I: Post-Reformation Protestant Uses of Islam

When Martin Luther wrote his ninety-five theses in 1517, he unintentionally set off the chain of events that led to the Reformation. His original aim was not to establish a new religion; rather, he expected to spark an intellectual debate with his fellow Wittenberg scholars on issues he was having with the Catholic Church. As a devout Catholic, Luther did not expect to divide Christianity or to be branded a heretic; he hoped to reform the Church from within. However, due to the intransigent response from the Pope and Luther’s excommunication by the Church of Rome, he and his followers developed a separate religious identity over time. This religion came to be called Protestantism, with new churches emerging, such as the Evangelical in Germany and the Reformed (Calvinist) in Switzerland. After Luther’s death, Lutheran theologians further struggled to differentiate their new identity from Catholicism and intra-Protestant movements.1

These developments did not, however, take place in isolation from other religious traditions, especially Islam. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, this new Protestant identity was further defined by Lutheran scholars’ engagement with Islamic thought. Despite this, many previous commentators on cultural and intellectual history interpret the Reformation and post-Reformation2 as a uniquely Protestant-Catholic schism and intra-Christian confessional divisions.3 There has been little emphasis on how post-Reformation Protestant thinkers engaged with Islam and used it as a foil to differentiate themselves from Catholics.4

On the following page (Figure 0.1),5 the seventeenth-century antiCatholic and anti-Muslim illustration in Lutheran theologian Johann Ulrich Wallich’s book shows the mirrored imagery of both: the papal crown hovering above an altar, encircled by two fire-breathing serpents that are covered in frogs, lizards, insects, and scorpions. Over the heads of the two serpents is a large object resembling a turban, meant to be that of the Ottoman Sultan. Between the turban and the crown are the words “They are joined into a circle,” implying an equivalency between Islam and Catholicism. On the altar are the words “Lest [they come] too close,” and on either side are tall trees with banners draped around them. The banner on the left reads “unequal agreement in matters of fate,” while the other reads “each of you either kill or shun!” When the phrases are considered together, they warn about the pernicious influence of Islam and Catholicism: “They are joined into a circle. Lest

The Papal Crown and the Turban of the Ottoman Sultan, “They | Pope and Sultan] are joined into a circle” (Courtesy of the Bavarian State Library, Munich)

Figure 0.1 The Papal Crown and the Turban of the Ottoman Sultan, “They | Pope and Sultan] are joined into a circle” (Courtesy of the Bavarian State Library, Munich).

Post-Reformation Protestant Uses of Islam 3 unequal agreement in matters of fate [i.e., religion] come too close, every one of you either kill or shun [the infidel]!” The satanic depiction of the headdresses of the Sultan and Pope draws an equivalency between Islam and Catholicism, the serpents symbolizing both as evil. The Protestant reader, as he or she delves into an account of the exotic heresy of the Turks,6 is thereby encouraged to draw parallels with the superstitions and heresies of the Catholic Church.

Although Protestant theologians and scholars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries closely engaged with Islamic thought, modern historians of religion have primarily focused on the Protestant-Catholic divide as the critical chapter in the history of Christianity/ This approach resulted in their seeing the Reformation and its aftermath as a European Christian phenomenon, isolated from other religious thought, including Islam.8 Therefore, this book addresses this gap by exploring the engagement of post-Reformation scholars with Islamic thought, as well as Protestant disruptions with Catholicism and Judaism, using unpublished dissertations and academic works of Protestant scholars— primarily Lutheran theologians—from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Islam and the life of Muhammad played a crucial role in the evolution of Christianity and religious thought in Europe.9 While some Catholic theologians denigrated religious movements inspired by the Reformation, such as Socinianism and Unitarianism, by comparing them with Islam, some Protestant theologians asserted the superiority of Islam over Catholicism. If Muhammad was the anti-Christ, then so was the Pope in the eyes of Protestants. To a lesser extent, Catholics also used Muhammad and Islam to denigrate Protestants, likening Luther to Muhammad and Calvinism to Muslim heresy. Furthermore, Protestant scholars also compared Islam to Judaism in order to strengthen their new religious identity.11 Conversely, some Jews also used Islam against Christianity. For example, in his critique of Christianity, Venetian Rabbi Leon Modena (d.1648) presented Islam in a positive light by using a translation of the Qur’an and likened Islam to Rabbinic Judaism.12

Framing the Post-Reformation Study of Islam

The institutional and social shifts of the Reformation from Catholicism as well as encounters with non-Christian communities, especially Muslims and Jews,13 provided the context for redefining the nature of religion by Protestant theologians and academics in European universities.14 Among Protestants, Lutheran scholars distinguished themselves as the most invested in the study of Islam and Muslim culture. However, all Lutheran institutions were not the same in terms of their focus on Islam. For example, at University of Wittenberg, the center of Lutheranorthodoxy, scholars, influenced by their belief in Sola Scriptura, focused on the Qur’an as the basis of Islamic theology, and were not particularly interested in converting Muslims to Christianity. At the University of Halle, the center of Lutheran Pietism, the focus was on Islamic morality and religious conversion because they valued the individual experience with God. Theologians at Helmstedt, the center of ecumenism, as exemplified by Georg Calixt and the Syncretic Controversy, were interested in converting Muslims using universally accepted Christian beliefs, rather than confusing the catechumen with Protestant doctrinal differences.15 Although there are exceptions, the Protestant denomination that prevailed at the university influenced the way scholars approached Islamic thought in their works. The map of Protestant universities in the seventeenth century shows the three major Protestant faith communities (Map 0.1).

Protestant academic works, specifically dissertationes, disputatio-nes, exercitationes, orationes, and disquisitiones, give us an overview of the research and teaching in early modern Protestant academies and universities. These sources are a window into the ways Protestant scholars reinterpreted Islamic sources for their university students and teaching candidates in theology, philosophy, and literature. There are many unstudied dissertations on Islam, the Qur’an, and Muhammad in European university archives.16 In German universities alone, there are more than a hundred thousand dissertationes and disputationes on almost all aspects of social sciences and the humanities.17 A considerable number of these Lutheran works are concerned with Qur’anic studies, Islamic theology, the concept of predestination, the Sunni and Shi'ite schism, Islamic morality, Turkish politics, Arabic literature, and the state of learning among the Arabs.

This is not to suggest that only Lutheran theologians and academics contributed to this new study of Islam, but rather that they produced more in-depth works on Islam and gave it more attention than other Christians (i.e., Roman Catholics, Socinians,18 Church of England scholars, 19 Calvinists,20 Anabaptists,21 and Quakers22). As Alastair Hamilton shows, German Lutherans in the early modern period studied Arabic and Islam, and produced more work in both quantity and quality on Islamic studies than their Catholic counterparts.23 A possible explanation for German Lutheran interest in Islam lies in the expansion of the Ottoman Empire into Europe as well as the collapse of the relative religious unity of Christianity that occurred during the Reformation and after the Thirty Years’ War. The dispute between Catholics and Protestants in a religiously divided Europe opened the way for Islam to become a field of battle.24 Lutherans, in particular, seized on Islam as a weapon against Catholicism. To a lesser extent, they also used Islam to critique intra-Protestant divisions, such as the Pietist movement, the Syncretic movement, and the Reformed Church.

Map 0.1 Protestant Universities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.

The majority of Protestant authors selected for this work are German-speaking Lutherans who wrote their academic works (dissertationes or disputationes) and delivered their speeches (orationes) in Latin at major Protestant universities, such as Wittenberg, Leipzig, Helmstedt, Halle, Jena, and Danzig. However, these scholars should not be seen as homogenously Lutheran as the Reformation had neither a straightforward nor a consistent trajectory. For example, after Luther’s death, Lutheran theologians became divided between Philipists, who were followers of Philipp Melanchthon (d.1560), and Gnesio-Lutherans, who opposed the Philipists on a number of theological matters, including justification, human participation in salvation, and problem solving that which was not prescribed in the scripture. Furthermore, after this shortlived initial split, Lutheran theologians divided into further groups: Orthodox Lutherans, Calixtinians, and Pietists. Orthodox Lutherans focused on understanding the true faith based on the scripture alone (Sola Scriptura), which resulted in an overly intellectualized form of Christianity.25 Orthodox Lutherans defended their faith against not only Catholics, but also non-Lutheran intra-Protestant groups. This was the context for the beginning of Syncretism, a Lutheran pro-ecumenical movement started by Georg Calixt (d.1656) and his followers (Calixtinians) calling for unification between Orthodox Lutherans and Calvinists (Reformed Church).26 Calixt also hoped to pacify the Catholics. This certainly appealed to those who were tired of the competition over “true faith” between Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, Socinians, and others. This Syncretic Controversy inspired Orthodox Lutherans’ interest in the Muslim Sunni-Shi‘a divide to justify the lack of unity among the Lutheran sects, in opposition to the Calixtinians’ desire for unification.

A further internal development within Lutheranism was the emergence of Pietism under the leadership of Philipp Jacob Spener (d.1705).27 Pietism arose in the seventeenth century within both the Reformed and Lutheran Churches, originating in areas such as Bremen, Frankfurt, Halle, and Leipzig. Pietism was not only successful among German Lutherans, but also spread rapidly among Protestant groups in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and the Baltics as well as in England where it played a prominent role in the emergence of Methodism. Pietism introduced a new paradigm by emphasizing individual piety, personal religious rebirth with Bible study, mysticism, and social activism. While Pietism did not break away from the Lutheran Church, it did lead to the development of new circles within. Unlike Orthodox Lutherans, Pietists tended to locate religious certainty in individual religious experience as opposed to Orthodox Lutherans’ emphasis on adherence to their doctrine. As Lutheran emphasis on doctrine dominated the curriculum of Lutheran theological academies, Spener became critical of the use of the scholastic dialectical methodology in Lutheran theological education. He condemned it with his forceful statement: “The scholastic theology which Luther had thrown out the front door had been introduced again by others through the back door.”28

Both the Pietist and Syncretic movements show that there were multiple perspectives within Lutheranism and that Lutherans studied Islam partially to understand their own intra-denominational developments and shifting beliefs. These scholars’ perceptions of Islam and the

Post-Reformation Protestant Uses of Islam 7 competing ideologies within Protestantism provide an opportunity to further explore the impact of their ideas on the construction of modern Islamic studies.29

Global History and Post-Reformation Thought

Inspired by a global history approach to intellectual history, this book, therefore, provides new sources to challenge the received interpretation of the Reformation as a solely European and Christian phenomenon. Such an approach, recently propounded by German intellectual historian Sebastian Conrad, aims to incorporate regional units, such as Europe and the Ottoman Empire, into an integrated transregional narrative of history that acknowledges their interaction rather than viewing them as separate entities.30 This book intends to show that the European Reformation and its evolution cannot be understood in isolation from Islamic thought. Conversely, Kecia Ali, an Islamic studies scholar, raised an interesting interpretation of modern Islam as part of the Protestant tradition.31 Until recently, one core element of Reformation textual practice, Sola Scriptura, reading the scripture in isolation from their commentarial traditions (sharh and hashiya), enjoyed wide acceptance among Islamic scholars. To support her view, Ali gives as an example Salafism, which prioritized the conduct of Muhammad and the first Muslim community rather than the opinions or interpretations of later scholars. Salafism was an influential intellectual movement that transformed into Islamic modernism and puritanical Wahhabism. Ali says that both reform movements owe a debt to Protestantism, including Protestant assumptions about clerical and textual authority.32 Modernist Islamic movements, which prioritize the Qur’an over other religious texts (hadith and tafsTr, or Qur’anic commentaries), show the influence of this Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura. This was alien to pre-modern Islamic thought as the Sunni Islamic legal theory is largely based on extra-Qur’anic sources such as the Prophet Muhammad’s sayings (hadith) and the consensus of Muslim legal scholars (ijma‘). For these modernist thinkers, Islam means purely “Qur’anic Islam,”33 based on values established in the Qur’an alone, independent of the traditions or customs.34

Therefore, the global nature of intellectual influences on modern Islam cannot be studied without considering other transregional actors, particularly Protestant scholars.35 What is less acknowledged is the influence Islam had on Protestantism. From this perspective, Islam, as a theological utility, became a part of Protestant development as Lutherans used Islam for self-criticism against their Catholic origins. In this sense, history is dialectical as shown in the formulation and reformulation of religious ideas and concepts.36 For example, Adam Neuser (d.1576), a German Lutheran pastor from Heidelberg, converted to

Islam and ended up living in Istanbul as a Muslim loyal to the Ottoman court and Sultan Selim II. Neuser was baptized as a Lutheran and became a Calvinist, before becoming a Muslim. Neuser was a Muslim convert working on a Latin translation of the Qur’an in Istanbul, who used his Christian background to translate and explain Islamic doctrine for his Lutheran and Calvinist friends and colleagues in Europe.3 In this respect, a global intellectual history approach to religious thought proves to be an important tool for understanding history and society rather than the traditional divisions of regional and triumphalist Whig history that portray history as the product of internal events and agents alone.38

Earlier works by John V. Tolan and Suzanne Conklin Akbari examined the European perception of Islam in the medieval period. Norman Daniel not only addressed the medieval period, but also provided a broader survey of the Western perception of Islam up until the twentieth century.39 However, recent studies by Alastair Hamilton, Martin Mulsow, Frederick Quinn, Asaph Ben-Tov, Humberto Garcia, Jan Loop, Gregory J. Miller, David Grafton, Gary Waite, Daniel Cyranka, and Alexander Bevilacqua, have studied some aspect of the perception of Islam by early modern scholars.40 Among them, Alastair Hamilton produced several pioneering articles demonstrating the significance of the German Lutheran study of Islam in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Martin Mulsow’s scholarship further highlights the transregional aspect of Islamic thought and intellectual exchanges between Islam and Protestantism, especially Lutherans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Ian Almond’s History of Islam in German Thought analyzes the understanding of Islam by focusing on the well-known eighteenth-and nineteenth-century German thinkers such as Leibniz, Kant, Goethe, Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche.41 John V. Tolan’s recent work, Faces of Muhammad, traces the evolution of Western perceptions of Muhammad from the Middle Ages to the present without a specific focus on the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Lutherans.42 Additionally, Noel Malcolm’s Useful Enemies examines Islam and the Ottoman Empire in Western political thought from 1450 to 1750, but without a focus on German Lutherans.43

Within this scholarly genealogy, my book contributes in three ways to these studies. First, it engages with unstudied post-Reformation theologians by providing translations and analysis of their works on Islamic thought (theology, philosophy, and sects). Second, it shows how Lutheran scholars used Islamic thought to further define their new religious identity in the context of intra-Christian (Protestants versus Catholics) and intra-denominational disputes (Lutheran versus the Reformed, Pietist, and Syncretic movements). Third, my book provides resources to challenge the subsequent evaluation of seventeenth- and eighteenthcentury European thinkers as the seeds of a later Orientalism.44 Up until

Post-Reformation Protestant Uses of Islam 9 now, Orientalism was largely seen as part of the history of colonialism or empire-building in the wake of Edward Said’s influential work Orientalism. However, the sources I analyze in this book complicate this picture. In his book, Said did not include a study of the seventeenth-and eighteenth-century Lutheran theologians, who were not involved with colonialism or empire-building.45 On the contrary, these Lutheran scholars felt extremely threatened by the Ottoman Empire’s expansion into the heart of Europe.46 As the threat of the Ottoman Turks continued until the end of seventeenth century, Lutherans became more interested in eschatology. Some Lutherans interpreted the Turkish advance as a manifestation of Gog and Magog; they considered this to be the proof that the prophesized final battle between the faithful and the Antichrist was at hand. Furthermore, these theologians had serious concerns about Christian conversions to Islam4' since the conversion to Islam was central to the articulation of Ottoman imperial identity and the creation of Sunni Muslim orthodoxy against the Shi'ite Safavids. Therefore, while I acknowledge the significance of Orientalist scholarship as part of the colonial enterprise in the nineteenth century, the Protestant works in this book were not written from a colonial perspective. Rather, these Lutherans used Islam to solidify their own Protestant identity, and their engagement with Islamic thought helped to expand the Christian canon beyond Catholicism.

Within this historical and theoretical framework, this book provides translations and analyses of dissertations, disputations, and excerpts from academic works to show the new perception of Islam by seventeenth and eighteenth-century Lutheran scholars. By new, I mean the re-evaluation of Islam giving rise to two distinct, and contradictory, points of view. On the one hand, Islam was seen as a relatively tolerant religion compared to Catholicism. On the other hand, it was a false and hollow religion, stained by empty rituals, also like Catholicism. In addition to the historical and political context, this new Protestant entangled perception was also the result of newly translated material from Arabic into either Latin or German, which became increasingly available to Lutheran scholars at that time as well as firsthand accounts from European travelers to the Ottoman Empire and Persia. Because they quoted extensively from the Qur’an and other classical Islamic sources, such as theological manuals and other historical works, they provided greater detail and depth in their analysis, which enabled them to be more knowledgeable and to appear more neutral in dealing with the origin and rise of Islam, while still presenting Muhammad as an impostor—albeit a smart political operator. They did, however, give more credit to Muhammad than earlier writers had, acknowledging Islam as a religion containing legitimate moral and theological principles of its own.4

To show this new perception of Islam, Islamic Thought Through Protestant Eyes is designed around three themes that are fundamental tounderstanding the perception of Islamic thought within Lutheran academic circles from 1650 to the 1800s: Islam as religion and theology; Islamic philosophy and liberal arts; and Muslim sects: Sunni and Shi‘a. There is no section on Islamic mysticism (Sufism) or law (SharFa) in these works, because Lutheran authors seemed interested in neither. This omission says something about post-Reformation Lutheranism and its focus,50 but the absence of Islamic mysticism may be an Orthodox Lutheran reaction against Pietism. This also explains why the first academic study on Sufism, Sufismus sive Theosophia Persarum Pantheis-tica (Sufism, or, the Pantheistic Theosophy of the Persians), was written by a Pietist Lutheran, August Tholuck (d.1877), published in 1821.51 Although there are comments here and there in Lutheran works about Islamic law during this period, it seemed Lutherans were not particularly interested in law.52 The answer for why early Lutherans as well as almost all post-Reformation Protestant scholars were not interested in Islamic law can be related to the nature of the Reformation itself.53 As legal historian John Witte Jr. points out, Luther himself had more pressing theological questions rather than pondering on legal questions,54 as expressed in one of Luther’s most famous aphorisms, “Jurists are bad Christians.”55 Although Luther was not interested in law, Lutheranism and Calvinism had far-reaching influences on the evolution of legal philosophy, criminal law, civil, and economic law in Germany and England, and on the Western legal tradition as a whole.56

In the following pages, I analyze the above-mentioned three themes in these texts. Although I will provide each author’s biography as well as a summary and analysis of each text in Parts II, III, and IV, the following analyses will consider all authors and texts, regardless of where the author’s text is thematically located. These texts show the ways in which post-Reformation Protestants used Islam for their own purposes. This book serves as a starting point for sparking a conversation between modern religious studies scholars and Islamic studies scholars about the interconnected nature of post-Reformation Protestantism and Islamic thought as part of global intellectual history.57

Analysis of Themes

Religion and Theology

This section focuses on Islam as religious thought, a system of theology and morality viewed through the eyes of Lutheran scholars. I analyzed the texts using five sub-categories: Islam as a patchwork religion; rationality versus coercion; religious text and authority; faith, good works, salvation, and conversion; and moral laxity in Islam. All of the scholars considered here wrote at a time when European Christianity was fragmented and Islam and its theologies were caught in the maelstrom.

Protestant theologians used Islam to support the claim that Protestantism was not only ‘true,’ but also the only ‘true religion’ as it challenges each individual to have faith rather than focusing on good works.

Islam as a Patchwork Religion

One key characteristic of Islam, according to August Pfeiffer (d. 1698), a well-known German Orthodox Lutheran theologian at the University of Leipzig, is that it is not original, but rather an uninspired patchwork of borrowed ideas.58 Pfeiffer describes this religious tapestry as “poor” since evidence of the original sources is manifest throughout the Qur’an.59 Created from both Judaic and Christian sources, the Qur’an, according to the Protestant narrative, was the handiwork of Muhammad, who learned all he needed to know about religion from a Nestorian monk named Sergius.60 The narrative runs like this: Sergius had grievously sinned and was banished from his monastery. Later, he met Muhammad and tried to convert him to please the monks. Muhammad became his student and used the Old and New Testaments to fashion the Qur’an, a borrowed patchwork, which, in Pfeiffer’s words, “was poorly implemented.”61 It is important to note that this understanding of a poorly implemented religion implies that Muhammad had neither the skill nor the knowledge to fully understand Jewish and Christian doctrine. It also meant that Sergius, who helped Muhammad craft the Qur’an, knew only an imperfect form of Christianity, being himself an exiled heretic and sinner. This is why Friedrich Ulrich Calixt (d.1701), a German Lutheran theologian at the University of Helmstedt, said that while Muslims do not reject canonical scripture, they are challenged by many Christian ideas and neglect key biblical passages.62

Calixt accepts that there were, of course, similarities between Islam and Christianity as the Qur’an acknowledges that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and that he was a great prophet. What the Qur’an did not accept was Christ being “like the Father and consubstantial with Him.”65 Indeed, Islamic theology claims that passages relating to the coming of the final Prophet, Muhammad, in the Old and New Testaments were erased by Christians, so that the early biblical texts were corrupted. Conversely, since the Islamic theological view of Jesus did not incorporate all of the New Testament’s elements, which Christians saw as testifying to Jesus being the Son of God, then, for Calixt, the Islamic view of the Bible was defective.64

Lutheran scholars saw Islam as a religious patchwork because they disparaged any religion that did not align with their own, including Judaism. For example, Pfeiffer claimed that the Jews “whisper against the terrible mystery of the Trinity,” just as Muslims, using similar logic, call Christians al-mushrikun (polytheists) due to their belief in a Triune God. A further example, again from Pfeiffer, is of Jesus criticizing the Jewish practice of animal sacrifice, which he says Muslims copied. Furthermore, Jews and Muslims emphasized regular fasting times,65 unlike Luther who emphasized individual fasting over collective fasting and disliked the use of fasting by Catholics to try to win God’s approval. Thus, by exposing the suspect Jewish practices that Muslims shared, the Protestant scholars could accuse Islam of being a patchwork religion, taking many of its worst ideas from the ‘wrong religion’ (i.e., Judaism), and by differentiating Protestantism from both Judaism and Catholicism, they could claim the theological high ground for their religion.

Rationality versus Coercion

Although Protestant scholars tried to show Christian thought as superior, they battled other Christians, chiefly Roman Catholics, for the title of the true faith. For Protestants, the criticism that Islam does not always follow the canonical scriptures was a failing for which Catholicism was also guilty. What we see here is the beginning of many commonalities found between Islam and Catholicism, and the use of these faiths to differentiate Protestantism from both. One of the more interesting commonalities is the idea that Catholicism, like Islam, spread by the sword. The “violent converters” in Islam, the Saracens, are equated to the “Catholic converters,” the Inquisitors, who used violence against fellow Christians.66 In fact, Catholics were worse than Turks, as Calixt said, since the latter at least attempted to initiate public peace with Christians, while the Roman Pope attacked non-Catholic Christians with sword and fire. What is interesting here is not the sword in itself, but rather that Calixt associated it with irrationality.6 The sword represents irrationality, or to be more precise, losing one’s head.68 In Lutheran eyes, Muslims and Catholics were not able to convert other people through rational arguments, but used coercion.69 Therefore, for Lutherans, Protestant faith represents the most rational religion as Christ Himself was represented by Logos, which they equated with rationality.70

Similarly, Johann Michael Lange (d. 1731), a Lutheran theologian and lecturer at the University of Altdorf, criticized Catholics directly due to their suppression of the Qur’an by fire,71 when it was first introduced to Europe.72 Lange presents the Roman Curia as being so studious in doing away with all copies of the Qur’an published in Venice in 1530 that it seemed as if the Qur’an had only recently found its way to Europe in the 1690s.73 Lange cites several sources to show how the Qur’an had, in fact, existed in Europe for some time and explains that the Roman Church was afraid for their Catholic community’s well-being, believing that the Qur’an would lead to conversions and thus had the copies burned. 4 For Lange, however, this fear of conversion is disproven by reading the Qur’an since, he argues, it contains falsehoods and contradictions that would not impress any rational person. Furthermore, he declares that

Post-Reformation Protestant Uses of Islam 13 the Qur’an is no less dangerous than other pagan texts which the Church hypocritically permits. He calls for the burning of the Qur’an to stop unless the Church is willing to burn other pagan books as well.75 By tracing the history of the publication of the Qur’an in Europe, 6 Lange was able to use Islam to separate the Protestant identity from the Catholic. Lange believes that, while Protestants can study different religious texts critically and reveal their flaws in the light of ‘rational’ Protestant dogma, Catholics are illogical and hesitant about their own doctrines, so they burn books instead of exposing their doctrinal fallacies. In this respect, Lutherans are convinced that theirs is the more rational religion.

Religious Text and Authority

The defining foundational principle of the Reformation is its scripturebased belief (Sola Scriptura). This requires no extra-scriptural authorities to understand the text. As a result, Pfeiffer tends to categorize Islamic and Jewish thought into two camps: scripturalists and traditionists— Shi'ites and Sunnis, and Karaites and Rabbanites, respectively.77 Further, Calixt emphasizes that Christians feel the internal force of the Holy Spirit when they ponder both Testaments since the Holy Spirit is revealed through the scripture.78 This means that the doctrine extracted from the Bible gains its own authority through scripture without papal or institutional approval. For this reason, Calixt accuses Catholics and Muslims of not properly following canonical scriptures, even though they believe in them.79 For Lutheran scholars, Muslim’s refusal to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God meant that they misinterpreted the scriptures,80 while Catholics, believing in Christ’s divinity, introduced their own interpretations rather than basing their belief on the scripture itself.81

Consequently, this scripturalist view affected the way Lutheran scholars perceived not only Islamic and Catholic, but also Jewish thought. In Pfeiffer’s text, for example, he refers to two schools of thought in Judaism and also in Islam.82 For Pfeiffer, Karaites, a minor Jewish sect content with their sacred scriptures, do not accept extra-textual oral traditions that were codified in the Talmud and Midrash as binding. However, the major Jewish sect, the Rabbanites, accept these oral traditions, which they embrace with the same veneration and piety as they do scripture. Similarly, the Persian Muslims (Shi'ites) are a smaller sect that accepts the Qur’an as the only written religious authority, while the Turkish Muslims (Sunnis) accept the Qur’an and also the Sunna or hadith, written texts, which act, according to Pfeiffer, as an oral law or tradition.83 This is a crucial point for the post-Reformation scholars— although it reveals a key Protestant preconception. By projecting their own understanding of the scripture onto Judaic and Islamic religious authorities and using this as evidence that Islam and Judaism had splitinto sects due to different understandings of the relationship between the text and religious authority, these scholars criticized Catholics, who also ignored the authority of the scripture only (Sola Scriptlira) and valued their own commentaries on the scripture.

Faith, Good Works, Salvation, and Conversion

The Islamic acceptance of both faith and good works as paths to salvation is emphasized by several Lutheran authors, allowing them to implicitly criticize Catholics who hold a similar view while Protestants believe faith alone can save. In the spirit of Luther’s doctrine of Sola Fide, Hieronymus Kromayer (d.1670), a German Lutheran theologian and the Dean of the Theological Faculty at Leipzig, sees Muslims as those who, like Catholics, mistakenly believe in both faith and good works as paths to salvation. He argues that Muhammad promised Muslims would be saved through faith in one God and through good works, especially fasting, alms, prayers, and pilgrimage.84 Kromayer outlines his understanding of the Islamic path to salvation: “Muhammad often says that the sins of a generous person who does not expect a reward will be forgiven. If a man feeds ten paupers, or clothes them, or redeems captives, he can obtain forgiveness for his sins...”85 Also, Kromayer tries to find a parallel Muslim position on the Christian doctrine of atonement: “But Muhammad says nothing about the free forgiveness of sins through and according to Christ’s merit.”86 He also emphasizes that Muhammad believed even a Christian or Jew who has lived uprightly can obtain salvation.8 To Orthodox Lutherans like Kromayer, the belief in a path to salvation other than through faith in the one true religion, Lutheranism, is a pernicious false doctrine.88

Kromayer blames several Christian heresies for propagating false teachings, such as the Arian idea of pursuing their enemy with the sword, which he believes made their way into Islam.89 Kromayer’s statement implies that these heresies have influenced Islam to hold a false view of salvation, similar to that held by the Catholic Church. Pfeiffer goes beyond Kromayer and draws a comparison between Islam and Judaism, critiquing both religions for promising salvation through good works.90 Likewise, Johann Karl Valentin Bauer, an eighteenth-century Lutheran theologian who wrote his dissertation on Turkish Muslim theology, notes that Muslims believe in both faith and good works, although Bauer acknowledges that Muslims place greater importance on faith.94 Pfeiffer is less charitable, as he argues that Muhammad contradicts himself in the Qur’an by stating that salvation is gained by grace, not good works alone; to a Lutheran theologian, only faith is a valid means to salvation.92

Unlike many other Lutheran authors, Calixt is concerned with the conversion of Muslims to Christianity. He echoes the Pietist emphasis on the

Post-Reformation Protestant Uses of Islam 15 issue of conversion of others and oneself through the constant renewal of faith.93 As a Calixtinian, Muslims are not just a foil with which to criticize Catholicism, but represent an opportunity to save souls through the adoption of universal Christian teachings. Calixt states that religious dogma that is unanimously agreed upon by Christian sects is what should be presented to Muslims for their conversion; otherwise, one would run the risk of confusing Muslim catechumens with conflicting dogmas. The key to the salvation of Muslim souls lies in this presentation of non-ambiguous sacred texts. According to Calixt, the unclear verses in the scripture are never related to salvation. Since Muslims believe that the Christian scripture is divinely revealed, it should be possible to convince them of the divinity of Jesus by pointing to relevant passages in the Bible, and pointing out the false dogmas of Islam, Catholicism, and Christian heresies.94 Calixt says that potential Muslim converts to Christianity should not be troubled by complex logical reasoning. He insists that the focus should be on essential dogma and self-evident foundational teachings from a reading of the scripture rather than the use of syllogisms to understand complex issues.95 Otherwise, the potential convert could be turned away from Christianity by the multiplicity of sects, or choose the wrong sect to convert to. This danger can be avoided by focusing on those teachings upon which Christians universally agree. This ecumenical form of Christianity looks suspiciously like Lutheranism, as he thinks other sects of Christianity, especially Catholicism, are deficient in their doctrines for various reasons. Thus, Calixt advocates for a stripped down basic form of Christianity as ideal for converts, while simultaneously portraying Lutheranism as closest to this ideal.

Moral Laxity in Islam

Focusing on the dissertation by Christian Benedikt Michaelis (d.1764), a German Pietist professor at the University of Halle, this section looks at the claim that Muhammad consciously and strategically created a morally lax faith system to win converts.9' Other post-Reformation Protestant scholars provided reasons for the rapid spread of Islam? such as the sword, internal factions in Christianity, and God’s curse.98 Although Michaelis believes that all of these explanations are valid, he has a particular theory for why Islam spread so quickly: moral laxity, appealing to man’s basic corruptibility and love of ease.99

Michaelis argues that the prime example of Islam’s moral laxity lies in Muhammad’s emphasis on ‘easiness’ in the Qur’an (Q. 2:181): “God wants easiness for you and does not want difficulty for you.” According to Michaelis, this is used as a clever cover for all types of immorality, since any moral precept involving the exercise of self-restraint or denial is negated in Islam by God’s permissive and indulgent nature. Michaelis contrasts this with quotations from the New Testament warning thatthe path to salvation is hard. Also, for Christians, self-control is to be exercised and revenge abjured in all circumstances, while for Muslims revenge is permitted. Michaelis disregards the Old Testament’s “eye for an eye” approach to personal or public enemies; he only considers the New Testament’s approach of “turning the other cheek.” In analyzing the issue of revenge in Islam, it is as if the Old Testament is not a part of his scripture. He believes Muhammad willingly caters to humanity’s baser instincts.100

For Michaelis, Islam’s attitude toward sexual immorality is similarly lax; while forbidding acts such as adultery, Islam does not sufficiently shame and suppress lustful thoughts. Nor is its acceptance of polygamy and divorce moral to the Protestant sensibility of that time. He contrasts a verse in the Qur’an, whereby a woman who converts to Islam may leave her nonbelieving husband, with a teaching from St. Paul, which says that a Christian convert should not leave her nonbelieving husband.101 This reveals Islam’s laxity toward divorce. Michaelis concludes that Muhammad’s emphasis on easiness and his unwillingness to restrain baser instincts, such as lust and vengeance, makes Islam an attractive, but less moral, religion. Bauer, Pfeiffer, and Schelwig also consider sexuality as one of the most important aspects of Islam, saying that Muhammad’s populistic approach to sexuality goes beyond this life and promises good Muslims a sensuous heaven, transforming Paradise into a lupanar (brothel).102

Michaelis gives other examples of Islam’s moral laxity. While martyrdom in the face of persecution is celebrated in Christianity, Muhammad encourages Muslims to lie or even to deny their faith to save their lives, signaling a lack of principle among its adherents. He also criticizes Islam’s non-retroactive enforcement of laws, particularly those concerning the prohibition of incest and usury (riba). Muhammad recognized pre-existing incestuous marriages and said that no restitution was necessary from those who profited from usury. Michaelis contrasts this with a quote from Saint Augustine—a sin is not forgiven unless recompensed.103 Furthermore, according to Michaelis, Muhammad swore oaths on frivolous things and granted a four-month window of grace during which Muslims could renege after taking an oath.104

According to Michaelis, Islam takes advantage of the corruption that dwells in all mortals to attract followers and creates a religion around it. For him, since Arabs were a race accustomed to living by the sword, the promise of great spoils and a ticket to Paradise through death in battle would appeal to many.105 In short, for Michaelis, Islam was a religion crafted to take advantage of weak people who could not resist man’s corrupt ways, especially as he thought Arabs were a rapine people. When Michaelis says that he hopes God illuminates the “light of the Gospel” upon the nations that Muhammad had deceived by creating a morally lax religion,106 he means to create an identity for the Protestant religion

Post-Reformation Protestant Uses of Islam 17 as the one true faith that challenges people to be morally upright. Like a medieval alchemist, Michaelis turns the criticism of one religion into a theological narrative to validate another, his own.

Philosophy and Liberal Arts

This section introduces Lutheran views on the origins and development of Islamic philosophy in the context of Aristotelianism and Scholasticism. According to these authors, early Muslims learned a corrupted version of Aristotle, while later Muslims, especially the Turks, used philosophy and science for practical purposes such as building naval ships and producing military equipment. This utilitarian approach to philosophy presented a serious threat to Europe in the eyes of Lutheran authors. Two significant ideas permeate these texts: first, that Islam is a barrier to philosophical thinking because it is antithetical to reason; and second, that the highest truth is revealed in true ancient Greek philosophy, not in the corrupted Scholastic form as advanced by Catholics and Muslims.

I also included an important text on political philosophy, Disputatio política de republica Turcica (Politics of the Turkish Republic). This particular writing demonstrates how Lutherans draw a parallel between the tyrannical Turkish monarchy and the Catholic Church, represented by the untrustworthy Pope and the ‘satanic writings’ of the Catholic Machiavelli. The final two texts discuss Muslim philosophical education and liberal arts among the Arabs and Turks. These illustrate the Lutheran argument that Muhammad feared the study of philosophy and argumentation would challenge his religious authority, much like Luther’s argumentation challenged the authority of the Pope. Despite Muhammad’s perceived prohibition of these sciences, these texts also reveal Lutheran academics’ awareness of the continuing study of philosophy and liberal arts among the Turks, Persians, and Arabs.

Origins of Islamic Philosophy

According to these Lutheran scholars, the origins of Islamic philosophy had less to do with religion than with its cultural context; that is to say, with the people among whom it arose: pre-Islamic Arabs. Johann Peter von Ludewig (d.1743), a German Lutheran lawyer and historian, maintains that pre-Islamic Arabs, eager to learn and share such things as language, speech, poetry, and knowledge of the stars, influenced Greek philosophy as much as the Greeks influenced the pre-Islamic Arabs.108 For his part, Johannes Steuchius (d.1742), a prominent Swedish Lutheran academic and theologian, claims that philosophy originated in the East and that Greek philosophers drew many of their ideas from the East— key Arab contributions being in astronomy and logic.109 These Lutheranscholars emphasized pre-Islamic Arab contributions to Greek philosophy and liberal arts prior to the arrival of Islam.

Although there is general agreement that Arabs had some semblance of philosophical thinking, Lutheran scholars saw a lull in the development of philosophy among the Arabs with the arrival of Muhammad. There it slumbered until re-awakened by Christian philosophers, such as the Nestorian Abu Bishr Matta b. Yunus, the Jacobite Yahya ibn ‘Adi, and Hunayn ibn Ishaq.110 In other words, Christians saved Muslims from their dormancy by introducing modes of rational thinking into their culture and delivering scientific and philosophical thinking to Islam. Steuchius notes, for example, that during the reign of the Abbasid caliph al-Ma’mun (r.813-33), a Christian physician was appointed as head of a group of learned men because al-Ma’mun believed that Christians were the most learned men of their day. Although philosophy and literature were taught in mosques during al-Ma’mun’s reign, Steuchius claims that Muslims could not have restored their lost learning were it not for the influence of Christian thinkers.111 These scholars considered Islamic philosophers irrational, particularly compared to the Enlightenment thinkers with whom they identified. Moreover, they believed in a victim-savior complex, where Muslims were intellectual captives of their faith, dependent on Christians to deliver them to a place of reason.

Aristotelianism, Islamic Philosophy, and Scholasticism

While Muslim societies had contributed to philosophy, physics, mathematics, and metaphysics, these scholars thought that Islamic thinking was inherently flawed. According to the Lutheran theologian and philosopher Johann Weitenkampf (d.1758), the lack of logic in Islamic physics, metaphysics, and mathematics accounted for the absurd principles that Muslims held, such as a belief in fate.112 Steuchius claims philosophy re-emerged among Muslims when Christians introduced Greek literature to the Arabs, leading many to travel to Greece to study philosophy and the liberal arts.113 Ludewig theorizes that it might have been trade between Christians and Arab Muslims that introduced Muslims to Greek philosophy.114

Even though Martin Luther and early Reformers criticized Aristotelianism as the dominant paradigm in theology due to its extensive use by Catholic Scholastics,115 most post-Reformation Lutheran scholars saw Greek thought as the pinnacle of philosophy.116 For his part, Ludewig believes that Christianity (or, more specifically, Protestantism) was wholly compatible with philosophical thinking due to its logical or enlightened nature, since the Christian idea of God as Logos, in his eyes, represents reason and rationality.11 Through a Protestant reading of the history of philosophy, many scholars gave specific historical examples of Christians providing scientific and philosophical assistance to Muslims

Post-Reformation Protestant Uses of Islam 19 through Greek learning. For instance, when the Arab physicians were baffled by the illness of caliph Hârûn al-Rashïd’s wife, the caliph sent a Christian physician to save her.118 For Johann Jakob Brucker (d.1770),119 the well-known Lutheran historian of philosophy, this reduced the caliph’s bigotry toward Christians, and he repaid by returning confiscated Christian lands in Egypt. Hunayn ibn Ishaq, another Christian physician, translated many Greek works for al-Ma’mun, making himself one of the fathers of Arabic philosophy.120

Even so, some Protestants, such as Christian Friedrich Rudolph Vetterlein (d.1842), a Reformed theologian and philosopher, claims that the translations from Greek into Arabic possessed by Muslims were very poor and led to a misunderstanding of Aristotelian logic.121 In the opinion of post-Reformation Protestants, philosophy reached its zenith during the Reformation, which implied that pre-Reformation Christians— and Catholics specifically—had not grasped the true nature of Aristotelian philosophy. The reason I use the word “true” is because Johann Georg Walch (d.1775), a Lutheran theologian and professor of philosophy, uses it deliberately.122 The Protestant call for a return to “true Aristotle” is similar to the Reformation call for a return to the correct text and true teachings of the scripture. Walch argues that Jews and Muslims were incapable of fully understanding the fundamentals of Aristotelian truths. However, he believes this led to Islam spreading Arab-Aristotelian philosophy to Spain and ultimately to the creation of Scholasticism.123 He also explains that only Christian logicians preserved Aristotelian truths within their system of theology. On the one hand, Walch maintains that the system of theology taught at the medieval European universities (Scholasticism) was created through the introduction of Arab-Aristotelian philosophy into Spain and Africa. However, he thinks, both Muslims and Jews corrupted Aristotelian philosophy by combining it with their “weak theology.”124 On the other hand, he contradicts himself by praising Christian Scholastics for being the ones—and the only ones—who use their philosophical understanding to defend their theology.125

Walch’s theory that Islamic theology was the source of Scholasticism discredited the logic of Catholic theologians as many of them were Scholastics. These post-Reformation scholars tended to see the history of philosophy divided by the Reformation.126 In this sense, Lutheran theologian and polymath Christoph August Heumann (d.1764) argues that the Reformation is not merely about Church reform; it is a wholesale rejection of the Catholic interpretation, or to be more precise, the Catholic corruption of Greek philosophy.12 Luther himself forcefully declared that the Church of Thomas (referring to Thomas Aquinas) was nothing other than the Church of Aristotle,128 which, according to Heumann, makes Thomas simply a “commentator (Auslegern des Aristotelis).9 Therefore, a considerable number of Protestant scholars condemned

Catholic Scholasticism as corrupt, so that they could establish a “true Aristotelian” philosophy to save Reason (Logos), which they equated with Christ Himself?30 Even though Luther and early Lutherans were critical of the use of Aristotelian philosophy and the Scholastic method in theology, there are diverse opinions toward Aristotelianism and Scholasticism among Protestants, even among some Lutherans themselves, such as Gnesio-Lutherans and Philipists? 1 After Luther’s death, Lutheran theologians became divided for a time between Philipists, who were followers of Philipp Melanchthon, and Gnesio-Lutherans, who opposed the Philipists. Some Lutherans used Aristotelian logic and disputation methods in their own curriculum in their academies and universities. There was also a widespread acceptance within the Calvinist circles of Scholastic approaches to theology using Aristotelian logic as a method. Therefore, dialectic as outlined in Aristotle’s Organon played a big role as an educational tool of theology and Biblical exegesis out of which Reformed Scholasticism grew?32 Although there were diverse opinions on Scholasticism and Aristotelianism, prominent eighteenth-century Lutheran theologians and historians of philosophy such as Christoph August Heumann, Johann Franz Buddeus, and Johann Jakob Brucker thought Scholasticism was an exclusively Catholic methodology and that the Reformation freed Protestants from both the authority of the Pope and of Aristotle?33

Islam as an Anti-Intellectual, Anti-Rational, and

Enthusiastic Religion

Lutheran scholars, such as Ludewig and Koch, believed that Muhammad declared war on the liberal arts (belles-lettres or ars liberalis), which had grave consequences for those who studied them?34 However, the reason they gave for Muhammad declaring war on liberal arts was personal: he was an illiterate man and feared that philosophy and the liberal arts would cause him to lose power? ’5 Indeed, the perception of Islam being anti-intellectual began with the idea that Muhammad could neither read nor write (ummT or illiterate person),136 which, to some like Steuchius, rendered him ignorant?37 As a Pietist, under the influence of Enlightenment culture,138 Michaelis also called Muhammad an enthusiastic man,139 echoing the Lutheran concept of enthusiasm (Schwärmerei) as irrational tendencies in religion, such as miraculous revelations, inspired ecstasies, prophetic trances, and excessive sexual fantasies?40

Therefore, Lutheran scholars believed to hide the Qur’an’s many inconsistencies and to remain in control Muhammad suppressed philosophical logic and reasoned argument. This led his followers to undervalue ancient philosophy and Arabian literature. However, due to Muhammad’s illiteracy and disregard of ancient philosophy and literature, Christians and Jews in the Arabian Peninsula were called upon to assist in framing

Muhammad’s new religion as expressed in the Qur’an. From a Protestant perspective, this anti-intellectual, illiterate, and enthusiastic root explains why, after Muhammad’s death, only ‘sober’ Christians living in the region continued to study Greek and to introduce their Islamic neighbors to philosophy.141

This re-introduction narrative, propounded by Lutheran scholars, accounts for how Eastern nations contributed to philosophy and yet were saved by learned Christians. It explains why, left unchecked, Islam would corrupt philosophy with its religious dogmas and enthusiasm, and also, why the proponents of Arab-Aristotelian philosophy did not fully understand Greek thinking or recognize the irrationality of their own theology. In fact, these scholars claimed philosophy heightened tensions among Muslims themselves since their religion was built on superstition and not rational explanation.142 The critique of Islamic philosophy was not only a Lutheran criticism, but was also based on the Enlightenment idea of “rational philosophy (philosophia rationalis).”i4i Islam, with its repudiation of philosophy and the liberal arts, was flawed and irrational, which cemented Protestantism’s place as the most rational of all religions.144

However, this Lutheran critique should not be interpreted as a pure critique or simplistic polemic against Islamic philosophy. The critique of Muhammad being illiterate, anti-rational, and enthusiastic reveals the intellectual environment of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Here, their critique serves an important purpose: to defend Lutheranism as the most rational faith in the wake of radical Enlightenment using the relationship between revelation and reason in order to restore the place of reason in religion.145

Philosophy as a Practical Instrument and Physical Threat

Lutheran philosophers recognized that Islam and its philosophy were a real and imminent threat to Europe. Samuel Schelwig (d.1715), a philosopher and a proponent of Lutheran orthodoxy, claimed that Turks used mathematics predominantly in such areas as sailing, naval warfare, and the fortification of buildings and cities, knowledge of which they learned from Christians.146 He thought that the forms of philosophical thinking beloved of Islam and the Ottoman Turks were militaristic, which rendered philosophy as a practical instrument. Schelwig said that rather than studying philosophy as abstract thought, the Turkish Muslims were interested only in the apprehended ‘table and cup’ and not in a philosophical discussion on ‘tableness’ and ‘cupness’ that they did not even see.147 He exposes Islam and Turkish Muslims as a threat to Christian Europe because he praises the European King John III for pushing the Turkish Hannibal before the gates of Christendom. He declares he too will attack Islam with whatever skill he has; evidently, Schelwig’s war would be fought with philosophy.148

The Lutheran perception of Ottoman philosophy as strictly militaristic and practical is the result of the perceived idea of Turks’ inability to understand theoretical philosophy. Schelwig sums up this idea by referencing a debate between Diogenes and Plato on the latter’s concept of ideas. He compares the mentality of the Turks to that of Diogenes the Cynic, saying that “he [the Turk] has eyes, with which the table and cup are seen but he does not have a mind, with which the ‘tableness’ and ‘cupness’ are seen.”149 He argues that Ottoman scholars lack the theoretical capacity that Europeans possess, and because of this, Islamic philosophy was limited to a stunted form of metaphysics which cannot see beyond the basics of reality into the realm of ideas. To show the traces of this type of metaphysics, Schelwig cites a Latin translation of ‘Aziz Nasaft’s most popular treatise Maqsad-i Aqsa (The Furthest Goal)150 on the difference between God’s essence and existence.151

Weitenkampf uses the example of the Turkish concept of fate to further contribute to the notion that Turkish philosophy is practical rather than theoretical.152 He argues that the Turkish concept of fate is foolish and illogical as Weitenkampf believes all events in the world are mutable and contingent. The Turkish belief in predestination encourages them to stay in their plague-ridden cities and, most importantly, bolster their martial resilience. Turks were formidable enemies as they believed they could not change the date they were predestined to die so were unlikely to quit the field of battle.153 Eric Ormsby, a scholar of Islamic studies, sees this type of fatalism, which “causes the Turks not to shun places ravaged by plague,” as a reassertion of Ash‘arite theology in Islamic thought—a uniquely Muslim response to the problem of theodicy.154 Muslim fatalism, or Fatum Mahometanum as the eighteenth-century German Lutheran philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz called it,155 was based on the reasoning that everything in life good or evil, including death, was written by Allah, so there was no escape. This is why Leibniz criticized the Muslim idea of fate as the “sophism of lazy reason” and asserted the superiority of the more rational and sophisticated Protestant understanding of fate, which he called Fatum Christianum.i5G

Many Protestant scholars held negative views about Islam’s historical encounters with philosophy. Although they recognized the historical significance of philosophical thought within the ancient Eastern nations, they, nevertheless, believed that Islam created an intellectual barrier that held Muslims back, and any positive semblance of philosophical thinking after the era of Muhammad was due to Christian intervention. This supported their view that Muslims could not develop their own philosophical thought and that Islam, left alone with philosophy, was a danger to Christian Europe as they were considered reckless fatalists.

Political Religion and Islamic Governance

In the late sixteenth century, a distinctive academic discipline dealing with politics (politica) as a science was established at Protestant universities in Germany. Although politics claimed its relative independence as a discipline by dissociating from other sciences, its closest rival disciplines remained ethics, theology, and law. In this context, a subdiscipline emerged as political theology (theologia politica). German historian Martin Mulsow argues that Lutheran scholars, such as Johann Heinrich Boeckler (d.1672), Daniel Clasen (d.1678), and Daniel Georg Morhof (d.1691), believed one had to maintain the force of Protestant Christianity, spirituality, and religiosity against the Catholic Machiavellians and political elites.15 They understood the concept of political religion not as a component of reason of state, but as the political function of religion as political elites were using religion for domination. Many seventeenth-century Lutherans saw this development as a dangerous form of politics. They believed religion should never be used to achieve political ends, but should only contribute to the spiritual good. Based on this political theology, Lutherans found themselves in a challenging position. Either one could interpret divine rule as a way to understand and legitimize rulers or states; or one could use the concept of political idolatry, seeing rulers as idols, to criticize and discredit Catholics.158

Mostly, the Lutheran scholars in this volume chose to take the second option and to separate religion from the political sphere. The German Lutheran biblical scholarship, under the influence of Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms, highlighted the non-political character of the Christian Gospel, from the early seventeenth century onwards. This Lutheran interpretation has contributed to the view that earlier Christianity was non-political but rather spiritual, dominated by the eschatological expectation of the end of the world; this view emphasized that the Christian religion is separate from politics.159 Therefore, Lutherans saw both Catholicism and Islam as political religions by nature.160 In his comparison of the Sunni and Shi‘a Muslim sects, Pfeiffer compares the religious leaders of both sects to the Catholic Pope.161 In his opinion, the mixing of the political and religious spheres was responsible for the schism that split Islam in the first place; Shi‘ites performed political and religious acts in the name of ‘All, a religious figure, against the Sunni sect.162 Schelwig also draws a negative comparison between Turkish Sufi dervishes and Catholic Jesuits, as both groups inserted themselves into politics where they do not belong.163

Michael Wendeler (d.1671), a Lutheran professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg, sees a negative political-religious parallel between Islam and Catholicism. He opens his disputation with the image of the little horn from the book of Daniel, which he associates with the Turkish Monarch.164 In his eyes, Turkish Muslims had a monarch, not a king, since their leader was a tyrant, ruled with violence, and was only able to gain territory due to the divisions between his Christian neighbors. In explaining the nature of this tyranny, Wendeler bases his arguments on Aristotle’s Politics, in which the ruler was a tyrant who was unaccountably acting in his own interest, but not in the interest of his subjects.165 Wendeler also critiques Catholics who believe in a tyrannical way of governing, and surprisingly praises the Turkish Sultan as more trustworthy than the Pope.166 For him, the Catholic Church is on the same playing field as Islam, but as the losers. Therefore, in Wendeler’s eyes, both Catholics’ and Muslims’ politics and their way of governance have corrupted their religions.

Muslim Sects: Sunni and Shi‘a

This section examines Lutheran uses of the Sunni-Shi’a schism by focusing on four sub-themes: pre-Islamic religion and the introduction of Islam; the perception of ‘Alt and Safi al-Dln al-Ardabili; the authority of the scripture and oral tradition; and saints and miracles. When Lutheran scholars looked at the Sunni-Shi’a divide, they saw two nations—the Sunni Ottoman Turks and the Shi’ite Safavid Persians—but their interest in that divide was related to the Protestant-Catholic schism after the Reformation. Although these scholars tackled the questions “What is religion?” and “What can be considered a religion?,” they were not primarily interested in the inner workings of Islam or its sects. Instead, they used the political-theological split within Islam to justify the Protestant-Catholic divide in Christianity and to establish Protestantism as the true religion.

While it is safe to say that these Lutheran scholars did not hold Muslims in high regard, especially Muhammad, believing him to be an impostor with mad teachings, what is more significant is that they recognized Islam was not a single entity and they differentiated Safavid Persians (Shi’a) from Ottoman Turks (Sunni).16 This shows an increased awareness and knowledge of Islam compared to their Reformation predecessors. However, these Lutheran authors held Persian Shi’ites in higher regard than Turkish Sunnis. For example, Sebastian Kirchmaier (d.1700), a Lutheran professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg, wrote his Oratio Persica in Persian about the Sunni-Shi’a divide (see Figure 0.2). All of Kirchmaier’s other works were written in either German or Latin; one wonders why he wrote specifically in Persian. In introducing Kirchmaier’s work, Johann Erich Ostermann (d.1668), the Rector of the Academy of Wittenberg, refers to Persians as an “ancient and exceptionally noble nation” whereas, for him, the Turks are “foul and four-day-old swill.”168 Luther himself also wrote extensively against the Turks, but not the Persians. Ostermann would have been strongly influenced by Luther, but he was also born into an anti-Turk milieu.169

Sebastian Kirchmaier, Oratio Persica in Persian, 1662

Figure 0.2 Sebastian Kirchmaier, Oratio Persica in Persian, 1662. Kirchmaier wrote his speech in Persian as the script for a lecture delivered in September 1662, the year he received his degree at the University of Wittenberg; it was simultaneously published with a Latin text. (Courtesy of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz).

Lutheran scholars did not sympathize with Persians because they valued the Shi‘ite faith, but rather because they could use it to weave a specific historical narrative that supported their own theological preconceptions, especially Sola Scriptura. Moreover, the German Lutherans had not suffered from recent military defeat by the Persians, but the expansion of the Ottoman Empire in Europe was a present danger that influenced their judgment of the Sunnis.170

Pre-Islamic Religion and the Introduction of Islam

Prior to considering any inherent differences between Persians and Turks, the Lutheran scholar Pfeiffer began with an explanation of the pre-Islamic backgrounds of these Muslim nations. He says that in the distant past Persians worshipped the sun, which developed into a cult of Venus and then into a cult of Fire, both early forms of worship similar to that of the ancient Romans who worshiped Vesta.171 For him, none of the past Persian gods and deities is the God of Abraham. Pfeiffer describes Persians as polytheistic; however, he sees them as an ancient nation more relatable to European Christianity than the Sunni Turks. His equation of Persia’s final beliefs before the introduction of Islam to the ancient Roman worship of Vesta is especially pertinent; after all, the Romans had persecuted Christians, but they were also a major reason for Christianity’s success—hence the name Roman Catholics. However, according to Pfeiffer, the Turks lived in a time of ignorance, steeped in savage idolatry with numerous gods and goddesses, worshipped many gods; and, hence, they were polytheistic pagans.172 This leaves an image of the Persians being relatable, but flawed, and the Turks being ignorant and cruel.

As for the introduction of Islam to both nations, Pfeiffer explains that the Turks absorbed Muhammad’s teachings from the beginning, becoming the most passionate champions of Islam, while the Persians, in contrast, adopted Islam and Muhammad’s teaching because of Arab military expansion. During the conquest of Persia, the Prophet Muhammad’s second successor, the caliph ‘Umar, extinguished the fire of Gaures—the fire cult and belief system—before Islam’s introduction into Persia. Pfeiffer believed that Persia (the Sassanid Empire) embraced Islam because of Islamic military domination, while the Turks naturally accepted Islam as the final incarnation of the Abrahamic religions.173 In other words, the Turks were religious zealots bent on expansionism, whereas Persians were forced to accept Islam. The Turks were presented as harsh and cruel like the Arabs and Muhammad while Persians were perceived as noble and non-threatening. This view was the result of seventeenth-century real-world events as the Ottoman expansion caused Lutherans to fear the Turks as a growing menace to Christendom. Similarly, Kromayer had seen Islam’s threat to Christianity firsthand in the captive Christians

Post-Reformation Protestant Uses of Islam 27 held in the Ottoman Empire. Since many Christians had witnessed Turkish violence, he believed Christian Europe had more in common with the peaceful Shi'ite Persians than with the militaristic Sunni Turks.174

The Perception of ‘AlT and Safi al-Din al-Ardabili

One of the most important reasons for the separation of the two Islamic sects was their perception of ‘All, whom the Shi'ites expected to assume the mantle of a religious leader (imam) after Muhammad’s death. According to Kirchmaier, the Sunni Turks accepted Muhammad’s four consecutive successors: Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmân, and ‘All. They considered them all outstanding men, companions of Muhammad, and all legitimate successors to him. However, the Safavid Persians believed that ‘All, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, was his rightful successor, a position wickedly usurped by others greater in power.175 Therefore, to use Kirchmaier’s words, “an unworthy exile and banishment came to ‘All and his sons.”176 Although this was not the root of the schism in Islam, it became the dominant belief for the Safavid Persians after Safi al-Din al-Ardabili (d. 1334) claimed to be a descendant of ‘Ali and imposed himself and this version of events on his followers.177 For post-Reformation Protestants, the image was of a squabbling family fighting among themselves over trivialities, not too distant from the trifling debates about Rome’s holy relics.

While the Lutheran scholars may not have fully understood or agreed with Shi'ite theology, they sympathized with its cause far more than they did with the Sunni Turks. Kirchmaier was inclined to support the notion that the succession was unjustly taken from ‘All, lending legitimacy to the Shi'ite claim for the foundation of their sect. As a Lutheran, Kirchmaier could look at al-Ardabïlï and see Luther—which is not to say that he gives legitimacy to Islam’s religious claims, but rather that he identifies with a fellow religious renegade. Surprisingly, though, he also demonized al-Ardabïlï, seeing him more as an impostor than a reformer. It may seem contradictory, but once again we must recognize Kirchmaier’s intent behind his exploration of Islam. On the one hand, he uses al-Ardabïlï to underscore similarities between Protestantism and Shi'ite Islam. On the other hand, by presenting al-Ardabïlï as a false prophet, Kirchmaier presents the Persians as coerced into adopting al-Ardabïlï’s version of Islam.

Kirchmaier and Pfeiffer acknowledged the importance of al-Ardabïlï for Shi'ite history and also the Safavid rulers’ use of his spiritual authority as a source of legitimacy for a type of new Shi'ism in the early sixteenth century. However, Lutheran scholars did not seem to be aware that it was the sixteenth-century émigré scholars (‘ulama‘) to Persia, who first provided sources of legitimacy for Safavid rulers as an ideological defense against the Sunni Ottoman Turks. Rula Abisaab showshow this process of converting Persia to Shi‘ism took place through the leading Arab scholars from Ottoman Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, and Jabal ‘Amil (present day Lebanon), resulting in a distinct, urban, and legalistic type of Shi‘ism.17 8

Lutheran scholars’ analysis of ‘All reveals a Protestant theological viewpoint in their interpretation of the Sunni-Shi'a divide. Kirchmaier, for example, describes the veneration of ‘All as excessive, claiming that “the Persians profess that if ‘All did not reach God’s divinity, he at least came close to it.”179 Likewise, Pfeiffer also argues that the Persians “following their ‘All, make him semi-divine.”*80 Pfeiffer, based on al-Shahrastani’s analysis, claims that a branch of Shi'a believes in ‘All as the one “in whose form God appeared, and by whose hands He made the world, and by whose tongue He gave his teachings.”181 Some of these statements sound similar to those Christians say about the divinity of Christ. This similarity—the conflation of ‘All with Christ—helped Lutheran theologians identify more with the Shi'ite sect than with the Sunnis.182

Authority of the Scripture and Oral Tradition

In the eyes of Lutherans, one of the key religious differences separating Sunni Turks from Shi'ite Persians is their interpretation of scripture and oral tradition. Both groups accept the Qur’an as the canon of their faith, with Turks also following the Sunna, which Pfeiffer calls “oral law.” For him, the Sunna or hadith collections were the product of seven men who diligently compiled Muhammad’s sayings, deeds, and actions and passed them down through their descendants. Since Turks follow these separate hadith traditions along with the Qur’an, they were often referred to as traditionists.183 Pfeiffer presents Persians, on the other hand, as scrip-turalists, decrying anything not in the Qur’an, which aligns with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

In describing the scriptural differences between Turks and Persians, Pfeiffer compares Jewish traditions and sects with both. For example, he compares the Persians to the Sadducees since they both rejected unwritten traditions, and the Turks to the Pharisees who followed not only the written texts, but also unwritten laws and ancient traditions. Pfeiffer makes clear that Islam, like Christianity, has been divided into different and opposing sects, based on their understanding of scripture, oral history, and tradition. He emphasizes a similar split in Judaism when he compares the mutual enmity of Persians and Turks to the way in which the Karaite Jews were despised, because they rejected the Talmudic traditions of the Rabbanites. 4

Protestant theology is similarly scripture-based, its adherents believing that all one needs for faith can be found in the Bible. One can see, therefore, why the Protestants would sympathize with the Shi'ites, who take

Post-Reformation Protestant Uses of Islam 29 scripture as the sole canon—while Catholics, like the Sunnis, believe in traditions and beliefs that developed outside the scripture. Although a modern reader may see the description of the two sects’ interpretation of the Qur’an as quite straightforward, a Catholic reader at the time would be appalled to see their traditional ways being compared to the Turks. By incorporating Jewish sects into his argument, Pfeiffer is commenting on traditionists as intolerant toward other scriptural-based sects. By discussing the Karaites and how they were hated, Pfeiffer is not only highlighting the Turks as being intolerant toward the Shi’ites, but is also commenting on the Catholic Church and their intolerance of Protestants. Furthermore, highlighting the idea that the other two major religions had schisms based on scripture versus tradition justifies the Reformation.

Saints and Miracles

According to Pfeiffer, while Turks and Persians venerated ancient saints and visit their tombs, the Turks also believed in more modern (living) saints and their miracles. As he does not give credence to their marvels, Pfeiffer refers to these miracle workers as impostors. In Kromayer’s account, the Persians elevated ‘All to sainthood as he was someone to “whom they attribute many miracles, and nearly extoll above Muhammad himself.”185 While ‘All’s miracles and his marvelous sword are venerated,186 along with his lineage and successors, whose tombs the Persians visit annually, the Turks, as noted by Kirchmaier, considered this contemptible—although they do elevate Muhammad’s other successors to ‘All’s level in a religious quid pro quo.187

Even though the Lutheran scholars distinguished between the saints of the Persians and Turks, they were looking not to elevate one above the other, but rather to criticize the concept of sainthood. Unlike Catholics, Lutherans do not pray to saints or call upon them for guidance. Furthermore, the description given of Islamic saints, their deeds and who they protect, resembles the Catholic veneration of saints. Thus, the Lutheran analysis of Turkish and Persian saints was not to support one Islamic sect against the other, but rather to highlight the fundamental problem of sainthood itself. Luther himself asserted that all believers are saints, not a few select persons the Catholic Church declares to be saints, and that no believer could save another as only Christ can intercede for human salvation.188

We have seen how Lutherans used similarities between themselves and the Persians to validate their own religion. Now, with miracles and sainthood, we see how they use both sects to undermine Catholicism and to strengthen their own theological claims. If one considers the critique of two important Catholic concepts, sainthood and miracle, by Protestants after the Reformation, one can see these as definingdifferences. Protestants drew a boundary between natural and supernatural by rejecting miracles as they believed the age of miracles had passed and that miraculous intervention by God was strictly limited to biblical times. Therefore, they denied the possibility of mystical visions, revelations, and all other supernatural events; they were all things of the past or Catholic hocus-pocus.189 As for sainthood, Protestants also defined the relationship between life on earth and the hereafter, resulting in a sharp distinction between the living and the dead. This interpretation meant the living and the dead could no longer communicate or experience miracles. In other words, the Reformation not only removed the bodies of the dead, the saints, from the churches, it also made their souls inaccessible: there were no longer any saints to pray to for help or favors. These Protestant theological underpinnings on miracle and sainthood had immense ramifications for the reinterpretation of the sacred and the profane, ultimately leading to a secular view of human life (Entzauberung der Welt)}90

Epilogue: A Note on the Texts

Though many modern intellectual historians trace the secularization of the world to the Enlightenment philosophers with their focus on rationality,191 they tend to overlook the earlier contribution of postReformation Protestant theologians who removed some of the miraculous and mystical elements from the Christian religion, by their dismissal of saints and miracles.192 These theologians contributed to the evolution of Enlightenment ideas such as rationality; these ideas did not originate strictly from the philosophers or freethinkers of the eighteenth century. Like Luther, who was unaware he was creating the Protestant religion when he published his ninety-five theses, these post-Reformation scholars were unintentionally contributing to a secularized world view in which religion has been marginalized.193

Intellectual historians tend to study famous thinkers, such as Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, and Marx, to understand the trajectories and changes in early modern European thought. However, the Protestant scholars in this book helped create the intellectual milieu in which these famous philosophers thrived. Some of these theologians were also well known in their time, but have slipped into obscurity in ours. Weitenkampf, one of the Lutheran theologians and philosophers included in this book, was the schoolmate and peer of well-known German philosopher Kant. In today’s undergraduate class, students who are familiar with Kant have never heard of Weitenkampf. Kant’s 1784 famous essay “Was ist Aufklärung? (What is Enlightenment?)” is often featured in the syllabus of undergraduate philosophy and religion classes. What is not commonly known today is that Kant and Weitenkampf studied philosophy and metaphysics together in Königsberg under the direction of

Professor Martin Knutzen, a follower of the Enlightenment philosopher and Lutheran theologian Christian Wolff. At University, the young Kant debated the question of the spatio-temporal finitude of the Universe with Weitenkampf. Kant had a rivalry with him as Knutzen favored Weiten-kampf and did not consider Kant one of his better students.194 Nevertheless, Kant’s rivalry with Weitenkampf inspired Kant to write his thesis on the first antinomy in his famous Critique of Pure Reason. 5 Unfortunately, the early death of Weitenkampf at age thirty-two prevented him from developing his ideas and publishing, whereas Kant survived to the age of seventy-nine, publishing important works and thus ensuring his place among Enlightenment thinkers.

Likewise, Pfeiffer influenced the faith, thought, and, possibly, job opportunities of the famous German composer Johann Sebastian Bach, who had many of Pfeiffer’s theological works in his library.196 There are two theories for Bach’s interest in Pfeiffer’s work, Anti-Calvinismus, a study of the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism. Either, Bach was recommending them to his young wife, or he was studying them to ensure he sounded appropriately Orthodox Lutheran as opposed to Calvinist when he wanted to move from his position as Capellmeis-ter at Calvinist Kothen to a position as cantor and director of music in Lutheran Leipzig.197

One of the Lutheran authors, Cornelius Dietrich Koch wrote an influential work on the method of studying the history of logic, which was encouraged by the famous German Lutheran Enlightenment philosopher Leibniz.198 The latter discussed his metaphysical work with his seniors, including Hobbes, Spinoza, and Locke, but he also consulted with the younger Koch.199 Therefore, these unstudied but influential Lutheran authors’ texts will not only shed light on the post-Reformation uses of Islamic thought, but also help understand these theologians’ influence on Enlightenment thinkers.200

A Note on the Translations

The Question of Authorship

The title pages of most of these works list a praeses, which in this context may be translated as supervisor, and a respondens as defender. The modern reader would be forgiven for thinking that the thesis supervisor/defender system worked as it does in a modern university.201 This would mean that the praeses acted as a modern thesis advisor, providing guidance and critiquing early drafts, whereas the defender is the actual author of the dissertation. However, unlike in modern times, it seems that usually the praeses was the actual author of the dissertation, which was then publicly presented and defended by someone else. Susan Karpuk agrees with Kevin Chang’s convention that authorship should be assigned to the praeses, unless the defender is specifically named the auctor or author of the dissertation.202 Therefore, according to this convention, I have assumed that the praeses is the author of a work unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. For each author, I have compiled a short biography. If you would like to see a full list of the authors’ works, you can consult the sources provided in the endnotes of each text.

Latin Texts, Readability, and Flow

The archival information about the original texts used for translations are provided in the bibliography. Most of the original texts are located in German libraries (Augsburg, Berlin, Dresden, Gottingen, Halle, Jena, Munich, and Regensburg); however, some texts were found in libraries in France (Paris), Austria (Vienna), and Russia (St. Petersburg). The translations are intended to be accessible to modern readers, but also to encourage researchers’ further study of these Protestant academic works. Therefore, scholars who want to compare the translations with the Latin texts are recommended to review the sources in the bibliography.

The Latin in which these authors composed their texts is often a tangle of lists, digressions, and clauses within clauses. As a general principle, my main concern was to produce readable translations in modern English that remain faithful in meaning to the original text. I have, therefore, attempted to strike a balance between a literal translation of the Latin texts and a more reader-friendly idiomatic modern English translation. Although I am primarily concerned with readability, I also want to transmit to the modern reader some of the literary flavor of the Latin texts, which tend toward floridity, prolixity, and even pomposity at times.

In the Latin texts, the authors often use first person plural pronouns, “we” and “our,” to refer to themselves; I have converted these to “I” or “my” for the most part. Oftentimes, an ambiguous pronoun or verb form has been replaced with a proper noun to ease readability. For example, an ambiguous “he” referring to Muhammad is replaced with “Muhammad.” I have changed passive-voice sentences to the active voice as much as possible. For clarity in modern English, I have eliminated certain instances of repetition, excessive verbiage, and unnecessary details to provide a more concise and smooth text for the reader. To this end, I have sometimes altered or eliminated overly prolix passages or clauses, without giving up any fundamental points in the text.

In several cases, authors make factual errors about Islamic theological concepts. For example, a jinn is interpreted as a “family spirit” of a dead infant as opposed to the Islamic notion of the jinn as a supernatural creature that has nothing to do with a dead infant or the family.203 Needless to say, authors’ conceptual or terminological errors have not been corrected in order to remain faithful to the original text.

Technical Issues

I have replaced the original Latin form of names as they appeared in the text with the modern or transliterated version of the Arabic, Turkish, and Persian names giving the Latin original in the index. For instance, I use Ya‘qûb al-Kindï instead of the Latin Jacobus Alcendius; al-Mutawakkil and not al-Motawacelus; ‘Aziz Nasafi and not Aziz Nesephaeus; Abu al-Barakât al-Baghdadi and not Baruch ben Malka; Henry of Ghent and not Henricus Gandavensis; Otto of Freising and not Otto Frisingensis; René Rapin and not Renatus Rapinus; Hidirellez and not Chiridelles; Hizir Ilyas and not Chederle; al-Shahrastani and not Sharastanius; al-Tüsï and not Ettosius; al-Qazwini and not Kazuinensis; Sunna and not Sunnaton; Sunni and not Sunita; and Mongols and not Mogulenses. If there is no accepted modern transliteration for a term, I kept the author’s original Latin expression of the word or term. However, frequently used names and terms that have become a part of the English language such as Muhammad, Ramadan, Abbasid, Sunni and Shi‘a have not been transliterated. Also, birth and death dates of Muslim thinkers are given where appropriate, according to the Islamic (hijrï) and Christian (Julian/ Gregorian) calendars; thus, (d.864/1459) corresponds to 864 anno hegi-rae and 1459 anno domini.

Most Latin book titles have been translated to English to make them more accessible to the reader. Scholars who want to see the original Latin titles of book of the texts can easily consult the original text. In all texts except Text 4, I have removed the authors’ footnotes due to the length of the book. In instances in the translated texts where I inserted my opinion or provided the reader with additional information, I identified these endnotes with my initials [MK], All sources I used for the authors’ biographies are given in the endnotes of the translations.

For Bible quotations, I have used the New American Standard Bible for numeration. In some cases, I have also altered my own initial translation of the biblical verses to conform in whole or in part to that from New American Standard Bible. Qur’anic references are expressed in this format: Q.13:24; the first number refers to the sura (chapter) and the second the ayah (verse). Many of the Qur’anic references in the original texts do not correspond with the modern numeration of the Qur’an as these scholars often used the editions of the Qur’an published in the seventeenth century by German Lutheran theologians Salomon Schweigger (d.1622) and Abraham Hinckelmann (d.1695). Therefore, in all instances I have corrected the authors’ sura and ayah numbers, conforming to Yusuf Ali’s numeration so that the modern reader may consult these passages.204

If I needed to provide the Arabic, Turkish, or Persian equivalent of a Latin word, I have provided them in parentheses. However, if I thought it was necessary to insert a word or short expression in the text, I used brackets to clarify the meaning in English. Italics were used to identify the book titles as is the standard in modern English; however, in some cases, I also retained the original authors’ use of italics for emphasis. I use an ellipsis [...] to indicate an omission in the text. I eliminated sentences or paragraphs where there were unnecessary or lengthy explanations, which would divert the reader from the main discussion or topic.

In the appendix, I have compiled a selected bibliography of additional works by Protestant scholars on Islamic thought to aid further study and research. I have also included a map illustrating the geographical regions relevant to the authors of these texts and the academies and universities they are affiliated with, including Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anglican universities in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Like most translations, finding the right or the best possible word in another language, especially considering the three-to-four century gap between these authors and twenty-first-century readers, is a challenging task. Therefore, in cases where there was a need to explain something, I have drawn upon my expertise in Islamic studies to provide the reader a more accurate and accessible translation.


  • 1 On the emergence and evolution of the Protestant identity and narrative in Europe, see Christopher Ocker, Luther, Conflict, and Christendom: Reformation Europe and Christianity in the West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018); Peter Marshall, 1517: Martin Luther and the Invention of the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017); Eamon Duffy, Reformation Divided: Catholics, Protestants and the Conversion of England (London: Bloomsbury, 2017); Thomas F. Mayer (ed.), Reforming Reformation: Catholic Christendom, 1300-1700 (Burlington: Ashgate, 2012); Heinz Schilling, Martin Luther: Rebell in einer Zeit des Umbruchs (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2012); John M. Frymire, The Primacy of the Postils: Catholics, Protestants, and the Dissemination of Ideas in Early Modern Germany (Leiden: Brill, 2010); Ulinka Rublack, Reformation Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Michael A. Mullett, Martin Luther (London: Routledge, 2004); Ronald K. Rittgers, The Reformation of the Keys: Confession, Conscience, and Authority in Sixteenth-Century Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004); Heiko A. Oberman, The Two Reformations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003); C. Scott Dixon, The Reformation in Germany (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002); Hans R. Guggisberg and Gottfried G. Krodel (eds.), Die Reformation in Deutschland und Europa: Interpretationen und Debatten (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1993). Also, for the importance of Luther’s colleagues in Wittenberg in the creation of the movement, see Jens-Martin Kruse, Universitätstheologie und Kirchenreform: Die Anfänge der Reformation in Wittenberg, 1516-1522 (Mainz-am-Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 2002).
  • 2 As most of the authors in this book wrote their works between 1650 and 1750 following the Reformation, I use the term “post-Reformation” to define the historical period from the 1600s to the early 1800s.
  • 3 On this scholarship, see A. G. Dickens and John M. Tonkin, The Reformation in Historical Thought (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985);

John Bossy, Christianity in the West 1400-1700 (Oxford: OUP, 1985); Geoffrey R. Elton, Reformation Europe: 1517-1559 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985); Alister E. McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987); Euan Cameron, The European Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991); Andrew Pettegree, The Early Reformation in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Luise Schorn-Schütte, Die Reformation: Vorgeschichte, Verlauf, Wirkung (Munich: Verlag, 1996); Carter Lindberg, The European Reformations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996); Mark Greengrass, The European Reformation c.1500-1618 (London: Longman, 1998); Bernd Moeller, Deutschland im Zeitalter der Reformation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981); James D. Tracy, Europe’s Reformations, 1450-1650: Doctrine, Politics, and Community (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999); Ernst Koch, Das konfessionelle Zeitalter-Katholizismus, Luthertum, Calvinismus (1563-1675) (Evangelische Verlagsanstalt: Leipzig, 2000); Owen Chadwick, The Early Reformation on the Continent (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided 1490-1700 (London: Penguin, 2003); Helga Schnabel-Schule, Die Reformation 1495-1555: Politik mit Theologie und Religion (Stuttgart: Rec-lam, 2006); Thomas Kaufmann, Geschichte der Reformation (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2009); Martin H. Jung, Reformation und Konfessionelles Zeitalter, 1517-1648 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012); C. Scott Dixon, Contesting the Reformation (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012); Mark Greengrass, Christendom Destroyed: Europe 1517-1648 (New York: Penguin, 2015); Rolf Decot, Geschichte der Reformation in Deutschland (Freiburg: Herder, 2015); Diarmaid MacCulloch, All Things Made New: The Reformation and Its Legacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) and Michael W. Bruening, A Reformation Sourcebook: Documents from an Age of Debate (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017).

4 There were some studies on Protestant views of Islam done by German scholars. For example, Christoph Bochinger examined the Hallenian Pietist perception of Islam. In his Habilitation, he has a section on Arabic and Islamic works known to eighteenth-century Lutherans and a list of all Arabic books published by the Institutum Judaicum et Orientale in Halle. See Christoph Bochinger, Abenteuer Islam: Zur Wahrnehmung fremder Religion im Hallenser Pietismus des 18. Jahrhunderts, Habilitationsschrift (Munich: LMU, 1996). However, these works were sporadic and did not reflect a widespread scholarly interest in the post-Reformation engagement with Islam. In this context, one notable exception is Alastair Hamilton, who wrote several pioneering articles highlighting the importance of the Lutheran study of Islam in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. See Alastair Hamilton, "A Lutheran Translator for the Quran: A Late Seventeenth-Century Quest,” in The Republic of Letters and the Levant, eds. Alastair Hamilton, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 197-221; idem, ‘“To Rescue the Honour of the Germans’: Qur’an Translations by Eighteenth-and Early Nineteenth-Century German Protestants,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 77 (2014): 173-209; and idem, “Lutheran Islamophiles in Eighteenth-Century Germany,” in For the Sake of Learning: Essays in Honor of Anthony Grafton, eds. Ann Blair and Anja-Silvia Goeing (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 327-43. Another notable work, a multivolume bibliographical project on Christian-Muslim engagements from the seventh century to the early twentieth century, is edited by David Thomas and John A. Chesworth; see Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History (Leiden: Brill, 2009-present).

  • 5 Johann Ulrich Wallich, Religio Turcica, Mahometis vita, et orientalis cum occidental! antichristo comparatio, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Miinchen, 4 Turc. 73u (Stade, 1659), folio 140b. On the biography of Johann Ulrich Wallich (d. 1673) and the significance of his book, see Gabor Karman, “Johann Ulrich Wallich,” in Christian-Muslim Relations: ¿4 Bibliographical History, Volume 9, Western and Southern Europe (1600-1700), eds. David Thomas and John A. Chesworth (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 901-5.
  • 6 The “Turk” was the prototype of the Muslim during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Lutheran texts. The term was interchangeably used for “Muslim,” although less used expressions like Saracen, Persian, and Moor also existed. After the eighteenth-century Protestant fascination with Wahhabis and European interest in the Middle East, “Arab” replaced “Turk” in this geopolitical role. See Ivan Kalmar, Early Orientalism: Imagined Islam and the Notion of Sublime Power (New York: Routledge, 2011), 23.
  • 7 For one influential example among others, see Daphne Hampson, Christian Contradictions: The Structures of Lutheran and Catholic Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
  • 8 Notably, two recent works by German historian Heinz Schilling should be mentioned as he sees the Reformation in the context of global history. However, his works highlight the Protestant Reformation’s contribution to global redefinitions of faiths, such as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Confucianism, rather than the impact of these religions on Protestantism. The risk with this approach, however well-intentioned, is that it could establish the Reformation as a focal point of comparison; therefore, maintaining, rather than breaking down, a normative Eurocentric and Protestant perspective. Schilling is, nevertheless, well-aware of this problem as he cautions his readers and reiterates his objective of examining the Reformation as a comparative religion endeavor rather than using it as a normative tool or a criterion. See Heinz Schilling, 1517: Weltgeschichte eines Jahres (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2017), and Heinz Schilling and Silvana Siedel Menchi (eds.), The Protestant Reformation in a Context of Global History: Religious Reforms and World Civilizations (Bologna: Societa editrice il Mulino/Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2017). See also the recent volume edited by Nicholas Terpstra, Global Reformations: Transforming Early Modern Religions, Societies, and Cultures (New York: Routledge, 2019).
  • 9 For examples of how Islam played a crucial role in the evolution of Christianity, see John Tolan, Faces of Muhammad: Western Perceptions of the Prophet of Islam from the Middle Ages to Today (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019); Kecia Ali, The Lives of Muhammad (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014); Laura Lisy-Wagner, Islam, Christianity and the Making of Czech Identity, 1453-1683 (Burlington: Ashgate, 2013); Noel Malcolm, “The Study of Islam in Early Modern Europe: Obstacles and Missed Opportunities,” in Antiquarianism and Intellectual Life in Europe and China, 1500-1800, eds. Peter N. Miller and Francois Louis (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2012), 265-88; Adnan Husain and Katherine Elizabeth Fleming (eds.), A Faithful Sea: The Religious Cultures of the Mediterranean, 1200-1700 (Oxford: Oneworld, 2007); Nabil Matar, Islam in Britain, 1558-1685 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); and David A. Pailin, Attitudes to Other Religions: Comparative Religion in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Britain (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984).
  • 10 On Socinianism and Unitarianism, see Earl Morse Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism: Socinianism and its Antecedents (Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1945); Martin Mulsow and Jan Rohls (eds.), Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2005); and Sarah Mortimer, “Early Modern Socinianism and Unitarianism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600-1800, eds. Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).

  • 11 On the Reformation and post-Reformation uses of Judaism, see Kenneth Austin, The Jews and the Reformation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020); Irene Aue-Ben David, Aya Elyada, Moshe Sluhovsky, and Christian Wiese (eds.), Jews and Protestants: From the Reformation to the Present (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020); Stephen G. Burnett, Christian Hebraism in the Reformation Era (1500—1660): Authors, Books, and the Transmission of Jewish Learning (Leiden: Brill, 2012); Yaacov Deutsch, Judaism in Christian Eyes: Ethnographic Description of Jews and Judaism in Early Modern Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); Achsah A. Guib-bory, Christian Identity, Jews, and Israel in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); Anders Gerdmar, Roots of Theological Anti-Semitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann (Leiden: Brill, 2009); Aya Elyada, “Protestant Scholars and Yiddish Studies in Early Modern Europe,” Past dr Present 203 (2009): 69-98; Dean Phillip Bell and Stephen G. Burnett (eds.), Jews, Judaism and the Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Germany (Leiden: Brill, 2006); Maria Diemling, “Jewish-Christian Relations in Early Modern Germany,” European Association for Jewish Studies Newsletter 17 (2005): 34-47; Andrew Gow, The Red Jews: Antisemitism in an Apocalyptic Age 1200-1600 (Leiden: Brill, 1995); and Frank E. Manuel, The Broken Staff: Judaism Through Christian Eyes (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992). For an earlier work in the nineteenth century about the influence of Judaism on the Reformation, see Heinrich Graetz, Influence of Judaism on the Protestant Reformation, trans. Simon Tuska (Cincinnati: Bloch & Co, 1867).
  • 12 Howard Tzvi Adelman, “A Rabbi Reads the Qur’an in the Venetian Ghetto,” Jewish History 26 (2012): 125-37.
  • 13 For Luther’s views of Jews and Turks (Muslims), see Thomas Kaufmann, Luther’s Jews: A Journey into Anti-Semitism, trans. Lesley Sharpe and Jeremy Noakes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017); idem, “Luthers Sicht auf Judentum und Islam,” in Der Reformator Martin Luther 2017: Eine wissenschaftliche und gedenkpolitische Bestandsaufnahme, ed. Heinz Schilling (Munich: De Gruyter, 2015), 53-83; Gregory Miller, “Luther’s Views of the Jews and Turks,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, eds. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’ubomir Batka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 427-34; Andreas Pangritz, “Martin Luthers Stellung zu Judentum und Islam,” in Arbeitsbuch Religion und Geschichte: Das Christentum im interkulturellen Gedächtnis, ed. Harry Noormann (Stuttgart: Verlag, 2013), 15-48; Brooks Schramm and Kirsi I. Stjerna (eds.), Martin Luther, The Bible, and The Jewish People: A Reader (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012); and Johannes Ehmann, Luther, Türken und Islam: Eine Untersuchung zum Türken- und Islambild Martin Luthers (1515-1546) (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008). For a case study of Lutheran academic interest in Jews and Jewish studies at Wittenberg, see Giuseppe Veltri, “Academic Debates on the Jews in Wittenberg: The Protestant Literature on Rituals, the Dissertationes and the Writings of the Hebraists Theodor Dassow and Andreas Sennert,” European Journal of Jewish Studies 6/1 (2012): 123-46.
  • 14 For a concise overview of the Protestant study of non-Christian religions, see Andrew Gow and Jeremy Fradkin, “Protestantism and Non-Christian Religions,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations, ed. Ulinka Rublack (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 274-300; and Emanuele Colombo, “Western Theologies and Islam,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600-1800, eds. Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 482-98.
  • 15 On Protestant academic life and universities as instruments of intraProtestant identity, see Kenneth G. Appold, “Academic Life and Teaching in Post-Reformation Lutheranism,” in Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture: 1550-1675, ed. Robert Kolb (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 65-116.
  • 16 For a number of these works, please see the selected bibliography in the appendix.
  • 17 On early modern dissertations in Germany, see Manfred Komorowski, “Research on Early German Dissertations: A Report on Work in Progress,” in The German Book 1450-1750: Studies Presented to David L. Paisey in His Retirement, eds. John L. Flood and William A. Kelly (London: British Library, 1995), 259-68; and Hanspeter Marti, Philosophische Dissertationen deutscher Universitäten, 1660-1750: Eine Auswahlbibliographie (Munich: K.G. Saur, 1982).
  • 18 Martin Mulsow, “Socinianism, Islam, and the Origins of Radical Enlightenment,” in Religious Obedience and Political Resistance in the Early Modern World: Jewish, Christian and Islamic Philosophers Addressing the Bible, ed. Luisa Simonutti (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), 435-57.
  • 19 For a study of Islam and Church of England scholars, see Nabil Matar, Henry Stubbe and the Beginnings of Islam (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014); Humberto Garcia, Islam and the English Enlightenment, 1670-1840 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012); Matar, Islam in Britain, 73-119; Justin Champion, The Pillars of Priestcraft Shaken: The Church of England and Its Enemies, 1660-1730 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 99-169; and Pailin, Attitudes to Other Religions, 81-104 and 121-36.
  • 20 For a few examples of the Reformed (Calvin and Calvinists) perception of Islam, see William Emilsen, “Calvin on Islam,” Uniting Church Studies 17/1 (2011): 69-85; Emidio Campi, “Early Reformed Attitudes towards Islam,” Theological Review of the Near East School of Theology 31 (2010): 131-51; Jan Slomp, “Calvin and the Turks,” Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 19/1 (2009): 50-65; Dietrich Klein, “Hugo Grotius’ Position on Islam as Described in De verdate religionis Christianae, Liber VI,” in Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe, eds. Martin Mulsow and Jan Rohls (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 149—76; and Jacques Pannier, “Calvin et les Tures,” Revue historique 180 (1937): 268-86. Also, for the Reformed study of Arabic and Islam, see Arnoud Vrolijk and Richard van Leeuwen, Arabic Studies in the Netherlands: A Short History in Portraits, 1580-1950, trans. Alastair Hamilton (Leiden: Brill, 2014).
  • 21 See Gary Waite, ‘“Turning Turke the Anabaptist Way’: Muslims, Jews, Christian Spiritualists, and Polemical Discourse in the Dutch Republic, c. 1570 to c. 1630,” in Global Reformations: Transforming Early Modern Religions, Societies, and Cultures, ed. Nicholas Terpstra (New York: Routledge, 2019), 73-94; and idem, “Menno and Muhammad: Anabaptists and Mennonites Reconsider Islam, 1570-1650,” Sixteenth Century Journal 41 (2010): 995-1016.

On Quaker encounters with Muslims in the seventeenth century, see Justin J. Meggitt, Early Quakers and Islam: Slavery, Apocalyptic and Christian-Muslim Encounters in the Seventeenth Century (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2016).

Hamilton, “To Rescue the Honour of the Germans,” 173-209.

For how Islam became a field of battle in the post-Reformation period among different stakeholders (Socinians, Trinitarians, Reformed Church, Catholic Jesuits, and Lutherans), see Maria Rosa Antognazza, Leibniz on the Trinity and the Incarnation: Reason and Revelation in the Seventeenth Century, trans. Gerald Parks (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 137-49.

For the trajectories of the post-Reformation Lutheran theology, see Robert Preus, The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism: A Study of Theological Prolegomena (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970); idem, The Inspiration of Scripture: A Study of the Theology of the 17th Century Lutheran Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955). On the historical background of the term syncretism, see A. M. Leopold and J. S. Jensen (eds.), Syncretism in Religion: A Reader (New York: Routledge, 2004), 14-28. Also, on the Calixtinian idea of syncretism, see E. W. Gritsch, A History of Lutheranism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 129-39.

On Pietism, see Douglas H. Shantz (ed.), A Companion to German Pietism 1660-1800 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), idem, An Introduction to German Pietism: Protestant Renewal at the Dawn of Modern Europe (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013); Hans Schneider, German Radical Pietism, trans. Gerald T. MacDonald (Lanham and Toronto: The Scarecrow Press, 2007); Richard L. Gawthrop, Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); and Fred Ernest Stoeffler, German Pietism During the Eighteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 1973).

P. Jacob Spener, Pia Desideria, trans, and ed. Theodore G. Tappert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1964), 54. Although Pietism started as the critique of orthodox Lutheranism later Pietists created their own orthodoxy. On this issue, see Richard A. Muller, “J. J. Rambach and the Dogmatics of Scholastic Pietism,” Consensus 16/2 (1990): 7-27. On the relationship between Pietism and Protestant orthodoxy, see Markus Matthias, “Pietism and Protestant Orthodoxy,” in A Companion to German Pietism, 1660-1800, ed. Douglas Shantz (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 17-49.

On the impact of Protestant biblical criticism on the modern study of Islam, see Dietrich Jung, “Islamic Studies and Religious Reform: Ignaz Goldziher—A Crossroads of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,” Der Islam 90/1 (2013): 106-26.

Sebastian Conrad, What is Global History? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016), 62-114.

Kecia Ali, The Lives of Muhammad (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014), 239-40.

Giovanni Bonacina shows how Europeans thought Wahhabis challenged the established political and religious authority of the Ottoman Empire as well as Muslim devotional and mystical traditions. In this way, Europeans thought Wahhabis were similar to Protestants who challenged the political and religious authority of the Catholic Church. For an in-depth view of Wahhabism as seen by Europeans, see Giovanni Bonacina, The Wahhabis Seen Through European Eyes (1772-1830): Deists and Puritans of Islam (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 81-83, 158-76, and 184-95.

  • 33 In the eyes of modernists, the Qur’an was the main source of salvation, whereas traditions or customs were the obstacle to attaining it. For the views of modernist Islamic intellectuals and the ideas of “the Qur’anists,” popularly known as Ahl al-Qur’än or Qur’äniyyün, see Aisha Y. Musa, “The Qur’anists,” Religion Compass 4/1 (2010): 12-21; Charles Kurzman and Michaelle Browers (eds.), An Islamic Reformation? (Lanham: Lexington, 2004); Suha Taji-Farouki (ed.), Modern Muslim Intellectuals and the Qur’an (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Nazir Ahmad, Qur’anic and Non-Qur’anic Islam (Lahore: Vanguard, 1997); Yasar Nuri Öztürk, Kur’andaki Islam (Istanbul: Yeni Boyut, 1999); and Bayraktar Bayrakh, Kuran Müslümanhgi (Düjün Yayincilik: Istanbul, 2019). For Muslim scholars who are against the idea of the Qur’an as a sole scriptural authority in the modern period, see Aisha Y. Musa’s book, Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on the Authority of Prophetic Traditions in Islam (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 83-112.
  • 34 By “traditions or customs,” I refer to the idea of using any extra-Qur’anic sources as authoritative on religious matters or law. The concept of “tradition” in Islam requires more careful theoretical attention as Sunni and Shi'a, the two major sects of Islam, have different understandings of religious and legal authority as well as tradition. This issue is important in itself and deserves another monograph; however, I am not able to delve into this here as it is beyond the scope of this book.
  • 35 Inspired by Luther’s Reformation and various Protestant movements such as Lutheranism, Pietism, and Calvinism, there is also literature on different expressions of “Islamic Reformation,” “Islamic Protestantism,” and “Protestant Islam.” See the following works: Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1990); Dale Eickelman, “Inside the Islamic Reformation,” The Wilson Quarterly 22/1 (1998): 80-89; B. A. Roberson (ed.), Shaping the Current Islamic Reformation (London: Frank Cass, 2003); Charles Kurzman and Michaelle Browers (eds.), An Islamic Reformation? (Lanham: Lexington, 2004); Rachid Benzine, Les nouveaux penseurs de I’islam (Paris: Albin Michel, 2004); Roman Loimeier, “Is There Something like ‘Protestant Islam’?” Die Welt des Islams 45/2 (2005): 216-54; Sukidi, “The Traveling Idea of Islamic Protestantism: A Study of Iranian Luthers,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 16/4 (2005): 401-12; idem, “Max Weber’s Remarks on Islam: The Protestant Ethics among Muslim Puritans,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 17/2 (2006): 195-205; Nasr Abu Zayd, Reformation of Islamic Thought: A Critical Historical Analysis (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006); Syed Farid Alatas, “Contemporary Muslim Revival: The Case of ‘Protestant Islam’,” The Muslim World 97 (2007): 508-20; Richard W. Bulliet, “Islamic Reformation or “Big Crunch”? A Review Essay,” Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review 8 (2009): 7-18; Filippo Osella and Caroline Osella (eds.), Islamic Reform in South Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); Marc David Baer, “Protestant Islam in Weimar Germany: Hugo Marcus and “The Message of the Holy Prophet Muhammad to Europe,” New German Critique 44/2 (2017): 163-200.
  • 36 A valuable contribution to the scholarship appeared recently which shows this dialectical unfolding of history. Initially, Muhammad saw Islam as a reformulation of Judaism and Christianity, not a separate religion. Similarly, Luther was not trying to establish Protestantism when he published his 95 theses, but to reform Catholicism. The title of a recent book, The Qur’an’s Reformation of Judaism and Christianity: Return to the Origins

Post-Reformation Protestant Uses of Islam 41 (Routledge, 2019) edited by Holger M. Zellentin, refers to the main argument of the Qur’an as a reformation of Judaism and Christianity, rather than a replacement of the religion of the Jews and the Christians.

  • 37 Martin Mulsow, “Antitrinitarians and Conversion to Islam: Adam Neuser reads Murad b. Abdullah in Ottoman Istanbul,” in Conversion and Islam in the Early Modern Mediterranean: The Lure of the Other, ed. Claire Norton (New York: Routledge, 2017), 181-93. Also, for the story of Johannes Heyman, a Dutch Protestant pastor in the Ottoman Empire, see Maurits H. van den Boogert, “Learning Oriental Languages in the Ottoman Empire: Johannes Heyman (1667-1737) between Izmir and Damascus,” in Teaching and Learning of Arabic in Early Modern Europe, eds. Jan Loop et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 294-309. On interactions between Catholics and Protestants in the Ottoman Empire, see Felicita Tramontana, “An Unusual Setting: Interaction between Protestants and Catholics in the Ottoman Empire,” in Protestant Majorities and Minorities in Early Modern Europe: Confessional Boundaries and Contested Identities, eds. Simon J.G. Burton, Michal Choptiany, and Piotr Wilczek (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019), 189-212.
  • 38 Dipesh Chakrabarty questioned the imagined Europe that has often been considered exceptional and the origin of the modern world, independent of other parts of the globe; see his Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 3-26. Historiographical contributions, notably recent works by Simon Mills, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Nelly Hanna, Nabil Matar, Karen Barkey, and Margaret Meserve, and earlier works by Peter Gran, Rifa'at ‘Ali Abou-El-Haj, Ariel Salzmann, Nancy Bisaha, and Daniel Goffman have supported the view that Europe and the Islamic world were far more interconnected during the early modern period than once assumed. For these works, see Simon Mills, A Commerce of Knowledge: Trade, Religion, and Scholarship between England and the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1760 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020); Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Empires between Islam and Christianity, 1500-1800 (New York: SUNY Press, 2019); Nelly Hanna, Ottoman Egypt and the Emergence of the Modern World 1500-1800 (The American University in Cairo Press: Cairo, 2014); Nabil Matar, Europe Through Arab Eyes, 1578-1727 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008); Karen Barkey, Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Margaret Meserve, Empires of Islam in Renaissance Historical Thought (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008); Ariel Salzmann, Tocqueville in the Ottoman Empire: Rival Paths to the Modern State (Leiden: Brill, 2004); Nancy Bisaha, Creating East and West: Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman Turks (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); Daniel Goffman, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Rifa'at ‘Ali Abou-El-Haj, Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries (Albany: SUNY Press, 1991); and Peter Gran, Islamic Roots of Capitalism: Egypt, 1760-1840 (Texas: University of Texas Press, 1979). A recent article that examines how Arabs saw the Protestant Reformation illustrates the importance of global history; see Nabil Matar, “The 2018 Josephine Waters Bennett Lecture: The Protestant Reformation through Arab Eyes, 1517-1698,” Renaissance Quarterly 72 (2019): 771-815.
  • 39 See Norman Daniel, Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (Edinburgh: The Edinburgh University Press, I960); John V. Tolan, Saracens:

Islam in the Medieval European Imagination (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2002); and Suzanne Conklin Akbari, Idols in the East: European Representations of Islam and the Orient, 1100-1450 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009).

  • 40 For full references to Alastair Hamilton’s works, see footnote 3. For the other scholars, see Martin Mulsow, Moderne aus dem Untergrund: Radikale Frühaufklärung in Deutschland 1680-1720 (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag,
  • 2018) ; idem, Enlightenment Underground: Radical Germany, 1680-1720 (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2015); idem, “Socinianism, Islam and the Radical Uses of Arabic Scholarship,” Al-Qantara 31/2 (2010): 549-86; Frederick Quinn, The Sum of All Heresies: The Image of Islam in Western Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); David Grafton, Piety, Politics, and Power: Lutherans Encountering Islam in the Middle East (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2009); Asaph Ben-Tov, “Historia Literaria Alcorani: Two Lutheran Scholars Chronicling Oriental Scholarship at the Turn of the Eighteenth Century,” in Scholarship between Europe and the Levant: Essays in Honour of Alastair Hamilton, eds. Jan Loop and Jill Kraye (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 195-216; idem, “Hellenism in the Context of Oriental Studies: The Case of Johann Gottfried Lakemacher (1695-1736),” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 25 (2018): 297-314; Humberto Garcia, Islam and the English Enlightenment, 1670-1840 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012); Jan Loop, Johann Heinrich Hottinger: Arabic and Islamic Studies in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); Gregory J. Miller, The Turks and Islam in Reformation Germany (New York: Routledge, 2017); Gary Waite, Jews and Muslims in Seventeenth-Century Discourse: From Religious Enemies to Allies and Friends (New York: Routledge, 2018); Daniel Cyranka, Mahomet: Repräsentationen des Propheten in deutschsprachigen Texten des 18. Jahrhunderts (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018); and Alexander Bevilacqua, The Republic of Arabic Letters: Islam and the European Enlightenment (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2018).
  • 41 Ian Almond, History of Islam in German Thought: From Leibniz to Nietzsche (London: Routledge, 2009).
  • 42 John V. Tolan, Faces of Muhammad: Western Perceptions of the Prophet of Islam from the Middle Ages to Today (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019).
  • 43 Noel Malcolm, Useful Enemies: Islam and The Ottoman Empire in Western Political Thought, 1450-1750 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
  • 2019) .
  • 44 For the interpretations of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe as “early modern Orientalism,” see Marcus Keller and Javier Irigoyen-Garcia (eds.), The Dialectics of Orientalism in Early Modern Europe (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018) and Daniel J. Vitkus, “Early Modern Orientalism: Representations of Islam in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe,” in Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, eds. David Blanks and Michael Frassetto (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 207-30.
  • 45 Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Book, 1978). Said’s omission of German scholars from his discussion has been recently challenged by Suzanne L. Marchand, Gregory J. Miller, and Noel Malcolm. See Suzanne L. Marchand, German Orientalism in the Age of Empire: Religion, Race, and Scholarship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 1-52; Miller, The Turks and Islam in Reformation Germany, 1-28 and 177-90; and Malcolm, Useful Enemies: Islam and The Ottoman Empire in Western Political Thought, 415-17. Said’s Orientalism, with its large number of

Post-Reformation Protestant Uses of Islam 43 defenders and detractors, has a long history since its publication in 1978.1 am not in a position to engage in a lengthy discussion on Orientalism due to the scope of my book; however, my forthcoming study will deal with the legacy of Reformation in the modern study of Islam.

  • 46 There is much literature on the expansion of the Ottoman Empire into Europe and the indelible impact of the Turks on European and Lutheran historical memory. For these works, see Gregory J. Miller, The Turks and Islam in Reformation Germany (New York: Routledge, 2017); Damaris Grimmsmann, Krieg mit dem Wort: Türkenpredigten des 16. Jahrhunderts im Alten Reich (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016); Charlotte Colding Smith, Images of Islam, 1453-1600: Turks in Germany and Central Europe (London: Pickering and Chatto, 2014); Nina Berman, German Literature on the Middle East: Discourses and Practices, 1000-1989 (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2011); Johannes Ehmann, Luther, Türken und Islam: eine Untersuchung zum Türken- und Islambild Martin Luthers (1515-1546) (Göttingen: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008); Gabor Ägoston, “Information, Ideology, and Limits of Imperial Policy: Ottoman Grand Strategy in the Context of Ottoman-Habsburg Rivalry,” in The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, eds. Virginia H. Ak-san and Daniel Goffman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 75-103; Matthew Dimmock, ‘“Machomet dyd before as Luther doth nowe’: Islam, the Ottomans, and the English Reformation,” Reformation 9 (2004): 99-130; Almut Höfert, Den Feind beschreiben: “Türkengefahr” und europäisches Wissen über das Osmanische Reich 1450-1600 (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 2003); Daniel Goffman, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Christine Isom-Verhaaren, “An Ottoman Report about Martin Luther and the Emperor: New Evidence of the Ottoman Interest in the Protestant Challenge to the Power of Charles V,” Turcica 28 (1996): 299-317; Charles A. Frazee, Catholic and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire, 1453-1923 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Stephen Fischer-Galati, Ottoman Imperialism and German Protestantism, 1521-1555 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972); and John W. Bohnstedt, The Infidel Scourge of God: The Turkish Menace As Seen by German Pamphleteers of the Reformation Era (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1968).
  • 47 For this serious Lutheran concern, see Hieronymus Kromayer, Scrutinii re-ligionum disputatio III, de Muhammetismo turn Turcarum turn Persarum, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen, Th. Polem. 124/3 (Leipzig, 1668), fols. 2v-3r.
  • 48 On the conversion to Islam and the stages of the Islamization process by the Ottomans in the post-Reformation period, see Anton Minkov, Conversion to Islam in the Balkans: Kisve bahast Petitions and Ottoman Social Life: 1670-1730 (Leiden: Brill, 2004); Marc David Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam: Conversion and Conquest in Ottoman Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); and Tijana Krstic, Contested Conversions to Islam Narratives of Religious Change in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011). On the significance of the Sunni Ottoman Empire for Safavid Iran, see Rudi Matthee, “Safa-vid Iran and the “Turkish Question” or How to Avoid a War on Multiple Fronts,” Iranian Studies 52/3-4 (2019): 513-42.
  • 49 For Reformation polemical views of Islam, see Adam S. Francisco, Martin Luther and Islam: A Study in Sixteenth-Century Polemics and Apologetics (Leiden: Brill, 2007).
  • 50 The relationship between Protestantism and mysticism has been a contentious issue among historians and scholars. See the following works: Ronald K. Rittgers and Vincent Evener (eds.), Protestants and Mysticism in Reformation Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2019); Dennis E. Tamburello, “The Protestant Reformers on Mysticism,” in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Christian Mysticism, ed. Julia Lamm (Malden: Wiley-Blackwell,
  • 2013) , 407-21; Markus Wriedt, “Mystik und Protestantismus—ein Widerspruch?” in Mystik: Religion der Zukunft—Zukunft der Religionf, ed. Johannes Schilling (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2003), 67-87; Paul Rorem, “Martin Luther’s Christocentric Critique of Pseudo-Dionysian Spirituality,” Lutheran Quarterly 11/3 (1997): 291-307; Dennis Tamburello, Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994); Werner O. Packull, “Luther and Medieval Mysticism in the Context of Recent Historiography,” Renaissance and Reformation 6/2 (1982): 79-93; David Steinmetz, Luther and Staupitz: An Essay in the Intellectual Origins of the Protestant Reformation (Durham: Duke University Press, 1980); Steven Ozment, Mysticism and Dissent: Religious Ideology and Social Protest in the Sixteenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973); Horst Weigelt, Spiritualistische Tradition im Protestantismus (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973); and Heiko Oberman, “Simul Gemitus et Raptus: Luther and Mysticism,” in The Reformation in Medieval Perspective, ed. Steven Ozment (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1971), 219-52.
  • 51 However, the twentieth-century Western study of Islam, especially after the creation of Islamic studies in North America by Wilfred Cantwell Smith, focused on Indo-Persian Sufism in order to combat the idea of political Islam or fundamentalist Islam, as Sufism represented the “peaceful version” of Islam or “liberal Islamic modernity” during the Cold War. See Rosemary R. Hicks, “Comparative Religion and the Cold War Transformation of Indo-Persian ‘Mysticism’ into Liberal Islamic Modernity,” in Secularism and Religion-Making, eds. Markus Dressier and Arvind-Pal S. Mandair (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 141-69. Also, for the State Department’s efforts in creating a modern liberal Islam, see Saba Mahmood, “Secularism, Hermeneutics and Empire: The Politics of Islamic Reformation,” Public Culture 18/2 (2006): 323-47.
  • 52 One notable exception is a work by Johann Heinrich Callenberg (d.1760), a Pietist theologian and missionary, who published his luris circa Christianos Muhammedici particulae (Particulars of the Islamic Law on Christians) in 1729 in Halle an der Saale. His work focused on the legal issues concerning Christians in Islamic law, based on Khizanat al-Fiqh (A Treasury of Islamic Law) by Hanafl legal theorist Nasr ibn Muhammad Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (d.373/983). On Callenberg, see Fuat Sezgin, Geschichte Des Arabischen Schrifttums: Qur’anwissenschaften, Hadit Geschichte, Fiqh, Dogmatik, Mystik. Bis ca. 430 FL (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 447.
  • 53 On the relationship between the Reformation and law, see Virpi Makinen (ed.), Lutheran Reformation and the Law (Leiden: Brill, 2006).
  • 54 John Witte, Jr., Law and Protestantism: The Legal Teachings of the Lutheran Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 33-55.
  • 55 John Witte, Jr., “‘The Law Written on the Heart’: Natural Law and Equity in Early Lutheran Thought,” in Law and Religion: The Legal Teachings of the Protestant and Catholic, eds. Wim Decock, Jordan J. Bailor, Michael Germann, and Laurent Waelkens (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
  • 2014) , 231-65.

Harold Joseph Berman, Law and Revolution, II: The Impact of the Protestant Reformations on the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003).

A recent collection of conversations between intellectual historians, who specialize in the study of the early modern period (1400-1800), urges us to consider intellectual history in a global context; therefore, the study of any culture or intellectual tradition on their own terms is no longer tenable. See Alexander Bevilacqua and Frederic Clark, Thinking in the Past Tense: Eight Conversations (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2019).

August Pfeiffer, Theologiae, sive potius MaraioÀoyiaç Judaicae atque Mohammedicae seu Turcico-Persicae principia sublesta et fructus pestilentes, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Exeg. 856 (Leipzig, 1687), folio i. Pfeiffer, Theologiae, folio i.

On Sergius, Friedrich Ulrich Calixt, De religione muhammedana disserta-tio, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Diss. 632/9 (Helmstedt, 1687), fols. 14-18 and Hieronymus Kromayer, Scrutinii religionum disputatio III, de Muhammetismo tum Turcarum tum Persarum, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen, Th. Polem. 124/3 (Leipzig, 1668), fols. lv-2r and 3v.

Pfeiffer, Theologiae, folio i.

Calixt, De religione muhammedana, folio 3.

Calixt, De religione muhammedana, fols. 4-5.

Calixt, De religione muhammedana, fols. 3-4 and 14-15.

Pfeiffer, Theologiae, folio viii.

Calixt, De religione muhammedana, fols. 11-12.

Calixt, De religione muhammedana, fols. 10-12.

On the peculiar relation between the sword and the cross, see Charles A. Truxillo, By the Sword and The Cross: The Historical Evolution of the Catholic World Monarchy in Spain and the New World 1492-1825 (Westport: Greenwood Press, 2001). See also the relationship between the sword and the Catholic idea of good works in English literature: Joseph Pearce, Through Shakespeare’s Eyes: Seeing the Catholic Presence in the Plays (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010).

Calixt, De religione muhammedana, fols. 11-12 and Kromayer, De Muhammetismo turn Turcarum, fols. 7r-7v.

Johann Peter von Ludewig, Disputatione inaugurali historiam rationalis philosophiae apud Arabes et Turcas, Sächsische Landesbibliothek—Staatsund Universitätsbibliothek Dresden, Coll. Diss. A 71/49 (Halle, 1699), fols. 43-44.

Johann Michael Lange, Dissertatio historico-philologico-theologica de Alcorani prima inter Europaeos editione Arabica, Bibliothèque nationale de France, BNF Gallica 4 O2G 195 (Altdorf, 1703), fols. 5-6.

See Asaph Ben-Tov’s recent study on Lange and the eighteenth-century Lutheran theologian Zacharias Grapius in the context of historia literaria, a scholarly practice in the eighteenth-century German academia; “Historia Literaria Alcorani: Two Lutheran Scholars Chronicling Oriental Scholarship at the Turn of the Eighteenth Century,” 195-216.

On the Latin translations of the Qur’an before and during the Reformation, see Thomas E. Burman, Reading the Qur’an in Latin Christendom 1140-1560 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007).

Lange, Dissertatio, fols. 22-23.

Lange, Dissertatio, fols. 21-22.

On the history of translation of the Qur’an and the Qur’an in early modern Europe, see Pier Mattia Tommasino, The Venetian Qur’an: A Renaissance

Companion to Islam, trans. Sylvia Notini (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018), 15-18; Jan Loop, “Introduction: The Qur’an in Europe—The European Qur’an,” Journal of Quranic Studies 20/3 (2018): 1—20; Alexander Bevilacqua and Jan Loop, “The Qur’an in Comparison and the Birth of ‘scriptures’,” Journal of Qur’anic Studies 20/3 (2018): 149-74; and Alastair Hamilton, “After Marracci: The Reception of Ludovico Marracci’s Edition of the Qur’an in Northern Europe from the Late Seventeenth to the Early Nineteenth Centuries,” Journal of Qur’anic Studies 20/3 (2018): 175-92.

For the use of the Karaites in another context in the Catholic-Protestant controversy in the seventeenth century, see Johannes van den Berg, Religious Currents and Cross-Currents: Essays on Early Modern Protestantism and the Protestant Enlightenment (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 43-56. Calixt, De religione muhammedana, folio 29.

Calixt, De religione muhammedana, fols. 3-5.

Johann Karl Valentin Bauer, Conspectum theologia Turcarum Mochammedicae, von der Religion der Türcken, Augsburg Staats- und Stadtbibliothek, Diss. Phil. 1101 (Jena, 1720), fols. 17-19 and Calixt, De religione muhammedana, fols. 3-4.

Calixt, De religione muhammedana, folio 3.

Pfeiffer, Theologiae, fols, ii-iii and August Pfeiffer, Dissertatio philologica quinta de Alishiis et Sunnitis, sive de praecipuis Persarum et Turcarum circa religionem dissidiis, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt, Bb 282 (Wittenberg, 1670), fols. 113-14.

Pfeiffer, Theologiae, folio iii, and idem, De Alishiis et Sunnitis, fols. 113-14.

Kromayer, De Muhammetismo tum Turcarum, folio 5v. Kromayer, De Muhammetismo tum Turcarum, folio 5v. Kromayer, De Muhammetismo tum Turcarum, folio 5v. Kromayer, De Muhammetismo tum Turcarum, folio 6r.

In his work Scrutinium religionum tum falsarum, Paganismi, Muhammetismi, ludaismi, Catabaptismi & Quakerismi, Weigelianismi &Rosae- Crucianismi, Socinianismi.Arminianismi, Calvinismi, Abyssinismi, Anatolicismi, Papismi, Tum unice verae & orthodoxae Lutheranismi, Kromayer presents each religion’s arguments and refutes their validity, including Paganism, Judaism, Islam, and various non-Lutheran Christian sects, such as Quakerism, Calvinism, Weigelianism, Arminianism, Socinianism, and Catholicism, in order to demonstrate that orthodox Lutheranism is the only true religion.

Kromayer, De Muhammetismo turn Turcarum, fols. 7r-7v.

Pfeiffer, Theologiae, folio vi.

Bauer, Conspectum theologia Turcarum, fols. 28-29 and 39-40.

Pfeiffer, Theologiae, folio vi.

On the issue of Pietist emphasis on conversion, see David William Kling, A History of Christian Conversion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 289-324; and Jonathan Strom, German Pietism and the Problem of Conversion (Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2018). Calixt, De religione muhammedana, fols. 32-42.

Calixt, De religione muhammedana, fols. 40-41.

Calixt, De religione muhammedana, folio 50.

Christian Benedikt Michaelis, Disputatio academica de Muhammedismi laxitate morali, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt, D Hb 870 (Halle, 1708), fols. 5 and 13-14.

Pailin, Attitudes to Other Religions, 81-104.

Michaelis, Disputatio academica, folio 4.

Michaelis, Disputatio academica, fols. 5-6.

Michaelis, Disputatio academica, folio 13.

Pfeiffer, Theologiae, folio ix; Bauer, Conspectum theologia Turcarum, fols. 30-31; and Samuel Schelwig, De philosophia Turcica, oratio inauguralis, Sächsische Landesbibliothek—Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden, Hist. Turc. 495 (Danzig, 1686), fols. 23-25.

Michaelis, Disputatio academica, fols. 15-16.

Michaelis, Disputatio academica, fols. 16-17.

Michaelis, Disputatio academica, folio 24.

Michaelis, Disputatio academica, folio 28.

Michael Wendeler, Disputatio politica de republica Turcica, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Bibl. Diez Qu. 2537 (Wittenberg, 1655).

Ludewig, Disputatione inaugurali, fols. 5-6 and 12-13.

Johannes Steuchius, Disputatio gradualis historiam logicae Arabum, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Diss. 55/2 (Uppsala, 1721), fols. 1-13.

Ludewig, Disputatione inaugurali, fols. 24-32.

Steuchius, Disputatio gradualis historiam logicae Arabum, fols. 24-29.

Johann Friedrich Weitenkampf, Disputatio historico-metaphysica de fato Turcico, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 131348-B (Helmstedt, 1751), fols. 14-15 and 18.

Steuchius, Disputatio gradualis historiam logicae Arabum, fols. 24-27. Ludewig, Disputatione inaugurali, fols. 18-19.

On Martin Luther’s critique of Aristotle and Aristotelianism, see Martin Luther, De captivitate babylonica ecclesiae, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München 4 A. gr. b. 969 (Wittenberg, 1520), fols. B3v-Clr.

Steuchius, Disputatio gradualis historiam logicae Arabum, fols. 1-3; Ludewig, Disputatione inaugurali, fols. 24-29; Johann Georg Walch, “Libri IL De progressu ac fatis logicae,” in Parerga Academica, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt, TM0848 (Leipzig, 1721), fols. 570-74; and Christian Friedrich Rudolph Vetterlein, De philosophia Turcarum, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt, AB 155562/8 (Köthen

1790) , folio 9. For a positive appraisal of not only Greek philosophy but also Greek antiquity by one of the most important figures of the Reformation, Philipp Melanchthon, see Ben-Tov, Lutheran Humanists and Greek Antiquity, 35-131.

Ludewig, Disputatione inaugurali, fols. 43-44.

William Enfield, The History of Philosophy from the Earliest Period: Drawn up from Brucker’s Historia Critica Philosophiae (Baine: London,

1791) , 421.

Johann Jakob Brucker, a German Lutheran historian of philosophy, was born in 1696 in Augsburg and graduated from the University of Jena in 1718. Brucker became the parish minister of Kaufbeuren in 1723 and was elected as a member of the Academy of Sciences in Berlin in 1731. He was invited to return to Augsburg as a pastor and senior minister of the Church of St. Urlich and served there until his death in 1770. His chief work, Historia critica philosophiae (Critical History of Philosophy), was a five-volume historical compendium of philosophical development. It was the modern era’s first complete history of the different philosophical schools. Since Brucker’s work was translated into English by British Unitarian minister William Enfield in 1837,1 did not include the excerpt entitled “Book V: Of the Philosophy of Saracens” in this book. For that section, see Enfield, The History of Philosophy, 418-41.

Enfield, The History of Philosophy, 422. On the Graeco-Arabic translation movement, see Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early Abbäsid Society (2th-4th/8th-10th centuries) (London: Routledge, 1999).

Vetterlein, De philosophia Turcarum, folio 8.

Walch, “Libri II: De progressa ac fatis logicae,” fols. 572-3.

Walch, “Libri II: De progressa ac fatis logicae,” fols. 574 and 581-2.

For my review of the account of medieval Islamic, Jewish and Christian philosophies by French intellectual historian Rémi Brague, see Mehmet Karabela, “Review of the Legend of the Middle Ages: Philosophical Explorations of Medieval Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,” Philosophy East and West 62/4 (2012): 605-8.

Walch, “Libri II: De progressa ac fatis logicae,” fols. 581-5. Walch, “Libri II: De progressa ac fatis logicae,” fols. 581-2.

Christoph August Heumann, Acta philosophorum, das ist: Gründliche Nachrichten aus der Historia philosophica, vol. 1 (Halle: Rengerischen Buchhandl, 1715), 462-72. On Heumann’s method of periodization and writing the history of philosophy, see Leo Catana, The Historiographical Concept ‘System of Philosophy’: Its Origin, Nature, Influence and Legitimacy (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 169-76.

Luther, De captivitate babylonica ecclesiae, folio B III v. For Luther’s critique of Scholasticism, see Martin Luther, Disputatio contra Scholasticam Theologiam (Wittenberg, 1517). Also, for studies on Luther’s critique of scholastic theology and scholasticism, see Michael Allen, “Disputation for Scholastic Theology: Engaging Luther’s 97 Theses,” Themelios 44/1 (2019): 105-19; and Theodor Dieter, “Luther as Late Medieval Theologian: His Positive and Negative use of Nominalism and Realism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, eds. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’ubomir Batka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 31-48.

Heumann, Acta philosophorum, vol 1, 470.

Ludewig, Disputatione inaugurali, fols. 43-44.

Lutherans also used Aristotelian logic and disputation methods in their own curriculum in their academies and universities. Lutheran critique of the Catholic use of “corrupt Aristotelian” philosophy oscillated between Scholasticism (dialectic as the method) and Aristotelian philosophy (ethics, metaphysics, and politics as content). Aristotelianism and Scholasticism among Protestant academic circles is a contentious subject, and there is a vast amount of literature on the relationship between Protestantism, Scholasticism, and Aristotelianism in the wake of Richard A. Muller’s groundbreaking scholarship. See the following works: Danilo Facca, Early Modern Aristotelianism and the Making of Philosophical Disciplines (London: Bloomsbury, 2020); Alice Ragni, “Johannes Clauberg and the Search for the Initium Philosophiae: The Recovery of (Cartesian) Metaphysics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Descartes and Cartesianism, eds. Steven Nadler, Tad M. Schmaltz, and Delphine Antoine-Mahut (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 465-80; Guido Bartolucci, “Jewish Thought vs. Lutheran Aristotelism: Johann Frischmuth (1619-87) and Jewish Scepticism,” in Tearbook of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies, ed. Bill Rebiger (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2017); Dolf te Velde, “Reformed Theology and Scholasticism,” in The Cambridge Companion to Reformed Theology, eds. Paul T. Nimmo and David A. S. Fergusson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 215-29; Irena Backus, “G.W. Leibniz and Protestant Scholasticism in the Years 1698-1704,” in Church and School in Early

Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, eds. Jordan J. Bailor, David Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 679-98; Francesco Valerio Tom-masi, “Zwischen radikalem Aristotelismus und lutherischer Orthodoxie: Die These der doppelten Wahrheit in der Altdorfer Schule,” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 55 (2013): 61-74; Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006); Brian Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2004); Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520-1725 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003); idem, “The Problem of Protestant Scholasticism: A Review and Definition,” in Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, eds. W. J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 45-64; idem, “Reformation, Orthodoxy, “Christian Aristotelianism,” and the Eclecticism of Early Modern Philosophy,” Dutch Review of Church History 81/3 (2001): 306-25; W. J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker (eds.), Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001); Willem J. van Asselt, “Protestant Scholasticism: Some Methodological Considerations in the Study of its Development,” Dutch Review of Church History 81/3 (2001): 265-74; Volker Leppin, Antichrist und Jüngster Tag: Das Profil apokalyptischer Flugschriftenpublizistik im deutschen Luthertum 1548-1618 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1999); Constance Blackwell, “The Case of Honoré Fabri and the Historiography of Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Jesuit Aristotelianism in the Protestant History of Philosophy: Sturm, Morhof and Brucker,” Nouvelles de la Republique des Letters 15 (1995): 49-77; Erika Rummel, The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995); John Platt, Reformed Thought and Scholasticism: The Arguments for the Existence of God in Dutch Theology, 1575-1650 (Leiden: Brill, 1982); and John Patrick Donnelly, Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s Doctrine of Man and Grace (Leiden: Brill, 1976); and Hans Emil Weber, Der Einfluss der protestantischen Schulphilosophie auf die orthodox-lutherische Dogmatik (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969).

  • 132 On the use of dialectic in Calvinist educational curriculum, see Amy Nelson Burnett, “The Educational Roots of Reformed Scholasticism: Dialectic and Scriptural Exegesis in the Sixteenth Century,” Dutch Review of Church History 84 (2004): 299-317. For my review of the use of Aristotelian dialectical tradition for the later development in the history of philosophy, see Mehmet Karabela, “Review of the Art of Dialectic between Dialogue and Rhetoric,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 52/4 (2014): 841-42.
  • 133 Heumann, Acta philosophorum, vol. 1, 462-72; Johann Jakob Brucker, Historia critica philosophiae, 5 vols. (Leipzig: C. Breitkopf, 1742-44), vol. 3: 554-58, 709-21, 872-74; vol. 5: 6-38; and Johann Franz Buddeus, Elementa philosophiae Instrumentalis, seu institutionum philosophiae eclecticae, vol. 1 (Hale, 1722), 66-98. For an in-depth study of Buddeus, see Friederike Nüssel, Bund und Versöhnung: zur Begründung der Dogmatik bei Johann Franz Buddeus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996). For a discussion of scholasticism and Reformation, see Catana, The Historiographical Concept ‘System of Philosophy,' 168-90.
  • 134 Ludewig, Disputatione inaugurali, fols. 16-17; and Cornelius Dietrich Koch, Dissertatio inauguralis historico-litteraria de fatis studiorum apud

Arabes, Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Jena, 4 Bud. Hist. Lit. 6/18 (Helmstedt, 1719), fols. 10-11.

Ludewig, Disputatione inaugurali, fols. 17-18.

On the term ummT, or illiterate, see Isaiah Goldfeld, “The Illiterate Prophet (nabi al-ummt): An Inquiry into the Development of a Dogma in Islamic Tradition,” Der Islam 57 (1980): 58-67.

Steuchius, Disputatio gradualis historiam logicae Arab um, fols. 22-23. Enlightenment culture defined itself as rational against irrational religious enthusiasm. Critics of enthusiasm described the beliefs and actions of religious enthusiasts as mental illness. Many writers used the terms ‘fanatic’ and ‘enthusiast’ interchangeably. Enthusiasm, a key term, was used in a pejorative sense by various Protestant denominations to exert their authority and retained pejorative connotations until the nineteenth century. On the meaning attached to enthusiasm during the Enlightenment and its importance in the post-Reformation period, see Lawrence Eliot Klein and Anthony J. La Vopa (eds.), Enthusiasm and Enlightenment Europe, 1650-1850 (San Marino: Huntington Library, 1998); Timothy Clark, The Theory of Inspiration (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), 61-91; David S. Lovejoy, Religious Enthusiasm in the New World: Heresy to Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985); Susie I. Tucker, Enthusiasm: A Study in Semantic Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972); and Ronald Arbuthnott Knox, Enthusiasm: A Chapter in the History of Religion, with Special Reference to the XVII and XVIII Centuries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950).

Michaelis, Disputatio academica, folio 4.

On the origins and Luther’s uses of the Schwärmer, see Amy Nelson Burnett, “Luther and the Schwärmer,'” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, eds. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’ubomir Batka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 511-24. On the transformation of the Lutheran concept of Schwärmerei to fanaticism in modern politics and the liberal state, see Alberto Toscano, Fanaticism: On the Uses of an Idea (London: Verso, 2017).

Ludewig, Disputatione inaugurali, fols. 16-19.

Ludewig, Disputatione inaugurali, fols. 16-18.

For French Calvinist Pierre Bayle’s and radical Enlightenment philosophes’ perception of Islamic philosophy, see Jonathan Israel, Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670-1752 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 615-39.

It must be noted that not all Protestants thought Islam was an irrational religion. Indeed, a considerable number of post-Reformation Protestants (even some deists and freethinkers) thought the exact opposite: Islam was the most rational of all religions. Regardless of their stance on Islam’s rationality, the competing Protestant sects used Islam in a utilitarian fashion in their religious polemics against each other. Therefore, Islam was of primary importance in the development of various Protestant identities, including Lutheranism, Calvinism, Pietism, Unitarianism, Socinianism, and Anglicanism. For an in-depth analysis of this alternative view of Islam as a rational religion, see Noel Malcolm, “Islam as a ‘Rational’ Religion: Early Modern European Views,” in Scholarship between Europe and the Levant: Essays in Honour of Alastair Hamilton, eds. Jan Loop and Jill Kraye (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 15-33. Also, see Jan Loop, “Islam and European Enlightenment,” in Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, eds. David Thomas and John Chesworth with al., vol. 13 (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 16-34.

For Lutheran theologian and philosopher Christian Wolff’s effort using reason to defend religion, see his Philosophia rationalis sive logica, methodo scientifica (Leipzig: Rengeriana, 1740), 692-706. For a critique of “religious enthusiasm,” see Jon Mee, Dangerous Enthusiasm: William Blake and the Culture of Radicalism in the 1790s (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992); Michael Heyd, “Be Sober and Reasonable”: The Critique of Enthusiasm in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 165-90; Frederick C. Beiser, The Sovereignty of Reason: The Defense of Rationality in the Early English Enlightenment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 184-219; J. G. A. Pocock, “Enthusiasm: The Anti-Self of Enlightenment,” Huntington Library Quarterly 60/1-2 (1998): 7-28; Gregory R. Johnson, “The Tree of Melancholy: Kant on Philosophy and Enthusiasm,” in Kant and the New Philosophy of Religion, eds. Chris L. Firestone and Stephen Palmquist (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006), 43-61; Alasdair Raffe, The Culture of Controversy: Religious Arguments in Scotland, 1660-1714 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2012), 121-48.

Schelwig, De philosophia Turcica, fols. 22-23.

Schelwig, De philosophia Turcica, folio 16.

Schelwig, De philosophia Turcica, folio 3.

Schelwig, De philosophia Turcica, folio 16.

‘Aziz Nasafl’s work Maqsad-i Aqsa exists in numerous manuscripts and in various versions of the original Persian, as well as in several Turkish translations. The Turkish translation of the Maqsad was the basis for the Latin translation by the Lutheran pastor Andreas Muller (d.1694), published in 1665. This translation eventually found its way into the Pietist German theologian August Tholuck’s Sufismus sive Theosophia Persarum Panthe-istica in the nineteenth century.

Schelwig, De philosophia Turcica, fols. 16-18. For a study of ‘Aziz Nasafi on the differences between God’s essence and existence, see Hermann Landolt, “Aziz-i Nasafi and the Essence-Existence Debate,” in Consciousness and Reality: Studies in Memory ofToshihiko Izutsu, eds. Sayyid Jalal al-Din Ashtiyani et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 387-95. On Nasafl’s life and works, see Llyod Ridgeon, Persian Metaphysics and Mysticism: Selected Works of'Aziz Nasafi (Richmond: Curzon Press, 2002).

On the history of the concept of fate in German thought in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with references to Lutheran authors, including Weitenkampf, see Franziska Rehlinghaus, “Der Grenzbereich zwischen Wissen und Glauben: Zur Geschichte des deutschen Schicksalsbegriffs,” Archiv fur Begriffsgeschichte 55 (2013): 111-43.

Weitenkampf, Disputatio historico-metaphysica de fato Turcico, fols. 11-14.

Eric Ormsby, Theodicy in Islamic Thought: The Dispute Over Al-Ghazdli’s Best of All Possible Worlds (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 3-31.

Maria Rosa Antognazza, “Ecclesiology, Ecumenism, and Toleration,” in The Oxford Handbook of Leibniz, ed. Maria Rosa Antognazza (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 756-69; Paul R. Hinlicky, “A Leibnizian Transformation? Reclaiming the Theodicy of Faith” in Transformations in Luther’s Reformation Theology: Historical and Contemporary Reflections, eds. C. Helmer and B. K. Holm (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsan-stalt, 2011), 85-103; and Ursula Goldenbaum, “Leibniz as a Lutheran,” in Leibniz, Mysticism, and Religion, eds. Allison Courdert, Richard H. Popkin, and Gordon M. Weiner (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1998), 169-92. For a study on Leibniz as a Protestant theologian, see Irena Backus, Leibniz: Protestant Theologian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).

On Leibniz’s concept of Fatum Christianum and his critique of Fatum Mahometanum, see Andrea Poma, The Impossibility and Necessity of Theodicy: The “Essais” of Leibniz, trans. Alice Spencer (Dordrecht: Springer, 2013), 45-56. For a further study on Muslim fate, see Josef van Ess, “Fatum Mahumetanum. Schicksal und Freiheit im Islam,” in Kleine Schriften by Josef van Ess, ed. Hinrich Biesterfeldt, vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 1988-2010.

Mulsow, Radikale Frühaufklärung, 256-66. For Daniel Clasen’s work on political religion and his definition of political religion, see De religione politica liber unus, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen, 8 Pol IV, 9359-b (Magdeburg, 1681), fols. 50-64.

On the Lutheran understanding of political religion, political theology, and political idolatry, see Mulsow, Radikale Frühaufklärung, 195-307.

For a detailed examination of the Christian political thinking in the Bible, see Christopher Rowland, “Scripture,” in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Political Theology, eds. Craig Hovey and Elizabeth Phillips (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 157-75.

The twentieth-century controversial Catholic jurist and political theorist Carl Schmitt affirms this Lutheran position of Catholicism being a political religion. In his Roman Catholicism and Political Form, Schmitt discusses political consequences of Protestant inwardness, spirituality and asceticism for which he finds a cure in the political idea of Catholicism. See Carl Schmitt, Römischer Katholizismus und Politische Form (Munich: Theatiner-Verlag, 1925).

Pfeiffer, De Alishiis et Sunnitis, fols. 97-99.

Pfeiffer, De Alishiis et Sunnitis, fols. 116-18.

Schelwig, Inaugural Speech on Turkish Philosophy, 155. On the significance of Sufi dervish groups in the Ottoman Empire, see Halil Inalcik, “Dervish and Sultan: An Analysis of the Otman Baba Vilayetnamesi,” in The Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire: Essays on Economy and Society, ed. Halil Inalcik (Bloomington: Indiana University Turkish Studies, 1999), 19-36; Ahmet Yasar Ocak, “Kalenderi Dervishes and Ottoman Administration from the Fourteenth to the Sixteenth Centuries,” in Manifestations of Sainthood in Islam, eds. Grace M. Smith and Carl Ernst (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1993), 239-56; Ahmet Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends: Dervish Groups in the Islamic Middle Period 1200-1550 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994); John J. Curry, Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought in the Ottoman Empire: The Rise of the Halveti Order, 1350-1650 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010); and Riza Yildirim, “The Safavid-Qizilbash Ecumene and the Formation of the Qizilbash-Alevi Community in the Ottoman Empire, c. 1500-c. 1700,” Iranian Studies 52 (2019): 449-83.

Wendeler, Disputatio politica de republica Turcica, fols. lr-8v.

Wendeler, Disputatio politica de republica Turcica, fols. 8v-10r. Ottoman historian Linda Darling argues that the influential seventeenth-century British writer Paul Rycaut’s reference to Ottoman style of absolutism and sultanic tyranny is an indication of the religious and political anxieties of the seventeenth century, rather than a pure critique of the Ottoman political system. According to Darling, Rycaut used the Ottoman example to comment on the English monarchial Restoration of 1660; he was concerned that this could be a step toward the absolutist tendencies of the French monarchy. See, Linda Darling, “Ottoman Politics through British

Eyes: Paul Rycaut’s The Present State of the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of World History 5/1 (1994): 71-97.

Wendeler, Disputatio politica de republica Turcica, folio 14r.

A recently edited volume by Vefa Erginba? contains several important articles toward not only understanding the contested nature of Ottoman Sunnism, but also the study of religion in early modern Islamic history; see Ottoman Sunnism: New Perspectives (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019).

Sebastian Kirchmaier, Oratio Persica de differentia religionis Turcicae & Persicae, Staatliche Bibliothek Regensburg, 999/4 Theol. syst. 284 angeb. 17 (Wittenberg, 1662), folio 2r.

On Luther’s view of the Turks, see Gregory J. Miller, “The Turks,” in Martin Luther in Context, ed. David M. Whitford (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 152-9; idem, “Islam,” in The Dictionary of Luther and the Lutheran Traditions, ed. Timothy J. Wengert (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 370-5; and David D. Grafton, “Martin Luther’s Sources on the Turk and Islam in the Midst of the Fear of Ottoman Imperialism,” The Muslim World 107/4 (2017): 665-83.

A recent study suggested that the Protestant Reformation actually benefited politically and economically from the Ottoman advances in Europe. For this interpretation, see Murat lyigun, “Luther and Suleyman,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 123/4 (2008): 1465-94.

Pfeiffer, De Alishiis et Sunnitis, fols. 91-93. Zoroaster was also used by the post-Reformation scholars to bolster Protestant identity. See Mehdi Estakhr, The Place of Zoroaster in History: Using the Cult Personality as a Literary Source of Authority in the Western Tradition (Queenstom Edwin Mellen Press, 2012), book 2, chapter 11. Monica M. Ringer further studied the history of the interactions between Zoroastrianism (in Iran and India) and Protestantism from the nineteenth century to early twentieth century. Her work demonstrates how Protestant missionaries redefined and used Zoroastrianism in the nineteenth century to create modern “pious citizens.” See Monica M. Ringer, Pious Citizens: Reforming Zoroastrianism in India and Iran (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press 2011), 47-90.

Pfeiffer, De Alishiis et Sunnitis, fols. 93-94. Pfeiffer uses Turks and Saracens interchangeably as he sees Turks as Arabs at this stage. This Lutheran perception of race and religion could be an important study for future researchers.

Pfeiffer, De Alishiis et Sunnitis, fols. 90-94.

Kromayer, De Muhammetismo turn Turcarum, fols. 2v-3r.

Kirchmaier, Oratio Persica, fols. 8v-9v.

Kirchmaier, Oratio Persica, folio 8v.

Kirchmaier, Oratio Persica, folio 9v.

Rula Abisaab, Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire (London: LB. Tauris, 2004). See also Abisaab’s article, “The Ulama of Jabal ‘Amil in Safavid Iran, 1501-1736: Marginality, Migration and Social Change,” Iranian Studies 'Ll (1994): 103-22.

Kirchmaier, Oratio Persica, folio lOv.

Pfeiffer, De Alishiis et Sunnitis, fols. 115-16.

Pfeiffer, De Alishiis et Sunnitis, fols. 116-17.

In fact, the extremist Shi’ite (ghulat) sects maintained that imam ‘Alt’s soul transmigrated (tanasukh) into the body of chosen Shi'ite imams. This meant that ‘All was the incarnation of God as they believed in the doctrine of hulul, which stated that God could pass into human form. On these sects and their beliefs, see Matti Moosa, Extremist Shiites: The Ghulat Sects (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1988), 50-76 and 185-93.

Pfeiffer, De Alishiis et Sunnitis, fols. 113-14.

Pfeiffer, Theologiae, folio iii, and idem, De Alishiis et Sunnitis, fols. 113-14.

Kromayer, De Muhammetismo turn Turcarum, folio 9a.

‘All’s sword, called Zulfiqär, is said to have been given to him by Muhammad to replace the broken sword of ‘All on a battlefield. Although there are variant legends and narratives around the sword of ‘All, the main point here for us is that the Shi'ites attribute miracles to ‘All’s sword.

Kirchmaier, Oratio Persica, fols. llr-12v.

On the Lutheran concept of sainthood, see Robert Kolb, For All the Saints: Changing Perceptions of Martyrdom and Sainthood in the Lutheran Reformation (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987).

Alexandra Walsham, “Miracles in Post-Reformation England,” Studies in Church History 41 (2005): 273-306.

In his The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905), it was the German Calvinist Max Weber who first proposed the idea of Entzauberung der Welt, or the elimination of magic from the world, which was usually translated as disenchantment in English and has become known as “secularization thesis” in religious studies. For Weber’s concept of Entzauberung der Welt, see Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus, 3rd ed. (Munich: Verlag, 2010), 146-78. Also, see Richard L. Gawthrop, “Lutheran Pietism and the Weber Thesis,” German Studies Review 12/2 (1989): 237-47.

For a historiographical critique of the Eurocentric Enlightenment narrative, see Sebastian Conrad, “Enlightenment in Global History: A Historiographical Critique,” American Historical Review 117/4 (2012): 997-1027. On the early modern Protestant theologians’ critique of saints and miracles, see D. P. Walker, “The Cessation of Miracles,” in Hermeticism and the Renaissance: Intellectual History and the Occult in Early Modern Europe, eds. Ingrid Merkel and Allen G. Debus (London: Associated University Press, 1988), 111-24; Philip M. Soergel, Wondrous in His Saints: CounterReformation Propaganda in Bavaria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 15-74; and idem, “Miracle, Magic, and Disenchantment in Early Modern Germany,” in Envisioning Magic: Princeton Seminar and Symposium, eds. Peter Schäfer and Hans Kippenberg (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 215-34.

On the consequences of the Reformation in secularizing modern society, see Brad S. Gregory, The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015). On the relationship between Knutzen and his students, see Manfred Kuehn, Kant: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 88-105; idem, “Kant’s Teachers in the Exact Sciences,” in Kant and the Sciences, ed. Eric Watkins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 11-30; and Martin Schönfeld, “Kant’s Early Dynamics,” in A Companion to Kant, ed. Graham Bird (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006), 33-46.

On the relationship between Kant and Weitenkampf, see Riccardo Pozzo, “Kant e Weitenkampf: Una fonte ignorata della Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels e della Prima Antinomia della ragion pura,” Rivista Di Storia Della Filosofia 48/2 (1993): 283-323.

Bach is also considered a theological musician. See Eric Chafe, Tears into Wine: J. S. Bach’s Cantata 21 in its Musical and Theological Contexts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 64-75; David P. Scaer, “Johann

Sebastian Bach as Lutheran Theologian,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 68 (2004): 319-40; Robin A. Leaver, “Johann Sebastian Bach and the Lutheran Understanding of Music,” Lutheran Quarterly 16/1 (2002): 21-47; and idem, Bachs Theologische Bibliothek: Eine kritische Bibliographie (Stuttgart: Hänssler, 1983).

  • 197 Robin A. Leaver, “Churches,” in The Routledge Research Companion to Johann Sebastian Bach, ed. Robin A. Leaver (New York: Routledge, 2017), 173-84; Peter Williams, Bach: A Musical Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 179-255; Robin A. Leaver, “Bach’s Mass: ‘Catholic’ or ‘Lutheran’?” in Exploring Bach’s B-minor Mass, eds. Yo Tomita, Robin A. Leaver, and Jan Smaczny (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 21-38; and Philipp Spitta, Johann Sebastian Bach: His Work and Influence on the Music of Germany, 1685-1750, vol. 2 (London: Novello and Company, 1899), 148-9.
  • 198 Marcelo Dascal, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: The Art of Controversies (Dordrecht, Springer, 2008), 429-34; Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra, Leibniz’s Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 56-67; and Massimo Mugnai, Han van Ruler, and Martin Wilson (eds.), Leibniz: Dissertation on Combinatorial Art (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 35.
  • 199 Leibniz also corresponded with Ludewig, one of the Lutheran authors included in this book; for these correspondences, see Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2005), 609-14.
  • 200 In this direction, a recent study by Mario Biagioni shows that some radical reformers of the sixteenth century played a pivotal role in the development of Enlightenment and the rise of modern Europe. See Mario Biagioni, The Radical Reformation and the Making of Modern Europe: A Lasting Heritage (Leiden: Brill, 2016). Also, see David Jan Sorkin, The Religious Enlightenment: Protestants, Jems, and Catholics from London to Vienna (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 1-22.
  • 201 On the uses of early modern dissertations and disputations, see Robert Seidel, “Debating the Use of Academic Travel: Early Modern Disputations De arte peregrinandi,” in Artes Apodemicae and Early Modern Travel Culture, 1550-1700, eds. Karl A. E. Enenkel and Jan de Jon (Leidem Brill, 2019), 114-47; Marion Gindhart and Ursula Kundert (eds), Disputatio 1200-1800: Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums Universitärer Wissenskultur (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010); Ku-ming (Kevin) Chang, “From Oral Disputation to Written Text: Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe,” History of Universities 19/2 (2004): 129-87.
  • 202 See Susan Karpuk, “Cataloging Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century German Dissertations: Guidelines and Observations,” Cataloguing and Classification Quarterly 48/4 (2010): 303-14; and Kevin Chang, “Kant’s Disputation of 1770: The Dissertation and the Communication of Knowledge in Early Modern Europe,” Endeavour 31/2 (2007): 45-49. Also, on early modern academic writings and protocols, see Gerhard Wiesenfeldt, “Academic Writings and the Rituals of Early Modern Universities,” Intellectual History Review 26:4 (2016): 447-60.
  • 203 On the jinn in the Qur’an and Islamic culture, see Amira El-Zein, Islam, Arabs, and the Intelligent World of the Jinn (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2009).
  • 204 Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an (London: Wordsworth, 2000).

Part II

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >