¹ See Amanat, A., “Mujtahids and Missionaries: Shi'i Responses to Christian Polemics in the Early Qajar Period,” Religion and Society in Qajar Iran, ed. Gleave, Robert (London, forthcoming)Google Scholar. Algar, H., Religion and State in Iran, 1785–1906 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969), 100–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Tunkabuni, M., Qisas al-'Ulama (Tehran, n.d), 129–130Google Scholar mentions three works that sought to refute the arguments of the “padre.”

³ Some of these issues were equally applicable to Russia and Iran. Hurewitz, J. C., The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics. A Documentary Record (New Haven, 1975), 1:197–199Google Scholar, 231–237. Lambton, A. K. S., “Imtiyazat,” EI 2, 3 (1971): 1189–1193Google Scholar.

⁴ A. Qumi, Jami' al-Shattat (n.p, 1371) 1: 377, article 457; 399–400, article 482. On this text and its author: A. Tihrani, Al-Dhari'ah ila Tasanif al-Shi'a (Tehran, 1323/1363) 5: 59–60, article 221.

⁵ A. Naraqi, Sayf al-Ummah wa-Burhan al-Millah (lithographed edition; n.p, 1331/1912–3), 88, 112–117, 134. The text occasionally writes Nubuwwat which is the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew Nevuat (prophecy). Throughout this study, the Hebrew Nevuat is used. On Sayf al-Ummah and its author: Tihrani, Dhari'ah, 12: 286, article 1922.

⁶ M. Hamadani, Miftah al-Nubuwwah (Unpaginated lithographed edition, [1824?]), 7–8, 105 (the above quote), 143–147. Pagination is added. Hamadani (p. 144) is aware of the Hebrew title of Wahy-ye Kudak. On Miftah al-Nubuwwah and its author: Tihrani, Dhari'ah, 21: 352–353, article 5422. Wahy-ye Kudak is also used in a text titled Ihtijaj, as indicated in: Munzavi, A.. Fihrist-i Nuskhaha-ye Khatti-ye Farsi (Tehran, 1349), 2:1, 873Google Scholar.

⁷ Nevuat ha-Yeled has not elicited much scholarly discussion. Some research and notes on it include: Strauss, E., Toldot ha-Yehudim be Misrayim ve-Suriya (Jerusalem, 1944), 1: 129Google Scholar. Eshkoli, A. Z., Ha-Tnu'ot ha-Meshihiyot be-Israel (Jerusalem, 1987), 305–308Google Scholar. Dan, Y., “Lequtot le-Ma'aseh ‘Nevuat ha-Yeled,’” Shalem 1 (1974): 229–234Google Scholar. Malakhi, S., Be-No'am Siyah (Tel-Aviv, 1983), 187–202Google Scholar.

⁸ Based on: Nevuat ha-Yeled (Jerusalem, 1965), 3–5.

⁹ On Ha-Levi, his time, and works see, A. Levi, Ma'mar Meshare Qitrin, intro. G. Scholem, rev. M. Beyt-Arieh, (Jerusalem, 1977), 9–42, and mainly 13–14, 31–36. Robinson, I., “Abraham ben Eliezer Halevi: Kabbalist and Messianic Visionary of the Early Sixteenth Century” (Ph.D diss., Harvard University, 1980)Google Scholar, and specifically with reference to Nevuat ha-Yeled in pages 95–106, 110–111, 125, 127, 131–132, 134, 136–137, 140, 143, 148, 166–186, 226, 229, 231–233. Robinson, Y., “Ktav Yad shel Qisur ‘Peyrush Nevuat ha- Yeled’ le-Rabbi Avraham ben Eli'ezer ha-Levi,” 'Aley Sefer 8 (1980): 151–152Google Scholar. Another commentator of Nevuat ha-Yeled was Rabbi Mosheh Basolah; see David, A., “Peyrush Mequsar li-Nvuot Nahman le-Rabbi Mosheh Basolah” in Me-Ginzey ha-Makhon le-Taslumey Kitvey ha-Yad ha-'Ivriim, ed. David, A. (Jerusalem, 1996). 104Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Levi, A., Shloshah Ma'mrey Geulah, ed. Gross, A. (Jerusalem, 2000), 18Google Scholar, 20.

¹¹ Levi, Shloshah Ma'mrey Geulah, 40–41.

¹² Levi, Shloshah Ma'mrey Geulah, 35.

¹³ Levi, Shloshah Ma'mrey Geulah, 35.

¹⁴ Levi, Shloshah Ma'mrey Geulah, 35, 56.

¹⁵ Inalcik, H., “Selim I” EI 2, 9 (1997): 127–131Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Levi, Shloshah Ma'mrey Geulah, 55–58. Ha-Levi argues that redemption itself('iqar ha-geulah) will occur in 1529/30.

¹⁷ I am following the text of Nevuat ha-Yeled as appearing in the sources I am discussing. As Nevuat ha-Yeled is quoted in these sources without vocalization marks (Heb. niqqud) the vocalization system adopted here can almost always be changed for other vocalization marks. The above “Mhmd,” for instance, can be read as “Muhammad,” (as read by Naraqi, who places a shaddah on the second mim of “Mhmd”), “Mahmad,” or in some other ways.

¹⁸ The text reads: “Muhammad-i buzurg[,] sahib iqtidar[,] chub-i khahish kardah shud kih furu nishandih budah ra[,] wa-bashad kull wa-jumlah ra.” It is difficult to determine the correct punctuation of this line.

¹⁹ See the commentary of RaSHI on Numbers: 13: 20. See also Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra, 15a.

²⁰ For the above two paragraphs, see: Naraqi, Sayf al-Ummah, 114. The sentence he discusses appears in the first prophecy of Nahman.

²¹ Naraqi, Sayf al-Ummah, 114–116.

²² Naraqi, Sayf al-Ummah, 116. Naraqi's words of the multiplicity of the phenomenon of prophecy “in that land” (dar an zamin) might be a typo for “in that time” (dar an zaman), that is apparently in the time of the Mahdi.

²³ Naraqi, Sayf al-Ummah, 116. On a prediction of the martyrdom of Husayn in Karbala as read into the “Book of Jeremiah,” see: M. Kirmanshahi, Radd Shubuhat al-Kuffar (Qum, 1413), 224–225.

²⁴ Hamadani, Miftah al-Nubuwwah, 144–145. Contrary to his reading about the destruction, here the author offers a Jewish interpretation. He argues that this interpretation still depicts Islamic history.

²⁵ For instance: Naraqi, Sayf al-Ummah, 113, line 8; 114, line 3; 116, line 19; 117, line 1. Also, Hamadani, Miftah al-Nubuwwah, 143, line 30–31, where he explains why “many of the words” of Nevuat ha-Yeled are unintelligible; also, 145, line 19; 145, line 24; 146, line 1; 147, line 18–19.

²⁶ For instance: Naraqi, Sayf al-Ummah, 113, line 13 compared to 113, line 16; 114, line 8; 114, line 9–10; 114, line 14; 115, line 3–4; 116, line 6–7; 116, line 16. Also, Hamadani, Miftah al-Nubuwwah, 145, line 2 compared to 144, line 27; 145, line 8–11; 146, line 2; 147, line 17–18.

²⁷ For instance: Naraqi, Sayf al-Ummah, 115, line 19 (mitavanad shud); 116, line 1 (mitavanad shud); 116, line 17 (mitavanad shud). Also, Hamadani, Miftah al-Nubuwwah, 145, line 19 (ihtimal); 145, line 20 (shayad); 145, line 21 (yahtamil); 145, line 26 (yahtamil); 146, line 25 (ihtimal); 146, line 26 (yahtamil); 146, line 28 (shayad); 146, line 30 (yahtamil); 147, line 17 (shayad).

²⁸ H. Qazvini Yazdi, Mahdar al-Shuhud fi Radd al-Yahud (Yazd, n.d). Tihrani, Dhari'ah, 20: 152, article 2353. D. Tsadik, “Religious Disputations of Imami Shi'is against Judaism in the Late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” Studia Iranica, forthcoming.

²⁹ Naraqi, Sayf al-Ummah, 112–113. See also: Tunukabuni, Qisas al-'Ulama, 130, line 5–8. Bassett, J., Persia: Eastern Mission (Philadelphia, 1890), 52–53Google Scholar. Traces of Qazvini Yazdi's translation and commentaries are found throughout Naraqi, Sayf al-Ummah, 112–117. Possibly on the same Mulla Mosheh, see: Netzer, A., “Rabbi Mosheh ha-Levi mi-Kashan” Mehqrey Yerushalayim be-Folqlor Yehudi 11–12 (1990): 57–75Google Scholar.

³⁰ For instance: Naraqi, Sayf al-Ummah, 115, line 10 to 116, line 8.

³¹ Hamadani, Miftah al-Nubuwwah, 143–147, and mainly 144; 145, line 8 (in which a certain explanation of Muhammad Isma'il, the father of Qazvini Yazdi is mentioned). On pages 103–104, Hamadani explicitly quotes from Qazvini Yazdi's introduction to his Mahdar, 9–11.

Both Naraqi and Hamadani might have additionally utilized sources other than Qazvini Yazdi's Mahdar or contemporary Jewish 'ulama's explanations in reading Nevuat ha-Yeled. Nevuat ha-Yeled was addressed also in Iqamat al-Shuhud fi Radd al-Yahud fi Manqul al-Rida, which was written by Muhammad Rida'i et al. See M. Rida'i et al, Iqamat al-Shuhud fi Radd al-Yahud fi Manqulal-Rida (lithographed; n.p, 1292), 257, 264, 291–346, 352–354. Parts of Rida'i's translations of sentences from Nevuat ha-Yeled as well as some of his explanations of Nevuat ha-Yeled are occasionally similar to that of Qazvini Yazdi's. Still, he apparently does not admit using Mahdar. Consequently, one may conclude that Rida'i either copied parts of Mahdar while occasionally changing or elaborating on some of its words, or, that both Rida'i and Qazvini Yazdi drew part of their knowledge of Nevuat ha-Yeled from a common source/s. In any event, it is clear that Rida'i occasionally introduces issues and prophecies that were not addressed at all in Mahdar. See Rida'i, Iqamat al-Shuhud, 342 ff. On Iqamat al-Shuhud fi Radd al-Yahud fi Manqul al-Rida: Tihrani, Dhari'ah, 2: 263–264, article 1077. Tsadik, “Religious Disputations.”

³² The first edition of Nagid u-Mesaveh that included Nevuat ha-Yeled was apparently published in the year TaPU/ 1725–6. See Gershom Scholem's handwritten note on the TaPU edition of Nagid u-Mesaveh as it appears in the Jerusalem National Library, Scholem Collection, R 737, an attached page. On Nagid u-Mesaveh: Y. Avi”vi, “Sifrey ‘Nagid u-Mesaveh' le-Rabbi Y'acov Semah," Qiryat Sefer 58 (1983): 188–191.

³³ Qazvini Yazdi, Mahdar, 125–126. The text speaks of Ta'kid u-Mesaveh, which is a typo of Nagid u-Mesaveh. It is not clear to me whether Muhammad Isma'il was already Muslim when he came across Nagid u-Mesaveh. On him, see Qazvini Yazdi, Mahdar, 9–11. Note that Nevuat ha-Yeled was used by Jews in Iran; see the text in Aramaic as well as its translation and commentary in Judeo-Persian: Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, ms. 4559, pages 415b-422b. The Jewish year appearing in the colophons of this manuscript (pages 348b, 422b) indicates that it was copied in the year HaTaQMaT/ 1788.

³⁴ One may also conjecture that Jews made their own anti-Christian pool of contentions available to their Muslim counterparts.

³⁵ On the friendship between a certain Mulla Muhammad Naraqi, apparently from the family of Mulla Ahmad Naraqi, and the Jew Mulla Mordechai-both from mid nineteenth century Kashan, see: Shofet, Y., Khatirat-i Hakham Yedidya Shofet (Los Angeles, 2000), 15–17Google Scholar. Interestingly, Mulla Mordechai was the grandson of a certain Mulla Mosheh. See: ibid, 31. This Mulla Mosheh is possibly the one whose library Mulla Ahmad Naraqi used. On the continuing reciprocal respect between members of the Naraqi family and the descendants of Mulla Mordechai, see: Ibid, 25, 29; but see also the end of the certain case narrated in ibid, 26.

³⁶ See throughout Hamadani, Miftah al-Nubuwwah and Naraqi, Sayf al Ummah.

³⁷ Hamadani's assertion (Hamadani, Miftah al-Nubuwwah, 105) that the texts he uses—among which he includes the Prophecy of the Child—were accepted by Christians is unfounded.