religion and faith of the Messiah. Should any of their prayers, fasts, and other practices be proved to come from the Lord Jesus or from the book of the Gospel, then let everything I have said be a lie! In the most sacred service [of His Majesty], I can demonstrate in a hundred [different] ways the irrationality of each of their premises.” [My words] were agreeable to the emperor lover of justice; this insolent one who persisted in falsehood [the Padre] having been confounded, he retreated slowly, his lips dry and sweating profusely.

Discussing Hinduism with Brahmans (Majlis 39, Rajab 8, 1019 AH, Fifth Regnal Year, Saturday Night, pp. 95–98)

On that day, something strange was disclosed by the divine manifestation [that is, Jahangir]. A Brahman, who was in the service of Ram Das Kachhwaha,28 had been summoned [in the private hall of audience] […]. As soon as the blessed eyes [of the emperor] fell upon him, [the following] came on his most sacred tongue: “We have seen you earlier in such place and at such time, when we were coming back from attending His Majesty whose court is the divine throne [Akbar]. We had asked you: ‘Who are you and what is your occupation? Why don’t you wear pajamas?’ In lieu of underwear, [Jahangir explained], he had a piece of cloth tied [on the waist]—the ‘dhuti,’ which is customary for the people of India—and you presented that: ‘We, the Brahmans from Gujarat, do not wear pajamas.’” […] Patan Misr²⁹—one of the reliable Hindu wise men of this court—exposed that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! Brahmans from Gujarat reproach us for eating meat, and we say [back] to them: ‘You abstain from meat but you drink water out of ‘mashk’ [flasks], which are made of the skin of living beings.’” The gist of his speech was that not wearing pajamas and being obligated by such things is mere imitation and irrational. As much as they [the Hindus] worship the cow, they hold its remains to be more polluted than those of horses and donkeys and its mouth to be the most impure of all its organs, even more than its dung. And because [the emperor] inquired about the reasons [of such beliefs], he [Pathan Mishra] represented that: “In ancient times, when the tyranny and violence of Bala-Vrtra, which is one of the names of Vrtra³⁰—that is to say, [a creature] of demonic nature—prevailed in the world, the heads of the devatas [devas or deities]—that is, the angelic worshippers of God—gathered together, came before Brahma—who holds the thread of Creation in his hands—and asked for a remedy [to the situation]. He answered: ‘If you use the bones of a Brahman named Dadhich³¹ to make arms and weapons of war, you will be able to destroy him [the demon].’ Dadhich was one of the [great] ascetics of the time.

“Following the advice of Brahma, this group went to find Dadhich. He was in a state of meditation, and they waited a long time. They did not dare to wake him up and to bring him back to consciousness as they feared the blaze of his splendor. [The following] was finally decided: ‘We have to bring in a cow and make sure that it bends over the ascetic and licks his back: this way, he will awaken and we will be safe from the damage that his splendor may cause.’ They said that because protection of the cow is obligatory for all in their Brahmanical religion. They acted upon what had been decided, and awakened the ascetic. They subsequently offered him their purpose with gentle and appropriate words. Dadhich said: ‘I made a vow to God to bathe once in every tirt [tirtha] on the surface of the earth, and I have not fulfilled it yet. Therefore, I cannot give you my bones as long as my vow remains unaccomplished.’ ‘Tirt’ means a place of worship in the language of India. Having brought together every tirt on the surface of the earth, they [the deities] presented them to him; and because his vow had been fulfilled, he entrusted them with his bones. However, he cursed the cow and said [to it]: ‘May your mouth always remain impure!’ This is why they do not consider the remains of the cow [to be] pure.” [The following] came on the blessed tongue of the wise emperor: “It seems strange and unbelievable that that godly person [Dadhich], despite his knowledge and wisdom, should curse the cow, which they worship. Especially that [particular] cow that had thus been a cause of such good fortune, because that which would have been achieved after a great and long suffering [Dadhich bathing in every tirt], happened to him in one instant at his own house.” Pathan Misr was amazed at hearing such profitable and reasonable words and, by way of immediate confirmation, he exposed that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! What has been said is out of [correct] sequence. Isn’t it true that, as soon as his [Dadhich’s] eyes fell upon the cow, before he even saw them [the deities] and achieved his desire, he had [already] cursed the cow?” [Jahangir] commented: “Well said.” He [also] added: “Why is the aforementioned story the reason given to explain the aversion to the remains of the cow? The motive may be [related to the fact that] the cow cleans its nose with its tongue and, if such story [ever] happened, the following may be stated: [when] the aforementioned ascetic cursed [the cow], he said: ‘This tongue of yours which you have used to lick me has disturbed my meditation; may you spend all your time licking your nose and cleaning it from its filth!’ And because it is filthy, whatever its tongue touches becomes execrable. The fact that the cow licked the ascetic’s back with its tongue is a clear confirmation of what we have said.” Pathan Misr and all the fortunate participants in the assembly touched the ground with their head:

[VERSE]

Praise to the emperor and to the imperial assembly

May this place of gathering be made prosperous by you!

Abrogating Qurʾanic Verses? (Majalis 49–50, Shaʿban 28–29, 1019 AH, Fifth Regnal Year, Tuesday & Wednesday Night, pp. 121–26)

After the evening praise of God, [Jahangir] sat on the throne of felicity and, turning to Khan Aʿzam,32 he said: “Today, a member of this assembly has presented a story to us. He has recited a [Qurʾanic] verse, the signification of which is [as follows]: to you your religion, and to us our religion. Now, [our] most sacred mind cannot remember which verse it was.” Khan Aʿzam reminded [the emperor] that it was [part of] the “Qul Ya” sura.³³ And as the signification [of the sura] came to [Jahangir’s] most sacred attention, [the following] flew on his holy tongue: “Why kill the unbelievers?” Meanwhile, the qadi of the army had arrived and, having saluted [the emperor], he presented that: “This sura has been in use until the time when the order to kill the unbelievers was revealed. After its revelation, the sura was abrogated.” [The following] came on the blessed tongue [of Jahangir]: “If it has been abrogated, what is the point of keeping it within the Qurʾan? And what is advisable concerning its recitation?” The qadi exposed that: “The meaning has been abrogated, but not the words.” The mir ʿadl³⁴ Sayyid Ahmad [Qadiri]³⁵ explained the sura [commanding to kill the unbelievers] according to the path of divine unicity and brought to the most sacred attention [of the emperor] some useful things, the main points of which being [divine] unicity and the announcement of the end of unbelievers and of their persevering in unbelief. [The following] came on the holy tongue [of Jahangir]: “Mir! This is all fine, [but] we were referring to the abrogation of the [aforementioned] command, which concerns another sura. This statement and interpretation [of yours] do not bear upon our debate.”

Meanwhile, Maulana Ruzbih Shirazi36 and Maulana Shukrallah Shirazi³⁷—who had recently arrived from the Deccan—had saluted [the emperor] and, following [Jahangir’s] sublime indication, Maulana Ruzbih presented that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! The Qurʾan commands us two things: to recite its words and to act according to their meaning. It may well be that [the injunction] to act according to the meaning be abrogated, [and that the command] to recite the words as they are remains: this is why the signification of the abrogation and of its [different] types must be explained. In other words, abrogation—which has come to refer to the nullification of one legal injunction by another—can be of several kinds: one is the abrogation of the meaning but not of the words; the second is the abrogation of the words, but not of the meaning; the third is the abrogation of both the words and the meaning.” [The following] came on the most sacred tongue [of Jahangir]: “Words are made to express and manifest meanings. Whenever the meaning—which is the object [of words]—is abrogated, what is the point of preserving the words which, [on their own], have no object but are [mere] parasites? It would certainly be better to expel them from the Qurʾan.” Mulla Shukrallah Shirazi presented that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! There are several profitable reasons for preserving abrogated verses and reciting them. Among them are the inimitability and the perfect elegance of language and eloquence of the Qurʾan. Besides, divine wisdom demands that the abrogated ruling remain on the page of the time. If the words are removed, such requirement will not be fulfilled.” [The following] came on the blessed tongue of the wise emperor: “There are many examples of this elegance of language, eloquence and inimitability in these other parts [of the Qurʾan] whose words are themselves abrogated—why are they removed from the Qurʾan?” He exposed that: “Divine wisdom demands that this verse be not in the Qurʾan.” [Jahangir] said that: “Explain such a wisdom, we want [to hear] a rational speech.” He represented that: “Divine mysteries are known only to God.” [The emperor] commanded: “Say: I am unable to give a rational explanation and I stand guilty.” Having confessed to his weakness, the mulla lowered his head [in submission]. Khan Aʿzam exposed that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! It is impossible to [provide an] answer to the fine distinctions and subtleties of the emperor who gloriously sits on the throne of investigation. Let it be ordered that they [the mullas] should turn to their books and report to the most sacred attention [of Jahangir] whatever their mind settles on. Because ascertaining and disclosing the truth was the object [of the debate], this was agreeable [to the emperor] […].

The discussion resumed the following night and concluded as follows:

After an hour had passed, Khan Aʿzam and the aforementioned mullas returned; having come forward, Maulana Ruzbih submitted that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! In matters of abrogation, the grandees of every faith are of one mind, and no Jewish or Christian sect disagrees on that topic. So, divine majesty has commanded us two things—to act according to the meaning [of Qurʾanic verses] and to recite their words; if this same God abolishes one of these two commands, the one that is left remains as it is, and there is nothing alien to reason [in that].” [The following] came on the most sacred tongue [of the emperor]: “This is undeniable, but we do not want the recitation to be useless and its utility should be made intelligible to us: when words are [mere] parasites of the meaning and are only meant for the elegance of rhetoric, what is the use of reciting such [words] that have been deprived of the honor of meaning?” He presented that: “Since the Qurʾan is the word of God, its sheer recitation is a meritorious act and a step toward the hereafter.” [Jahangir] said: “Performing a meritorious act is indeed of great utility but, by this logic, no Qurʾanic verse should be abrogated as to recitation. However, you consider the reading of the verse ʿal-shaykh wa-l-shaykha’³⁸ to be abrogated.” He said that: “We do not consider it to be part of the Qurʾan. That which has served as the definition of the Qurʾan, consisting of whatever lies between its two covers and has come to us through uninterrupted transmission by means of Jabra’il [Gabriel], does not apply to it.” [Jahangir] said: “Is it not believed to be the word of God?” They represented that: “We do not call every word of God the ‘Qurʾan.’ Whereas sacred hadith (hadis-i qudsi) are words of God, we do not call them ‘Qurʾan.’” It was ordered that: “Explain the meaning of ‘sacred hadith.’” They submitted in unison that: “We call ‘sacred hadith’ whatever the Prophet has received from God without the intercession of the angel [Gabriel], and ‘Qurʾan’ whatever he has received through the intermediary of the angel.” [The following] came of the most sacred tongue [of the emperor]: “This is very surprising! Justice requires that whatever has come directly from God be higher in dignity, more trustworthy and certain.” Qadi Shukr³⁹ exposed that: “In [the case of] sacred hadith—which have come directly [from God]—the meaning has been inspired in the heart of the Prophet; that is to say, the meaning is God’s and the words are the Prophet’s. [In the case of] the Qurʾan, both the meaning and the words are God’s. That is why recitation alone is useful.” The wise emperor said: “Let us say what has come to the imperial mind at the same time!” And he said: “Because everything is proved by a witness and because here [in the Qurʾan], Jabraʾil is God’s and the Prophet’s witness, it is therefore proper to trust it more, Jabraʾil himself being worth several witnesses.”

Shariʿa and the Reason of State (Majlis 96, Rabiʿ II 8, 1020 AH, Sixth Regnal Year, Tuesday Night, pp. 236–38)

An hour had passed since nightfall when [Jahangir], having gloriously and auspiciously emerged [from his apartments] and sat on the throne, remembered the qadi and the mir ʿadl. After the qadi had had the felicity to kiss the [royal] threshold, [the following] came on the blessed tongue [of the emperor]: “If a man divorces his wife without her knowledge, is the divorce valid?” The qadi exposed that: “Yes, it is.” [Jahangir] asked again: “Although the wife has not been informed of the divorce?” He submitted that: “[Yes,] although she has not been informed.” Seizing the occasion, he brought to the most sacred attention [of the emperor] the [different] oaths of divorce—irrevocable, revocable, and triple. [Jahangir] then said: “We command that the man should inform his wife of the divorce; otherwise she may consider herself legal[ly married] to him and commit forbidden and illegal acts with her husband.” The qadi presented that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! These words [of yours] are most agreeable to reason. If she is not informed [of the divorce] and unaware of her becoming illegal to him, she will necessarily expect from her husband things that he should not do, and look at him with boldness and audaciousness although her [mere] looking at him is illicit. It is therefore better that he informs her of the divorce so that she may know herself to be illegal to him and not behave intimately [with him].” Thereupon [Jahangir] said: “Qadi! What about someone who takes possession of someone else’s house by force? Khan Aʿzam says that his prayer is not valid [anymore].” The qadi exposed that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! According to the opinion of some, it is not valid but the most correct opinion is that it is [still] valid; however, it is defective inasmuch as divine worship requires purity of cloth, body, and place. A house that has been seized by force cannot be called a pure place. This is why the act of worship is said to be defective.” [The emperor] further said to the qadi: “And what if the emperor of the time seizes someone’s house tyranically?” The qadi presented that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! The just emperor will never capture [anything] tyranically.” The conversation thereafter fell on the land of Raj[a] ʿAli Khan,40 the commander of Khandesh. [Jahangir] remarked: “Khan Aʿzam says that the conquest of their kingdom was not just; since he [Raja ʿAli Khan] was a Muslim, to attack Muslims without legal justification and to conquer their kingdom was illicit.”⁴¹ Murtaza Khan⁴² represented that: “They were rebels, so what is wrong [with us conquering them]?” [The following] came on the most sacred tongue of the just emperor: “Khan Aʿzam himself is not present but we [will] speak on his behalf: ‘They were reciting the khutba [Friday sermon] and striking coins in your name: where was the rebellion [in that]? What other [token of] submission did you expect from their House to overthrow it?’” Murtaza Khan exposed that: “Out of kindness, His Majesty whose court is the divine throne [Akbar] had sent a message to them, saying ‘Let go the uterine relatives and their kinsmen whom you hold in eternal captivity.’ [But] they did not agree. Imperial justice commanded to free these helpless ones from their oppression.” [The following] came on the blessed tongue [of Jahangir]: “The lord of a kingdom does a thousand things for [the sake of] royal affairs.” Murtaza Khan represented that: “Their detention was illegal.” [Jahangir] said: “Emperors always cause individual wrongs for the common good, just as [we did when] we imprisoned our son.”⁴³

The qadi submitted that: “Emperors punish thieves by death, whereas, according to shariʿa, a thief should not be executed but have his hand cut.” Diyanat Khan⁴⁴ represented that: “Peace be upon His Majesty! When Mirza ʿAbd al-Latif, after he had committed his father Mirza Ulugh Beg to the shepherds, issued a decree [sanctioning Ulugh Beg’s confinement], every one apposed his seal [upon it], except the qadi who said [that] when he [Ulugh Beg] was emperor, he did whatever was advisable for the kingdom.”⁴⁵ [Jahangir] said: “Yes, that is the way it is.” And he with fortune and glory repeated these very words. He then asked the qadi: “These melodies and music we listen to, are they prohibited or lawful?” The qadi submitted that: “It is illicit, and even the sole fact of singing is not allowed.” [Jahangir] said: “So why do the [Sufi] shaykhs do this [performing music and singing]?” He exposed that: “They say: ‘Listening [to music] attracts us to God and brings [our] heart closer to the Truth.’ But we do not consider this a good argument, since the jurists do not allow it.” [Jahangir] said that: “Why is it said that the Prophet listened [to music], along with his wife ʿAʾisha, and had her listen to it?” He represented that: “Indeed, the author of the ʿAvarif⁴⁶ states that, if what they say is true, it is undoubtedly a welcome evidence for the Sufis [in order to legitimate their practices].” And he related in detail the following story: “One day, two Abyssinian slave musicians arrived at the Prophet’s house and started singing and playing drum, but the second caliph and commander of the faithful ʿUmar forbid them [to do so] and said, ‘Do not act this way in the house of the messenger of God’; however, the Prophet continued to listen and he even took ʿAʾisha’s hand, passed it behind his head and placed it onto his shoulders.” [The following] came on the blessed tongue [of Jahangir]: “Because the author of the ʿAvarif [himself] specifies ‘if this story is true,’ it is clear that it is not.” The qadi and the other people present all presented that: “What has come on the most sacred tongue [of the emperor] is right.” May the highest God keep an eye on the emperor who appreciates subtleties!

NOTES

1. For a thorough reconsideration of the nature of ʿAbd al-Sattar’s collaboration with Xavier and an introduction to the texts produced as a result, see Muzaffar Alam and Sanjay Subrahmanyam, “Frank Disputations: Catholics and Muslims in the Court of Jahangir (1608–11),” Indian Economic and Social History Review 46, no. 4 (2009): 457–511. See also Setayesh Nooraninejad, “ʿAbd al-Sattar wa nuskha-i khatti-yi Samarat al-falasifa [ʿAbd al-Sattar and the manuscript of the Samarat al-falasifa],” Ayina-i miras 7, no. 1 (2009): 117–35; Pedro Moura Carvalho, comp., Mirʾāt al-quds (Mirror of Holiness): a Life of Christ for Emperor Akbar. A Commentary on Father Jerome Xavier’s Text and the Miniatures of the Cleveland Museum of Art, Acc. No. 2005. 145 by Pedro Moura Carvalho With a Translation and Annotated Transcription of the Text by Wheeler M. Thackston (Leiden: Brill, 2012); Adel Sidarus, “O espelho de príncipes de Jerónimo Xavier SJ dedicado ao imperador mogul (1609),” in Caminhos Cruzados em Historia e Antropologia: Ensaios de Homenagem a Jill Dias, ed. P. J. Havik, C. Saraiva, and J. A. Tavim (Lisbon: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais, 2010), 37–50; and Corinne Lefèvre, “Mughal India—Muslim Asia—Europe: Circulation of Political Ideas and Instruments in Early Modern Times,” in Structures on the Move. Technologies of Governance in Transcultural Encounter, ed. A. Flüchter and S. Richter (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2012), 131–37, for further insight into Xavier’s Mirʾat al-Quds (1602) and Adab al-saltanat (1609) and into ʿAbd al-Sattar’s Samarat al-falasifa (1603).

2. See ʿAbd al-Sattar ibn Qasim Lahauri, Majalis-i Jahangiri, ed. A. Naushahi and M. Nizami (Tehran: Miras-i Maktub, 2006), xlv (on the adaptation of the Zafar Nama), 90 and 127 (on the translation of the al-Hikmat al-Khalida).

3. For further details on this point, see Alam and Subrahmanyam, “Frank Disputations,” and Corinne Lefèvre, “The Majālis-i Jahāngīrī (1608–11): Dialogue and Asiatic Otherness at the Mughal Court,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 55, nos. 2–3 (2012). (Cultural Dialogue in South Asia and Beyond: Narratives, Images and Community [Sixteenth-Nineteenth Centuries], ed. C. Lefèvre and I. G. Zupanov), 255–86.

4. See Corinne Lefèvre, “Le livre en acte à la cour moghole. Le cas des littératures historique et religieuse d’après le Majālis-i Jahāngīrī (1608–11),” Eurasian Studies 12 (2014), (Scribes and Readers in Iranian, Indian and Central Asian Manuscript Traditions, ed. N. Balbir and M. Szuppe), 297–324, for an analysis of the discussions bearing on historical and religious literature; Alam and Subrahmanyam, “Frank Disputations,” 488; and Sunil Sharma, “Reading the Acts and Lives of Performers in Mughal Persian Texts,” in Tellings and Texts: Music, Literature and Performance in North India, ed. F. Orsini and K. Butler Schofield (Cambridge: OpenBook Publishers, 2015), 283–302, for brief forays into the poetic debates and performances recorded in the Majalis-i Jahangiri.

5. For a discussion of the ancient background of this institution, see Samer M. Ali, Arabic Literary Salons in the Islamic Middle Ages. Poetry, Public Performance, and the Presentation of the Past (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), 13–32.

6. Ewald Wagner, “Munaẓara,” in Encylopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., ed. C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W. P. Heinrichs, and C. Pellat (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 7, 565. For a detailed analysis of the impact of adab principles on artistic speech in assembly, see Ali, Arabic Literary Salons, 33–74.

7. ʿAbd al-Sattar, Majalis-i Jahangiri, 1–2, 113–14.

8. See Amina Steinfels, “His Master’s Voice: The Genre of Malfuzat in South Asian Sufism.” History of Religions 44, no. 1 (2004): 56–69; and Sunil Kumar, The Emergence of the Delhi Sultanate1192–1286 (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2007), 373–76, for the development of the genre of malfuzat in South Asia. For an English translation of the Fawaʾid al-Fuʾad, see Amir Hasan Sijzi, Favaʾid al-Fuʾad, trans. B. B. Lawrence, Morals for the Heart: Conversations of Shaykh Nizam ad-din Awliya recorded by Amir Hasan Sijzi (New York: Paulist Press, 1992).

9. The overwhelming importance of the figure of the padshah (emperor) in the religious ideology elaborated by the Mughals in the second half of the sixteenth century translated into the development of a master-to-disciple relationship with the elite of the kingdom.

10. From this perspective, the Majalis-i Jahangiri stand in stark contrast with the Jahangir Nama—Jahangir’s autobiography-cum-official chronicle—in which the king’s spiritual pretensions are only alluded to.

11. On the Mughals’ appropriation of the ideology of sacred kingship and the messianic overtones it was given during the decades surrounding the Islamic millennium (1591–1592), see A. Azfar Moin, The Millennial Sovereign: Sacred Kingship and Sainthood in Islam (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012).

12. ʿAbd al-Sattar, Majalis-i Jahangiri, 26–27, 58, 110–11.

13. See, for example, ʿAbd al-Sattar, Majalis-i Jahangiri, 93–94.

14. See, for example, Carl W. Ernst, “Muslim Studies of Hinduism? A Reconsideration of Arabic and Persian Translations from Indian Languages.” Iranian Studies 36, no. 2 (2003): 179; and Alam and Subrahmanyam, “Frank Disputations,” 463. As is well known, Mughals descended from the great Mongol conqueror Chingiz Khan (d. 1227) on the maternal side. For a collection of articles on interconfessional debates involving Muslims in medieval times (including those held at the thirteenth-century court of the Mongol khan Mongke), see Hava Lazarus-Yafeh et al., ed., The Majlis: Interreligious Encounters in Medieval Islam (Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz, 1999).

15. On the Jesuits, see Edward Douglas Maclagan, The Jesuits and the Great Mogul (London: Burn Oates & Washbourne Ltd, 1932); and Arnulf Camps, Jerome Xavier, S. J. and the Muslims of the Mogul Empire: Controversial and Missionary Activities (Schoneck-Beckenried, Switzerland: Nouvelle Revue de Science Missionnaire, 1957), for a conventional treatment of their dealings at the Mughal court, and Alam and Subrahmanyam, “Frank Disputations,” for a recent reassessment; on Badaʾuni, Muntakhab al-tavarikh, see the new lines of inquiry opened by Ali Anooshahr, “Mughal Historians and the Memory of the Islamic Conquest of India,” Indian Economic and Social History Review 43, no. 3 (2006): 275–300; and Moin, The Millennial Sovereign, esp. 152–61; for Sanskrit insights into Mughal interconfessional disputations, see Audrey Truschke, Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016).

16. For an in-depth analysis of the debates with the Jesuits, see Alam and Subrahmanyam, “Frank Disputations.”

17. Jahangir’s Islamic disputations primarily focus on the sources of the shariʿa (Qurʾan and hadith) and on the latter’s provisions on a wide variety of issues (diet, marriage and divorce, conquest, music and singing, funeral rites, henna dye). See Reyaz Ahmad Khan, “Jahangir and Muslim Theology-Discussions Reported in the Majalis-i Jahangiri,” in Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 71st Session (Calcutta: Indian History Congress, 2011), 236–42; and Reyaz Ahmad Khan, “Jahangir on Shiʿas and Sunnis in Majalis-i Jahangiri,” in Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 72nd Session (Aligarh: Aligarh Historian Society, 2012), 302–7; as well as Shireen Moosvi, “The Conversations of Jahangir1608–11: Table Talk on Religion,” in Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 68th Session (Delhi: Indian History Congress, 2008), 328–32, for brief descriptions of some of these exchanges; Kollatz, Inspiration und Tradition, 216–78, as well as Corinne Lefèvre, “Beyond Diversity: Mughal Legal Ideology and Politics,” in Law Addressing Diversity. Pre-Modern Europe and India in Comparison (13th to 18th Centuries), ed. T. Ertl and G. Kruijtzer (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017), 116–41, and Corinne Lefèvre, “Messianism, Rationalism and Inter-Asian Connections: The Majalis-i Jahangiri (1608–11) and the Socio-Intellectual History of the Mughal ʿUlama,ʾ ” Indian Economic and Social History Review 54, no. 3 (2017): 317–38, for further insight.

18. Besides the extracts translated below, see ʿAbd al-Sattar, Majalis-i Jahangiri, 64–65, and Lefèvre, “Beyond Diversity,” for an analysis thereof. Except from a brief and derogatory mention (p. 72), it is worth stressing that Hindu religious traditions are not addressed in the Majalis-i Jahangiri as a set of metaphysical beliefs.

19. ʿAbd al-Sattar, Majalis-i Jahangiri, 265–66, 268. Although mentioned in the Qurʾan, the Suhuf-i Ibrahim are generally considered a lost body of scripture. One is therefore left to wonder what text was actually translated at the Mughal court, even though the nature of the subjects debated would point in the direction of the Torah (mentioned as such in the text p. 118 as taurit). For further details on the Jewish presence at the Mughal court, see Walter J. Fischel, “Jews and Judaism at the Court of the Moghul Emperors in Medieval India,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 18 (1948–1949): 137–77.

20. ʿAbd al-Sattar, Majalis-i Jahangiri, 3–4.

21. Akbar’s self-promotion to the status of mujtahid may be dated to 1579 and the promulgation of the famous mahzar—a declaration signed by the principal ʿulamaʾ of the empire and endowing the monarch with a juridical-religious authority surpassing (at least theoretically) that of his Safavid and Ottoman competitors. For further details, see Francis W. Buckler, “A New Interpretation of Akbar’s ‘Infallibility’ Decree of 1579,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, New Series 56, no. 4 (1924): 591–608; and Moin, The Millennial Sovereign, chap. 5.

22. ʿAbd al-Sattar, Majalis-i Jahangiri, 247.

23. I want to express my warmest thanks to Ali Anooshahr who was kind enough to check the original draft of my translation and helped me improve it. All mistakes remain, of course, mine alone.

24. As noted by Alam and Subrahmanyam, “Frank Disputations,” 494, he was probably the Jesuit José de Castro (d. 1646) who arrived in Agra in 1610 as part of the third mission at the Mughal court.

25. Having served Jahangir from his days as a prince, Mahabat Khan (d. 1634) became a leading amir of his reign. For a detailed account of his life and career, see Samsam al-Daula Aurangabadi Shah Nawaz Khan, Maʾasir al-umaraʾ, trans. H. Beveridge and B. Prasad, 2 vols. (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1911–1952). 2, 9–28.

26. Qibla is the direction of the Kaʿba in Mecca, which has to be faced during prayers.

27. A member of the Lodi tribe, Khan Jahan (d. 1631) had a meteoric rise at the beginning of the reign of Jahangir who made him a symbol of his new pro-Afghan policy. For a detailed account of his life and career, see Shah Nawaz Khan, Maʾasir al-umaraʾ, vol. 1, 795–804.

28. A Dhivarat Kachhwaha Rajput, Ram Das (d. 1613) entered Mughal service under Akbar and was subsequently substantially promoted by Jahangir at the expense of the Rajavat branch of the Kachhwahas.

29. He is very probably identical to Pathan Mishra Jajipuri, one of the two Sanskrit pandits who assisted Nizam al-Din Panipati in the Persian rendition of the Yogavashista, which he presented to Jahangir (then still known as prince Salim) in 1597.

30. I am very grateful to Audrey Truschke for her help in identifying these two mythical figures. The story narrated by Pathan Mishra constitutes a late version of the legendary battle between Indra, king of the gods, and the demon brothers Vrtra and Bala, which originally appeared in the Vedas and was subsequently retold in a number of Sanskrit texts, including the Mahabharata and some Puranas.

31. I.e. Dadhica, the well-known ascetic of the Mahabharata.

32. For a brief account of Khan Aʿzam’s (d. 1624) life and career under Akbar and Jahangir, see Corinne Lefèvre, “ʿAzīz Koka, Mirzā,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd ed., ed. G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas, and E. Rowson (Leiden: Brill, 2008), fasc. 5, part 2, 151–52.

33. Reference here is to the sixth verse of the sura 109 known as “The Unbelievers” (al-Kafirun): dating from the first Meccan period, the sura “is said to have been revealed in response to a proposal made by the Meccan polytheists to simultaneously or alternatively worship Allah and the idols.” Régis Blachère, Le Coran: Traduction selon un essai de reclassement des sourates (Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose, 1947–1950), vol. 2, 125. In this respect, sura 109 contrasts with later suras of the Medinan (post-Hegira) period, some of them advocating a more aggressive attitude vis-à-vis non-Muslims.

34. The mir ʿadl was an official who assisted the emperor or governors in dispensing justice.

35. Besides his office of mir ʿadl, Sayyid Ahmad Qadiri (d. 1629–30) was in charge of introducing the would-be disciples to Jahangir and was therefore a central figure of the imperial cult during his reign: see Nur al-Din Muhammad Jahangir, Jahangir Nama, trans. W. M. Thackston (Washington, DC: Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution & Oxford University Press, 1999), 53, where his name is given as Shaykh Ahmad Lahauri.

36. Ruzbih Shirazi’s career is very poorly documented. Apart from his interventions recorded in the Majalis-i Jahangiri, he is credited by a mid-seventeenth century biographical dictionary with the composition of an astronomical work (Kitab-i zij) together with the better-known Mulla Muhammad of Thatta. Shaikh Farid ibn Maʿruf Bhakkari, Zakhirat al-khawanin, ed. S. M. Haq (Karachi: Pakistan Historical Society, 1961–1974), vol. 2, 373.

37. At the time of the composition of the Majalis-i Jahangiri, Shukrallah Shirazi (d. 1639) was an Iranian newcomer to the Mughal court, even though he had previously enjoyed the patronage of the amir ʿAbd al-Rahim Khan-i Khanan in Burhanpur. For further details on his life and career (he was later to become one of Shah Jahan’s most influential prime ministers under the title of Afzal Khan), see Rajeev Kinra, “The Learned Ideal of the Mughal Wazir: The Life and Intellectual World of Prime Minister Afzal Khan Shirazi (d. 1639),” in Secretaries and Statecraft in the Early Modern World, ed. P. M. Dover (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016), 177–205.

38. Although it is commonly known as the “stoning verse” (ayat al-rajm) and believed by some jurists to have once been part of the sura al-ahzab before it was removed from the final version of the Qurʾan, it is actually—as Maulana Ruzbih rightly pointed out in his answer to Jahangir—part of the hadith corpus. For further details, see ʿAbd al-Sattar, Majalis-i Jahangiri, 324–25, and John Burton, The Sources of Islamic Law: Islamic Theories of Abrogation (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990), 127–35.

39. ʿAbd al-Qadir Badaʾuni, Muntakhab al-tavarikh, trans. G. S. A. Ranking, W. H. Lowe, and T. W. Haig (Reprint, Delhi: Renaissance Publishing House, 1986), vol. 2, 191, mentions a Qadi Shukr in charge of Mathura in the time of Akbar. Pending further information and research, it is however impossible to establish whether Badaʾuni’s and ʿAbd al-Sattar’s Qadi Shukr were one and the same.

40. Raja ʿAli Khan (r. 1576–1597) was the penultimate representative of the Faruqi dynasty that had been ruling over the small sultanate of Khandesh (northwest Deccan) since the late fourteenth century.

41. In 1586, Khan Aʿzam led the first of several Mughal expeditions against Khandesh, which was eventually absorbed into the empire in 1601.

42. Having been instrumental in Jahangir’s accession to the throne and in the capture of the rebel prince Khusrau in 1606, Shaykh Farid Bukhari Murtaza Khan (d. 1616) became one of the greatest amirs of the empire during the first decade of the reign. For further details on his life and career, see Shah Nawaz Khan, Maʾasir al-umaraʾ, vol. 1, 521–27.

43. Jahangir’s eldest son, prince Khusrau, was kept under close watch from the time of his failed rebellion in 1606 until his death in 1622.

44. A minor amir of Jahangir’s reign, Diyanat Khan was known for his outspokenness—a quality abundantly illustrated in the Majalis-i Jahangiri—that caused him to be briefly imprisoned in 1615. Jahangir, Jahangir Nama, 167–68.

45. In 1449, Mirza ʿAbd al-Latif (d. 1450) rebelled against his father, Mirza Ulugh Beg (d. 1449), grandson of Timur (d. 1405) and ruler of Transoxiana, and eventually had him murdered on his way to Mecca.

46. Shihab al-Din Suhravardi (d. 1234) was the author of the ʿAvarif al-maʿarif, a well-known handbook for Sufis.