ptember at University of California Davis uh under the supervisorship of Arquites John and it was composed of eight chapters and today I'm going to present apart from the last chapter so the after Nadir expelled the Ottomans from Iran successfully in the end of 1735 after a series of fights to recover the former Safavid provinces since 1730 following this victory Nadir founded what he claimed to be a Sunni dynasty in Iran in 1736 replacing the Shia Safavids and was entitled as Nadir Shah for concluding peace with the Ottomans he proposed five conditions two of which created serious conflict conflicts in the following decade let me show you these five proposals as well so first he demanded the Ottoman Sultan to accept Jafarism the common legal school of Iranians as the fifth Sunni school in the latter's authority as the caliph of all Muslims second Nadir asked for the allocation of a special prayer corner in the Kaaba for Jafiri pilgrims there is a consensus in modern scholarship that the port had considered both demands impermissible from the beginning based on close reading of Ottoman and Persian sources of the time my paper argues that in the first reply in 1736 the port only rejected the Rukh in the Kaaba but tacitly acknowledged Jafarism as a legitimate Sunni legal school however Nadir insisted on the invisibility of Jafarism in Islam's heartland underlining the invisibility of his proposals Istanbul began to reject Jafarism explicitly only after Nadir's insistence why did the Ottomans change their position what were the inter-imperial implications of Nadir's Jafarism and Rukh offers and why did he formulate them as inalienable from one another I explore these questions within the framework of religiopolitical dynamics of inter-imperial rivalry among prominent Muslim empires focusing on the visibility aspect I argue that the shared religiopolitical culture among the Ottoman Persian and Arabic spheres made visibility and publicity the very objects for which the Ottoman and Iranian rulers competed to gain political superiority and Ottoman concession of Nadir Shah's demands would have provided substantial legitimacy for Nadir Shah within and beyond Persia what mattered for the port was more the religiopolitical challenge of Nadir to the house of Osman through shared visible symbols than the legitimacy of Jafarism according to Sunnis the Iranian Ottoman conflict revolving around the Jafarism proposal took 11 years to be resolved between 1736 and 1747 this period can be divided into two as peaceful and hostile taking the outbreak of war in 1733 as the dividing point in what follows I will only explore the first part of the conflict covering the seven-year period between 1736 and 1742 I discuss this period under two dials as inauguration of the proposal and escalation of the conflict taking the year 1738 as the beginning of the escalation period the inauguration section explores Nadir Shah's inauguration of the Jafarism proposal in 1736 and investigates the negotiation process between the Ottoman and Persian delegations in Istanbul in the same year the escalation part covers the continuation of negotiations through diplomatic correspondence between 1738 and 1742 the Ottoman and Persian delegations discuss Nadir's proposals over eight conferences in 13 sessions in Istanbul in August and September 1736 at the end of one month negotiations the Ottoman site explicitly accepted the following three proposals the appointment of residence to the respective capitals the nomination of an Iranian emir ul haj commander of the pilgrims and third freeing and exchanging prisoners regarding regarding the two most controversial demands the port implicitly recognized Jafarism as a Sunni school but explicitly rejected a Jafiri written in the Kabe as modern scholarship commonly assumed that the Ottomans refused to accept Jafarism as a Sunni school from the outset explicitly I will discuss the Ottoman implicit acceptance of Jafarism below the clearest evidence for the Ottoman acceptance is that the peace agreement Ahit Nami Humayun sent by Mahmud I the Sultan to Nadir Shah stated that in doctrine the people of Persia had joined the Sunni sect as before the agreement mentioned the new doctrinal school of the Persians as Sunnism but left the legal school they would follow which was nothing else than Jafarism unspecified besides the Ottomans showed their acceptance of Nadir's state as a Sunni state through the letters of the Sultan the Grand Vizier and the Sheikh Hünistam unequivocly all of these congratulated Nadir for for removing heresy Imatee Asar with At-Radiye and erecting the columns of the Prophet Sunni Iqamati Menara Sunnitesenye in Iran another expression of the new Ottoman acceptance of the Persians as Sunnis was that the Ottomans and the Persians were to add more praises to one another's titles in correspondence due to the correction of the sect of the Iranians the Ottoman site also accepted to send two Ottoman ulema to Iran who were to declare the Ottoman caliphs support to Nadir in a congregational Friday prayer the silence of the Ottoman letters on Jafarism was another indicator of the Ottoman implicit acceptance of Jafarism only the letter of Sheikh Hünistam Pezullah Efendi Zadir Mustafa Efendi referred to Jafarism by name he first listed the three proposals of Nadir that the Ottomans explicitly accepted then he wrote the other demands as the acceptance of Imam Jafar's legal school as the fifth friendly school and the establishment of rukun for the Jafarist in the Kaaba surprisingly the Sheikh Hünistam started to provide his indirect legal excuses for not accepting a Jafiri rukun in the Kaaba and continued the letter without coming back to the Jafiri question he completely omitted the demand for the acceptance of Jafarism as the fifth school the Sheikh Hünistam's mentioning of the Jafiri proposal among Nadir's demands but leaving it unanswered in the letter shows a conscious neglect it gave Nadir the message that the Ottomans had no problem with the Jafiri legal school as long as he did not ask for the explicit recognition of it contemporary historians unlike their modern counterparts underlined the Ottoman tacit acceptance of Jafarism as well. Shemdani Zadir Süleyman Efendi wrote in his chronicle that the government consented to the Jafiri school by reasoning that it is their version school it does not affect us. Muhammed Esther Abadi Nadir's official connector highlighted that the Ottoman sultan's letter did not show explicit acceptance of the Jafiri school Esther Abadi did not write that the port refused to accept Jafarism on the other hand he does explain the clear Ottoman rejection of the rukun offer the Iranian version of the Najaf document which was signed at the end of the Council of Najaf in the end of 1742 in Baghdad drew attention to the Ottoman acceptance of Jafarism in the first instance again the document stated that the Ottoman government accepted four of Nadir's five offers in 1736 including the legitimacy of Jafarism the document states that Ottoman statesmen accepted the Jafiri sect why then did the Ottomans categorically reject to grant explicit recognition to Jafarism this question requires us to look at the internal and external dimensions of Nadir Shah's religious proposals of Jafarism and Rukun Indikaba as modern historians suggest internally the proposal would have weakened the legitimacy of the Safavid dynasty which could have re-emerged against Nadir at any time moreover there were many Sunni subjects in Persia and in Nadir's army to find a middle way between Sunnis and Shis would have helped to conciliate the differences in Persian society in the external side which is the focus of this paper if Jafarism was accepted as a Sunni legal school the Ottomans could not have easily justified their attacks against the Persians on the basis of the Iranian heresy more importantly Jafarism would have worked as a facilitator for Nadir's imperial aims as Nadir's ambitions extended beyond the boundaries of Iran embracing an ecumenical religious wave would have matched with his universal ideals perfectly. Hamid Algar underlines that the establishment of a Jafiri Rukun at Kabe would have been the outward sign of the Ottoman acceptance of Jafarism as the fifth Sunni legal school. Considering the Ottoman compliance to Jafarism this outward sign emerges as the most problematic element in Nadir's proposal from the viewpoint of the port. Negotiations in Istanbul, Ottoman letters to Nadir and Mahmud's instructions to the Ottoman ambassador to Iran show that the port formulated its delicate response by paying attention to the difference between internal and external aspect of Jafarism proposal. It is important at this point to underline that both Nadir Shah and the Iranian mission in Istanbul portrayed the Jafarism proposal only as an internal affair claiming that the compilation of Nadir's kingship in Persia depended on the acceptance of his demands by the Ottoman Sultan due to the former's unsettled authority over his realm. Critically during the discussions among Ottoman Ulema and statesmen regarding the sending of two Ottoman Ulema to Iran the elements concluded that the demanded two Ulema could be sent because the demand seemed to be related to the strengthening of Nadir's uncertain authority in Iran. The royal authorization for sending the Ottoman Ulema shows that the port had no problem with the internal aspect of Jafarism. Unlike its implicit recognition the port unequivocally rejected the external aspects of the Jafarism proposal. The Kaaba stood as the single most critical symbol over which Ottoman and Iranian rulers engaged in a religious political competition throughout the entire Jafarism debates. In the conferences in Istanbul the Ottoman representatives made it clear that the congregational prayer at a designated location for the Jafar pilgrims in the Kaaba is their major concert. After providing several reasons one of which was the creation of this order fitna in the hijaz due to the religious fanaticism of the people of the hijaz against unfamiliar sects they call it that way they emphasized that this proposal is harmful to the order of the sublime sultanate and should be withdrawn. The Grand Vizier's letter also drew attention to the would-be opposition of the people of the hijaz to such a change and express Ottoman uneasiness with the allocation of a special prayer location for pilgrims of a certain country in practice. He underlined that people have so far prayed not according to their country but according to the legal sect they follow across countries. The Grand Vizier's words also implied that the port was not comfortable with the propaganda aspect of a Jafar pilgrim. He wrote that Nadir's achievement in Persia and the sultan's support of it would have been heard by every Muslim, lowly or distinguished in the Kaaba which was the gathering place of ethnicities in the world. Thus there was no reason to create this order in the hijaz. Mustafa Pasha the Ottoman ambassador to Iran was instructed by Mahmud that should Nadir ask further questions about the written issue the ambassador needed to raise the following points. The Ottoman dynasty had acquired the title of caliph of god by incorporating the two holy sanctuaries into the Ottoman domains however they refrained from calling themselves ruler of the haremain hakimil haremain and instead called themselves servant of the haremain hadimil haremain. These holy sanctuaries were like two stable poles and had several special privileges. It was an established custom of the Ottoman dynasty to leave everything in these sanctuaries as it was and to not interfere. In his long introduction to royal peace, Mahmud the first qualified the Ottoman dynasty as possessing the great caliphate and himself as caliph on earth and imam of all people and as deserving to be called the commander of the faithful. The remarks of the sultan and the grand vizier showed that the port considered Nadir's proposal as a challenge to the religious political supremacy of the house of osman in the muslim world. Indeed historical precedence demonstrated that muslim rulers expressed their political challenges to the ruler possessing the hijaz through outwardly pious initiatives in the holy cities and holy cities and particularly in the caliphate. Robert Olson aptly observed that Nadir's goals with his religious proposals were in court to establish his independence as a muslim ruler and also to lay down a challenge to Istanbul's sovereignty and of court. The Ottoman responses clearly clarified that the Ottomans were not going to share their prerogative in the hijaz with Nadir Shah, the first ruler of a newly born union dynasty bordering the eastern frontier of the empire. Nadir's offer would have created a visible change in the Kaaba for the first time in centuries, which would have contributed to Nadir's trans-regional religious political legitimacy posing a challenge to that of the sultan. A jafferir in the Kaaba would have declared Nadir's outstanding achievement of removing heresy from Iran and establishing syunism in Persia five times a day forever to muslims from all around the world. Furthermore, it was highly likely that the syunism in the hijaz and other parts of the Ottoman realm would have opposed such a radical change. In the end, this was an overnight change of sectarian identity after more than 200 years under the force of a severe ruler who adhered to syism until his coronation. By explicitly accepting jafferism as a legitimate legal school and allocating a special corner in the Kaaba for its followers, the great caliph would have taken a major risk that could have harmed not only his own legitimacy but also that of his dynasty. So now I move on to the escalation part. In the escalation period, several reciprocal embassies were exchanged between Istanbul and wherever Nadir was. During this period, Nadir sent five missions to the missions to the Ottoman capital, two of which were returning Ottoman missions, and Mahmoud I sent two embassies to Nadir Shah. First, before waiting for the Ottoman response of 1736, Nadir Shah sent a mission to Istanbul and added two further stipulations to conclude peace, the ending of the fight between the Ottomans and the Russians, and the approval of Russia of the peace between the Ottomans and the Persians. Nadir's introduction of the Russian conditions and insistence on the former proposals made it clear for the port that Nadir was not to be satisfied with establishing authority within Iran. The port was fighting a difficult war against the Russo-Australian alliance at that time, and Nadir kept rejecting to sign peace with the Ottoman Sultan. These were indicators that Nadir was not so inclined toward unity and peace with the great Caliph as he pretended in his letters. Significantly, unlike the case in 1736, Nadir only sent a letter to Mahmoud I not to the Grand Vizier in 1737. Nadir maintained this diplomatic stance, indicating equality in rank between the Ottoman and Persian states until his death in 1747, even after the Treaty of Qarban in 1746. In response, the Ottoman Sultan wrote that the Ottoman fight in the name of Islam against the aggression of the infidel Russians was to continue. Certainly, the religious discourse was to counter and weaken Nadir's religious political discourse, which pressured the Ottoman Sultan to accept Jafarism due to religious unity between the Ottomans and the Iranians. The Sultan also reprimanded Nadir's reluctance to conclude peace with the Ottomans in Indirek, but strong words with reference to international law and diplomacy. The word, the phrase that the Sultan used in the letter was that. Nadir wrote his direct response to the Ottoman reply to Jafarism offer and royal peace document after he has recently captured Kandahar and when he was on the way to conquer India. Ali Mardanhan, the Iranian envoy carrying the letter, died on his way to Istanbul, but the port still received Nadir's letter in August 1739. Nadir's letters had two main claims. First, explicit recognition of Jafarism and the rupt in the Kaaba were indispensable for the peace. Second, the Ottoman Sultan was the great Caliph. Thus, he had complete authority to grant both of these religious demands. He qualified the Ottoman state as possessing supreme sultanate and great caliphate and the Sultan as protector of Islam. Regarding the Jafarism question, he expressed that if it had pertained to either politics or economy, he would have sold it by himself without inconvincing the shadow of God, i.e. Muhammad I. However, he added, this matter was within the power of the Sultan given the religious and legal nature of the question. Nadir basically turned the great caliphate of the Sultan against him as an effective religious political weapon. He aimed to undermine the caliphate of the Sultan by challenging it not directly, but indirectly. Moreover, Nadir's qualification of his offer as religious as opposed to political or economic indicated at least two things. First, similar to the presentation of the Jafarism offer as an internal matter in 1736, Nadir maintained the same discourse that he had no political aim that could possibly threaten the Ottomans. Second, his audacious assertion that he would have solved the problem by himself if it had been about politics or economics was a dangerous showing off of his political and economic might threatening the Ottoman Sultan. In a word, Nadir's insistence on the declaration of the recognition of Jafarism, an establishment of the Rukmin Dikabe, verified for the port that Nadir's real aim went beyond the internal reasons he had presented so far. Moreover, Muhammad I, Ahit Nami Humayun became void as Nadir did not agree to make peace with the Sultan on these conditions. The port waited for the arrival of Haji Ham, the envoy replacing Ali Mardanhan to respond to Nadir's letters. Nadir had written the letter after he conquered India in 1739. Now, he styled himself as King of Kings, Shah-u-Shaan, and Sultan over the sultans of the earth, Sultan Berseratini Jihad, as struck on the new coins in India. The hutpe in Delhi on Eid al-Adha on March 21, 1739 was also read in his name. Nadir's letter to Mahmut I mostly boosted his victory over the Mughal Muhammad Shah. He highlighted that with this victory, the well-protected domains of Persia now extend to the end of India and Indian Ocean. He briefly mentioned the Jafarism offer, clearly repeating his demand of the Sultan. In this letter, Nadir did not change his respectful language towards Mahmut I, whom the Persian Shah again called the processor of the Great Caliphate several times with titles such as Evgi Hilafet, Hilafeti Kübra, Azam Hilafet, and Sultanate Jihana Dari. The ports applied to all the Persian letters carried by the missions of Ali Mardanhan and Haji Han. In total, six letters were sent to the Persian court with the mission of Minif and Nazir Effendi's in June 1741. Two from Mahmut I to Nadir Shah, two from the Grand Vizier to the Itimazid Devle, and two from the Sheikh Iristan to the Itimazid Devle again. These letters marked the categorical shift of the Ottoman position on Jafarism from implicit recognition to explicit rejection. While Nadir Shah gained victory in India and Central Asia, the Ottomans also defeated the Russo-Austrian Alliance in 1739. Mahmut I responded to Nadir's boasting about his victory in India by describing the victory of the standard of the Prophet, i.e. the Ottomans, over the infidels without naming the Russians and the Austrians. The letter presumably underlined that the Ottomans had not fought against another Muslim state, e.g. the Mughals. The second letter from the Sultan dealt with the Jafarism question. Mahmut stated that the Ottoman state accepted three of the Nadir's proposals since they did not include any legal, political, or economic problems. He continued that the Ottoman state had been strictly bound by the Sharia from its birth to the present day. Thus, he added, they asked the Ulema about these proposals, and the Ulema had unanimously agreed that religious law did not allow the acceptance of the Jafiri Legals whose legitimacy. Mahmut's pointing to the Ulema as the highest legal authority was a direct response to Nadir's claim that to accept his Jafirism proposal was within the authority of the Great Caliph. The Ottoman Sultan basically suggested that legal matters were beyond his legitimate authority, as only the Ulema had jurisdiction over the legal area. With this mode, he warded off Nadir's turning of his caliphate against them. Mahmut's remarks also demonstrated a categorical change in the Ottoman approach to the legitimacy of the Jafiri legal school. In 1736, the Port had accepted Jafirism though implicitly. In 1741, however, the Ottoman state explicitly rejected it on legal grounds. Critically, the Port's precaution in implicitly accepting Jafirism at the beginning of negotiations enabled the Ottoman to transition to explicit rejection easily. Mahmut touched upon the political aspect of the proposal as well. The Sultan referred to verbal expressions used by the Persian ambassadors who claimed that there were two reasons for Nadir's insistence on the proposals. First, they would be privileges for Nadir alone among rulers. Second, they would relieve Nadir of the burden and shame associated with Iran's previous sect. These reasons capture again how a seemingly religious proposal was simultaneously political. They show also the incorrectness of Nadir's claim in his letter sent with Ali Mardanhan that the two proposals pertained only to religion and not to politics or economics. They were political proposals from the outset. After underlining the political aspect of the proposal, Mahmut added that the granting of the ability to appoint a Persian emiral hajj would suffice to both of these needs, i.e. gaining privilege and relief from shame. The Sultan reasoned that neither a Muslim ruler today nor earlier Safavid Shahs had attained that privilege of appointing an emiral hajj. Mahmut again clarified that it was not the port but religious law itself that did not allow the acceptance of Nadir's Jafirism proposals. That is why he concluded these proposals should be forgotten completely. Another important indicator of the firm Ottoman rejection of the Jafirism offered seems to have been the sending of the two envoys who were from the finance bureaucracy and non-experts in religious law. Moreover, the ladders of the Sultan and the Grand Vizier, although not that of the Shehir Islam, did not name Jafirism explicitly. They always referred to it indirectly as had been the continuing discursive attitude of the port since 1736, showing the Ottoman decisiveness on this matter. One of the two ladders of the Shehir Islam presented the legal justification for rejecting the Jafir illegal school as a legitimate Sunni school in one major argument. Respectable books of the Hanifist school recognized only four legal schools belonging to Sunni doctrine. These books were full of references to the other three schools, i.e. Shafi, Humberi and Maliki, and distinguished the Hanifi legal weaves from the other schools on every legal matter. Apparently, there was no reference in these books to the legal weaves of the Jafiri school. Approving a legal school as legitimate depended on the weaves of the imams of the legal school recorded explicitly in the respectable legal books. Thus, in the absence of weaves of Hanifi imams on Jafirism, the Hanifi ulema of today had no authority to accept that legal school as a legitimate Sunni school. The way the Shehir Islam justified the Ottoman rejection aimed to close the door completely. When the great Caliph pointed to the ulema as the authority on Jafirism proposal, the Ottoman ulema pointed to the great imams of the Mezhet who had passed away centuries before and who had not granted their approval to the Jafiri legal school within Sunnisim. It meant a deadlock for Nadir's highly desired religious proposal. Regarding the Jafiri rukh in the Kaaba, the Ottomans changed their reasoning there as well. Unlike the indirect reason of Pesar given in 1736, the Shehir Islam now boldly stated that Jafirism was not a valid legal school according to Sunnisim and that there could not be a rukh in the Kaaba for an illegitimate school. All in all, Nadir's insistence on the explicit recognition of Jafirism and establishment of rukh in the Kaaba convinced the port that Nadir's proposal posed a political challenge to the Ottomans. Istanbul thus abandoned its former position of implicitly recognizing Jafirism and rejecting the rukh in the Kaaba with vague political and indirect legal excuses. Now it rejected both of them with explicit and direct legal justifications in such a way that no room remained for Jafirism to be accepted. It was neither Mahmut I nor the current Hanifi ulama but the deceased great imams of Hanafism who could rule on this matter. In the ladders of 1741, the port presented itself as if its earlier rejection was the same as what it now conveyed. From this point on, the Ottomans behaved as though they did not recognize Jafirism even explicitly. Modern scholarship has accepted the official Ottoman narrative in which they presented themselves as a sultanate that had rejected Jafirism offers from the beginning on legal grounds as the actual case. In the face of the categorical Ottoman rejection, Nadir Shah also categorically changed his insistence. Nadir sent Ottoman envoys of Munif and Nazif Effendi's back from Dagestan with two epistles. Out of the two ladders from Nadir in 1742, the Ottoman registrar of royal ladders only includes one. In this letter, Nadir asked the sultan to send two respectable ulama to Persia. These ulama and the Persian ulama would gather in the presence of Nadir. Nadir suggested that with his own interference, all the spirit matters would be sold and peace would be established. In contrast to the Ottomans, Nadir's official chroniclers included only the second ladder in their works. In this second ladder, Nadir demanded territories from the Ottoman domains which he claimed he had inherited from Timut unless the port accepted Jafirism. He named Iraq-Arab, Yarbakir and parts of Azerbaijan which are corresponding to one and the surrounding territories in Kurdistan as the inherited lands currently under Ottoman occupation. Nadir threatened the Ottomans with war by asserting that to solve the question completely, he would come to the Ottoman domains. He concluded his letter with a sarcastic threat. In quotes, I am hoping that if Allah wills, the matter may be arranged there on my arrival. Thus, Nadir pushed his demand further in all directions both by demanding two Ottoman ulama and threatening the Ottomans with war. Around mid-1742, Nadir sent another ladder to Ahmed Pasha, the governor of Badat and repeated the same demand and threat. Either the port would accept the Jafirism proposals or Nadir would march on the Ottomans. Ironically, Nadir Shah still continued to recognize Mahmud I as the great Caliph in both of these letters. This clear inconsistency between discourse and action shows the importance of taking context in the account when analyzing diplomatic discourse. In this specific context, Nadir used the language of inferior, not to show his obedience to the superior, but to undermine the power of the superior more effectively. That discourse would render the Sultan's position wrongful as Mahmud, the great Caliph, had wrongfully rejected the purely religious offer of a Muslim ruler who paid utmost respect to the Caliph and who aimed to do nothing but reconcile Muslim people divided for centuries. Nadir's discourse could address several audiences, such as Ottoman subjects on the Eastern frontier, people from lower and higher classes in Istanbul, people of the Hijaz, Persian subjects, and so on. The port received a summary of Nadir's response in March 1742 from the report of Minif and Nazif Effendi's amount before their arrival in Istanbul. Regardless of Jafirism, Nadir's inheritance claim to Ottoman lands carried the crisis to a higher level and the port sent war orders to several Pashas as early as March 1742. The Sheikh Hristam Said Mustafa Effendi issued a fatwa, declaring the legality of fighting against Nadir next month. Moreover, in line with the post 1738 policies of the port, the fatwa considered Jafirism to be a school within Shizm, which rendered its sanitization legally impossible. In addition, with references to heresy and abode of Islam in the fatwa, the port returned to its age-old religious-political discourse against the Iranians. Thus, for the first time since 1736, the Ottoman side showed that it would recognize the Persians as heretics as before. This was the Ottoman government's counter threat to Nadir's threats. The Ottomans did not give up diplomacy completely, though. In his reply letter, Mahmut I stated that Nadir had demanded too further Ulamato discuss the Jafirism proposal with sincere religious intentions. However, he added, as long as Nadir's aim was to establish affection and union between Muslims and to remove this unity, this fortunate aim would be achieved. Clearly, the Sultan was questioning Nadir's religious intentions. Then, Mahmut wrote that in early Islamic history there had only been this agreement on legal matters through, however, these turned into doctrinal disagreements. This remark meant that even if problems in legal matters regarding Jafirism could be solved, it would not guarantee the solution of doctrinal problems, per se. Mahmut added that those times were times of independent legal reasoning. And the saved party, i.e. the Sunnis, had chosen unity in doctrine and four legal schools in legal jurisdiction. The Sultan basically repeated what the Sheikh Hirstam had written in his last epistle. Not the Ulema of today, but earlier imams of the Medzhet had exclusive right to accept or deny the legitimacy of a certain school. Both the Sheikh Hirstam and the Sultan referred implicitly to the famous post-10th century Sunni legal principle that the gate of independent legal reasoning was closed. To show that rulers were bound by the earlier Ulema, Mahmut followed the next sentence with a carefully selected phrase. Rulers who were in the hands of those sects. Then he remarked that sending two Ulema would be pointless and would only increase the conflict as there was no legal way for Jafirism to be accepted. He concluded that for the good order of both states, Nadir should give up his insistence on Jafirism. This letter closed the long period of diplomatic correspondence and negotiation that had started in 1736. So to conclude, what primarily created conflict between Nadir Shah and the Ottoman Sultan was not the legality of Jafirism according to Sunnis, but the visibility of Nadir's achievement in the corner of the Kaaba, the center of the Muslim world. When the former pertained to the internal aspect of the proposal, which the Ottomans consented to, the letter was about Nadir's external challenge to the house of Osman, which the port did not tolerate from the outset. It was for this reason, a seemingly scholarly conflict over a juristic proposal evolved into a major fight between the Ottomans and the Persians in 1743. However, both parties continued to maintain the political competition below the surface of a legal offer through a shared language. The shared legal and diplomatic language was not simply the arena upon which this rivalry took place. The symbolic use of words and arguments made political competition visible but did not remain only as symbols. They were the bitter things the rivals were fighting for in the Ottoman, Persian and Arabic trans-regional sphere. Thank you. Thank you very much and perfect timing. Very rich and I'm sure that we have so much to talk about here. Florence, why don't you start? And how about if you could just finish the sharing? Oh, perfect. I have two tangentially related questions and one very small comment or suggestion.  I mean, simply they were not Persians. I mean, it's just, I don't think that we should use these, you know, loaded categories in this case. I know it's difficult because there are just so many words to refer to these. So anyway, the other, the other more important, more importantly, I mean, I was wondering, so Tucker and Tucker, I'm sure you are more familiar with his work than myself, but he's writing, he writes that basically, Nader had a kind of a, you know, he had, you know, he was playing a double game and he was basically saying different things to the Ottomans. I mean, things that were different from how he was going to sell this project on the home front. So I was wondering what your take on that is. And secondly, I mean, I see, I see in the, I mean, to the extent I'm familiar with this, but I see in the literature, and I see also this in your talk, and maybe this is the way we should move forward. But so I see this tendency of, you know, very much a top down view of all this, all this Nader phenomenon. And this is to a certain extent very much understandable because, I mean, on the one hand, we are talking about diplomatic history, and on the other hand, many of many scholars work on this subject have a set of an international relations background of sorts.  So that's quite understandable. But I was wondering if you can also, if this on the part of Nader, what you take, I'm really interested in what you take on this. So what is this attempt to say goodbye to Trevor Sheehan? Is this only a project of Nader and his sort of central command, central committee? Or is there also sort of a social basis for this? And, you know, I'm really interested in this. Obviously, we do know that there are continuing, obviously, there are soon elements in the Saffron realm. But, you know, I'm saying this because I worked on a text, it's a poetic text. It is from the time of Nader, it's in Turkish. And basically, it's basically a full of dialectic poems about, you know, how to pray in the Shiite way, etc.  But before that, you have hardly any text that would talk about these practical aspects of how to be a Shiite in Turkey that is directed to the, you know, former Kuzubash element of Iranian society. So that's why I was wondering, I mean, you know, I mean, so that's why I'm asking if there is a broader, do you think that there might be a broader social basis for, so is there a broader social reception of this goodbye to Trevor Sheehan project? It was a long question, sorry. No, thank you, thank you. These are great questions. And thank you for the suggestion as well in the beginning. So Roy, may I answer right now, or should I wait for other questions? Actually, I think it would better if you answer now, but I just want to jump on top of one of the very important points. And that's something that I found fascinating in your talk is it's a political question that is discussed, at least part of it in the language of religious authorities, or they kind of introduce themselves into the discussion, and then they raise the, or you mentioned the position of the people of the hijaz, if they are willing to see it even being. So there is a tension here between some kind of political question, theological question, and on top of the idea of is it a top-down issue, or is it a broader social affair? So if you can also address this point when, sorry, he's overwhelmed, I guess. Can you make your points a little bit more elaborate, or can you form them in a formal question so that I can get better and respond in a clear way? You know what, answer, Ference, and then I'll formulate it as a follow-up. Okay, thank you. First of all, Thakur's double game argument. First, let me say that I did not study the internal Iranian aspect of the question so much. So I cannot in a position to judge whether it was really as Thakur presents or not, but to me it seems his overall framework plausible. But at the same time, Muhammad Ballan also made a presentation about this and has a workshop paper. He argues that actually what Nadir introduced is not something that can easily be portrayed differently to different audiences. At the end, for example, you remove said and you say that, no, you're not going to be called Shi'i, but Sunni. So he says that these are great changes and you cannot just simply rule them out and you cannot ignore. He says, and Ballan's critique of Thakur's double game argument is that and this also seems quite logical. But again, overall, I agree with Thakur in the sense that this proposal has two main ways. One is two main phases. One is internal and the other is external. I think that Nadir has seen this proposal from this viewpoint as well because if you're not reading the mind of Nadir or somebody in the Iranian palace at that time, they themselves clearly suggest that no, it is only regarding the authority of Nadir within Persia and it has nothing to do with territories beyond Persia. They themselves expressed this. So regarding the second question, the top-down view of Nadir phenomena. Actually, this is something that I also would like to learn more. It would have been great to have more views on this. But I think that at least I argue in my work that even the top-down part of the question is not understood well. So it is difficult to understand more delicate layers of the question without seeing the general framework. For example, in my thesis also discussed heavily the Ottoman and Afghan confrontation in the 1720s. And your question can be more easily answered regarding that period because in the Ottoman realm, even in Istanbul, there were many people and even in the Ottoman army, there were many soldiers who were receptive of Afghan-Eşref Shah's call to them. And this case is strikingly higher in the borderland, especially within the Kurdistan region. However, regarding Nadir's case, I'm talking about the Ottoman part now. There might be some, but the memory of people regarding Nadir by people, I mean Ottoman service, is not so good. So he was, he besieged Baghdad twice and he killed many Ottoman pashas. So many people's subjects, not in the borders, but even in Erzurum, et cetera, suffered from food, et cetera, due to Nadir's amazing marches and campaigns. So the image of Nadir among Ottoman subjects, I guess, was not as popular as Eşref Shah, for example. So I don't know this. However, having said this, there are people in the Ottoman high circles who think that if this goes to another war, if not accepting Nadir's proposals is going to end up with another war and with a major misery, then let's accept it. Koca Ragıp Paşa was of this opinion, for example. So if more research can be done on these individual views, I guess we can find more views regarding the reception of Nadir's call. Because, for example, even today modern scholarship, some of it, at least, discuss Nadir's proposal only as a religious proposal as Nadir himself wanted to be seen. So it comes to mind that then it could also be possible that this same reception had occurred back in time. So I think this is a possibility. Regarding the Iranian side, unfortunately, my thoughts could only be speculations and I don't want to go into speculation. Speculation is in the form of reflection. I have a long list of questions. But Amir, would you like to, because Nadir is so close to your heart? That's exactly why I'm saving best for last. So I was hoping you'd go ahead. Okay. The story itself is absolutely fascinating. Why at this moment, after decades of peace between the Safavids, the Shia Safavids and the Ottomans, we are deteriorating relationship when the strong Shia kind of content declines. So it's a very odd story of political tension that is translated into religious tension at a time where religious tension, attention should have been eased in a way. So could you maybe elaborate a little bit more on this kind of complex political religious issue at this particular historical moment? Thank you. Actually, this was the main question of my thesis. And I tried to answer this question, basically. So you have basically 300 pages of answer ready? 500, actually. Unfortunately, 500. It's my bad. But let me try to summarize them the main point. Before summarizing, let me tell you that I argue that in the 1720s, the Ottomans fought against the Afghans to replace him with Prince Tahmasp and to re-establish Safavid state. This was one of my arguments in my thesis. Second, against Nadir Shah, the Ottomans found an imposter, Safavid prince called Safi Mirza, who came to the Ottoman lands in the 1730s. The Ottomans took him after 13 years from Rhodes Island and sent him to the front against Nadir Shah and the aim of the Ottoman army was to re-establish Safavid state again by taking down Nadir Shah. So it was very clear that Ottomans did not want extremely power, extremely dynasty in their border in the east. My basic answer is that if you consider the big Ottoman territories, it was encircled by religiopolitical and environmental walls and it creates an isolation for the House of Osman. And within this isolated realm, House of Osman enjoyed a monopoly of legitimate rule. Geographically, the south was closed by the Saharan desert and the Indian ocean. So there was no challenging group or dynasty or authority. In the west, it is the Christian Europeans. In the north, it was the Russians and in the east, it was the Heretic Kızılbaş. So if you, for example, want to raise against the Ottoman sultan from Cairo, from Alexandria, from Aleppo, from Crimea, the sultan says that I am the legitimate ruler possessing the great caliphate due to the possession of the Hijaz to holy sanctuaries. So you are the rabble, bari in Fök language. So sometimes people say that this is not by itself, is not sufficient. And I totally get this. Of course, this is not sufficient by itself to maintain your authority as the only legitimate ruler. However, it works as a soft power instrument. The main point is that it's a soft power argument. You can create a narrative around this caliphate issue. And the main function of the caliphate is that a second ruler besides caliphate is not legitimate. So you can enjoy your monopoly over these large territories only by, you can enjoy your monopoly without getting challenged by other by other dynasties. So what happened in 1722 is the breakdown fall of the Shia Safavid wall that encircled and protected the Ottoman domains and the legitimacy of the House of Osman for centuries. Now the Ottomans are open. The House of Osman cannot be easily, cannot easily continue its legitimate authority because there was now another alternative. And there were two main vulnerabilities of the Ottoman domains. First, the borderlands, the Kurds, and the Bedouin Arabs all the way from Georgia to Basra. And second, the Sharif of Mecca. The Ottomans did not have a clear and unchallenged and unquestioned authority over the Sharif of Mecca. Overall, after all, the Ottomans did not conquer Hijaz. The Sharif of Mecca himself submitted to the authority of the House of Osman and Sharif of Mecca enjoyed a very semi-independent position. So if an alternative power can show itself that it can protect Hijaz more effectively, that it can provide the Hijaz in a more better way than the Ottomans did, then he can easily shift his position. And then you can see the retraction of Ottoman domains quite easily and fascinatingly. The Ottomans could lose the Kurdistan era, the Basra, Baghdad, Hijaz all at once. It was a possibility. If you also think the technologies of war at that time, the power of the center over the periphery was quite weak. So that's why I argue the Ottomans did not want to have a possible alternative power beyond their frontier in the East. Fascinating way to frame this question and definitely another did the Ottomans a very good service in India. So in that sense of knocking down any kind of competition from there. No, thank you for that. Amir, it's just I'm aware of the time and since you are the master of ceremony. Even if there were hours of time, I think there wouldn't be enough time. I feel like me and Habib should have like our own two-man conference where we just dedicate the rest of the day. But we will definitely have to discuss because especially with what Ference raised on the internal and domestic issues speaking to this relationship. There are so many things that I would like to discuss with you on how internal state formation under Nader is influencing the discourse on are we Jafari Shi'i or are we Sunni, how he's kind of inflicting it very differently to different audiences in order to kind of maximize his legitimacy. Even the Council of Najaf is a very good example of this. But yeah, as I said, the questions that I have rattling around my mind, we're going to have to leave that for a proper discussion. It's not going to be one or two questions. That will be my pleasure. We should move on to our next speaker. Thank you very much for this fascinating paper and no less fascinating discussion. It is exciting to find the two people who care about Nader at the same time and place. I'm very excited about the next paper because we are looking towards South Asia where I am based. So Saida, please, if you could, I'll give you the stage now. What happened? We lost you for a second. So if you can start. Sorry, the connection was cut. Okay, perfect. So please go ahead. Sure, my screen. Can you see it? Yep. Okay. Hi everyone. Thanks for being here now to listen to my presentation. I might be disappointing you because unlike the other speakers since yesterday who would like more historical now to approach, mine is more of literally philosophical or theological nature and come from the background of philosophy of religion. But the good news is I'm not going to talk about all those boring philosophical issues and I'm more going to recite poetry to you and have you because I know you're already tired. So we're going to more have static pleasure than anything else, like more intellectual. I'm going to introduce two Muslim poets around the turn of the 20th century who responded to this, the sociopolitical situation that we're in almost in the same manner. The first one is Muhammad Iqbal, the Pakistani national poet. So these two figures are very important in their own cultures and countries. Iqbal is also regarded as a spiritual father of Pakistan, the one who had the idea of an independent Muslim country. But at the time when he composed this poem, there was no Pakistan, it was India. So Indian, I don't know, slash Pakistani poet in his poem, Shikwa, Complaint in 1911, composed in 19 or published in 1911. And the second piece of poem is by Muhammad Aqif Ersoy. He is also a very important in Turkey regarded as the Turkish national poem poet in his and the poem, the piece of poem of his, which I'm going to introduce is titled the Arabic translation translated Oh God is there no dawn to this ominous night composed in 1913 or published in 1930. What is strikingly interesting in these two pieces of work, which I found is the motive they use, both of them use and the way they react to the calamities of time, their time just to remind you of the historical background against which they compose these poems. It was like the time when Islam was in decline, the Ottoman Empire was losing territories to the enemy like the western Christians.  There is war and bloodshed everywhere innocent people die, are killed like hundreds and thousands of them every day. So this is the setting. And faced with this, this much of pain and suffering, these two poets respond unlike what is what is the normal in the Muslim tradition, not with patience and forbearance and accepting their destiny, but with complaint. And then beyond that with with rebelling and protesting against God. So this makes their works in my eyes unique. And again, I said I'm coming from a philosophical like theological background with huge interest in world literature and languages. So this is more of this nature than historical or nautical. So what I detected with in these two pieces of poem was the motive of the pious rebel or the rebellious pious. And what do I mean by that the repious rebel is is a believing person in this case a believing Muslim who does not abandon the belief in God or his or her love for God, nor does he or she accept it with forbearance and patience, but rather rebels and accuses God while remaining loyal and loving him or her loyal to and loving him or her. So unlike the atheist who faced with like or a believer faced with suffering, who abandons faith. And a pious rebel does not abandon faith, keeps his belief and faith and love for God, but still does not accept the status quo and rebels and does not see anything beautiful in all these pain and suffering and does not accept his or her destiny and protest against God. And in the context of such the context where these pious rebels appear, one can observe that humans show that they can raise themselves above God that humans could surpass God in their morality, reminding God of the divine justice and divine duties in respect to his or her creation. If you would ask what is so special about that, I should I should mention certain preliminary points in order to make the case more clear. So I here I raise two questions in response to these questions that my point would get clear. And you would see why these the similarities between these two pieces of work are extraordinarily interesting. So the first question, what is so special about this motive? And second is, where could this motive be traced? In response to the first question, what is so special about this motive? I should very, very briefly mention what was or what is to the state Islamic traditional response to the problem of evil, which is called like the responses they give are classified under the rubric of theodicy, theodicy is any attempt by any religious or non religious tradition to justify the existence of evil in the world or justify God in the face of evil. So the Quranic response usually given by the scholars to the problem of evil is according to the Quran, the response is it's either test or trial or warning or for the purpose of soul making or spiritual growth or punishment. So evil is instrumental is and for greater good. And it is in fact no evil, it serves greater goods. And Islamic theologians philosophers finding the Quranic response not systematically enough or convincing enough provided also their own responses, which I list here very briefly. It's just a huge discussion, but I just briefly list here. Evil is caused by human free choice. This actual world is the best possible world attributed to Al-Ghazali. Evil is necessary for the existence of the material world. Evil is a privation of good, absence of good, and hence has no actual existence. Reward in the afterlife outweighs this worldly pain and suffering. Evil is a means to greater good. So you can see whatever response they give, one thing is for sure, evil does not exist. Evil is what we regard and assume as evil. It's not actually evil because it is an instrument for a purpose, for a key loss. And therefore it is good. So no recognition of the existence of genuine evil, let alone providing any room for objection, complaint or protest. Going to the Sufi tradition, one would expect to get another response that would be more existential, more giving more, providing more room for human complaint. But it's not the case, it is even worse. Sufis glorify suffering based on the Qur'an, on the Qur'anic narrative that offers ample examples of what it means to be Muslim, literally resigned, completely surrendering oneself, heart and body to God in a state of perfect trust, they say, that suffering is they go again to that idea that suffering is for spiritual growth and for soul making. So this led to the frequent idea that distress is a sign of divine favor as a setical view which became widespread in some Sufi mysticism, which often identified the highest degree of spiritual accomplishment with the virtue of ridah satisfaction with a divine decree. As a result, the saint opened heartedly and without hesitation, accepts tribulations, simply because they are from the God whom he or she loves. This is regularly encountered in the Sufi literature, life with all its hardships is divine gift in itself. So again, accepting pain and suffering with open arms. So I come to the second question. So the first question was, what is so special about this motive? What is special about this motive is you cannot find the traces of it in the Islamic tradition. The second question is, then how can we find the traces of it? How can we trace it back? Where does this motive come from? According to Navid Kermani, in his book, The Shrekngotas or English The Chair of God, with the subtitle Atar Job and the Metaphysical Revolt, which was published in 2005 and recently also translated into English, one can find this motive in Atar's Rebelling Fools. So Fariduddin Atar, 13th century Persian poet and mystic according to Navid Kermani in all his works, but especially in the Book of Suffering or Musibat Nome, gives, like, introduces this motive of rebelling fools who rebel against God, but they are fools. So in response to the question, how can suffering and injustice be reconciled with the idea of good, loving, old, powerful and all-knowing God, which is called a problem of evil, Atar's Rebelling Fools answer with revolt. Revolt against God quarrelling by and by quarrelling with God. And this is epitomized in the figure of Job in the Bible according to Navid Kermani. And just to remind you that the Quranic Bible, unlike the biblical Bible, biblical Job, the Quranic Job, unlike the biblical Job, does not protest, accepts all the suffering and pain granted to him by God until the end with patience and with supper and forbearance accepts whatever comes over him. So Navid Kermani argues right, it is true this biblical Job, this biblical Job motive could not be found neither in the Quran nor in the Islamic tradition, whether philosophy or theology or Sufism, but it could be found in Atar's works, especially in Mosif Atnami. So I brought a quote from the book about the Job motive, clinging to God, but simultaneously denying him the attribute of goodness. And finally, the wording of this negative emotion towards God, these are all elements of the Job motive, which is precisely not constituted by mere accusation or mere forbearance. The motive can be found in all of Atar's verse epics, though in an extremely pessimistic variation in the book of suffering, for here the poet describes suffering and the consequent rebellion more drastically than any other work of Islamic literature. So it's Atar in this is really unique, according to Navid Kermani. And what is interesting is in all the responses given to the problem of evil in the Islamic tradition, you see this optimism, this rather naive optimism, that the world is the best possible world, the end is going to be well. So all the evil and suffering in the world is justified. But in the book of suffering, the dominating mode and tone is very pessimistic and very dark. And of course, Atar was not the first one who introduced the idea of these foes, these rebelling foes. It has its history, the Islamic tradition in the image of the wise foes or Ohala al-Majaneen in Arabic or Kharrat Mandana Divaneh Persian, they already exist in the Islamic tradition and Atar is familiar with them. They were mystics, these Ohala al-Majaneen, who acted against social norms, defied the Sharia, questioned the religious authorities, but also questioned the political rule. And in order to protect themselves from the accusation of heresy or anything, they pretended they played the fool, they pretended to be insane. So under the guise of insanity, they could question everything from the religious authorities to political rule and at the same time refuse from following the Sharia. So this was like a motive already there and Atar was aware of that. But what is unique about Atar's fools is that they question not only the religious authorities and the political rule, but also God. They criticize not only the social injustice, but also divine justice. Unlike atheists, they refuse to deny the existence of God in the face of pain and suffering or turn away from him or her. They believe in God, but refuse to accept the Creator world as it is. So this is what is called like quarreling, the motive of quarreling with God. And Navid Karmani mentions that this idea of quarreling with God again is not without its traces in the Islamic tradition. Quarreling with God was especially widespread among the poets of the Turkish Bakhtashi Order. The Anatolian mystic and poet Yunus Andrem, was immersely popular to this day, criticized the Serat bridge, which all the dead had to cross even though it is finer than hair. And he also disapproved of the scales with which God weighs up the good and bad deeds of humans. A bridge, Yunus said, is built for people to cross it, not to fall down. Scales are fit for a grocer, but not for a God. A different Bakhtashi dervish, Khaigusuz Attal, said, you've built a bridge from her so that your servant comes and walks across it. We want to stay where we are.  This is in the Sufi tradition. And as one of the speakers yesterday duly mentioned, Yunus Andrem was influenced by the Persian mystics. So it is very much possible that this motive found its way in Anatolia through Yunus Andrem. And this is very much the motive we can find in Attar's works. Outside of mysticism, we can also find the traces of this motive of quarreling with God. Doubts about the justice of God's actions run through the entire poetry of Arab Persian culture. But what is clear about them, they are atheists. So they are just like some of them are accused of being atheists that some of them, like Omar Hayyan, some of them openly said that they were atheists like Ibn Raawendi and Al-Ma'ari. So this is no surprise to see them question God and question his or her justice. But as for the mystics, in fact, they are questioning God, apparently they are questioning God, but what they are questioning is the Ulamas conception and understanding of the day of judgment. So they are not questioning God and divine justice, but rather again the Ulamas, even if apparently they are questioning God. So again, as Kermani says, and I agree with him, this heretical piety is unique to Mus'ibat-Name. It seems to me, however, I'm quoting Kermani, that the book of suffering still constitutes the most violent outburst of heretical piety within this Islamic cultural realm. There is probably no other Islamic texts in which Job's motives are as central and as varied. Here what he means is the biblical job, of course, as in the book of suffering, the motive of cursing existence, suffering from death after a long life, but above all, the turn against God in hardship and the appeal finally to keep the promises he has made to humans. So if we take Kermani's, accept Kermani's claim, then this is a kind of what is suggested in the book of suffering is a kind of protest theology or protest theority or anti-theority, anti-theology. And this is a movement that started especially after the Second World War, and the advocates of these movements were Jews who directly or indirectly experienced the Shoah, but also there are some Christians amongst them who suggested this idea of protest theority or theology. According to them, God is not all good, so they question the omnipelavents of God. God is all-powerful and all-knowing, but not all good. So like Job, they say, we should keep protesting and rebelling till we draw the attention and favor of the divine towards us. So the idea is, as in the book of Job in the Bible and many other cases, God is like this all-powerful king, this sovereign king who can do whatsoever he wants. And he is just unmindful of his creator world, of his creatures, and we should keep protesting and rebelling until we can draw his attention towards us and to make it clear to him that he is acting unjustly. So this being said, now I come to these two pieces of poetry, in these two pieces of poetry, as I said at the beginning of my presentation, I could find the same motive that is the motive of the rebelling pious or the pious rebel or this is the motive of a quarreling pious, rebelling pious, whatever you want to call it, the motive of the biblical Job present in these two pieces of poem. And as it has come clear, the reason why it is strikingly interesting is that this is not at all the normal response a Muslim, a believing Muslim, a pious Muslim would give to the problem of suffering and pain. I would read also the poems, of course it is not all the like all the verses of these poems, just I selected some just some few verses in order to give you the impression of how it is like. I will also read them in the original language because the words and the melody used in these poems are instrumental to convey this mode of protest and rebellion. So since the form is also at the service of the content, I will recite them in the original and then translate them. The translations are mine amongst you are those who know Urdu and Turkish, so if they're please correct me because the translations I found for Shikva, I didn't like, for Akifar Soy's poem I couldn't find at all any English translation online, maybe in Turkey that are in libraries, but online in Germany I couldn't get any translation. So these are mines, mine translation correct me if I'm wrong. So in Shikva complained Mohammad Iqbal who is also a very important philosopher himself, so he's a poet philosopher starts, starts saying like depicting how the situation is in the Muslim world and imagines a garden, the garden of slum which is now withering away, the trees are turning yellow and dead and the garden is abandoned and he is like this Bulbul, like this what is Bulbul, this nightingale which is sitting in the in the midst of this garden and is complaining to God. So I start Jorata amuz mere ita besokhan he mochko, Shikva Allah se khalkan bedahan he mochko. The strength of my words is encouraging to me, word to me my complaint is against God. So the word he's using is khalkan bedahan, those who know Urdu in Persian this is like they can understand it is stronger than word to me, it's like may may dust be into my mouth, I how do I dare to say that but I'm saying that my complaint is against God. Oh God listen to the complaint also from the faithful to you, listen to some complaints also from the one accustomed to praise you. And then he depicts the scene how the situation is that slum is losing its glory, that Muslims like the Tawheed is is going lost in this world and instead the cross is getting power, the ringing bells of the churches are now heard and half of that as if God is not aware of all this, he says Khandazan khof ehsaos tojehe knehee, apne Tawheed kakosh paos tojehe knehee, infidelity is mocking, do you have some feeling or not? Do you have any regard for your own Tawheed or not? And then he goes on reminding God of all the services Muslims have given to God all throughout the Muslim history and like reproaching God, reminding God that if it were not for Muslims, your message of Tawheed would not be spread in the world. If it was not for Muslims, nobody would have known about you etc etc. So this is where he says Bausi and Muslim Nikia al-Khamterah. So reproaching God says, he says, how strange was the sight of your world before us? Here the stone was adored, there the tree worshipped, the human eyes being accustomed just to what they could see, how could they ever be amenable to accept that God they could not see? Are you aware at all? So this Tawheed kumalum is very strong to my ears but are you aware at all? Can you really realize who is the one who raised your name? It was the strength of Muslims' arm that did the service to you.  Whose world conquering sword did world's ruler become by whose takbir did your sword in line become through whose fear idols did perpetually remain alarmed falling on their faces saying Hualahu ahad. So alluding to the Quranic verse Hualahu ahad. So he goes on saying like, if it were for Muslims all the idols would remain on earth, we turned the idols down and had them shout Hualahu ahad. And so just reproaching God and just reminding God of all the services as if God is not aware of them all.  And then when he goes on it the poem takes a very interesting turn where we see that now Iqbal plays the role of the jealous and passionate lover who is said that his beloved is now abandoning the garden the garden of Islam or all Muslims as these passionate lovers are sad that this beloved is now turning towards other lovers and abandoning their garden going to another garden. And says what the word Harjai is a very strong word. I don't know what connotations this word had at a time when Iqbal composed this poem but there's a purger word which means the person who is everywhere and in Urdu dictionaries as I checked it means both unfaithful so normally unfaithful as it is in Ottoman Turkish and also in Turkish today that Harjai means simply unfaithful. So it's not so a stronger word but it also can mean prostitute so to address God in such a language is very strong so he's playing this jealous and passionate lover who is mad at his beloved who left him alone. But after this rage and anger in Farsi he turns and says oh that happy day when you with elegance will come back when you unveil to our congregation will come back. Well Iqbal knew very well about Persian poetry most of his poems like 70% of his poems are in Persians he wrote both in Persian and in in Urdu his major work the reconstruction of religious thought in Islam is very much influenced by the Iranian thinkers because his PhD was under development of thought in in Persia. So he oftentimes quotes different Persian poets atar he doesn't quote but he's very much influenced by Molana and he regards Rumi as his guide in one of his books like Dante's Virgil guiding him towards the heavens. So the probability is there that he was very much familiar with this motive found in Aptar's poetry because he mastered the Persian literature. So this being Shekva now I go to the the second poem by Mahmada Kaffir Arsoy with the title Yara Bursuz Gijan Yokun Sabahu. Already from the title you can you can guess that the tone will be rebellious and and the atmosphere is very pessimistic and dark.  Should Islam be eventually downtrodden and dragged around or God what loss is it and what degradation and again here openly and closely questioning the divine justice says what is the point in crushing and destroying the press why didn't your justice instead annihilate the oppressor as you remember again in that motive it was humans positioned themselves above God and show that the morality they can they can they can be higher than God or gods um and then he goes on the perpetrator is kept alive while the innocent is dying the sin belongs to someone else while someone else is paying as if God is not aware of all these injustice um many questions are silenced by you cannot question um this is an illusion the Quranic verse that says he cannot be questioned about what he does but they will be questioned so it's like any time we ask questions you silence us with you cannot be you cannot question me or he that is God cannot be questioned so humans should always quietly accept whatever happens to them and they are always silenced human human faces these mysteries with terror so um you can see that um the in the title of man avid karmani's book it was also a terror of God his idea is that in um in attire's book the figures what they feel when they encounter the divine is mostly fear and terror and no awe or admiration or or or beauty so God is for them absolute terror um and the world is also nothing but beauty but terror um arising or something um and then uh Mahmada Arso goes on like again talking about the situation of the Muslim world and then says madame oh you divine justice if you wanted to burn you should have burned the evil doors but instead you picked up us to burn it and and and then he ends his poem with this brilliant verse which is again putting a question mark in the divine justice um is it not enough all the calamity you went through woe to me awesome croon is again like that um that phrase like may my mouth turn dry um that's woe to me but don't you exist you the divine justice so as you know the the biggest like the most important divine attribute in Islamic tradition especially in the Shia tradition is divine justice and uh Mahmada Qafar so very beautifully questions this divine justice which is um one of the elements of the motive this motive of the Berlin pious that I mentioned at the beginning so I end the conclusion it's strikingly interesting to preserve that the motive of the pious rebel suggested by the Persian poet mystic attar could be found in the poems of two of the modern muslim poets from two different corners of the muslim world one in turkish and one in ordu considering the fact that attars pious rebels and their metaphysical revolt remain unique and without likeness in the muslim tradition the presence of this motive in those two modern muslim poetic pieces gains more importance this motive might be a traveling motive that found its way from the Persian mystic poetry to the different corners of the turkotagic world how were the hypothesis needs further studies thank you for your attention thank you very much uh it was indeed very pleasing aesthetically beautiful things and the beautiful translations so thank you for sharing this with us um may I ask you just to stop the share so that I have no idea how it works go to the share screen yeah but I lost the share screen I don't know what it where it is uh you know I'll I'll share and then I can so I'll be a bit brutal about it and then I can stop share yeah that's good need work uh okay um oh perfect oh thanks yeah um first of all we have already a question in the chat uh can you expand on the concept of suffering as part of faith enlightenment I don't get the question um could the faith enlightenment the person faith and enlightenment could the person who asked the question I just I see only letters so I don't know who that is can you please elaborate I think we can circle back to that question uh yeah uh fairy please um it's a little broad question just a very small comment first you might maybe you want to check the dates of of Caigus's other I think there was a late 9 14th I think he died in the 15th century okay so well in any case it was just a direct quotation from the book but thanks for the hint all right uh so so I was now I was wondering I mean there is this uh reading of yours uh regarding suffering which uh I think is is follows a kind of a Bakhtinian uh pattern that is uh sort of the questioning of of the the order uh by some certain uh uh sort of uh anti-nominal elements like like Sufis uh so Bakhtin was talking about a laughter and and will in the poetry of Rabeli uh and so sorry so I was uh wondering if uh if we can also read the this kind of attitude as as not necessarily not necessarily you know it's not just you know not just a questioning of of the uh of the divine order or that is the order of society but also actually uh a statement or an assertion of that order you know that would be that would be a question uh even I'm not sure if I got your question right but um so basically you know when when questioning the fundamental fundamental of something you might at the same time you also you are asserting that that would be the right thing you know what what is this fundamental something but the divine order so this to see this divine God's God's justice so God's goodness right so when you when you questioning when you are questioning it uh uh so it is you know the question is is this a kind of revolt or is it is it actually a call for the confirmation of the divine order now so the question is is it is it a fruitful way of you know a way of thinking about it well um the the point is like um of course it's more the discussion that is discussed in the the context of philosophy of religion that the minute you say God is absolutely good and everything is good in whatever he or she does then you are not recognizing the existence of evil and if you want to recognize the existence of genuine evil and you want to fight against it you either should say God is either not omnipotent or omniscient or is not good and there are many such responses there are also responses given to the problem of evil assuming that God is limited in power added knowledge um so that these two propositions God an omnipotent omniscient good God exists evil exists traditionally they will say evil does not exist um this God with these attributes exists but if you want to accept the existence of evil genuine evil then you have to think about these divine attributes either you have to limit the divine power or no and knowledge or you have to um say God is not good and merciful etc and whether that's fruitful or not it's in some way it's fruitful because then in the first step to act against the evil and suffering in the world is to accept this existence so very much the the approach of the classical um Slavic responses is very escapist there's just there is no evil we deny it problem solved whereas it really exists and and there is a silence also so this could be instrumental for oppressors to oppress the oppressed even more saying like you shouldn't object this is a divine decree you should accept so even the sultans can also argue of this way and they did so if you want to question the the earthly authority you should first question the divine authority i would say um and this is what uh anti theology or the odyssey suggests and the you know i i hope i could respond to your question um thank you yes um i would like to uh ask you about the intellectual heritage of this movement um specifically with regard to the idea of being in pain and that as a road to to express discontentment uh against god did they speak to rumi at all because it really smacked of some parts of rumi's poetry especially when i think back to beishinawine nai uh asjadoyah haqayatm khanat there's so much that this movement could draw from that's uh kind of corpus of literature by rumi did they acknowledge him or was it mostly uh atar that was first and foremost uh in their minds um i wouldn't say whether this motive could also be in found in rumi i doubt for rumi um um problem of pain and suffering in the world is instrumental for for again soul making growth spiritual growth etc so even when there are many poets like rumi um longing to go back to their origin but it's more like um like out of their love their divine their love they have for the divine etc so this motive of a rebelling uh price you can by no means i would say find in in rumi it's a more um yeah their phonage sb so it's like more based on the idea of god as beauty and love so this put the neoclatonic idea i see hey come up please thank you uh thank thank you saida for this wonderful presentation it was really lovely to hear all the verses uh just and i also uh just admire how you navigate uh between a language it was fascinating uh it's it's great one thing we about the ottoman version of the memetalkives uh verse there was it was just something quite minor but i just say this it might be there might be some other uh mistakes also in in typing so it will be better for you just to check uh before publication uh there was a all male on life there was there was a bird or male or male and it was written only with elif instead of elif and well uh so love is missing and you can just check the other verses as well my question uh is so you make a comparison between past and today uh and in the past you look at pain and suffering and the individual uh taking the individual as the unit of analysis individual pain individual suffering and ikbal and akif from the uh from the modern world but uh their suffering or pain is not individual but communal uh communal tragedies or uh sufferings so for example did you see examples of similar uh communal sufferings and expression of them in in in literature let's say during the uh invasion of mongols uh to the islamic lands or for any other time i i i don't know and i don't know but i i thought that to make a comparison between more similar sufferings could be uh uh and more uh i'd love to say uh could make more sense uh in understanding the relationship between past and today uh in in literature but i'm i'm very uh far from the study of literature and uh and so on so i i may be uh i'm totally uh losing a point and thank you again um you know welcome thanks for your question but i would say like um i should object because because you said like um the pain and suffering atari is talking about is uh individual whereas akif arsoi and ikbal's um pain and suffering felt pain and suffering are collective uh which is not the case like in the case of atar it was the same thing and there were some wars um like kermani like around 30 pages this talks about the background uh the historical background there were wars um happening and um there was also news of the mongols attacking the muslim lands it's what kermani claims that atar was aware of so it was like a setting um where like pain and suffering is is like collective pain and suffering is is um in the society present and atar also gives many examples of the cases of a person like many poor people who turn towards god and ask for their risk for their bread uh daily bread and them because like uh feminine and hunger is rampant and then in response god uh is just silent and and then the beggar uh goes to the to the mosque and um crushes the window saying if if you don't give me bread i would do this and that so it's just he in in many of of the uh examples that atar brings in there are um present um like cases of collective suffer collective suffering so it's not at all personal and if it were individual suffering it would it would be rather very modern because like existential suffering this individual suffering that i'm suffering and god is silent this is very much modern it is not at all pre-modern so for atar it's also the collective suffering and in in the case of other mystics it is just yes they are all subjecting and and um any agony turned towards god but it's usually in the relation with god why have you turned against us why are you silent it's usually in this case existential questions but really humanistic like existential questions that are raised in the 20th century and 21st century dominantly are absent in both in atar's works and as well as um mahmadaka verse in the class so in that sense they are no matter not all thank you you're welcome actually in that sense if if i could get the question of suffering which one of the points that you made that i um found very interesting is the difference between the biblical job and the quranic job and the fact that we have the biblical one kind of sleeping here why do you think is that why this choice which which is a choice that those people those writers made right yeah well the motive i would say the motive was already there and they just simply picked up the motive and uh the question why atar is very much using the the biblical job's motive and karmany in his book goes into the historical survey and says that like there were some jews in neishabur at that time and the chances are that um that atar was very much familiar with the biblical job's motive etc so he also has some historical surveys there and then this motive comes to to anatolia and then sub-engine sub-count yeah no i understand the process that you are talking about but there is a difference between being familiar with the motive and picking it up and using yeah picking it up and not the other motive with whom i'm sure that you were familiar so so there is a conscious process here that i i find very interesting yeah as for the case of iqbal i can say because he was a philosopher too so my own phd thesis was on muhammad iqbal's metaphysics so that i can say but akif al soy is just a poet why he uses that i don't know what you'd ask him but iqbal is in this sense very modern because he emphasizes very much like the the anthropology iqbal introduces in his metaphysics is very strong in a traditional Islamic philosophy and metaphysics human being has no place everything is just filled so as this quotation famous quotation by modern philosophers is that the god the traditional god is so huge and big and spacious that lives no room for him being whereas in in modern philosophies the trend is towards even theology to place human being in the center and for iqbal it's the same it's the same thing he for him him being is very important him being is like he can unlike the Islamic tradition can stand before god and question god in in and and just because um he has the divine attributes he's just as important as god is so there is more room for him being and it's why he picked like he picked up this motive i would say but i'm not like a person i have no idea um now it's interesting and since we have a few more minutes we started a bit later than half past so i i i i really want to to pick on that point for the for iqbal because you are an expert in iqbal why do you think that he developed this kind of understanding what was the influence of him distancing or for this distance for more traditional ways of of understanding is it do you see it as familiarity with western philosophy and with anglo education yeah he got his education in in um in germany like he wrote his ph he was two just two years or the best no sorry four years in europe at cabbage and um in germany i think in heidelberg in munich and um he was very much familiar with the german idealism um german idealism human takes the center and he was very very well informed by um shia um philosophies where there are many like new ideas there so he just made a melange of all these um new philosophical developments and his own um preoccupation was to he was he was an indian so indian subcontinent was colonized so his own concern was to give back to muslim at least muslims in india um the strong like self strength like strength and self conscious like self um confidence so that they could like stand on their own feet and make their own destinies against them the traditional understanding which was very much ashari which which is very much deterministic everything is in the hands of god you should even in turkey to this day this is very dominant surprisingly enough that this destiny is just something written there up there and you cannot change it so it was against this idea he regarded future open nothing is determined by god and you can just um god is a co-worker with men in leading this chaos of the universe towards a cosmos so this was like very um so this was his preoccupation coming from a colonized country muslim country now which which brings us back to question that and maybe i'm i'm i'm going ahead of myself and sorry amir about that for more general discussion for these two days of what is kind of the islamic what those traditions that we are talking about cover when one of those so much associated with islamic identity in the subcontinent actually step out of many traditional ways to introduce this european influence to redefine the muslim right it's it's a fact that iqbal is is absolutely fascinating on so many levels yeah you you have a legitimate question it is what many who accuse iqbal of saying this is not islamic islamic philosophy what he's doing um he keeps coding the quran in any idea he has keeps coding the quran and he finds the traces of his idea in the tradition like in many different uh philosophical and theological schools and he's insist what i am saying it's called islamic and the heritage we had is not islamic it is Hellenistic so it is very much under the spell of the Hellenistic thought and it's not at all chronic so his claim is i'm going back to the quran to build my own islamic philosophy which is very much a melange of western and and uh like eastern and islamic tradition but he's himself very innovative in that and yeah your question that what is then islamic well thank you very much it's very quickly this discussion i actually have quite a few more questions and i think that your paper corresponds very in a very interesting way with some of the ideas that eric presented me in his paper in our morning and his middle of the night in the way of of trying to understand how these kind of traditions concepts were circulating in on the verge of the or in the modern world right in this huge so but i guess that we should leave that aside so i think that it's a great time to to thank our two speakers for very intriguing papers and discussions oh yes eric please i guess that it was a morning accident yeah um amir i'm leaving it for you to close uh okay sorry um amir the stage is yours back to back today and see uh fascinating talk uh i'm glad we had a non-historian kind of close it because the whole endeavor was based around trying to expand limited perceptions of what it means to belong to the turkic the arabic the persian tradition and this just in terms of disciplinary approach gave us a greater expanse on what we're trying to kind of cover by talking about the turkotagic world what it meant to belong to this world um every single presentation um that we've had these past two days filled me with great excitement for the follow-up to this project which is the edited volume that will come out we've had already without reaching out to anyone we've had interest from bloomsbury publishing and uh cambridge scholars publishing has also approached us um to ask for um us to work with them in bringing forward the publication so that is the the next step and i'll be sending out emails in the following days uh letting people know uh what the next steps are in terms of getting the the research and the wonderful presentations that we've had on to paper other than that i'd like to thank our two chairman as well uh fereng and roy thank you for joining us you definitely added to the conversation by steering it in the right direction so i'm grateful you joined us and that's it thank you very much thank you to all of our attendees as well you think as well that was great yeah thank you amir for inviting me to take part in this and sorry i couldn't attend yesterday i'm i'm sure that i've missed some fascinating talks but oh that reminds me i'm going to upload the recording of these uh two days onto the soas youtube channel so day one and day two will be uploaded onto soas's official youtube channel for us to review i'll definitely be going back over these presentations in the coming months so please do the same tourist thank you cheers