The Conversion of Christian Armenians to Islam in Iran in the Early Modern Period

Abstract

A considerable portion of the Armenian population living in the Armenian highland and the South Caucasian region was subject to the Iranian dynasties of the Safavids, Afsharids and Qajars in the period from the 16th till the beginning of the 19th centuries. The rulers of Iran often initiated and stimulated processes of conversion to Shi̒i Islam among its subjects with the purpose of increasing the religious and cultural homogeneity of the society. Apart from some forced methods of conversion applied by different rulers of Iran, there existed a number of factors stimulating the conversion of Christian Armenians and their assimilation in Iran in the early modern period. After a review over the various factors stimulating this process, author focuses on the law of Shi̒i Islam practiced in the hereditary matters of Armenians since the 1620s. It became a major factor leading to the conversion of Christian Armenians not only in the inner provinces of Iran but also in their native settlements in the regions of South Caucasus and Anatolia subordinated to the rule of Iranian states. The article considers the consequences of the implementation of this law for the Armenians living under the rule of Iran, as well as the ways they used to avoid the claims of their relatives who had adopted Islam and to bypass its harmful effects. The data and information of the contemporary sources have also allowed us to reveal the legal ways used by the Armenians during the purchase and transmission of property in order to protect it from various encroachments of their Muslim relatives. The article elucidates likewise the attempts of the leaders of the Armenian Church to withstand the harm caused by the implementation of the law and stop it with royal decrees.

1. Introduction: The Legal Status of Armenians, Their Identity and Conversion to Islam in Early Modern Iran

The Armenians living under the rule of the dynasties of Safavids, Afsharids and Qajars had the legal status of dhimmīs.1 The status guaranteed them security of persons and property and a degree of communal autonomy to practice their religion and conduct their private affairs in accordance with their customs and laws. Dhimmīs were obliged to pay jizya or poll tax and submit to Muslim sovereignty and authority in all public affairs (Mukharrom and Abdi 2023, p. 53).

Sunnīs and Shī‘ī Islamic laws have some differences in classifying non-Muslims. Sunnīs perceive Christians both as dhimmīs—protected non-Muslims granted second-class citizenship under Muslim rule—and as Scripturist (People of the Book). Meanwhile, Shī‘īs consider them as dhimmīs and as kāfirs, unbelievers whose religion is not acceptable before God (Freidenreich 2011, p. 28). However, various sources from the 17–18th centuries draw a relatively secure position for Armenians under the rule of the Safavid, Afsharid and Qajar dynasties. Armenian Christians were considered as dhimmīs having their legally protected rights and religious freedom under the rule of the Shāhs of Iran.

The relatively secure state of dhimmīs, however, was very precarious and depended much on the political matters, the will of the rulers and also the influence of the Muslim clergymen in the state. According to some scholars, the legal status of a dhimmī was considered as temporary (Shaykh ul-Islāmī 1356, p. 137) and, consequently, at any time it might end and allow exercise of force to convert them. This status, itself, contained already factors that stimulated adoption of Islam. Dhimmīs were obliged to pay jizya, the additional tax levied on non-Muslims. The size of jizya in money varied at various stages of the early modern period; however, its value in gold remained almost unchanged.2 Often, there were poor people unable to pay the poll tax. Therefore, according to the French travelers of the 17th century, sometimes, the catholicos of Ēǰmiacin paid the tax instead of the poor in order to prevent their conversion to Islam (Tournefort 1718, p. 302; Tavernier 1678, p. 11).

The Christian religion of the Armenian Apostolic Church was an important component of the Armenian identity from the earliest times of its adoption as a state religion to the 19th century (Zak‘aryan 2014, pp. 6–7, 24). Since the 15th century, the Catholicoi of Ēǰmiacin were the religious leaders of all Armenians, acknowledged by the Muslim powers, and also acted as a link between the Muslim governors and their zimmī Armenian subjects. A very peculiar understanding of the role of the Armenian Catholicoi by the Muslim rulers may be observed in the title of ‘khalīfah’ given to them. The title, the same as ‘caliph’, combined the features of a religious and civil leader. This title was used in Arabic sources since the 13th century as regards the Catholicoi of All Armenians residing in Hṙomkla (Danielyan 2016, pp. 218–20), and also in Persian sources since the fifteenth century (P‘ap‘azyan 1959, Kostikyan 2005) as regards the Catholicoi of Ēǰmiacin and Ałvank‘. The religious head of Georgia was called ‘Catholicos’, unlike the head of the Armenian Church who had the title of ‘khalīfah’, which shows the latter’s different and higher position as the only leader of the Armenians.3 It should be considered that Georgians had also their kings of the Bagratuni dynasty who adopted Islam under Persian rule and held the title of vālīs.

The authority of the Catholicos of the Holy Ēǰmiacin over his subjects has described French traveller Tournefort in the 17th century: “he is the most considerable Prelate in the World, in regard to the ‘Authority he has over his nation, which tremble at the least threat of excommunication from him” (Tournefort 1718, p. 241). In case of conversion to Islam, they were excluded from the Armenian community and gradually lost their ethnic identity. We do not know about any groups of self-aware Muslim Armenians in Iran like the Fereydani Georgians, who, in spite of their conversion to Shi̒i Islam in the early 17th century, have preserved their language and ethnic identity (Rezvani 2008, p. 605).

It should also be considered that conversion of Christians in Iran was not rare through the whole early modern period. The measures of force sanctioned sometimes by the ruler were taken alongside with some social-economic incentives stimulating the conversion of Christian Armenian to Islam. Safavid Empire had worked out its own assimilation methods based on conversion and aimed at creating cultural and religious unity. These methods continued functioning in Persia till the late 19th century.

During the Caucasian campaigns of Shāh ‘Abbās I, several hundred thousand Armenians and Georgians were moved from their native land into the inner provinces of Persia and settled there. Although this was part of the strategy of scorched-earth warfare, R. Matthee is right to observe economic motivations and political pragmatism as important factors in the tolerance practiced as regards the Armenians: they were good artisans and merchants needed for the rise of Isfahan, the new capital, and they were also useful as intermediaries in diplomatic relations with European countries (Matthee 2005, p. 20). However, according to Rula Abisaab, Shāh ‘Abbās I was intent to create a religious and social climate in which the huge masses of new Christian subjects would abide in the Muslim environment of inner provinces of Persia and assimilate (Abisaab 2004, p. 67). This policy was in full conformity with the general religious policy of Safavid Shāhs beginning from Shāh Ismail, who tried to convert the numerous tribal and ethnic groups, as well as the social classes, to Twelver Shiism (Abisaab 2004, p. 8).

Forced conversion was usually practiced as regards the enslaved Armenians and other non-Muslims with the purpose of including them in the troops of ghulāms and state administration. As attested by the sources, during the rule of the first Safavids (Isma‘īl I and Tahmāsb I), ghulāms of Armenian origin were recruited mainly from the Armenians captured in the areas where the Ottoman−Safavid wars were waged (Hovhannisyan 1972, p. 82).

Shāh ‘Abbās I fully institutionalised military and domestic slavery and from that time a great number of converted Christians, among them Armenians, were involved in Safavid army and bureaucracy (Babaie et al. 2004, p. 6). Involvement of the representatives of Armenian noble families into the ghulām4 troops was especially widespread as it, at the same time, gave them the opportunity to occupy high posts in the Safavid government. Many of the Armenian and Georgian noblemen moved to the Safavid capital were made to convert to Islam in order to become ghulāms of the sarkār-i khāṣṣa5 (slaves of the royal household). Sometimes, the sources even represent such cases as a sign of special attention of the sovereign as regards Armenian maliks for their services and military support during the fights against the Ottomans. Thus, Fazli Beg Isfahani states that, in return for the service of the Malik of Jraberd (Jālabird), Shāh ‘Abbās I granted him tiyūldārī6 and his sons Saruxan (Sārūkhān) and Yavri (Yāvarī), who were aware of ‘Islamic scripture’, were recruited into the range of ghulāms (Khuzani Isfahani 2015, p. 416).

Evidence about forcing certain individuals to adopt Islam in different regions of the Safavid state may be found in many historical sources (Aṙakel of Tabriz 2005, pp. 258–64; Esayi Hasan Ǯalaleanc‘ 1868, p. 18; Tajiryan 2017, pp. 43–44). There were also cases in which some of those forced to adopt Islam refused to do it and were either executed or committed suicide in order to avoid conversion (Zak‘aria of K‘anak‘er 2004, pp. 132, 141), and among them were also Christians from Europe (Matthee 2019, p. 12).

The causes of the outbursts of religious intolerance during Safavid rulers beginning from Shāh ‘Abbās I were stipulated by political reasons as well as by the influence of Shi̒i high clergymen (Matthee 2005, pp. 21–22).

The problem of tolerance and intolerance as regards Christians practiced by Shāh ‘Abbās I, considered with sufficient details and thoroughness by several scholars, has allowed them to conclude that the Safavid sovereign was motivated by political pragmatism and his decisions should be considered in parallel with his relations with European countries.

As Edmund Herzig has already noted, “Shāh ‘Abbās I was responsible for more instances of anti-Christian persecutions than any of his successors” (Herzig 1990, pp. 59–71).

There are data in various sources of the period on forced group conversion of the Armenians at various places performed by the order of Shāh ‘Abbās I (Aṙakel of Tabriz 2005, pp. 120–30). One of the most harmful measures was the forced conversion of the Armenians settled in the regions of Faridan, Mazandaran and Gilan according to the Shāh’s order in 1621, as attested in many sources of the period, although the conversions were explained as motivated by different intentions of the Shāh (Aṙakel of Tabriz 2005, pp. 125–30; A Chronicle 1939, pp. 255–56).

The political context of Shāh ‘Abbās I’s policy as regards Christians of his state is well exposed in his treatment after the peace concluded by the Ottomans with Habsburg monarchy in 1606, and then, trade treaties with Poland, England, France and Venice. These agreements meant that the European political circles had no intention to support the military campaigns of the Shāh against Ottomans, and consequently, the Safavid sovereign had no more motivation to gain their favour with religious tolerance practiced as regards Catholic missionaries as well as his Christian subjects. As stated by Iskandar Munshi and also confirmed by the Armenian sources following the attack on Hormoz in 1621, Shāh ‘Abbās decreed that the Armenians and other Christians having settled on the borders of the Bakhtiyari territory, as well as the regions of Mazandaran and Gilan, would have to convert to Islam and their churches turned into mosques (Iskandar Bīg Turkimān 1335, pp. 960–61).

During the rule of the successors of Shāh ‘Abbās I, the conversion of Christian Armenians to Islam continued mainly through social-economic incentives and involvement in the ghulām system.

The Catholicoi of Holy Ēǰmiacin, in cooperation with the influential merchants of New Julfa—the Armenian quarter in Isfahan—and using financial resources at their disposal, made efforts to protect the rights of the Christian Armenians. On the whole, they succeeded in doing that through royal decrees which, in the second half of the 17th century—when Safavid rule was much influenced by the Shi‘i high clergymen, especially the eminent Shaykh al-Islām Muḥammad Bāqir Majlisī—were also furnished with the decisions and resolutions (fatwá, misāl) of the Shi‘i high clergymen (ʿulamāʿ, Shaykh al-Islām and the great ṣadr) (Kostikyan 2005, doc. 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, etc.).

However, conversion to Islam in Persia continued and was much encouraged also during the rule of the later Safavids, as well as the dynasties of Afsharids and Qajars. As stated by the nineteenth century historian Step‘anos Erec‘, a Jadīd al-Islām would accuse a Christian in sharīʿa court for having unlawful debts or unpaid salaries in order to acquire money from him. Shāh Sulṭān Ḥusayn Safavid gave promises of a better state and compliance with their requests in case of the conversion of Armenians to Islam and this also stimulated adoption of Islam by them (Step‘anos Erec‘ 2017, p. 152).

The same Armenian historiographer of the 19th century has kept evidence on the complete Islamization of Čamexris, Janxoš, Xamestun and Šavrava—the four Armenian villages of the Burvar region—which took place during the rule of Nādir Shāh, and in 1787, all the villages of the region, except Pahra, had become Muslim (Step‘anos Erec‘ 2017, p. 181). Although the author tells nothing about the causes of this conversion and any force applied as regards the villages for that end, it could be the result of long-standing economic and other incentives created and practiced by the Iranian rulers, which were much more effective than the coercive methods.

The issue of conversion of Christian Armenians in early modern Iran is well introduced in the multi-lingual sources of the period (Armenian and Persian historiography and documental sources, the works of European travellers). Persian archive documents in the Matenadaran in Yerevan and the Museum of All Saviour Monastery in New Julfa (Isfahan) provide much information on the legal norms created in Safavid Shi‘i jurisprudence and applied in later periods till the end of the 19th century, which stimulated the conversion of Christian Armenians to Islam in early modern Iran. The research on these documents, supported by other contemporary sources, allows us to trace the history of a law applied in the hereditary matters of Armenians, created during the rule of Shāh ‘Abbās I, which turned to be a major factor stimulating their conversion to Islam and later assimilation in the Muslim environment. The data and information available in the Persian documents reveal some details referring to the law and the legal ways of avoiding its harmful effects for Christian subjects of Iran, as well as measures taken by the Catholicoi of all Armenians against the implementation of the law.

2. The Law of Imam Ja‘far: The Start of Its Implementation, Its Juridical Aspects and the Main Target

As observed above, the year 1620 should be considered as a turning point for the Shāh ‘Abbās I’s policy towards its non-Muslim subjects, including Christian Armenians.

Apart from forced methods of conversion, the year 1620 marked the start of implementation of a law referring to the hereditary rights of Christians that became a major factor stimulating their conversion to Islam. Sources connect this law with the name of the sixth Imam Ja‘far (Raphaël Du Mans 1890, pp. 46–47; Sanson 1695, p. 199; P‘ap‘azyan 1956, pp. 87–88; Tajiryan 2017, p. 114), who was one of the most authentic figures of Shi̒i Islamic ideology and jurisprudence.

Hakob Papazian was one of the first scholars to have researched on the conversion of the Armenians in the Safavid age and considered the consequences of the implementation of this law in their hereditary issues (P‘ap‘azyan 1956, pp. 87–92). Later, also other scholars touched the problem in their researches. However, the history of the Shi‘i law on inheritance of dhimmīs and its juridical aspects has not well considered and elucidated till now.

The hereditary rights of Armenian dhimmīs in Persia were regulated according to the laws of Shi̒i Islam, which differed in some points from the laws of Sunni Islam. All Islamic juridical schools and religious sects (Hanbalis, Shi̒i Imamite, Shafi‘i, Maliki and Zeydiyye) admit that the non-Muslims cannot inherit the property of a Muslim, whereas not all these juridical schools deny the right of a Muslim to inherit the property of a non-Muslim (Shaykh ul-Islāmī 1356, pp. 164, 166). According to the Shi̒i Imamite law on inheritance, a Muslim could inherit the property of a dead dhimmī relative, no matter how far (up to seventh generation) their kinship was, depriving the closer dhimmī relatives of this right (Shaykh ul-Islāmī 1356, pp. 167–68).

The first evidence about the implementation of this law is from the Safavid age, particularly the 1620s. An early evidence on the implementation of this law is in a Persian fatwá7 of 1620/1621, where there is a clear statement that in case of the death of a dhimmī, his Muslim heirs have the privilege to receive the whole inheritance, thereby depriving closer relatives of their share (P‘ap‘azyan 1959, doc. 16). Therefore, the creation of this law and its implementation may be initiated by Shāh ‘Abbās I, as it is in full conformity with his general treatment with the Christians of his state from the 1620s. The law has been likewise recorded in the unfinished work ‘Jāma-yi ‘Abbāsī’ of Shaykh Bahā al-Dīn Amilī (died in 1621) (‘Āmilī 1331, p. 264), the Shaykh al-Islam and most influential Shi̒i figure of the period (Nasr 1986, p. 667), who might also have been committed to the creation of the law. Father Carmelites state in their chronicle that Shāh ‘Abbās I issued the order on implementation of this law shortly before his death (A Chronicle 1939, p. 288). This means that the law was fully institutionalised by the year 1629, the year of Shāh ‘Abbās I’s death, and Jaʿfarī jurisprudence was combined with political considerations.

Although the law referred to all dhimmīs of the Safavid state, as attested in many contemporary sources, its main target were the Armenians. As already noticed by other scholars, Georgians who were largely included as Ghulāms in the ranges of the Safavid military and administrative officials were assimilated in Persia very quickly and ‘alongside Iranians and Turks, formed the third ethnic element of modern Persian society’, and for the Jews, ‘all kinds of coercive measures and underhand practices were employed’ (Roemer 1986, pp. 285, 303).

The law had a harmful effect on the state of Armenian people under Persian rule, stimulating their Islamization. It caused a hard blow to the Armenians of New Julfa, and it also harmed the Armenians living in their native settlements in the provinces of Yerevan (Chukhur Sa’ad), Naxijevan and Karabagh of Transcaucasia. The cases of conversion to Islam were especially frequent among merchants and artisans dwelling in towns (P‘ap‘azyan 1956, p. 92) and particularly in Yerevan (Karapetyan 1987, p. 107). As attested in the encyclical of Catholicos Astvatsatur of Hamadan, many of the Armenian merchants preferred to leave Persia than adopt Islam (Karapetyan 1988, p. 220).

Often, rich Armenians adopted Islam to protect their property, while others did so to appropriate the property of their relatives. As a result, many wealthy Armenians lost their property and there were a great number of disputes between dhimmī Armenians and their relatives who had adopted Islam, reflected in the Persian documents and other sources (P‘ap‘azyan 1956, pp. 87–88). There is evidence in the works of the Armenian historiographers Aṙak‘el Davrižec‘i, Zak‘aria Agulec‘i in the 17–18th centuries about the disputes around inheritance raised by Muslim Armenians and the damage caused to the Christian Armenians (Aṙakel of Tabriz 2005, p. 77; Zakaria of Agulis 2003, pp. 149–50). There were cases when a Muslim having no relative ties with a wealthy Christian, who had died, would claim upon his property telling:

“I am your relative. All your property and possessions are mine. Return them to me,” and other similar slanders, anything they can imagine. The judges, according to their impious law, accept the words of the apostate, citing the law that, since he has converted to Islam, all the property of his relatives should revert to him (Aṙakel of Tabriz 2005, p. 77).

Another statement of a similar case is in the request of Armenians from K‘anak‘eṙ in Yerevan, which was, however, rejected by Shāh Sulayman’s decree of 1667 (Kostikyan 2005, doc. 18). Zak‘aria K‘anak‘eṙc‘i, the Armenian historian in the 17th century, has recorded the details of the case happening in K‘anak‘eṙ (Zak‘aria of K‘anak‘er 2004, p. 91). Catholicos Esayi Hasan Ǯalalyanc‘, in describing the effects of the conversion processes among Armenians, states the widespread poverty and loss of property among rich Armenians in Julfa and Yerevan, which resulted in complete disorder there (Esayi Hasan Ǯalaleanc‘ 1868, p. 18).

According to the evidence of the Carmelite missionaries, ‘by 1654, i.e., in twenty years, it was calculated that in order to escape beggary more than 5000 Christians were renegades and lost to the Christian Faith’ (A Chronicle 1939, p. 288).

The information provided by the sources helps elucidate the following details concerning the implementation of the law of Imam Ja‘far: the ways how Armenians tried to avoid its harmful effects and the efforts made by the Catholicoi of Holy Ēǰmiacin to stop its implementation.

One of the easiest ways to avoid loss of property in case of the appearance of any Muslim relative was the adoption of Islam. If the dhimmī heirs also adopted Islam before the division of the inheritance, they could restore their rights upon it. Nevertheless, the relatives who had earlier adopted Islam had an advantage over other Islamized heirs (P‘ap‘azyan 1956, p. 91). In such cases, the problem was often solved with money paid by the nearer relative(s).8

The law was applied as regards the Gregorian as well as Catholic Armenians. The reports of Catholic fathers describe the hard consequences of the law on the ethno-religious processes in the Catholic villages of Naxiǰevan (Karapetyan 2000, pp. 8–10). Alexander VII, the Pope, as the head and patron of the Armenian Catholics, expressed his discontent with the situation in his letter addressed to Shāh ‘Abbās II (A Chronicle 1939, p. 366).

3. The Efforts of the Christian Armenians to Avoid the Loss of Property in Consequence of the Claims of Their Muslim Relatives

European travellers, missionaries and other sources of the period have recorded some cases and ways which allowed Christian Armenians to avoid the loss of property in spite of the claims of their Muslim relatives. French missionary Gabriel de Shinon witnesses that, in order to avoid the loss of property, the Armenians living in Persia resorted to false vowing, “and rejected being the heirs of their parents… and the Armenian clergymen easily freed them from all moral duties” (Tajiryan 2017, p. 69).

Another way of protection of their property was the transfer of the property to a Persian reliable person or friend, who would afterwards return it to the heir. However, in cases of unfaithfulness, the Muslim person would easily appropriate it (Tajiryan 2017, pp. 69–70), and such cases also happened. A similar way is described by Rafaël Du Mans, who stated that Armenians would come to terms with the Muslim judges (qazi) and sell their property to another person, who would afterwards resell it to the real heir. Although this method freed the real heir from the claims of Islamized relatives, it paved the way for the bribery of the judges (Raphaël Du Mans 1890, p. 47).

According to Ełia Karnec‘i, the Shahrimanyans of New Julfa9 managed to free their bath-house in Tabriz from the claims of their Muslim relative Mehrali through composing a false certificate confirmed by several rich Julfans, stating that the bath-house was mortgaged by Shahrimanyan’s representative (vakīl) Andreas for a debt and left as a deposit by Father Piłatos (Ełia Karnec‘e 1968, pp. 292–93).

Sanson, the Catholic missionary who settled in Persia in the late 17th century, stated that usually when a rich Armenian knew about the Islamization of a relative, he would convert one of his sons to Islam and write a testament of transfer of all his property to that son. The latter would later divide the whole property giving the shares of his brothers and sisters. Afterwards, he could return to Christianity through bribery under the pretext that he could not adapt himself to the demands and rules of Islam: doing all purifications and praying, sustaining the restrictions of Ramazan, keeping the fast, etc. (Sanson 1695, pp. 199–202).

These were unlawful ways, contradicting the demands of both Christian and Islamic religious laws and dogmas, which were practiced by using false conversion and bribery in courts. Apart from these, there were also legal ways to protect the property of the dhimmīs, and as evidenced by the Persian documents, they were widely used by the Armenians in the 17–19th centuries.

4. The Legal Ways of Protection of Dhimmī’s Property from the Effects of the Law of Imam Ja’far According to the Shi̒i Islamic Jurisprudence

Usually, the term ‘Jadīd al-Islām’ (Ar., lit. ‘new Muslim’) was used as regards the Muslim claimants of the property of the dead dhimmīs. It referred to those who had adopted Islam in adulthood and appears frequently in the Persian documents from the period following the year 1620/1621, which deal with the problems connected with implementation of law of Imam Ja‘far. These documents allow us to define the legal ways protecting the dhimmī’s property from the claims of the relatives who had become Jadīd al-Islāms.

Yarut‘yun Tēr Yovhaneanc‘, an Armenian historian in the 19th century, states that the following ways of property transfer were secure from the encroachments of the Islamized relatives: the constitution of the property as vaqf and transfer of possession by ṣulḥ (Tēr Yovhaneanc‘ 1880, p. 209).

Vaqfs were the endowed properties, dedicated in perpetuity for religious, charitable or social purposes. The vaqfs of Muslim mosques and Armenian monasteries attested to be well protected from any encroachment, and they could not be sold or alienated in any legal way.10 One of the first mentions of the refutation of the claims of the Muslim heirs upon a vaqf is attested in a decree dated AH 952 (AD 1545/6), granted to Juła (Julfa), the old settlement on the bank of the Arax River (Al-Arabi Hāshimī 1394, pp. 266–67).

In spite of the facts in many documents stating the pretensions of Muslims upon such estates, on the whole, the shar‘īa courts usually did not sanction them (Kostikyan 2005, doc. 51), and in cases of misappropriation of the vaqfī estates, they could be returned after the approval of their belonging to the monastery (P‘ap‘azyan 1959, doc. 38; Kostikyan 2005, doc. 17, 23, 24, 38, 45, etc.).

According to the decree of Ḥusayn ‘Alī Khān of Yerevan issued in 1760, the claims of Islamized heirs upon vaqfī estates were not also satisfied in the semi-independent Yerevan khanate existing in the South Caucasus after the death of Nadir Shāh.

A Ṣulḥnāma or muṣāliḥanāma was a contract of reconciliation or amicable settlement, often used to resolve disputes or secure property rights, concluded between two people or groups of people on certain terms by mutual consent. This kind of transaction often appears in the Persian sharīʿa-notarial documents (contracts of sale and testaments) in the 17th century and was formulated as a paid agreement concluded with the aim of exclusion of further abrogation of the contract and transaction. According to Tēr Yovhaneanc‘, the transfer of property to the heirs with a testament containing also a ṣulḥnāma was also conditioned with the wish to protect the rights of the real heirs from the Muslim relatives (Tēr Yovhaneanc‘ 1880, p. 209). A sample of such a document, composed in 1669 as a will of Hovhannes Tūpchī of New Julfa, states that a sum of 200 dinars was paid for the conclusion of the ṣulḥnāma and is preserved in the archives of the Yerevan Matenadaran.11 The ṣulḥnāma included in the last will was to secure the safe transfer of Hovhannes’s whole property to his wife Dadkam.

For the reason that this kind of transaction strengthened the deeds of purchase referring to the property of dhimmī Armenians, we find many examples of contracts on purchase concluded in the 17–19th centuries which either were composed in the form of a muṣāliḥa or contained reference to the conclusion of one or even two ṣulḥs for a small sum of money (Kostikyan and Khecho 2018, doc. 2, 3, 5, 8, 11). In spite of the small sum paid, the ṣulḥ strengthened the contract from a juridical perspective and protected it from the claims by any Muslim relative.

The Catholicoi of Holy Ēǰmiacin, after buying a property, strengthened the contract either with the conclusion of vaqf or ṣulḥ transactions formulated in the same document or in another separate one immediately after the deed of purchase (Kostikyan and Khecho 2018, doc. 3–6, 10–13, 17).

A few Persian documents have kept information about a third type of donation, named haba,12 which secured the safety of property from claims by Muslim heirs. A decree of Shāh ‘Abbās II, issued in 1658 and based on a fatwá, stated that the property gifted as haba to Ēǰmiacin monastery could not be claimed back by the Christian or Muslim heirs of the former owner.13 An example of such a transaction is found in a Sharīʿa document composed in 1694. The document is a record of Sharīʿa court resolution stating about the dispute raised by Muslim relatives of Khoja Nahapet of Agulis against his lawful immediate heirs: daughter Ta’rif and her son Aṙak‘el over their property.14 It contains the habanāma written by the Muslim relatives in return for a payment of a sum of 32 tūmāns to them, by which they conferred all the rest of Khoja Nahapet’s property (his goods, houses, shops, karavanserays, workshops, cash, etc.) to his daughter and grandson, the real heirs of his wealth.

The considered material of documental and parallel other sources shows that the general juridical way to protect dhimmī property from the claims of the Muslim relatives was the transfer of property through donation and purchase formulated in the transactions of vaqf, ṣulḥ and haba, which could be concluded through the contracts composed as vaqfnāma, ṣulḥnāma and habanāma. The examples of such transactions are available in the Persian documents containing deals concluded between Armenians only as well as between Christian Armenian and Muslims.

Even dhimmī contracts were weak in protection of the inheritance of Christians from Muslim heirs. Ter-Hovhanyants tells about an unsuccessful attempt to counteract the law of Imam Ja’far with a copy of dhimmī contract,15 represented to the local Muslim religious leader by Armenian clergyman of New Julfa in the 19th century during a dispute over the inheritance of a dhimmī with his Muslim relative (Tēr Yovhaneanc‘ 1880, p. 453). This evidence shows that dhimmī contracts were regulated within Jaʿfarī law and Jaʿfarī norms governed Sharī‘a court decisions.

5. The Attempts of the Catholicoi of Holy Ēǰmiacin to Stop the Implementation of the Law of Imam Ja‘far with Royal Decrees

The existence of such a discriminating law in Persia which stimulated the adoption of Islam by Christian Armenians caused the anxiety of the Catholicoi of all Armenians. Therefore, they tried to obtain royal decrees to weaken the harm caused by the law and even to stop its implementation as regards the Armenians.

After Shāh Sulṭān Ḥusayn’s abdication in 1722, Catholicos Astvacatur I Hamadanc‘i succeeded in obtaining a decree that counteracted the law of Imam Ja‘far. The decree was issued in 1723 by Shāh Tahmāsb II,16 favouring the interests of Christians in this respect. It stated that:

‘The Jadīd al-Islāms having arguments with Armenians, must cause no oppression to them until they had not proved their claims in the highest court in the presence of the local bīglarbīg17s, ḥākims18 and ‘āmils19 of each maḥal20 according to Shar‘…21 They should not obstinately receive the claimed sum until they had not sent a witnessing document on the matter, sealed by the local kadkhudās,22 ḥākim and other dignitaries” (Kostikyan 2005, p. 375).

They could claim the property of their Christian relatives only after proving their rights in some judicial and administrative instances. This decree was to form some difficulties for the newly converted Armenian Muslims who claimed upon the property of their dhimmī relatives. In fact, Catholicos Astvacatur states in a letter addressed to Movses, the head of New Julfan eparchy: “By God’s will an order (raqam) will be received to stop the evil of Jadid Islams. But before that the local governor has given an order banning the deeds of Jadid Islams. They [the newly converted Muslims] can’t start a dispute any more, whoever wishes to do, is taken to prison. The local Christians and those of Naxiǰevan are in great joy. By God’s will if it applied, it would be a great kindness for the Armenian people” (Varužan Archbishop 2015, p. 86).

This was the year following the fall of Safavid power, when Afghans had already captured Isfahan and the Ottoman Empire had conquered most of Transcaucasia, except for the Syunik region, where Armenians led by Davit‘ Beg still resisted Ottoman troops. Tahmāsb II, the Safavid heir, seeking allies against advancing Ottomans, tried to encourage Armenians in their struggle. The historical sources have kept evidence about the cooperation of the Armenian armed forces of Syunik and Qarabagh with those of Ṭahmāsb II Ṣafavid in the wars against Ottomans attacking the south-eastern regions of Armenia and Tabriz (Step‘anos Šahumyan 1871, pp. 59, 63). Ṭahmāsb II even had acknowledged Davit‘ Beg, the leader of the Armenian troops, as the head of the region of Kapan, giving him the right to mint coins in his own name (Step‘anos Šahumyan 1871, p. 59).

The same factor is more evident in the causes of giving another decree fitting the same purpose: abolition of the law. It was obtained by Catholicos Abraham Xošabec‘i from Shāh Tahmāsb II in 1731 during the latter’s unsuccessful campaign against Ottoman troops in the province of Yerevan. It addressed the governor of Chukhūr Sa‘ad (in spite of the fact that the area was under the rule of Ottoman Turkey) with strict instruction to forbid the quarrels of the Jadīd al-Islāms with their Christian relatives over their property (Kostikyan 2005, doc. 89). Actually, Abraham Xošabec‘i, took advantage of more appropriate political conditions formed during the campaign when the Safavid heir needed the assistance of the local Armenians and received a stricter decree preventing the implementation of the law. It should also be considered that soon after this unsuccessful campaign, Nādir dethroned Tahmāsb Safavid and placed his little son ‘Abbās on the throne.

However, the document should have become an argument for the next Catholicos, Abraham of Crete, in his later efforts to stop the practice of the law in the hereditary issues of Armenians. We have the evidence of the Catholicos about receiving such decree from Nādir in 1735, when the latter visited Holy Ēǰmiacin and gifted precious presents to the monastery. Catholicos Abraham of Crete states in his history the decree stipulated that ‘those [Armenians] who had converted would lose their inheritance’ (Abraham of Crete 1999, p. 32). This order was also obtained under similar circumstances: Nādir needed the assistance of the Armenians led by the Catholicos and the Armenian Meliks during his campaign against the Ottoman troops in the province of Yerevan, which was more successful for the Persians.

A decree of similar content was received by Catholicos Łazar Ǯahkec‘i from Nādir’s viceroy and son Riżā Qulī Mīrzā in 1740, in the period of Shāh’s campaign in India. It stated: ‘Whenever an Armenian has the honour to adopt Islam and become a Muslim he must have no arguments with his relatives for inheritance’ (Kostikyan 2008, doc. 16). Since the matter was of great importance, the same statement was reaffirmed in another decree obtained from Ibrāhīm Shāh Afshār in 1748 by Catholicos Łazar Ǯahkec‘i (Kostikyan 2008, doc. 28).

Although very few cases have survived documenting disputes over property between the Jadīd al-Islāms and Christians from the period of semi-independent Yerevan khanate in the second half of the 18th century, it shows that such cases usually were solved in the interests of the Christian close relatives in return for small penalties paid by them, like in the case recorded in a document dated 176123.

Another significant step in this direction was taken at the beginning of the 19th century during Russo-Persian conflict over the Caucasus by Qajar crown prince ‘Abbās Mīrzā. The latter issued a decree in 1825 which equated the hereditary rights of the Armenians to that of the Muslims (Kostikyan 2021, doc. 86), thus trying to gain the favour of his Armenian subjects in Azerbayjan and Yerevan Khanate. More decisive was the decree issued in 1848 by Shāh Nāsir al-Dīn Qajar, which deprived the Islamized Armenians not only of the right to claim upon the property of any of his relatives but also of their paternal direct inheritance24.

However, in spite of the abovementioned decrees issued by different rulers of Persia which counteracted the law of Imam Ja‘far and were aimed at stopping its implementation in the hereditary issues of the Christian Armenians, it continued functioning and exerted its destructive effects on Armenians living in Persia till the end of the 19th century. The cause was that it was sanctioned by the Shar‘īa courts where the laws of Shi̒i Islam were considered more important and prevailed over other circumstances. It continued to stimulate the Islamization of Armenians in Persia. Tēr Yovhanean, the Armenian historian in the 19th century, still speaks about the implementation of the law in the judicial cases of the Armenians over inheritance in his times as well (Tēr Yovhaneanc‘ 1880, p. 209).

6. Conclusions

The conversion of Armenian Christians in early modern Persia was a long-term process stimulated by force methods as well as social-economic incentives. Their conversion led to separation from the Armenian community, loss of identity and their final assimilation in the Muslim environment. Safavid Empire worked out its own effective methods for stipulating converting processes among non-Muslims based on Ja‘fari jurisprudence and new religious norms.

One of the most harmful measures for Armenians was the law of Imam Ja‘far existing in Shi‘i Islam and created in the 1620s during the reign of Shāh ‘Abbās I. It referred to the hereditary issues of dhimmī Armenians, stimulating their conversion to Islam not only during Shāh ‘Abbās I’s reign but also under his successors and later rulers of Persia. The weakening of Safavid administration at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century, followed by its fall and later disorders in Persia, allowed some Armenians to bypass it and protect their property through various illicit ways, including false conversion and bribing the judges.

The Shi̒i Islamic law, however, left space for those, who knew its rules and regulations. Those, especially high clergymen and some wealthy merchants, who were aware of Shi̒i laws, secured the inviolability of their property and its safe transmission to their real heirs through donation and purchase formulated in the contracts of vaqf, ṣulḥ and haba.

The Catholicoi of Holy Ēǰmiacin in their turn managed to obtain royal decrees from various rulers of Persia in the 18–19th centuries, which were to lay obstacles for the Armenians who had newly adopted Islam to claim the property of their dhimmī relatives or stop the implementation of the law at all. However, there is evidence about conversion among Christian Armenians because of this law and quarrels for inheritance till the end of the 19th century, which indicate that the Sharīʿa court continued its implementation in spite of the mentioned royal edicts.