The Shirāzī Sun

Life and Times of Mīr Sayyid Jurjānī and His Lasting Impact on the Madrasa Tradition

​​بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ

 وَالصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ الْكَرِيمِ وَعَلَى آلِهِ وَصَحْبِهِ أَجْمَعِينَ


Introduction: Colonialism, Orientalist Frameworks, and the ‘Golden Age’ Narrative

The advent of colonialism unsettled the Muslim world in ways both immediate and lasting, and the reality is that its effects continue to linger to this day. While some of its consequences were visible and could be directly addressed, others were more insidious. Without our realising it, the intellectual frameworks that govern how we interpret our past also shape how we think about our future.

Rarely do we reflect on the mental models we have inherited for understanding our civilisation, nor do we often scrutinise the very terms we use when speaking about the Islamic intellectual tradition. One such term is the Muslim ‘Golden Age’, as it has come to be known in modern discourse.

The interest of European orientalists in Muslim intellectual and scientific production was narrow and highly Eurocentric. For the average Enlightenment-era European, the only worthwhile Muslim contributions were those that intersected with their own interests. Aside from this, the prevailing notion in orientalist circles was that Muslim civilisation no longer possessed any regenerative power, and that the ‘Golden Age’ was a bygone chapter.

For Muslims today, whether in the West or in Muslim lands, our retrospective view of our civilisation has often been filtered through Western sources. It is therefore unsurprising that we remain unaware, or only dimly aware, of the intellectual contributions and key figures who continued to emerge right up to the twentieth century.

The orientalist assumption about the end of the ‘Golden Age’ also meant that developments in the Islamic intellectual tradition during the late-classical period (see note) were ignored or even misunderstood. For example, as the intellectual tradition shifted into the form of the ḥāshiyah or supercommentary tradition from the sixth century AH / twelfth century CE onward, orientalists generally dismissed this literature as ‘derivative’ or mere linguistic clarification or rote repetition of earlier interpretations. This reductionism led them to characterise the era as a ‘dark age’ of Muslim scholarship.

In reality, however, the ḥāshiyah tradition represented a vibrant framework for scholarly production. Scholars embedded their independent research within commentaries on core texts, a method that simultaneously preserved earlier works and advanced new ideas. This genre offered a wealth of original insights that remain underexplored today.

Such misrepresentations by orientalists have shaped the modern understanding of Muslim intellectual history, and reinforced the belief that the ‘Golden Age’ had ended, with no new intellectual enquiry or genuine scholars emerging thereafter.  This reductionist narrative obscures the fact that many late-classical scholars made groundbreaking contributions across disciplines.

One such figure, and the subject of this biography, is Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī, who lived during the largely dismissed late-classical period. His intellectual and scientific contributions remain significant, and reintroducing his life and times is more crucial now than ever.

If we think of the Muslim community as divided into two broad classes, the common people and the scholars, it follows that the commoners rely on the latter. But who do scholars rely on? They in turn depend on the leading minds in their class. One such mind was Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī, whose influence in scholarly circles continued for centuries after his life. From the 1400s CE onwards, his works became indispensable to the scholarly class, shaping madrasa curricula from the Timurid educational system through the Farangi Mahall in South Asia, al-Azhar in Africa, and Ottoman madrasas in Europe, ultimately reaching the entire Muslim world.

In the pages that follow, this chronological biography will trace the life and times of Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī through key themes. These include his early years, his formative travels, and his distinguished teachers whose isnād linked him to luminaries such as Imām Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī and Imām Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī. It will examine his interactions with contemporary scholars such as Mullā Shams al-Dīn al-Fanārī and his far-reaching influence on the educational systems of the Muslim world, particularly in the Ottoman madrasas, the renowned Farangī Maḥall tradition, the Khairabādīs, and al-Azhar. His works across diverse sciences will be documented, from primers to advanced commentaries, with attention to their pedagogical precision and intellectual depth. Finally, this biography will also offer concise authorial reflections on pivotal moments in his life and on the centrality of his works over the centuries. Together, these elements aim to present a portrait that is at once historical, analytical, and appreciative of a scholar whose reintroduction into the modern madrasa curriculum is more vital today than ever before.

Authorial analysis and explanatory notes are interwoven throughout the biography, while the writing style deliberately departs from rigid academic conventions to engage a wider readership and avoid burdening those unaccustomed to formal academic writing. For the sake of conciseness, an extensive bibliography is placed at the end, listing works consulted without detailed citation formatting. Select references are named within the text where deemed necessary, whether to substantiate a point, highlight a difference of opinion, or acknowledge a particular source.

Early Life and Education

Zayn al-Dīn Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Ḥusaynī al-Jurjānī al-Ḥanafī was born in the month of Shaʿbān 740 AH in Tākū, near Astrābād. According to ʿAllāmah al-Ziriklī, Astrābād is also known as Jurjān (Gorgan), located southeast of the Caspian Sea, approximately 400 kilometers from Tehran, Iran. He was Ḥusaynī in lineage, Sunni Ashʿarī in creed, Ḥanafī in jurisprudence, and a muḥaqqiq (verifying scholar) by temperament (mizāj). He came to be widely known in the lands beyond the river (Transoxiana) as Mīr Sayyid Sharīf, and among the Arabs as al-Sayyid al-Sharīf. Other well-known honorifics include al-Sayyid al-Sanad and Mīr Sayyid.

The historical sources reveal little about his family background or childhood. However, they unanimously agree that when al-Sayyid al-Sharīf reached maturity, he began his pursuit of the Islamic sciences in his homeland. Among the works he studied at this stage were Miftāḥ al-ʿUlūm of Imām al-Sakkākī, a text in Arabic grammar, along with its commentary, which he read under the author of the commentary himself, Nūr al-Ṭāwūsī. He likewise studied another commentary on the Miftāḥ, namely that of Imām Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī, under the author’s son, Abū al-Khayr Mukhlis al-Dīn ʿAlī. Later in his education, he studied portions of the Zahrāwayn (Sūrah al-Baqarah and Sūrah Āl ʿImrān) along with the commentary al-Kashshāf under Sirāj al-Dīn ʿUmar al-Bahīmānī.

Travels to Herat and Anatolia, Encounters with Imām Quṭb al-Dīn Muḥammad Rāzī & Mullā Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad Fanārī

Now in his early twenties and driven by a deep desire for knowledge, he left his homeland to further his education, marking the beginning of an important phase in his life during which he would travel extensively.

Mīr Sayyid first went to Herat with the intention of studying under the renowned Imām Quṭb al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Rāzī, particularly the commentaries he had authored on Imām al-Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-Anwār and Imām al-Kātibī’s al-Risālah al-Shamsiyyah, both in logic. Historical accounts mention that Mīr Sayyid had already read the Sharḥ al-Maṭāliʿ sixteen times, and now wished to study it directly with its author. 

However, the shaykh was already extremely old at the time. When al-Sayyid al-Sharīf finally met Imām al-Rāzī, the latter looked at him and said, “You are a young man (in the prime of youth), and I am an old man. I am no longer able to teach.” He excused himself on account of his advanced age and weak eyesight, and advised him instead, “Go to Mubārak Shāh, he will teach you exactly as he heard from me.” 

Although there is no definite information about the date of his arrival in Herat, it is certain that it was before 763 AH, for Imām al-Rāzī went to Damascus in 763, resided there until 766, and passed in that same year and place. Moreover, when set alongside other sources that suggest Mīr Sayyid may still have studied under Imām al-Rāzī in some capacity for a period, it seems plausible that, while more formal teaching awaited him under Mubārak Shāh, he nonetheless benefited from Imām al-Rāzī’s instruction as well.

Mubārak Shāh at that time, was residing in Cairo, Egypt. He was commonly known as ‘al-Manṭiqī’ (the Logician) and was regarded as one of the foremost intellectual figures of the region. He was counted among the most distinguished disciples of Imām Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī, and likewise numbered among the eminent pupils of the renowned Ashʿarī theologian Imām ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī.

Mīr Sayyid Sharīf, eager in his pursuit of knowledge, set out in search of Mubārak Shāh in Cairo in 766 AH. Repp, in his work The Müfti of Istanbul, relates that this journey is said to have occurred in 770 AH. However, this date seems too late, as it would imply that he spent around seven years in Herat in the absence of Imām al-Rāzī, even though his primary purpose there was to study under him. While it is true that al-Sayyid remained in Herat for a short period after Imām al-Rāzī’s departure, the sources do not specify his activities during this time. Nonetheless, this brief stay appears far more plausible than a prolonged seven-year residence.

On his way to Egypt, he first arrived in Anatolia, where historical accounts relate that he stayed for a time in Konya, studying the works of al-Shaykh al-Akbar Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī. While in the region, he also heard of Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Āqsarāʾī (not Jalāl al-Dīn, as some sources suggest), a remote descendant of Imām Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and one of the great scholars of the time, renowned for his works. Mīr Sayyid resolved to travel to Karaman to meet him. However, upon his arrival in the city, he learned that Jamāl al-Dīn al-Āqsarāʾī had already passed away.

While in what is now modern-day Turkey, he met Mullā Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ḥamza al-Fanārī, a distinguished student of Mullā al-Āqsarāʾī, who would later become the first to hold the office of Muftī in the Ottoman State (Muftī fī ’l-Mamlakat al-ʿUthmāniyya). It is widely accepted among historians that the Müftīlik as an institution originated with Mullā Fanārī. Over the course of his life, he occupied three notable positions in the Ottoman administration: serving as müderris at the Manastır (Sultan Orhan) madrasa in Bursa, as qāḍī of Bursa, and as Muftī of the Ottoman lands. The intricacies of these posts lie beyond the scope of this biography. 

At that time, Mullā Fanārī was about ten years younger than Mīr Sayyid, and the two of them continued their journey together to Egypt.

Studies in Cairo: Mubārak Shāh, Ḥanafī Studies, and the Ashʿarī Chain

Eventually, Mīr Sayyid reached the classes of Mubārak Shāh in Cairo. The teacher left a profound impact on him, marking a turning point in the life of this future luminary of scholarship. In turn, Mīr Sayyid left a lasting mark on his teacher, ultimately becoming one of the shaykh’s greatest students and the primary link through whom the sanad of Mubārak Shāh continues to this day.

Mubārak Shāh allowed him to join a private class on Sharḥ al-Maṭāliʿ, but on the condition that he would not speak during the lessons. Mīr Sayyid humbly complied, attending in silence during the day. At night, he would withdraw to a secluded spot in the mosque, where he spent most of the night reviewing and revising the lessons of Sharḥ al-Maṭāliʿ.

He would speak aloud and say, “The commentator of Matāliʿ said this, the teacher said that, and I say this…” Then he would elaborate with insightful remarks, offering superb objections and well-reasoned arguments. One night, Mubārak Shāh happened to pass by, and upon hearing al-Sharīf’s annotations, he was so moved by it that he began to jump with joy. From that moment, he granted him permission to speak freely during lessons, allowing him to ask whatever he wished.

Al-Sharīf’s stay in Cairo, marks one of the most defining periods of his intellectual career. The city’s vibrant scholarly circles, clustered around several key personalities, offered him a unique opportunity to immerse himself in advanced learning across both the rational and the transmitted sciences. 

There are conflicting reports regarding the length of his stay in Cairo, some stating four years and others ten. These accounts can be reconciled by understanding that his total duration was ten years, of which four were spent in Cairo residing at Saʿīd al-Suʿadāʾ, an old Fāṭimid palace that had been converted into a khānqāh (sufi lodge) and endowed by Sulṭān Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Ayyūbī.

During this time in Cairo, he also studied Ḥanafī fiqh with the renowned Māturīdī scholar Akmal al-Dīn al-Bābartī, focusing in particular on ʿAllāmah al-Bābartī’s supercommentary on ʿAllāmah al-Marghīnānī’s al-Hidāyah (entitled, al-ʿInāyah). Known as ‘the shaykh of the non-Arab Ḥanafīs in Cairo’, ʿAllāmah al-Bābartī was an eminent jurist from Bayburt. He possessed deep knowledge of sufi teachings, especially the school of Shaykh Ibn al-ʿArabī, and, according to Ibn Khaldūn, was also a believer in waḥdat al-wujūd.

It is also important to record that there exists a unanimous consensus among the scholars that Mīr Sayyid was a Ḥanafī in jurisprudence. This stands in contrast to his contemporary and counterpart, ʿAllāmah Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī, about whom there is considerable disagreement as to whether he adhered to the Ḥanafī or the Shāfiʿī school. ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Lakhnawī writes: “And know that they [the scholars] are agreed that al-Sayyid ʿAlī al-Sharīf was a Ḥanafī, and I have not seen anyone mention him as being among the Shāfiʿīs.”

As documented earlier, Sayyid Sharīf’s journey to Cairo was accompanied by Mullā Shams al-Dīn al-Fanārī. Both remained colleagues in Egypt, studying with ʿAllāmah al-Bābartī and Mubārak Shāh, though the latter is less frequently mentioned in connection with Mullā Fanārī in the sources.

Another notable point of association between them arose many years later. Mubārak Shāh, their teacher, had been a student of Imām ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī, the author of al-Mawāqif in kalām, and is reported to have acquired al-Mawāqif from the author himself. Various scholars have mentioned that al-Sharīf read this work under Mubārak Shāh. As Imām al-Ījī’s grand-student, al-Sharīf would later compose his celebrated commentary on this work, Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, which became one of his most renowned contributions. 

Taşköprüzāde relates in al-Shaqāʾiq al-Nuʿmāniyyah that when Mullā Fanārī saw Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, he annotated it with remarks containing subtle objections to the commentator. It must be noted that such scholarly engagement was never regarded as adversarial, but as the pursuit of truth in a spirit of mutual respect and honour. Mullā Fanārī’s choice of Sharḥ al-Mawāqif as the medium for that pursuit stands as a mark of esteem for his colleague from their student years.

It is important to note that, by virtue of Mubārak Shāh, Mīr Sayyid’s scholarly lineage traces back to the Imām of Ahl al-Sunnah, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, through thirteen teachers. For the purposes of this biography one of his chains of transmission to Imām al-Ashʿarī is presented. It is worth noting that multiple such chains exist, as several scholars within the transmission studied under more than one teacher, each path ultimately leading back to Imām al-Ashʿarī himself:

  1. Al-Sayyid al-Sharīf Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Jurjānī

  2. ʿAllāmah Mubārak Shāh al-Miṣrī

  3. ʿAllāmah Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad Abū ʿAbd Allāh Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī

  4. Qāḍī ʿAḍud al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Aḥmad al-Ījī

  5. Shaykh Zayn al-Dīn al-Hankī

  6. Qāḍī al-Bayḍāwī Nāṣir al-Dīn Abū Saʿīd ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar al-Shīrāzī

  7. ʿAllāmah Tāj al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Urmawī

  8. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar ibn Ḥusayn, Imām Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī

  9. ʿAllāmah Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn ʿUmar

  10. ʿAllāmah Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā

  11. Imām Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad, Ḥujjat al-Islām Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī

  12. Imām al-Ḥaramayn, ʿAbd Malik al-Juwaynī

  13. Al-Ustād Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Isfarāʾīnī

  14. Shaykh Abū al-Ḥasan al-Bāhilī

  15. Imam Ahl-i al-Sunnah, Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn Ismāʿīl al-Ashʿarī (d. 324 AH)

Return Home, Visit to Asia Minor, and Teaching in Shiraz

After approximately a decade in Cairo, Mīr Sayyid began his return journey home, visiting Asia Minor on the way. Though not to Constantinople, as Brockelmann notes in his Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, since the city had not yet been conquered. Perhaps al-Sayyid visited Bursa or even Edirne, which had become the Ottoman capital under Sulṭān Murād I. It is also reported that, during his time in Bursa, he visited the Ottoman madrasas then in operation and found the level of education to be weak in a number of certain aspects. 

Upon his return to Jurjan, after around three years in 779 AH, al-Sayyid al-Sanad caught the attention of the Muzaffarid ruler, Jalāl al-Dīn Shāh Shujāʿ, who, upon learning of Mīr Sayyid’s scholarly proficiency, was deeply impressed. He invited Mīr Sayyid to accompany him to Shiraz, where he was offered a position at a madrasa connected to a newly founded hospital (dār al-shifāʾ). Reports indicate the ʿAllāmah Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī who was on very good terms with Shāh Shujāʿ actually arranged for the ruler and Mīr Sayyid to meet. Significantly, some sources explicitly record that ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī was regarded as the most important scholar in the Eastern Islamic world at the time. As for Mīr Sayyid’s own activities during the first three years after his return (776-779 AH), no information has been preserved, though by around 779 he was clearly in Shīrāz. 

He remained in Shiraz for the next ten years, engaged in teaching, issuing legal edicts (fatāwā), and authoring works. During this period he acquired a formidable reputation, particularly in the rational sciences, helping to establish the city as a major centre for their study. People flocked to him, and even kings and sultans sent for him. Ömer Faruk, in his work Seyyid Şerîf Cürcânî’nin Hayatı…, reports that by this stage his reputation had secured him a prominent standing among the scholarly class, not only in Shīrāz but across the wider region, effectively throughout Iran.

In the second half of the 8th century AH, following various wars and struggles, Tīmūr Lang (Tamerlane) established a new state in Transoxiana and began campaigns to expand his domains. A significant phase of al-Sayyid’s life began when the Turco-Mongol conqueror Tīmūr Lang seized Shiraz in 789 AH during his victory over the Muzaffarids. The esteem in which the Sayyid was held is evident from the fact that his house was declared out of bounds. An arrow of Amīr Tīmūr Khān was hung on his door, in accordance with the custom for granting amnesty. As a result, many of the women and daughters of Shiraz sought refuge in his home.

Tīmūr and his Capital of Samarkand

Tīmūr’s viziers informed him that Mīr Sayyid was a master in knowledge and the sciences, however, when Tīmūr met him himself, he was surprised to find him even greater than they had described. In his conquests, Tīmūr brought to Samarkand (which was his capital), famous scholars from various parts of the Muslim world. Subsequently, Tīmūr took al-Sayyid to Mā Warāʾ al-Nahr (Transoxiana), hoping he would bring great benefit to the region. Despite this relocation, which al-Sayyid describes as a trial (ibtilāʾ) in the introduction to his Sharḥ al-Miftāḥ, Mīr Sayyid continued his teaching duties in Samarkand, where he took up residence. At that time, ʿAllāmah Saʿd al-Dīn Masʿūd al-Taftāzānī was also residing there and, moreover, held the highest scholarly position, that of ṣadr al-ṣudūr in Tīmūr’s court.

Mīr Sayyid remained in Samarkand for nearly eighteen years. It is reported that, over time, Samarkand grew on him, and during this period he continued his scholarly work without interruption. It was a period of intense intellectual activity, in which he, as an eminent senior scholar, taught large classes comprising both students and teachers, composed some of his most notable works, and frequently took part in high-profile, often public, scholarly discussions with other established scholars. Mīr Sayyid was also held in high regard by Tīmūr and was accorded close proximity to his court.

Soon, Amīr Tīmūr began to favour Mīr Sayyid over ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī, and would often say, “Even if we regard both of them as equal in faḍl (virtue), al-Sayyid possesses the sharaf of lineage (nobility, of higher rank as a descendant of the holy Prophet ﷺ)”.

The Debate with ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī in a Scholarly Context.

It was also during this period that a scholarly debate took place between Mīr Sayyid Jurjānī and ʿAllāmah Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī. The era was one of flourishing knowledge and research, marked by frequent debates and scholarly discussions. Such debates were not necessarily about matters of īmān and kufr, but often concerned subtle and intricate points of knowledge. It was a time in which the acquisition and development of knowledge thrived, and their own exchange centred on a point in Arabic rhetoric. A debate took place between them on the co-existence of al-istiʿārah al-tabaʿiyyah and al-tamthīliyyah; this was on the basis of a passage in al-Kashshāf on the opening part of verse five of Sūrah al-Baqarah. In this particular debate, the judge, Nuʿmān al-Dīn al-Khwārazmī, ruled in favour of Mīr Sayyid. Tīmūr, impressed by this, increased the honours accorded to al-Sayyid. 

Unfortunately, modern academic treatments have often overdramatised this debate and the relationship between the two scholars, subtly projecting onto it base traits such as jealousy and animosity, and offering exaggerated narratives of supposed rivalry. In reality, it was nothing of the sort. 

To be considered worthy of debating ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī and beyond that to win such a debate is no small feat. For this reason, the event is recorded frequently in classical sources. However, in the earlier biographical dictionaries, which typically follow a concise style, the debate is often mentioned abruptly alongside other biographical details. The aim of these earlier biographers was to preserve historical accounts, and since they understood the significance of prevailing over ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī, even a brief mention of the encounter served to highlight it as one of Mīr Sayyid’s merits. However, some contemporary biographers writing in English, overlooking these nuances, have misinterpreted the episode as a sign of rivalry between the two scholars.

Contrary to modern reductionist portrayals of noble Muslim scholars, which sometimes surface in academic settings and even online, Mīr Sayyid held deep respect for ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī. Some researchers have even suggested that ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī was among his teachers, as he was nearly twenty years his senior. Al-Sayyid al-Sanad maintained this respect throughout his life and even wrote supercommentaries on some of his works, including a ḥāshiyah on ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī’s commentary on al-Tawḍīḥ li-matn al-Tanqīḥ, entitled al-Talwīḥ, in Ḥanafī uṣūl al-fiqh.

Naqshbandī Affiliation, Later Shiraz, and Passing 

In Addition to al-Sayyid al-Sanad’s scholarly activities, it was during his time in Samarkand that he was introduced to Khwājah ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAṭṭār, a highly revered Central Asian sufi shaykh of the Naqshbandī order. Khwājah ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn was the principal successor and son-in-law of the order’s founder, the venerable Khwājah Bahāʾ al-Dīn Naqshband al-Bukhārī.

Under Khwājah ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAṭṭār’s guidance and direction, Mīr Sayyid Sharīf began his sulūk (spiritual wayfaring) in the Naqshbandī path. He would often say, “Until I had the honour of serving Ḥaḍrat ʿAṭṭār al-Bukhārī, I did not recognise Allah as He ought to be recognised.”

Al-Sayyid al-Sanad’s stay in Samarkand continued until Tīmūr’s death in 807 AH, which led to disorder and the absence of centralised control in Samarkand and Transoxiana. Consequently, he returned to Shiraz, where he remained for the rest of his life. Although little is known about this final period, a few details have been recorded, including that he completed one of his astronomical works there, produced other valuable writings and continued training numerous scholars. He passed away in 816 AH and was buried near the Jāmiʿ Mosque of ʿAtīq, in a grave he had prepared for himself. Allāmah al-Sakhāwī, quoting al-Maqrīzī, records that Mīr Sayyid had a son named Muḥammad, who became distinguished in numerous sciences but passed away before the age of forty in 838 AH, and was buried alongside his father in Shīrāz.

Imām Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī records, “He (Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī) was described as a dignified elder with a white beard, bright and radiant in countenance, eloquent and fluent, possessing graceful speech, and deeply knowledgeable in the methods of debate, discussion, and the presentation of proofs. He had great strength in dialectics (munāẓarah), coupled with long patience, a refined intellect (ʿaql tāmm), and a constant engagement in both teaching and study. He was perhaps even regarded as superior to ʿAllāmah Saʿd al-Taftāzānī,  may Allah have mercy on them both and on us.”

Intellectual Influence in the Madrasa Tradition: Ottoman, Farangī Maḥallī, and Khairābādī Madrasas

Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī’s lasting scholarly influence, which continues to this day, would call for a separate study. What is clear from two powerful traditions, the Farangī Maḥall in South Asia, with the Khairabādīs as later heirs to that tradition and the Ottoman madrasa, is that they could scarcely do without him. From the opening primers to the most advanced works across these curricula, students relied on his writings as their guide. In both traditions, his corpus functioned as the keystone of instruction, through which students underwent tarbiyah (in this context, intellectual formation) which aimed at tazkiyat al-adhhān (refinement and purification of the mind).

Through his works, he earned the respect and appreciation of the Ottoman sultans, and his books were incorporated into the Ottoman madrasa curriculum as core texts. His influence on Ottoman scholarly life was so great that a scholar’s level was often gauged by mastery of his writings. Teachers qualified to teach them received special stipends and ranks in society, and, in some cases, madrasas in which his books were taught were even named after those works.

Beyond the Ottoman lands, a similar situation existed at the Farangī Maḥall in South Asia. Mīr Sayyid was no stranger to them or their curriculum. The Farangī Maḥall family played a major role in the chain of prestigious scholarship in South Asia, particularly from the 17th century CE onward. They taught the Islamic sciences in a building gifted to them by Emperor Aurangzeb ʿĀlamgīr, which was known as the Farangī Maḥall. Among them, Mullā Niẓām al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Sihālawī refined the instructional method there, and his influence was so great that the curriculum itself became known by his name, the Niẓāmiyyah or Dars-i Niẓāmī.

Students in the Farangī Maḥall tradition developed a deep personal relationship with Mīr Sayyid’s works. Under the instruction of the Farangī Maḥall family, they began with his primers in their early years, progressing to his more advanced texts, and later engaged his commentaries and supercommentaries on the core syllabus. Teachers likewise maintained a close commitment to al-Sayyid’s works, taking a particular interest in the Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, his celebrated commentary on Imām ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī’s foundational kalām text. 

Some years earlier, Mīr Muḥammad Zāhid al-Harawī of Herat, wrote a supercommentary on the Umūr ʿĀmmah (ontology) section of Sharḥ al-Mawāqif. Mīr Zāhid, a student of Shaykh Muḥammad Afẓal Badakhshī, served as overseer of military accounts under Emperor Aurangzeb. He was later appointed ṣadr (head of religious endowments) in Kabul, where he passed away. His ḥāshiyah, widely known as Mīr Zāhid Umūr ʿĀmmah, later drew numerous ḥawāshī (further supercommentaries) from scholars of the Farangī Maḥall and Khairabād, including:

  • Mullā Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Farangī Maḥallī

  • Mullā Ḥasan Farangī Maḥallī

  • Muftī Ẓuhūrullāh Farangī Maḥallī

  • ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Farangī Maḥallī

  • Mullā ʿAbd al-ʿAlī Farangī Maḥallī

  • Mullā Mubīn Farangī Maḥallī

  • Mullā Walī-Allāh Farangī Maḥallī

  • ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Khairabādī

Mīr Zāhid’s ḥāshiyah on the Umūr ʿĀmmah section of Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī’s Sharḥ al-Mawāqif came to be regarded as the concluding text of the classical curriculum. Although the Khairabādīs later introduced further developments to the curriculum, until their emergence, the coiling of the turban customarily took place upon completion of Mīr Zāhid Umūr ʿĀmmah. The following anecdote illustrates this:

Having completed his formal studies in the Dars-i Niẓāmī under the tutelage of ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Khairabādī, the young Ḥakīm Barakāt Aḥmad Ṭonkī resolved to forgo further specialisation and return home. He sought leave from Lady Hājrah Bī (ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq’s wife) rather than from his mentor himself. 

Congratulating him on his achievement, she expressed surprise that her husband had not mentioned the completion of his studies. Ḥakīm Aḥmad explained that he had studied up to the ḥāshiyah of Mīr Zāhid al-Harawī on the Umūr ʿĀmmah section of Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, the customary terminus of the classical curriculum. Lady Hājrah Bī laughed and said, “Do you count yourself a graduate after completing Umūr ʿĀmmah? May I test you on it? Even within these domestic walls we are conversant with Umūr ʿĀmmah.”

This anecdote indicates that Mīr Zāhid’s ḥāshiyah on al-Sayyid al-Sanad’s Sharḥ al-Mawāqif was regarded as one of the concluding texts of the curriculum, and that formal completion was commonly marked upon finishing it. Equally telling is that the calibre of scholarship among the Khairabādīs, the principal exponents of the Farangī Maḥall tradition, extended to both the men and the women of the family. Both took keen interest, as their predecessors had, in the works of Mīr Sayyid. 

Lady Hājrah’s husband, ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Khairabādī, the son of al-Muʿallim al-Rābiʿ Imām Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khairabādī, also wrote a celebrated and authoritative supercommentary on Mīr Zāhid’s ḥāshiyah on Umūr ʿĀmmah, which remains accessible today. Moreover, the Khairabādī scholarly lineage reaches Mīr Sayyid Jurjānī through twelve teachers via the Farangī Maḥall line (beginning from the teachers of Imām Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khairabādī, rather than through his son or later Khairābādīs).

The Khairābādīs upheld and advanced the Farangī Maḥall tradition in South Asia, standing as its principal heirs. While they initially worked within that tradition, they gradually developed into a school in their own right, yielding new developments and engaging in extensive research (taḥqīq). 

The Khairābādī curriculum was essentially the same as that introduced by Mullā Niẓām al-Dīn under the name Dars-i Niẓāmī. Over time, however, and in accordance with emerging needs, the scholars of Khairābād made additions to it. For this reason, Ḥakīm Maḥmūd Aḥmad Barakātī notes that it is more appropriate to refer to their curriculum as Niẓāmī Khairābādī. Among the additions were the works of earlier scholars, such as al-Ṭūsī’s Sharḥ al-Ishārāt, Imām al-Rāzī’s al-Muḥākamāt, Mīr Dāmād’s al-Ufuq al-Mubīn, al-Tajrīd maʿa al-ḥawāshī al-qadīmah wa-l-jadīdah etc. Alongside these, works authored by Khairābādī scholars themselves were incorporated into the syllabus, including al-Mirqāt by ʿAllāmah Faḍl al-Imām Khairābādī, al-Hadiyyah al-Saʿīdiyyah by Imām Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khairābādī, and ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Khairābādī’s Sharḥ al-Mirqāt, Sharḥ Hidāyat al-Ḥikmah, and Sharḥ Musallam al-Thubūt, among others. For particularly able students, more advanced texts were also taught, such as Imām Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khairābādī’s Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Ufuq al-Mubīn and his ḥāshiyah on Talkhīṣ al-Shifāʾ.

The Zawāʾid Thalātha, three supercommentaries of Mīr Zāhid al-Harawī, among them his ḥāshiyah on the Umūr ʿĀmmah section of Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, were also specialised instructional works of the Khairābādī scholars. Alongside the Zawāʾid Thalātha, the ḥawāshī of Baḥr al-ʿUlūm Mullā ʿAbd al-ʿAlī Farangī Maḥallī on these supercommentaries were likewise taught. Importantly, the Khairābādī additions did not undermine the philosophy of Mullā Niẓām al-Dīn’s curriculum. Rather, they refined it, further developing a model that preserved all that the Farangī Maḥallīs had offered, while also building upon it.

Among the major branches that emerged from the Khairabādīs was the Bandyalwī line, represented by ʿAllāmah Yār Muḥammad Bandyalwī and his distinguished student ʿAllāmah ʿAṭā Muḥammad. In Pakistan today, the most senior living heir to the Bandyalwī, Khairabādī, and Farangī Maḥall traditions is ʿAllāmah Faḍl al-Subḥān al-Qādrī, a direct student of ʿAllāmah ʿAṭā Muḥammad. His father, ʿAllāmah Shahīsta Gul, is counted as a direct student of ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Khairabādī. In his biography of the Khairabādīs, ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥakīm Sharaf Qādrī records ʿAllāmah Shahīsta Gul, the Muftī of Sarhad, among the students of ʿAllāmah Khairabādī. Shahīsta Gul himself informed the biographer that he had met and directly benefited from ʿAllāmah Khairabādī. Living close to 120 years of age, ʿAllāmah Shahīsta Gul’s long life resulted in an unusually short chain of scholarly transmission.

A comprehensive account of the Khairābādī school lies beyond the scope of this biography, yet one aim of the foregoing discussion has been to demonstrate the influence of Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī on their madrasa. They not only preserved isnāds to al-Sayyid and incorporated his works, but also shared in his contribution to the rational sciences (maʿqūlāt), clearly reflecting the impact of both his writings and his person.

Whether it was the Ottomans, the Farangī Maḥallis, the Khairabādīs, or other traditions across the Muslim world like al-Azhar (as will be seen later), Mīr Sayyid’s writings became a benchmark of scholarship for centuries. Teachers and students alike took pride in teaching and studying his works, which served as a principal means of training aspiring scholars. So central were they that, without access to them, a scholar’s credibility could be questioned.

The Corpus of Al-Sayyid Al-Sanad: Attributions, Cross-Disciplinary Range, and Primers

Imām al-Sakhāwī relates, on the authority of al-Sharīf’s grandson, that al-Sayyid al-Sanad authored more than fifty works. He had, in fact, begun writing already during his student years. Many of these were taught not only in the Timurid educational system but, even more extensively, across the Ottoman and Mughal Sultanates, and at al-Azhar, as noted earlier. Sadreddin Gümüş notes that Mir Sayyid’s works remained dominant in the madrasas for five centuries after his passing, which brings us to the late 19th century CE. Though this may be true for the most part, in the Khairabādī school, his works continued to be taught well into the 20th century.

The compilation of this section of the biography has required painstaking effort; collating, verifying, and in some cases correcting errors made by contemporary biographers. One recurring issue has been the false attribution of works to Mīr Sayyid. For example, a commentary on Kitāb al-Adwār (Book of Modes) by the music theorist Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Urmawī al-Baghdādī (d. 693 AH, not to be confused with the Ashʿarī theologian Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Hindī al-Urmawī [d. 715 AH])  has been mistakenly assigned to him. This error was propagated by H. G. Farmer in two separate works, without offering evidence. In reality, the commentary belongs to another author, whose name is, ironically, preserved in the title of the work itself.

Another biographer, attributing a work on ʿilm al-adwār to Mīr Sayyid, perhaps drawing upon Imām al-Sakhāwī, claimed that it concerned “circular reasoning” (dawr), likely due to a misreading of the term adwār (sing. dawr). In reality, First of all, the term ʿilm al-adwār can denote the science of modes, the study of modal cycles in ʿilm al-mūsīqī, traditionally classified among the mathematical sciences (al-ʿulūm al-riyāḍiyyah) within philosophy. More convincingly, however, ʿilm al-adwār can also serve as a shorthand for ʿilm al-adwār wa’l-akwār, ‘the science of cycles and revolutions’, a branch of astronomy (ʿilm al-hayʾah). In astronomical terminology, a dawr (cycle) denotes three hundred and sixty solar years, while a kawr (revolution) denotes one hundred and twenty lunar years; this science examines the changes in prevailing conditions over each dawr and kawr. Finally, this latter meaning is the more appropriate in this case, as there are verifiable accounts of Mīr Sayyid having written in this field.

Other false attributions have been of a similar nature. In one case, ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī’s Dalāʾil al-Iʿjāz was wrongly assigned to Mīr Sayyid, likely because both shared the same geographical epithet ‘al-Jurjānī’.

Even in legitimate works, confusion often arose from errors in transliteration or spelling of titles, making verification difficult. In other cases, authors’ and commentators’ names were conflated, particularly when Mīr Sayyid wrote a supercommentary (ḥāshiyah) on a commentary (sharḥ) of another scholar’s text (matn). At times, works were omitted from the lists of Mīr Sayyid’s writings because some contemporary biographers, noting that he had already written on a particular text, may have assumed it improbable that he would have produced an additional work on the same book. In fact, however, he sometimes produced more than one work on the same text (matn), in the form of both a supercommentary and a commentary, or at times even two supercommentaries. Verifying these cases required particular care.

That said, although this study has not relied exclusively on contemporary biographies, such works in general nonetheless may merit appreciation for preserving some useful details that have provided a foundation for further work on al-Sayyid al-Sanad.

It must also be noted that the disciplinary content within some of these works are wide-ranging, and certain books could equally belong to multiple categories. This reflects one of the hallmarks of Mīr Sayyid’s scholarship, his writings traverse multiple disciplines within a single work. For example, his contributions to logic do not confine themselves to the technicalities of modal reasoning; rather, they often prioritise in-depth discussions of philosophical issues raised in the earlier sections of standard logic manuals. This shift in emphasis is emblematic of the broader intellectual developments in Arabic logic during his era. Moreover, the categorisations of the sciences can themselves be subdivided, and Mīr Sayyid’s works could have been arranged according to these subcategories. For instance, under philosophy (falsafah) one might distinguish between metaphysics, ontology, and other branches, each of which could accommodate one of his works. Such a division, however, has been set aside here for the sake of concision.

Alongside this, because of Mīr Sayyid’s scholarly prowess evident in his advanced works, his skill in preparing primers in various subjects can at times be overlooked. The style, choice of words, layout and content of these works, whether in syntax, morphology or logic, deserve detailed examination. They are concise yet contain nuances that bring clarity to a subject; though often embedded within the text, these nuances require an instructor to unravel them. Mīr Sayyid leaves no necessary stone unturned, yet with great precision he omits details that a student does not yet need to know. The results they produce cannot easily be matched by works of later periods, including modern renditions on the same subjects. Accordingly, detailed consideration of his primers will follow in the relevant sections.

A similar quality is found in his other treatises. While not necessarily primers nor intended for novice students, they are often concise yet possess such depth of research that even accomplished scholars after him, in effect, became students before Mīr Sayyid.

While the present author does not claim to be free of error, what follows is a categorised list of Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī’s works, arranged by field of study. This list is not exhaustive, and certain verifiable works have been omitted for now but will, in shāʾ Allāh, be added to this biography in the future.

Works Categorised by Field with Explanatory Notes

What follows is a non-exhaustive list of Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī’s writings, including books, treatises, commentaries, supercommentaries, and marginal notes, arranged according to the various sciences.

Quran & Exegesis 

Tafsīr al-Zahrāwayn: A commentary on Sūrah al-Baqarah and Sūrah Āl ʿImrān, based on al-Zamakhsharī’s al-Kashshāf.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Bayḍāwī: A supercommentary on the opening passages (awāʾil) of Anwār al-Tanzīl wa-Asrār al-Taʾwīl, commonly known as Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī. The study of Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī was a fundamental component of the Farangī Maḥall curriculum in South Asia.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Kashshāf: This extends to approximately the 25th or 26th verse of Sūrah al-Baqarah. It has been printed in the margins of some copies of al-Kashshāf.

Risālah fī al-Āfāq wa-al-Anfus: A treatise on the exegesis of verse 53 of Sūrah Fuṣṣilat.

Al-Tarjumān fī al-Tafsīr: A Persian dictionary of the Holy Qurʾān which the author mentions in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Kashshāf.

Note: Some biographers mention a book attributed to Mīr Sayyid entitled Tajwīd al-Qurʾān in Persian. This attribution, however, has not been conclusively verified and remains open to further investigation.

Ḥadīth and Ḥadīth Principles

Abridgment of al-Ṭībī’s Commentary on Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ: According to ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Lakhnawī, Mīr Sayyid’s work on the Mishkāt was in fact an abridgment of ʿAllāmah Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭībī’s commentary on Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, with a few additions. ʿAllāmah al-Ṭībī was the first to write a commentary on this important ḥadīth collection and was in fact the student of its compiler. The Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ itself formed a necessary component of the Farangī Maḥall curriculum. 

Al-Dībāj al-Mudhahhab fī Muṣṭalaḥ al-Ḥadīth: This work is an abridgment of al-Khulāṣah fī Maʿrifat Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth by al-Ṭībī, and also an abridgment of the muqaddimah (opening) of al-Ṭībī’s commentary on Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, entitled al-Kāshif ʿan Ḥaqāʾiq al-Sunan. ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Lakhnawī later wrote a commentary on this abridgment, entitled Ẓafar al-Amānī, and at the end of that work he also establishes the attribution of this abridgment to Mīr Sayyid.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Khulāṣah fī Maʿrifat Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth: This is a supercommentary on ʿAllāmah al-Ṭībī’s work on the principles of ḥadīth (see above). In that work, al-Ṭībī compiled material from the writings of Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, al-Nawawī, and Ibn Jamāʿah, and supplemented it with selections from the introduction to Ibn al-Athīr’s Jāmiʿ al-Uṣūl. The result was an excellent reference for students of the science of ḥadīth.

Theology

Sharḥ al-Mawāqif: A commentary on the foundational kalām matn (text) al-Mawāqif by Qāḍī ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī. Mīr Sayyid’s commentary is one of the most celebrated works on kalām and among the most important for Islamic scholastic theology, attracting numerous supercommentaries, including those of Mīr Zāhid al-Harawī, a number of Farangī Maḥall scholars, ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥakīm al-Siyālkūtī, ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Khairabādī, Mullā Fanārī, and others. To this day, Al-Azhar University includes it as a required text in its official curriculum, most likely within the Faculty of Uṣūl al-Dīn.

Note: The two foundational mutūn (texts) in ʿilm al-kalām are Imām al-Nasafī’s text in Māturīdī kalām, al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyyah, and Imām ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī’s text in Ashʿarī kalām, al-ʿAqāʾid al-ʿAḍudiyyah. Mīr Sayyid’s commentary is on the latter and is regarded as one of the most advanced works in the discipline. Designed for advanced students, it is studied only after a rigorous programme in kalām that typically includes works such as Mullā Khayālī’s supercommentary on Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyyah. 

In recent times, certain passages of Sharḥ al-Mawāqif have been misread, leading to confusion. It must be noted that as a prerequisite for engaging with such works, maturity is required not only in ʿilm al-kalām itself but also in familiarity with the written style of the mutakallimīn (scholastic theologians), acquired through the study of a number of advanced texts in the field. This must be coupled with training through a structured syllabus that develops the intellectual proficiency needed to extract or derive detailed points of theology from across the corpus of the discipline.

Ḥāshiya ʿalā Maṭāliʿ al-Anẓar: A supercommentary on Maṭāliʿ al-Anẓar by ʿAllāmah Shams al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī, which is itself a commentary on Ṭawāliʿ al-Anwār by Qāḍī ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar al-Bayḍāwī.

Ḥāshiya ʿalā al-Sharḥ al-Qadīm ʿalā al-Tajrīd: A supercommentary on Maḥmūd al-Iṣfahānī’s ‘old commentary’ on Tajrīd al-ʿAqāʾid by Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī. Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī’s supercommentary was used in some madrasas established in the Ottoman Sultanate by Sulṭān Meḥmet al-Fātiḥ.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Tajrīd: A claimed supercommentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd al-ʿAqāʾid.

Note: ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Lakhnawī records that the claim Mīr Sayyid authored a ḥāshiyah on the Tajrīd itself is imprecise. He clarifies that the work is in fact a ḥāshiyah on al-Iṣfahānī’s Sharḥ al-Tajrīd, not on al-Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd directly.

Jurisprudence

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Hidāyah: A supercommentary on Imām al-Marghīnānī’s celebrated work al-Hidāyah in Ḥanafī fiqh. The al-Hidāyah itself formed a necessary component of the Farangī Maḥall curriculum.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Wiqāyah: A supercommentary on Wiqāyat al-Riwāyah fī Masāʾil al-Hidāyah by Tāj al-Sharīʿah Maḥmūd al-Maḥbūbī. Ṣadr al-Sharīʿah ʿUbayd Allāh b. Maḥmūd al-Maḥbūbī’s commentary on al-Wiqāyah formed a necessary component of the Farangī Maḥall curriculum.

Sharḥ al-Sirājiyyah: A commentary on the famous Ḥanafī manual on inheritance law by Sirāj al-Dīn al-Sajāwandī. This work of Mīr Sayyid is also known as al-Ḥawāshī al-Sharīfiyyah fī al-Farāʾiḍ.

Note: Some biographers attribute the work al-Shāfī fī al-Fiqh to him, but this has been shown to belong to another Jurjānī, namely Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Jurjānī al-Shāfiʿī.

Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence

Ḥāshiya ʿalā al-Talwīḥ: A supercommentary on ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī’s al-Talwīḥ, which itself is a supercommentary on al-Tawḍīḥ li-Matn al-Tanqīḥ by Ṣadr al-Sharīʿah ʿUbayd Allāh b. Maḥmūd al-Maḥbūbī. Both the matn (al-Tanqīḥ) and its commentary (al-Tawḍīḥ) were authored by Ṣadr al-Sharīʿah. ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī’s al-Talwīḥ formed a necessary component of the Farangī Maḥall curriculum.

Ḥāshiya ʿalā al-Sharḥ al-ʿAḍud ʿalā Mukhtaṣar al-Muntaḥā al-Uṣūlī: Imām Abū ʿAmr ʿUthmān ibn al-Ḥājib al-Mālikī wrote an abridgment of one of his works and entitled it Mukhtaṣar al-Muntaḥā al-Uṣūlī. Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī authored a commentary on it, which was later supercommented on by Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī. ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī also produced a supercommentary on Imām al-Ījī’s commentary. In his Sharḥ, ʿAḍud al-Dīn employed numerous arguments rooted in manṭiq (logic).

Arabic Rhetoric

Ḥāshiya ʿalā al-Muṭawwal: This is a supercommentary on ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī’s al-Muṭawwal, his longer commentary on Talkhīṣ al-Miftāḥ by Imām al-Qazwīnī, which itself is an abridgment of the third part of Imām al-Sakkākī’s Miftāḥ al-ʿUlūm. ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī later produced an abridgment of his al-Muṭawwal, entitled Mukhtaṣar al-Maʿānī, which became an independent work in its own right. Both of these works were fundamental texts taught in the Farangī Maḥall curriculum.

Al-Miṣbāḥ: This is Mīr Sayyid’s own commentary on the third part of Miftāḥ al-ʿUlūm.

Sharḥ Qaṣīdah Sayyidinā Kaʿb ibn Zuhayr رَضِيَ ٱللّٰهُ عَنْهُ: A commentary on the Qaṣīdah Bānat Suʿād.

Note: For his entire life, Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī taught rhetoric (ʿilm al-balāghah) on the basis of al-Sakkākī’s Miftāḥ al-ʿUlūm, the third part of which is devoted to this discipline.

Dialectics

Sharḥ ʿalā Risālat Ādāb al-Baḥth li’l-ʿAḍud: A supercommentary on ʿAllāmah ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī’s work on the science of debate (ʿilm ādāb al-baḥth), also referred to as dialectics.

Al-Risālah al-Sharīfiyyah fī Ādāb al-Baḥth wa’l-Munāẓarah: A treatise dealing with the art of debate (munāẓarah). It was taught in the classical Dars-i Niẓāmī curriculum along with its commentary al-Rashīdiyyah by Shaykh ʿAbd al-Rashīd Dīwān.

Science of Verbal Semiotics (ʿIlm al-Waḍʿ) 

Sharḥ ʿalā al-Risālah al-Waḍʿiyyah: A commentary on Imām al-Ījī’s treatise on semiotics. Mīr Sayyid also wrote a separate supercommentary (ḥāshiyah) on this treatise.

Logic

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Sharḥ al-Shamsiyyah: A supercommentary on Imām Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on al-Shamsiyyah by Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī. The sharḥ became known as ‘al-Quṭbī’ and Mīr Sayyid’s ḥāshiyah on it came to be called ‘Mīr Quṭbī’. Both of these works were fundamental texts taught in the Farangī Maḥall curriculum. These two works (al-Quṭbī & Mīr Quṭbī) fall under the fann (discipline) of manṭiq sādhaj (simple logic) For a detailed discussion of manṭiq sādhaj, see the article cited in the bibliography.

Note: The preserved method employed by the Khairabādīs for teaching Quṭbī and Mīr Quṭbī was as follows: the matn of al-Shamsiyyah, along with ʿAllāmah Quṭb al-Dīn’s commentary, was taught together and regarded as bi-manzilat kitāb wāḥid (‘as if they were a single text’). This continued until the end of a given masʾalah (point of discussion). Thereafter, Mīr Sayyid’s supercommentary on that same section was taught, though it was not necessary for the ḥāshiyah to be covered on the same day; it could be taught the following day. This method continued in this manner throughout, essentially resulting in two books being taught simultaneously.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Sharḥ Maṭāliʿ al-Anwār: A supercommentary on Imām Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary, Lawāmiʿ al-Asrār, on al-Urmawī’s Maṭāliʿ al-Anwār. ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Lakhnawī notes that some have attributed a supercommentary directly on al-Maṭāliʿ to Mīr Sayyid, but he clarifies that this is incorrect; Mīr Sayyid’s work is on Imām al-Rāzī’s commentary to al-Maṭāliʿ.

Sharḥ al-Isāghūjī: A commentary on Imām Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī’s Isāghūjī, which came to be known as Qāla-Aqulu (‘He said-I say’) due to the style of the commentary. According to ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Bārī Farangī Maḥallī’s instruction of how logic should be taught in the curriculum; this work would be assigned to students in the traditional Dars-i Niẓāmī who needed to strengthen their qābīliyyah (scholarly aptitude). Otherwise, Mīr Sayyid’s two primers, Ṣughrā and Kubrā, would suffice for capable students to move on to the next logic text in the Farangī Maḥall syllabus.

Risāla-i Ṣughrā: Originally composed in the Persian language, this primer was later translated into Arabic by his son, al-Sayyid al-Shams Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī, under the title al-Ghurrah. The original Persian text is preserved within the compendium Majmūʿa-i Manṭiq. Mīr Sayyid first authored it for his young son as a text to be committed to memory. Within the Farangī Maḥall curriculum, it served as the introductory text in logic, falling under the fann of manṭiq sāzaj (simple logic).

Note: In most madrasas today, the first text in logic taught is Isāghūjī. While this is a highly regarded and precise work, its topics and objectives can be challenging for beginners to grasp. By contrast, Risāla-i Ṣughrā offers an ideal introduction to the study of logic, owing to its novice-friendly layout, clarity, and highly concise form, which lends itself well to memorisation.

Risāla-i Kubrā: This is the second work taught in the Farangī Maḥall curriculum for logic and, like Ṣughrā, is preserved in the compendium Majmūʿa-i Manṭiq. It was later translated into Arabic from Persian by Mīr Sayyid’s son under the title al-Durrah. The manuscript catalogue of Dār al-Kutub al-Ẓāhiriyyah records it as al-Risālah al-Waladīyah fī al-Uṣūl al-Manṭiqīyyah, while the catalogue of Dār al-Kutub al-Azharīyyah lists it as Risālah fī al-Aḥwāl al-Manṭiqīyyah. In the Farangī Maḥall sequence, it was taught after Ṣughrā and it falls under the fann (discipline) of manṭiq sādhaj (simple logic).

Note: In this work, Mīr Sayyid succeeds in helping to build a relationship between the student and the subject, steadily constructing a coherent and purposeful framework that enables logic to be grasped not merely as abstract theory but as a practical, living tool.

Arranged into thirty-five sections, it is structured so as to ‘tell the story’ of logic, guiding the student toward a more thorough understanding of its aims. After studying this text, a student would no longer need to study Isāghūjī to progress in the field of logic; if he were to study it nonetheless, he would find the discussions therein to serve as a revision and would complete it with proficiency. Moreover, moving on from Kubrā to a more advanced text beyond Isāghūjī would be a natural progression. Conversely, a student who has only studied Isāghūjī would find that engaging with Kubrā significantly deepens comprehension of the discipline, adds further refinements, and clarifies many questions; an outcome owed largely to Mīr Sayyid’s distinctive organisation and writing style.

Risālah fī Taḥqīq al-Kulliyāt: A treatise on the analysis (taḥqīq) of the logical universals (al-kulliyāt). Ḥājjī Khalīfah notes that Imām Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī authored a work with a similar title, Risālah fī al-Kulliyāt wa-Taḥqīqihā, which consists of a muqaddimah, seven sections, and a khātimah.

Note: For further details on the distinction between manṭiq sādhaj (simple logic) and manṭiq mamzūj (mixed logic), refer to the source listed in the bibliography, entitled ‘Manṭiq Sādhaj and Manṭiq Mamzūj in the Farangī Maḥall Tradition: Their Distinction & the Primers of Mīr Sayyid’. 

Risālah fī Taqsīm al-ʿUlūm: This treatise examines the positions of four schools concerning the classification of knowledge (ʿilm) into conception (taṣawwur) and assent (taṣdīq). Two manuscript copies are currently known: one in the Süleymaniye Library and another in the Nazif Paşa Collection.

Note: One biographer also recorded a work attributed to Mīr Sayyid under the title Taqāsīm al-ʿUlūm, asserting that a manuscript of it is preserved in the India Office Records in London. It is possible that this second work is in fact identical with Risālah fī Taqsīm al-ʿUlūm, despite the variance in title. At the same time, it must be noted that taqāsīm al-ʿulūm is also the name of a distinct discipline, thereby warranting further verification.

Ḥājjī Khalīfah describes ʿilm taqāsīm al-ʿulūm as the discipline that examines the progression (tadarruj) from the most general of subject matters (mawḍūʿāt) to the most specific. Through this hierarchical approach, one identifies the mawḍūʿ (subject matter) of the sciences that are subsumed under the broadest subject matter. It is also possible to proceed in the reverse order, from the most specific to the most general, though the former approach is considered easier and more straightforward. Taşköprüzāde records that Ibn Sīnā wrote a treatise entitled Risālah Laṭīfah in this science.

Philosophy

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Sharḥ al-Ishārāt: A supercommentary on al-Ṭūsī’s commentary on al-Ishārāt wa’l-Tanbīhāt by Ibn Sīnā. Al-Ṭūsī’s commentary is known as Sharḥ Shakk al-Ishārāt or Ḥall Mushkilāt al-Ishārāt.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Sharḥ Ḥikmat al-ʿAyn: A supercommentary on Mubārak Shāh’s commentary on Ḥikmat al-ʿAyn by Najm al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Kātibī al-Qazwīnī.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq: A supercommentary on Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq by Shihāb al-Dīn Yaḥyā b. Ḥabash al-Suhrawardī, founder of the Ishrāqī (Illuminationist) school.

Risālah fī al-Wujūd: A treatise in which Mīr Sayyid discusses the ranks of existents (marātib al-mawjūdāt).

Risālah dar Marātib-i Mawjūdāt: A treatise examining the ranks of existents according to the rational division (fī al-mawjūd bi-ḥasab al-qismat al-ʿaqliyyah). Originally written in Persian, it was later translated into Arabic by ʿAllāmah Kamāl al-Dīn al-Naysābūrī.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Sharḥ Hidāyat al-Ḥikmah: A ḥāshiyah on Qāḍī Mīr Ḥusayn al-Maybudhī’s (also rendered al-Maybadhī) commentary on Hidāyat al-Ḥikmah by Imām al-Abharī, as attested by al-Shawkānī. Mīr Ḥusayn’s commentary, commonly known as Maybadhī, was one of the fundamental texts taught in the Farangī Maḥall curriculum.

Astronomy

Sharḥ ʿalā Sharḥ al-Tadhkirah: A commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s al-Tadhkirah fī ʿIlm al-Hayʾah, also known as al-Tadhkirah al-Naṣīriyyah fī al-Hayʾah.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Tuḥfah:  A supercommentary on al-Tuḥfah al-Shāhiyyah fī al-Hayʾah by Quṭb al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Shīrāzī.

Sharḥ al-Chaghamīnī: A commentary on Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad al-Chaghamīnī al-Khwārazmī’s al-Mulakhkhaṣ fī al-Hayʾah. Mūsā b. Maḥmūd al-Rūmī Qāḍīzāda’s commentary on al-Mulakhkhaṣ was among the fundamental texts taught in the classical Dars-i Niẓāmī.

Geometry

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Taḥrīr Uqlīdis: A supercommentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s recension of Euclid’s Elements. Al-Ṭūsī’s work is known as Taḥrīr Uṣūl al-Handasah or Taḥrīr al-Uṣūl li-Uqlīdis. Al-Ṭūsī’s recension of Euclid’s Elements was one of the fundamental texts taught in the Farangī Maḥall curriculum.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Ashkāl al-Taʾsīs: A supercommentary on Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī’s Ashkāl al-Taʾsīs, a treatise on thirty-five figures (ashkāl) from Euclid’s Elements. The most famous commentary on this text is by Qāḍīzāda al-Rūmī, a student of Mīr Sayyid.

Arabic Grammar

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Sharḥ al-Kāfiyyah: A supercommentary on Raḍī al-Dīn al-Astarābādī’s famous commentary on al-Kāfiyyah of Ibn al-Ḥājib in syntax (naḥw). Al-Kāfiyah and Mullā ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Jāmī’s commentary on it, al-Fawāʾid al-Ḍiyāʾiyyah, were both fundamental components of the Farangī Maḥall curriculum.

Persian Commentary on al-Kāfiyyah: According to one source, this work is known as Gipāyī and also Sharīfiyyah. The latter title is shared with some other works of Mīr Sayyid.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Sharḥ al-Mutawassiṭ: A supercommentary on al-Sayyid Rukn al-Dīn Ḥasan al-Ḥusaynī al-Astarābādī’s middle commentary (al-Wāfiyyah) on al-Kāfiyyah. Al-Sayyid Rukn al-Dīn authored three commentaries on al-Kāfiyyah: al-Basīṭ (large commentary), al-Wāfiyyah (middle commentary), and a small commentary. Mīr Sayyid’s ḥāshiyah was completed by his son, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Khabīṣī: A supercommentary on Muḥammad al-Khabīṣī’s commentary on al-Kāfiyyah, known as al-Muwashshaḥ.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Sharḥ al-Shāfiyyah: A supercommentary on Raḍī al-Dīn al-Astarābādī’s commentary on al-Shāfiyyah by Ibn al-Ḥājib in morphology (ṣarf). Al-Shāfiyyah was a fundamental component of the Farangī Maḥall curriculum.

Ṣarf-i Mīr: A primer on Arabic morphology, originally in the Persian language. This was one of the five primers taught in the Farangī Maḥall for ṣarf, alongside Mīzān al-Ṣarf, Munshaʿab, Panj Ganj, and Zubdah.

Naḥw-i Mīr: A primer on Arabic syntax, originally in the Persian language. This was the first text taught in the Farangī Maḥall for naḥw. The content and style are so masterfully structured that it enables students to understand syntax on its own terms in a codified manner, such that if expanded, it could mirror an advanced work in the same field. It is for this reason that the work was famously described as a ‘small Mullā Jāmī’, in reference to Mullā ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Jāmī’s advanced commentary on al-Kāfiyyah.

Note: The work is particularly valuable for novice students. In analysing simple sentences, Mīr Sayyid lays out a four-step method, which the book then successfully delivers:

  1. Determine the difference between ism (noun), fiʿl (verb), and ḥarf (particle).

  2. Determine which words are muʿrab (declinable) and which are mabnī (indeclinable).

  3. Distinguish between words that are maʿmūl (operated upon) and those that are ʿāmil (operators).

  4. Ascertain the syntactic relationship between kalimāt (words) so that the musnad (that which is ascribed to something) and the musnad ilayh (that to which something is ascribed) become clear.

Sharḥ ʿAwāmil al-Miʾah: A commentary on ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī’s celebrated work in syntax, al-ʿAwāmil al-Miʾah (or Miʾah ʿĀmil). Mullā ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Jāmī’s commentary on Miʾah ʿĀmil was a fundamental component of the Farangī Maḥall curriculum. 

Note: The Khairābādīs became renowned for the way they engaged with Mullā Jāmī’s work, applying the thorough method of tarkīb zanjīrī (syntactic chain analysis), which unravels the full morphological and syntactic background of each word in the text before ascertaining its syntactic relationship with the surrounding words.

Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Sharḥ Nuqra-kār: A supercommentary on the commentary of Nuqra-kār on Lubb al-Albāb fī ʿIlm al-Iʿrāb by Tāj al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Iṣfahānī. This should not be confused with Lubb al-Albāb by al-Bayḍāwī.

Sharḥ ʿalā al-Taṣrīf al-ʿIzzī: A commentary on ʿIzz al-Dīn al-Zanjānī’s al-Taṣrīf al-ʿIzzī in morphology. ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī also wrote a famous commentary on this text. The original text is widely known either as al-ʿIzzī or al-Zanjānī.

Taʿlīqah ʿalā Niṣāb al-Ṣibyān: A marginal gloss (taʿlīqah) on Abū Naṣr Masʿūd al-Farāhī’s Niṣāb al-Ṣibyān in Arabic language instruction. Written in poetic form with 200 verses.

Al-Risālah al-Ḥarfiyyah: A short treatise, not more than ten pages in length but extremely dense, on the semantic function or signification (waḍʿ) of the particle (ḥarf). Some sources note that the same text is also found in his ḥāshiyah to ʿAllāmah al-Taftāzānī’s al-Muṭawwal.

Tasawwuf 

Taʿlīqah ʿalā al-Aʿwārif:  A marginal gloss on the celebrated sufi treatise ʿAwārif al-Maʿārif by Shaykh Shihāb al-Dīn ʿUmar ibn Muḥammad al-Suhrawardī (not to be confused with Shihāb al-Dīn Yaḥyā b. Ḥabash al-Suhrawardī, founder of the Ishrāqī school). 

Risāla-i Shawqiyyah: A Persian sufi treatise in thirteen chapters, discussing the positive transformations that occur when a seeker enters a ṭarīqah (sufi order) and the principles a zāhid (ascetic) must observe thereafter.

Risāla-i Hast-o-Nīst: A Persian treatise on existence (wujūd) and non-existence (ʿadam). ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Lakhnawī records a work of Mīr Sayyid entitled Risālah fī al-Wujūd ʿalā Aṣl al-Ṣūfiyyah, which appears to be identical to Risāla-i Hast-o-Nīst.

Manāqib-i Khwājah Bahāʾ al-Dīn Naqshband: A work in praise of the founder of the Naqshbandī sufi order, Khwājah Bahāʾ al-Dīn Naqshband.

Encyclopedic works

Maqālīd al-ʿUlūm fī al-Ḥudūd wa al-Rusūm: A concise ‘pocket’ encyclopedia covering twenty-one sciences. Imām al-Suyūṭī authored a muʿjam under the same title.

Kitāb al-Taʿrīfāt: A dictionary of technical terms across a wide range of sciences. It is observed that the work contains a considerable number of sufi terms.

Science of Cryptograms (ʿIlm al-Muʿammā)

Risālah dar Muʿammā: A Persian treatise on the science dealing with cryptograms. This discipline is distinct from the science of alghāz (sing. lugz), which concerns riddles.

Miscellaneous 

Al-Ajwibah li-Asʾilah Iskandar: Responses in Persian to questions posed by Iskandar. Imām al-Sakhāwī, and Ḥājjī Khalīfah quoting him (al-Sakhāwī), identify this Iskandar as a king of Tabrīz, which would suggest the Qara Qoyunlu ruler Iskandar. However, another source documents that he was in fact Iskandar b. ʿUmar Shaykh, the Timurid prince, who had no connection to Tabrīz, unlike the Qara Qoyunlu ruler, who did.

Risālah fī al-Ṣawt: In the present author’s knowledge, Imām al-Sakhāwī is the only one who attributes this treatise to Mīr Sayyid, on the authority of his grandson. However, details regarding its contents could not be found, and the work therefore warrants further research. For this reason, it has been placed in the category of miscellaneous.

Conclusion

Studying the life and times of Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī compels us to recognise that the so-called “Golden age” narrative, so often thrust upon us as the framework for approaching Muslim intellectual history, is fundamentally flawed. By suggesting that original intellectual output ended with the fall of Baghdad, such a framework diminishes the monumental contributions of later generations. The findings of this biography show clearly that such frameworks cannot be sustained. What is required instead is a sincere and well thought out study of our scholarly heritage, one that acknowledges continuity, development, and depth in the contributions of our predecessors.

Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī’s scholarly corpus is as vast as it is influential. His contributions range from his own prolific writings, to his incisive analysis of earlier works, to his role in shaping the madrasa curriculum for centuries after his passing. Although this biography did not undertake a detailed study of the content of each of his works, it is evident from his extant writings that he was a muḥaqqiq (verifying scholar) par excellence, engaging in rigorous taḥqīq across multiple sciences. Mastery at this level across such a wide spectrum warrants recognising him not only as a leading specialist, but as a true polymath.

Moreover, his influence on subsequent generations is undeniable. From scholars such as Mullā Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawwānī, Mīr Fathullāh Shīrāzī, Mullā Niẓām al-Dīn al-Sihālwī, to Imām Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khairābādī and beyond, his works formed an essential framework of scholarship for thousands. They structured the madrasa tradition for centuries: from primers in grammar still widley taught in seminaries of South Asia and the Far East, to advanced kalām texts like Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, studied in al-Azhar and other leading centres of learning. Such influence, both sustained and far-reaching, compels us to regard him not merely as a polymath, but truly a polymath for all seasons.

Yet despite his immense contribution, access to figures like Mīr Sayyid has grown increasingly remote. The decline in the skills necessary to engage with his writings has itself contributed to his marginalisation in recent memory. In an age of unprecedented confusion and the rapid spread of heterodoxy through modern platforms, the reintroduction of Mīr Sayyid and his works is not merely relevant but urgently necessary. Ours is precisely the kind of intellectual climate in which the precision of Imām al-Jurjānī’s scholarship is most desperately needed.

Thus, reviving classical learning in the madrasas, restoring Mīr Sayyid’s works to their rightful place in the curriculum, and preparing scholars capable of engaging his texts are not optional luxuries but urgent necessities.

This biography has sought to reintroduce Mīr Sayyid al-Jurjānī into contemporary conversations among students, teachers, and seekers of knowledge. It has aimed to shed light on his life, his times, and his lasting impact on the madrasa tradition, while also serving as a call to re-establish a tradition of deep reflection, rigorous and disciplined intellectual engagement, and spiritual refinement in a manner that reflects the holistic approach of Mīr Sayyid’s life and work.

Despite earlier plans for its release, this biography was destined to be completed and shared on the day of the martyrdom of one of Mīr Sayyid’s spiritual heirs: the scholar, freedom fighter, and martyr, Imām Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khairābādī. May Allah sanctify both their secrets, and may their teachings resound in the classrooms of madrasas across the world again. 

Al-Fātiḥa for the ‘scholar of the East’, the ‘ʿAllāmah of his age’, the muḥaqqiq Mīr Sayyid Sharīf al-Jurjānī, for the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, my dear mother, and for all the believers who have departed this mortal world, especially our brothers and sisters in Gaza. 

Muhammad Mubashir Iqbal - 20 August 2025

Notes

  • The author has deliberately chosen to employ the designation ‘late-classical’ in place of the more common academic term ‘post-classical’. This choice is intended to avoid reinforcing the ‘Golden age’ narrative, since the label post-classical was originally deployed largely within decline-theory frameworks. As Khaled El-Rouayheb has demonstrated, the period conventionally described as post-classical was in fact marked by considerable intellectual rigour, though this was generally expressed through the modes of commentary, gloss, and taḥqīq, rather than through the production of entirely new disciplinary foundations.

Bibliography 

  • Al-Badr al-Ṭāliʿ bi-Maḥāsin man baʿd al-Qarn al-Sābiʿ

  • Kitāb al-Aʿlām

  • Al-Fawāʾid al-Bahiyyah

  • Al-Durar al-Kāmina fī Aʿyān al-Miʾat al-Thāmina

  • Al-Ḍawʾ al-Lāmiʿ li-Ahl al-Qarn al-Tāsiʿ

  • Al-Shaqāʾiq al-Nuʿmāniyyah

  • Kashf al-Ẓunūn ʿan Asāmī al-Kutub wa-l-Funūn

  • Sharḥ Naḥw Mīr, al-Sharaf al-Qādirī

  • Qiyām-i Niẓām-i Taʿlīm

  • Maʾāthir al-Kirām

  • Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyyah al-Kubrā

  • al-Asānīd al-ʿĀliyah li-ʿUlamāʾ al-Jāmiʿah al-Qādiriyyah

  • Miftāḥ al-Saʿādah wa-Miṣbāḥ al-Siyādah

  • Appendix B: A Brief Manual of Ḥadīth Principles

  • Intellectual Networks in Timurid Iran

  • Encyclopaedia Iranica

  • al-Risālat al-Kubrā fī al-Manṭiq, Khālid Muḥammad al-Azharī

  • Ḥadāʾiq al-Ḥanafiyyah

  • Mumtāz ʿUlamāʾ-i Farangī Maḥall

  • Scientific Activities of Sayyid Sharīf Jurjānī in Samarkand

  • Seyyid Şerif Cürcani

  • The Library of Ṣadr al-Dīn Qūnawī and Its Books: Theoretical Approaches to the Transmission and Edition of Oriental Manuscripts

  • Foundations of Science in the Post-Classical Islamic Era: The Philosophical, Historical, and Historiographical Significance of Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī’s (d. 1413) Project

  • The Development of Arabic Logic (1200–1800)

  • Bāghī-i Hindustān

  • Khairabādiyāt

  • “The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar: Terrorism Is a Global Phenomenon” Al-Azhar Observer https://www.azhar.eg/observer-en/details/ArtMID/1153/ArticleID/2030/The-Grand-Imam-of-Al-Azhar-Terrorism-is-a-global-phenomenon

  • Seyyid Şerîf Cürcânî’nin Hayatı, Eserleri, Tarîkatı ve Tasavvufî Görüşleri

  • D’Erlanger, La Musique Arabe

  • The Sources of Arabian Music

  • The Müfti of Istanbul: A Study in the Development of the Ottoman Learned Hierarchy

  • The Ḥāshiya and Islamic Intellectual History

  • Kitāb al-Adwār

  • Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century

Additional Articles by the Author used in the writing of this biography